If You Need a Content Warning, Maybe It’s Time for You to Quit Reading

https://medium.com/perceive-more/if-you-need-a-content-warning-maybe-its-time-for-you-to-quit-reading-c632f2263417

by Tomte • 5 years ago

21 22 5 years ago

BrianOnHN• 5 years ago

Whilst I get the author's point, I think he's addressing something as it is a fact when rather it's more like "clever" (maybe not the right adjective) copywriting.

For example, with startups, "our service is not for people who hate making money" would exist for the same purpose.

Ps- I get angry after eating like shit on Saturday, too. Try running for 30mins Sunday morning. You might just find yourself doing something better with that extra energy.

AlexandrB3• 5 years ago

While the author does have a point about the silliness of putting a content warning RE a controversial author's name and work being mentioned, I don't think this is quite right:

At its core, the content warning is nothing more than a form of censorship.

Who is the censor in this case? The only person who can "censor" the work after reading a content warning is the reader themselves. You could call such a decision overly sensitive on the part of the reader but I don't think it meets the definition of censorship.

hdjjhhvvhga• 5 years ago

I think the cor of the issue is the -phobic suffix. We instictively feel that 'transphobic' is the same kind of insult as 'homophobic', and there is no place for homophobic people in our society. It immediately tells the reader that Rowling hates or is somehow against trans people while in fact it is something very different: she wants to protect women from men who pretend they are women, and who abuse new laws created in good faith for trans people.

happytoexplain2• 5 years ago

No idea where Rowling lands on what I'm about to say (haven't followed it), but it reminds me:

Sometimes I think when people are arguing their opinion X, and that opinion has any overlap, actual or perceptual, meaningful or incidental, with a demonized opinion Y, rather than distinguish X from Y, they will apparently purposefully either leave it ominously unmentioned, or even implicitly lean into the comparison, even if Y is demonized for a good reason and they ostensibly agree with the demonization. I think they do the former sometimes because they obstinately think, "of course I disagree with Y, I shouldn't have to say it", and yes, audiences frequently make unfair comparisons, but many times a comparison is so obvious that it's misleading to say nothing. As for the latter, I think that is a result of either self-destructive frustration (they've given up on arguing and are just provoking), or evidence that they do agree with Y, but don't want to say it out loud. In any case, 100% of the time, it's all unnecessarily provocative and it's destructive to understanding and therefore to the conversation.

The one Rowling Tweet I know about off the top of my head falls squarely into this dynamic: The one where she said something sarcastic about how women menstruate. Sarcasm and willfully ignoring colloquial semantics to fall back on "objective facts" devoid of context are very common components of the behavior described above (well, they're common to bad-faith arguments in general).

dredmorbius3• 5 years ago

I find the article largely a troll.

TL;DR: Implementations matte, and can profoundly handicap much significant and substantive discussion.

This is long as it gets into the weeds of implementations and evolved practices, though illustrates some of the harms of CW policies and systems take to extremes or poorly considered and designed.

That said, there are implementations of content warnings which are very poorly designed and considered. One of these is on the microblogging platform Mastodon (and associated Fediverse platforms), which includes a "CW" option (identified in code as a "spoiler warning", giving some idea of original intent). Invoking a "CW" on a toot will result in the toot itself being collapsed, with the CW code highlighted above it, and a control to open/close the toot being shown ... if Javascript is enabled for the host in question.

This has come to be used both a general mechanism for concealing triggering material (legitimate) and as something of a substitute for a title or subject line. Worse, they're quite often used by people discussing topics near and dear their hearts which might be peculiar obsessions or interests but which have virtually no likelihood of being psychologically harmful to anyone --- technical or academic interests (software, language, environment, come to mind), or hobbies (woodworking, sewing, knitting, cooking/baking). Pulling a blanket over obscure but intense interests especially pains me. (Not everyone does this, though IMO far too many do.)

There are several disadvantages of these:

- Even for Mastodon users, CWs make some topics less accessible. In a medium which already elevates the trivial and deprecates substance (even without algorithmic bias), substantial discussion has even greater impediments. See: https://fosstodon.org/@alexbuzzbee/106666769704428696

- There are now some tools for logged-in users which can expand a thread or even all (or selectively by keyword or regex filters) CWs. This helps, though the defaults mean that such tools will only be marginally useful.

- For anyone not logged into Mastodon, reading a thread by linking directly to it, which would generally indicate a strong interest in the content ... presents a view in which each individual toot is collapsed. Those must be inividually re-opened. My success rate in doing so without hitting any of the numerous nearby links and controls is about 80%, which means that on any discussion of 5 or more toots, there's a good chance I'll hit another control unintentionally, navigating off the page, and hence, have to start all over again. (This is much worse on Mobile where touch precision is lower than desktop.)

- There are other visibility controls, such as whether or not content is scoped as "public" (appears in the public timeline), "unlisted" (appears only to direct followers' feeds, though can be viewed by others), "followers only" (not visible except to direct followers), and "DM" (only visible to those directly mentioned). Those limits are somewhat countered by "boosts" which can expand the scope of public and unlisted toots.

- Mastodon has few discovery or search capabilities, though the one it does have (hashtags) require that toots be "Public" for them to be generally serachable, regardless of who is doing the searching. Ironically, hashtags can now be selectively filtered by most clients, though this requires the use of hashtags and a "Public" posting scope.

Again, the consequence is that a specific CW policy, say, one that requests all hard news or political discussion be CW'd, puts any such discussions at an extreme handicap in visibility. Note that such standards aren't uncommon, and may be applied across entire Mastodon instances. Scholar Social is a moderately-large (~3.5m members) instance, with one such policy, extending not just to "hard news" but "current events". See: https://scholar.social/about/more

Several of the usability issues with CWs are illustrated where I discuss my own policies and where I generally won't use them (I don't have a complete aversion, and will CW particularly disturbing content). You'll have to open each individual toot to read the whole thing, however, after ensuring JS is enabled for the domain toot.cat:

https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105517193562512465

I've repeatedly raised these issues. They're design flaws in Mastodon itself, though not interminable ones, and as such things go, not especially damaging. But it's a case where concerns for one group absolutely conflict with those of others, in a rather incommensurate way, and quite often for those whose interests are generally strongly alligned.

I'm not calling for no content controls at all --- Mastodon's mix of controls (user-level blocking, instance-level blocks of both users and instances, at several degrees) is actually generally quite positive, and provides a range of different "community standards" from which people can choose. (Some of those communities and standards I have absolutely no interest in associating with.) I belong to an instance which actively moderates others (toot.cat), based on criteria grounded in compassion, tolerance, and consideration for the most part (my own assessment), and is small enough that I can check with the administrator both on new suggestions and questioning existing ones. I've known the administrator for nearly a decade across other forums, there's mutual respect, understanding, and differences.

But the technical aspects of implementation are problematic in this case.

fortran772• 5 years ago

BTW: I purchased and read the book banned by the American Booksellers Association a couple of weeks ago: The bestseller that they apologized for sending out in their sample box, saying that sending this well-reviewed book was an "act of violence." I enjoyed it. But then again, I also liked "Chaos Monkeys" which I also read when it first came out, having been well reviewed in The New York Times.

The author of this essay is correct. These content warnings aren't meant to help anyone--they're simply virtue signaling.

But an article about the fastest-selling books in history? What the hell could trigger even the most skittish soul in a piece like that?

The "trigger" terminology was developed when treating people who survived battlefield traumas. It's offensive to me that it's been culturally-appropriated to apply to overly sensitive college students and other too-fragile people.

jjj123• 5 years ago

Do you disagree that someone who’s gone through something traumatic _off_ the battlefield (sexual abuse for example) could develop PTSD?

blitz_skull• 5 years ago

I don’t think there’s a realistic situation where reading the name “J.K. Rowling” should ever cause someone to lose their shit a lá PTSD.

dredmorbius3• 5 years ago

The "trigger" terminology was developed when treating people who survived battlefield traumas.

Could you cite a source or sources on this?

Is the origin of a term or practice at all relevant to a broader or more evolved understanding of its applicability? Or a reason to specifically deny it to other domains?

Your're aware that TFA discusses content rather than trigger warnings?

fortran772• 5 years ago

Could you cite a source or sources on this?

Sure. It was developed by psychiatrists treating people during the Vietnam War era. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=EL8eMEkxzkYC&pg=PT411#v=tw... for example

wheaties• 5 years ago

I remember going to college eager to learn and explore ideas that were _different_ than mine. I grew up at the poverty line, in one of the top 10 wealthiest towns in America. Naturally they were very white and also any taint from anything immoral was covered up. If I hadn't had such an open mind, I'd still be living in that bubble.

I don't think I'd have the same experience today nor would I have been set up to open my mind to issues because "warnings."

AlexandrB3• 5 years ago

This seems self-contradictory. If you were eager to learn and explore different ideas, surely you would have just ignored the warnings?

As is, I think most people ignore them.

IAmEveryone• 5 years ago

Is it retro week? That particular battle of the culture wars seems to have passed years ago. Among other things, it's called a "content note" far more often these days. Also: nobody cares.

But, to just quickly make the argument the author would have thought to mention if they had spend five minutes on Google and were intellectually honest: CNs aren't intended to allow you stop reading, although that may be an option for people that really want to.

Their primary mechanism is different: it's a quick, easy, and, for those who don't care, totally trivial signal to the readers that the writer or speaker is aware that the content may trigger strong emotions, but that it isn't their intention to inflict any harm.

It's a tiny gesture that, for those where it matters, makes a whole lot difference. If you can't quite follow along, just imagine how different it feels if someone intentionally punches you compared to inflicting the same amount of physical harm inadvertently.

If anyone is being overly emotional, it's those who are somehow incensed by others' attempts to avoid harming people. I'm not especially harmed by reading about violent rape, but I can easily understand how someone might be. How its possible to deny that, but get all enraged about a single line of italics at the top of a five-page story is, unfortunately, beyond my abilities.

Neither, by the way, is it censorship. It's the opposite, a mechanism allowing people to make informed choices, thereby expanding the universe of possible content that can be used for any given purpose without fear of offending or harming anyone. If you somehow managed to abolish the MPAA rating system, you wouldn't get more of the movies that were previously rated R. You'd get none.

andreskytt• 5 years ago

Getting similar emotions to having been punched from reading a name sounds very scary. And, if such people exist, how can I tell, what other things can trigger others? People having been involved in bad car crashes might plausibly be triggered by mention of traffic. So the question becomes, why do we afford the safety to certain groups but not others? The simple fact is that any and all text, spoken or written, can do harm by triggering emotions or introducing ideas contrary to one’s beliefs causing discomfort. So how do we choose what to warn people about?

happytoexplain2• 5 years ago

We can't create a well defined or objective method of choosing, but we also don't need to. Like most things, it's a judgement call. It's reasonable to add a label for basically anything if you know people are affected by it. It's reasonable to omit a label for something you don't think will affect people. It's reasonable to criticize the absence of obvious labels in obvious contexts, and not reasonable to criticize the absence of non-obvious labels in non-obvious contexts (but it's reasonable to request them politely!). We can't define any of that, but it would be a fallacy to use that as an excuse to attack the concept of content warnings.

jordemort• 5 years ago

The "real world" is not a safe space. It never will be.

I used to have the same kind of knee-jerk reaction to content warnings; you might say I was triggered by them. "The world isn't safe," I thought, "so you should just toughen up." Now that I am a geriatric millennial, I find my views have softened.

For people with marginalized identities, it can be particularly unsafe; depending on where they live, they might face discrimination in their communities. The local government might want to kill them. Their own families might reject them. They might feel unsafe in their own home, with no realistic hope of getting out any time soon.

For people that have been victims of traumatic events, "toughen up/get over it" isn't really an option. Again, the world is not a safe space; it might be littered with reminders of what happened to them, which may be perfectly innocuous to other people.

For people who feel unsafe in their homes, communities, or the world at large, going online can be a very important means of escaping their situation. It may actually be their only means of escape; it's very possible that the only communities that they are able to access where they can feel safe are online.

Sometimes signaling is just signaling. Not all signaling is for you. I've seen lots of CWs that I don't understand, or that I privately think are somewhat absurd, which is really just the same thing as not understanding them. I don't think the people who used those were trying to signal how woke they were to me, though; I assume those signals were meant for somebody else.

The "real world" is not a safe space, but the virtual worlds that we are building are not subject to the same limitations. People should be able to tailor the spaces they create to be as safe as they want them to be, for the people they want them to be safe for. Do not assume that a signal that wasn't intended for you was made in bad faith.

IfOnlyYouKnew• 5 years ago

Yes, thank you...

The argument is also contradictory: if the warnings risk "coddling" people too much, they must have the intended effect. But, at the same time, it's claimed that they are useless/absurd/etc. Both can't be true at the same time.

And if one accepts that they protect people who had traumatic experiences of violence, it's really quite something to tell them to "get over it" without having any similar experience.

Besides, if people truly believe that emotional suffering is a requirement for a well-rounded character, would they argue in favour of subjecting everyone to trauma? Not dude ranch a-night-alone-in-the-woods, but actual harm?

Maybe they would themselves really profit from some more real-world experience of struggle? Maybe donating all their belongings and starting a new life in a randomly chosen country or something like that.

DougN7• 5 years ago

They can be true at the same time: the warnings have different meanings to different people even at different times in their life. I’m coming to realize just how much real trauma there is in the world by having become friends with innocent people that went through hell. We need more compassion in the world, not less.

If You Need a Content Warning, Maybe It’s Time for You to Quit Reading

Related Stories