this post was submitted on 24 May 2024

104 points (88.2% liked)

Mastodon

1848 readers

1 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

ruud@lemmy.world

104

Content Warnings Do Not Reduce Distress, Study Shows (www.psychologicalscience.org)

submitted 5 months ago by rimu@piefed.social to c/mastodon@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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@lemmy.world 101 points 5 months 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.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 5 months ago

I pay attention to them.

[–] cynar@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months 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@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 13 points 5 months 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

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months 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.

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk 26 points 5 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] UberKitten@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 5 months ago (3 children)

that type of CW is mostly for people with eating disorders

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Or for vegans/vegetarians to not see meats.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then it should be cw:meat lol

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Fair

[–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago

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

[+] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What’s next? A “CW: Dog” so snowflakes that like cats don’t feel offended?

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, but maybe if you have been mauled by a dog you appreciate that kind of warning.

[+] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

That’s stupid. Those pixels on a screen can’t hurt anyone. And if you think otherwise, you should seek professional help instead of expecting from everyone else to adjust to your mental issues.

[–] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But it's kinda stupid to cry about warnings too, why shouldn't people be able to avoid content they don't want to watch? If you're such a tough guy that pixels don't scare you then you're tough enough that you can probably live through a world that chooses to make concessions in the form of content warnings for those who need or prefer them.

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Why do these snowflakes just not filter the content like normal people? Most apps support this. Why does everybody else have to click away the CW just because a minuscule fraction of people might get irritated?

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

"Snowflake is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions"

idk, you keep using this word but it applies more to your comments than to people that are just dealing with trauma...

Also, I don't use filters but I've heard from people that do that they are bad cause they might filter some things you're okay with. Context matters.

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then how did these traumatised people ever watch the news on TV or read a newspaper where there are no CWs? How did they take part in discussions on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc.? And how are they supposed to work through their trauma when they never get confronted with it?

If they are okay with "some things", they'd have to open each article behind a very generic CW-description anyways. What's the purpose of the CW then?

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's their problem. The thing here is you're complaining about CW because you have to CLICK it, and can't understand it's useful for some people. Instead, you keep complaining and saying it's useless.

Can't you be a bit empathic? Like "I don't understand CW but some people want them, I can deal with having to click through the warning". Or are you entitled to open things in one click over other people feeling comfortable?

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, you're saying these traumatised people need to find ways to manage public TV and newspapers, but on Mastodon everybody else is supposed to accommodate for them and add CWs?

Again, the people that might(!) profit from the CWs are a minuscule amount compared to the people inconvenienced by them. And, as the linked study explains, they even seem to make things worse. So my point is: Just get rid of them. According to that study, that might even be beneficial to these traumatised people.

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"these traumatised people" lol. It's not even about that. The most common CW that you probably use and enjoy is the NSFW warning. You understand that you might be at work and not wanting to see nudity or gore or other sensitive stuff, right? If you're eating while you're browsing posts, maybe you want a "CW: poop" before you open a post and barf a bit because you're eating, not because you can't handle poop.

And yeah, "everyone else" is supposed to accommodate the minorities. Your rhetoric reeks of alt-right, I guess you're "inconvenienced" by reserved parking spots, and for inclusive language, and want to "get rid of them" too?

[–] mbirth@lemmy.mbirth.uk -2 points 5 months ago

I'm sorry, but if somebody decides to browse their pr0n and scat alts while they're at work and/or eating... that's on them.

Your rhetoric reeks of alt-right, I guess you’re “inconvenienced” by reserved parking spots, and for inclusive language, and want to “get rid of them” too?

And this is how you demonstrate that you're not interested in continuing this discussion. Thanks for the entertainment, though. :)

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

....aren't the content warnings a form of filter? Are you such a snowflake that you're absurdly triggered by having to click through something?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If only past trauma was so easy to deal with. Perhaps a little consideration for others in a social space isn't too much to ask.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Honestly I'm sick of this shit. It really feels like we've stopped having consideration for trauma and are now just enabling it.

Trauma sucks, but you have to get over it. That's the goal. Not to live in a little bubble wrap reality. Society will not conform to your particular fucked-upness.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Like most healing processes, recovering from trauma takes time. It's not reasonable to expect that everyone will be recovered from their trauma at any given time. And a society that won't give people time to heal before dealing with more of the shit they've been through is more than a little flawed. Hell, some people deal with their trauma by rejecting empathy rather than acknowledge that they've been hurt. I know I did that for decades.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not reasonable (or, I would argue, even HELPFUL) to have society censor itself to cater to the tiny number of traumatized people.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I would say it's calloused not to. Moreover, estimates put PTSD rates in America at about 6%. That doesn't sound tiny to me, and that's not even traumatized people. That's people so traumatized they can't handle it in a typical manner and will probably need help to recover, not your run-of-the-mill trauma that we all deal with and move on. Note that even those without PTSD don't need an extra helping of reality courtesy of random strangers on the internet while they're dealing with their trauma.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

It's not an extra helping of reality though. It's a normal helping of reality.

[–] Mesophar@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are we supposed to adjust to your mental issue of being irrationally angry at content warnings?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Apparently so

[–] UberKitten@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago

if CWs bother you, you can turn them off in most fedi clients

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

CW: Content Warnings

[–] swan@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

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

[–] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 months ago

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

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months 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@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months 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.

[–] hollyberries@programming.dev 12 points 5 months 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.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 months ago

half-assed implementations.

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

[–] rimu@piefed.social 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry to hear that.

Some Lemmy apps have keyword filters that may help?

[–] hollyberries@programming.dev 2 points 5 months 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@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

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

[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah I mean... why would they?

[–] aciDC14@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Wow…what a surprise.