this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
102 points (88.1% liked)

Mastodon

1714 readers
22 users here now

The project: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon

Mastodon instance affiliated with Lemmy.World: https://mastodon.world

Discuss the Mastodon platform here. Follow the lemmy.world rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Advocates for the use of trigger warnings suggest that they can help people avoid or emotionally prepare for encountering content related to a past trauma. But trigger warnings may not fulfill either of these functions, according to an analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21677026231186625

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Anticorp 100 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If they warn you, and you still watch it, then get distressed, that's on you, man. That's a pretty low bar for accepting personal responsibility.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes, but if nobody is paying attention to them, then why bother?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago

I pay attention to them.

[–] cynar 6 points 1 month ago

The people who need them, generally are more likely to notice them.

Unfortunately they get overused a lot, as well as poorly used, when they are.

[–] Dkarma 44 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's not what they're for lmfao. They're so you don't watch it at all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

First sentence

Advocates for the use of trigger warnings suggest that they can help people avoid or emotionally prepare for encountering content related to a past trauma. But trigger warnings may not fulfill either of these functions

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think the followup is even more relevant:

Instead, warnings appear to heighten the anticipatory anxiety a person may feel prior to viewing sensitive material while making them no less likely to consume that content

[–] Kiernian 9 points 1 month ago

Thanks, I was sitting here thinking the warnings were so you could AVOID shit you didn't want to see and the headline had me questioning my perception of reality on this.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Yeah, I get pretty stressed out when people put CWs on stupid things like "CW: Food".

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (3 children)

that type of CW is mostly for people with eating disorders

[–] baronvonj 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or for vegans/vegetarians to not see meats.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Then it should be cw:meat lol

[–] baronvonj 3 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Sounds like people that needs to avoid looking at food has a tough time being outside.

[–] swan 8 points 1 month ago

Local news site from my city censored the word “att*cked” and it’s the most stupid shit ever

[–] TempermentalAnomaly 8 points 1 month ago

CW: Content Warnings

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Just because it doesn’t pertain to you doesn’t mean it’s stupid.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I thought the point of those warnings was so people who didn't like it or couldn't handle it could just choose not to watch the content.

If seeing people die fucks you up mentally, and a video says "CW: Death" why the fuck would you watch it? Psychology is weird.

[–] SgtAStrawberry 2 points 1 month ago

I'm going to guess it is the same reason as to why someone who is super afraid of jump scares, finds them super uncomfortable and get messed up mentally from seeing them. Click and watch a video titled something like "Super Jumpscare's house of jump scares now with extra scary jump scares" with the video also containing multiple warnings about that it will contain jump scares, and then they complain and try to guilt trip the person how made the video for not including a jump scare time stamp list of every jump scare and a description of what it was in the description. Because they NEED IT to watch the video, as they can't handle jump scares.

[–] BluesF 1 points 1 month ago

From the abstract:

Findings on avoidance were mixed, suggesting either that warnings have no effect on engagement with material or that they increased engagement with negative material under specific circumstances.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

From my experience, CW only works if the post is completely hidden from the feed without the option to view it.

Blahaj Zone had the option to yeet that shit from the timeline entirely and it worked amazingly until a migration fucked that up leaving it broken for months and my mental health dropped off a cliff because holy fuck did I not realise most of the people I followed posted so much depressing shit that triggered my cptsd. The urge to click the button was too strong.

Its par for the Fediverse course, really. Good ideas and half-assed implementations.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

half-assed implementations.

Some criticism might be deserved, but that seems a little harsh since they're not getting paid for it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm sorry to hear that.

Some Lemmy apps have keyword filters that may help?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Definitely! Voyager has been wonderful when it comes to filtering and my filter/block list is massive. I do have the issue where the Lemmy timelines get stale quickly and All is a ghost town but its worth it to see mostly positive things. The desktop experience is atrocious.

On the microblog side, moving to an instance running Sharkey was the best thing to do as Sharkey has the feature to hide the CWs entirely.

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 1 month ago

What? You mean it's actually just performative bullshit? No way! I never would have guessed.

[–] Ibaudia 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah I mean... why would they?

[–] aciDC14 0 points 1 month ago

Wow…what a surprise.