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.

😱 I think
@Gargron is wrong about #Mastodon 😜

* 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'

@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.

@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.

@woozle @Gargron @how
😁 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.

@paulfree14 @woozle @Gargron You misread me obviously.

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

What's wrong about my interpretation.

@paulfree14 @woozle

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

@how @paulfree14

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

@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?

@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.

@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...

@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?