Agreed, and I wish we had workable ones for boosts here, that covered the entire thing. Our current options for CWing boosts of "not at all" or "link it, don't boost it" are... inadequate.
Also as a mostly (ex) writer who stepped back from writing BECAUSE of my not wanting to talk over more valid voices or put things into the world that unnecessarily cause pain or harm when there's so many unavoidable real harms - I hate people who think artistic license is infinite
@clacksee@bookstodon Like, artistic license does NOT give one the right to speak as marginalized people one is not, it does NOT give one the right to spread harmful stereotypes, it does NOT give one the right to make content that objectifies vulnerable people and glorifies and fetishizes the abuse of power over them as something to be celebrated....
Or well, it might for a lot of people in the hellpits that are Hollywood, traditional media, etc, but we all need to do BETTER.
@clacksee@bookstodon That back story about the making of Alien isn't even true. There was some, um, psychological setup for that scene, but that wasn't it.
As an example of the need for content warnings it still works, though!
@clacksee@bookstodon I agree that content warnings are A GOOD THING. I recently read a book I would have avoided if there had been content warnings. I wrote a review and used the outdated “trigger warning”. I must update that. [makes note] #review here https://www.darkmatterzine.com/when-one-of-us-hurts/. CW: Tasmanian Gothic but worse than gothic. “Literary” but dark enough to be horror IMO, but that’s less accepted in certain circles.
Here, in Mastodon-land, I have been familiarized with Content Warnings — as an option chosen by a post's author. Huzzah!
I can't recall ever noticing such an option on corporate-silo social media. Those sites often injected a cw — sometimes via algorithm, other times by suggestion/complaint from 3rd parties. Blargh!
I suspect the complainants are opposed to the latter. And, possibly, unfamiliar with the former, as an editorial tool.
There are those who like to use cw as click-bait. Blecch!
And, there are some who use cw for giggles, on deadly-cute kittens and such–kind of annoying, but... awwww. :-)
Section 230 allows each of us to be our own editors—which includes bearing the responsibility & ramifications of our editorial choices, be that a block, unfollow, or indictment.
Lack of 230 imposes content responsibility on those who run the servers–forcing censorship by proxy.
@JoeP@clacksee@bookstodon my big problem is when I want to discuss something like, to use the example from the essay, choking. How would I describe best in my content warning what I'm talking about in a way that is clear but also triggers people the least? In addition, what are good ways to explain how much those topics are discussed?
@clacksee@bookstodon a content warning is just a warning sign. That's all it is. I like getting a heads-up before discussing difficult or shocking topics.
The only problem I could think of is people applying content warnings wrongly to topics they don't like, like how books with LGBTQ+ characters are being called "adult content" in libraries in some parts of the US. That action restricts access to books, which does make it censorship. But that isn't what we're talking about here.
@I_Like_Books@terminallytrisk@clacksee@bookstodon It is hilarious when they say a movie has adult or mature content when it is really about very young silly and more immature than most people playing stupid head games with each other while having sex with each other.
It is not at all mature. It is adolescent at best.
@I_Like_Books@terminallytrisk@clacksee@bookstodon I'd argue the last one isn't. If you have a story where the couple who live next door with their young child are named David and David, but all the main character ever does is say good morning to them and invite them to a neighbourhood pot-luck... that's pretty benign. Yes, I know a lot of people would freak out over that... but being a victim of your own prejudice is not the same thing as reacting due to past trauma.
@eyrea@I_Like_Books@clacksee@bookstodon I think the point being made was that "adult content" is a euphemism for several different reasons why someone might find content inappropriate for children to consume; there are a lot of valid reasons and a same-sex relationship isn't one of them, any more than an opposite-sex relationship would be.
@FinalOverdrive@clacksee@bookstodon You definitely can turn off content warnings in some apps, though not all. The Mastodon app by Mastodon has sliders for "show content warnings" and "cover up media marked sensitive".
Add comment