you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 14 hours ago (1 child)

insisting people should watch this death video.

In fairness, I don't see anyone making such assertions.

On the general topic, I don't disagree with your sentiment per se, but I will also note that most news will show footage of fatal plane crashes, so I humbly suggest your view is a minority one on this. I would normally suggest there's no harm in marking it NSFW, but others noted that would censor it from some places, and so I don't think that's a great solution; otherwise I'd lend my voice in support to you anyway, even though I don't thnk it's necessary. But I appreciate you speaking up on it, even if I happen to disagree in this instance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago

    I disagree with what the news does, then. Even if they show it, they really should say something like "this video clip is graphic and is uncensored. It contains people dying".... Nah, the more I think about what they should say, the more I think they really shouldn't show it so easily. There needs to more barrier to entry, but the more barrier to entry with them still showing it, the more I feel like them showing it at all is wrong.

    Like maybe if we went back to the thing where an anchor said like "this video is inappropriate for sensitive viewers" and gave 5-10 seconds of warning, followed by basically "this is your last chance to not watch".

    Because deep down, I think there's a part of me that is against hiding the ugly parts of life and death and trauma. I think unnecessary trauma should be avoided, but like a lot of people in here are arguing, this stuff isn't exactly uncommon.

    So when it comes down to it, I don't have a perfect solution for tv cable news. For fediverse, though, and the wider Internet and text based info, we have warnings like NSFW and content warnings for common rough triggers like rape or abuse or stuff that can trigger PTSD. And putting those warnings on stuff for people is just the right thing to do. Because it isn't for you, it's for other people who don't know exactly how it's going to impact them until it's too late. There are certain things you can't unsee. Like jars, horses, elbows, chainsaws, gunshots, or other stuff. And just because something isn't a majority opinion doesn't disqualify it from having a warning. That just ends up catering to already overserved demographics.

    Like if even a few people are gonna be traumatized by a video that literally contains death, the correct response isn't to say "too bad so sad fuck you" and not tag it. Especially when the convention is to tag it. Just tag it, it costs nobody anything.

    And if it adds to government censorship, that's truly unfortunate, but I don't suggest we untag all NSFW content just so they can bypass that. Because that also harms the few to sate the many. In that situation, either the people on the censorship instances need to deal with that, or a compromise should be made, such as a non-tag warning. Like just putting the warning in the title. That accomplishes the actual warning whilst also giving people with the censorship laws their death videos. Everybody's happy.

  • source
  • parent