My position on content warnings ever since we added them:

Use them however you like yourself. Never tell anyone else what they should and shouldn't CW; if you don't like how they use/don't use them, unfollow/mute.

about cw usage 

馃槺 I think
@Gargron is wrong about #Mastodon 馃槣

* I like that others raise awarness about that and they should!
It's a public space and it is created together
It is true that one can decide what to see and what not, but (non)awarness about the usage of cw also effects the culture as a whole. ...abilities/needs y'know
Also it's great to tell others if you would prefer a cw

The phillosophy you use, ablied to nazis sounds like:

'just look away if you don't like it'

about cw usage 

@Gargron

I agree with @paulfree14. CWs exist primarily for the benefit of readers, not writers. If the writer only uses them how *they* see fit, then any discrepancy between that and what their readers need/prefer represents a problem.

Readers talking about what *they* would prefer is part of the process of arriving at good uses.

Unfollowing and muting are crude solutions at best, and exist on pretty much every other social platform ever. Mastodon is better than that.

about cw usage 

@woozle @Gargron @paulfree14 I don't want anyone telling me how to use a functionality or not. This is federated space, that's why. No, it's not public space. If it were, there would be crazy differences in how people act: some would watch people go naked, as it is legal in their country, or even make love in a park, as it is legal in their country, while others would chase them with pitchforks, as Trump is legal in their country.

about cw usage 

@woozle @Gargron @how
馃榿 do you see the irony of your post?

You just joined in a discourse that's about to make needs visable and build around that while making your need visable that claims to be about not wanting to hear them from others.

about cw usage 

@woozle @how
I think you don't understand the implications of what you've said.

What's wrong about my interpretation.

about cw usage 

@paulfree14 @woozle

Please be kind and explain to me what are the implications of what I said that I do not understand.

Follow

about cw usage 

@how @paulfree14

You are agreeing that just unfollowing people is insufficient remedy for dealing with problematic behavior, yes?

Web 0 0 0

about cw usage 

@woozle @paulfree14

I didn't know I ever mentioned that. I talked about the CW functionality, and how reader's morality as a guideline to use it was inadequate.

Dealing with "problematic behavior" doesn't mean much to me, since there are such behaviors that we may agree to qualify as problematic, and others that we might disagree qualifying as problematic... According to our ethics, right?

about cw usage 

@how @paulfree14

Did I misread you here? --

~~~~~
me: if you don't like people *suggesting* how you do stuff, perhaps you should unfollow or mute. ...unless, of course, that seems like a bad solution.

you: Isn't it what I just said?
~~~~~

It sounds like you're agreeing that unfollowing/muting isn't a good solution for dealing with people whose behavior you find problematic -- but if that's not the case, then please clarify your position.

about cw usage 

@woozle @paulfree14

What you hear is what you want to hear. My position is: "I don't want anyone telling me how to use a functionality or not."

Meaning: I don't want readers complaining that I should use CW or not to satisfy their inability to deal with stuff I would post.

That's because I won't shitpost for example. And yes, I unfollow people who shitpost, because I'm not interested in dealing with their shit.

Now if it were political, I wouldn't need CW...

about cw usage 

@paulfree14 @woozle

Because I can choose by myself whether to engage or not in a political discussion.

I also know that there are children out there in this federated space, and that's why I don't shitpost.

If people like to share gore, they probably want to do it responsibly, on specific domains that don't federate with every other instance. Having CW won't change anything to their posting, will it? Are you gonna spoon-feed them your ethics?

about cw usage 

@how @paulfree14

The problem is, you're doing the same thing you're saying we shouldn't do, just with a different topic.

You don't want people telling you how to use CWs.

We don't want you telling us what we can't talk about.

Do you see how this is a problem?

about cw usage 

@woozle @paulfree14

> We don't want you telling us what we can't talk about.

I'm not telling you what you cannot talk about!

about cw usage 

@how @paulfree14

In that case, nobody's telling you how to use CWs, either.

about cw usage 

@woozle @paulfree14

You are arguing that readers should have a say in how CW is used. I'm saying they cannot. The rest of your argument is simply that I'm not telling what I'm telling. This is silly.

about cw usage 

@how @paulfree14

What do you mean by "cannot"? If a community (e.g. the users of a particular instance) agree that CWs should be used a certain way, and the admins decide to put it in the CoC, then the readers and the writers (many of whom are the same people, of course) do both get a say in how CWs are used.

Many CoCs do in fact include guidelines for CW usage. This is not a new thing.

about cw usage 

@woozle @paulfree14 Yes, but you solve that on an instance's level, not at federation level. See our code of conduct at s10y.eu/ You can only solve CW at your own server, and even there you only enforce compliance by muting or banning people, not much different from what anyone would do for their own stream, is it?

about cw usage 

@how @paulfree14

That's pretty much what we've been talking about, yeah.

If you were under the impression that I was advocating some kind of Mastodon-wide enforcement of CW standards, then I apologize for being unclear about that.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Toot.Cat

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!