Curiosity Drives Viewers To Ignore Trigger Warnings (phys.org) 138
alternative_right shares a report from Phys.org: For the first time, a new study has tested the effectiveness of trigger warnings in real life scenarios, revealing that the vast majority of young adults choose to ignore them. A new Flinders University study has found that nearly 90% of young people who saw a trigger warning still chose to view the content, saying that they did so out of curiosity, rather than because they felt emotionally prepared or protected. The findings published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry aligned with a growing body of lab-based research suggesting that trigger warnings rarely lead to the avoidance of potentially distressing material.
Good (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The best way to handle trigger warnings is to either ignore them or to treat them like an advertisement for something worth seeing
They rarely actually contain what they advertise. It's not safe to simply ignore the warnings, either--the kind of person that puts a trigger warning per se (rather than an intro that describes the type of content) is telegraphing an intent to coddle their viewers. The most flagrant example I've encountered was a volunteer reading a book out loud (publishing it as a web serial audio book) who felt the need to give a trigger warning but also censor the source material. Ordinarily a volunteer can do what they
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't think the original author should have allowed that (as an author has final say in whether/how their work is adapted).
I disagree, once you put something out into the world, you lose control what people do with it (unless the derivative project is tailored for financial gain, then it gets a bit more complicated).
In your case parodies shouldn't exist without the original author's consent. That's a sad world...
Re: (Score:2)
A trigger warning is literally telling the view that they are not going to be coddled.
Don't mistake self censorship on YouTube and other sites for coddling either, it's because if you mention keywords like "rape" or "Epstein" the algorithm limits the reach of your video.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't contemplate how sensitive the British must be as to require such on the content they publish.
You seem to be triggered by trigger warnings - irony, much? Also, putting this on "the British" is one of the logical fallacies often used by debaters and manipulators, but I can't be assed to look up which one.
Suffice it to say that there are some people in any population who are suffering from trauma resulting from things like rape, domestic abuse, having been at war, having witnessed atrocities, and on and on. Giving them fair warning that media content might cause them to have flashbacks - or might even
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that so many people now claim to be triggered by so many things that nearly any topic that is controversial in any small way now requires a trigger warning. People everywhere, of all stripes, are less resilient now than ever before to things that challenge their world view.
I don't blame you for not wanting to see the video of the murder. I don't need to see it either. Yet ironically, most of us have seen far more grisly scenes enacted in movies, TV shows, and video games (heck, doom even).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame you for not wanting to see the video of the murder.
I don't care for worthless emotional rage bait and death by, or for, rage bait. Doubly so for so called victims who practiced rage baiting, being hoisted on their own petard. I refuse to even utter their names.
Its a shame I even had to know these people were alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Trigger warnings are kinda like Vista et al's UAC warnings. At some point you're starting to see so many of them, for stuff that you really are squeamish about and not, that you just kinda tune out the warning like it wasn't there in the first place.
Personally I have found that I have an issue with eye injuries, probably due to having had one of my own. That scene in Baldur's Gate 3 if you let Volo try to remove the tadpole through your eye socket? Uuuugggghhhh. Or in The Boys with trying to deliberately ca
Re: Good (Score:2)
By signaling that everyday/mundane content might hurt you, you teach people (teens and young adults in particular) that they are inherently fragile.
The problem is that life is tough. Even in rich Western social democracies, you will encounter horrible days and incredible challenges. Instead of coddling people and encouraging them to runaway from discomfort, we should be challenging them to engage with progressively more difficult ideas and realities.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm replying to my own post because it's too awkward to reply to every response I'd gotten as of the time I'm writing this.
Thanks for all your comments - you've shifted my perspective. I still think trigger warnings can be helpful and useful, but you've all made it clear that they need to be used more deliberately, carefully, and selectively rather than being tossed out as a reflexive CYA move. One of you pointed to "alarm fatigue", and I guess that pretty much sums up most of the objections to my prior com
Re: (Score:2)
People with PTSD aren't going to have a reaction to something related to the trauma. Warnings aren't usually for everyone, just those that need it. It's not (originally) intended as a way to coddle the public.
Re: (Score:3)
Kill all the humans you want, but if the dog dies, I'm out.
*(or cat)
Re: (Score:3)
There's actually a website that started out specifically for that: https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ [doesthedogdie.com]
It now has other stuff on there too.
Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)
The sort of people who have some kind of emotional breakdown or panic attack after viewing something online are either emotionally immature or have some other kind of mental health issue. Normally adjusted young people may well find something disgusting or disturbing but can cope with it. The whole trigger warning thing needs to be binned as its usually used on topics or opinions the warner doesn't like rather than actual horrendous images.
Obviously this doesn't apply to young children but thats not who's being discussed here.
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, maybe they actually work fine.
Just like epilepsy warnings, most of us who know we are not epileptic just ignore them. I expect someone who is seizure prone, and knows they triggered by brights flashes and color etc, takes them rather more seriously, maybe they avoid the content or enable some filters that restrict dynamic range of the content.
Most of us can deal with watching a video or reading something we disagree with, don't like, might find disgusting, etc as you say. There are people with mental illness and if you are one of those people with a condition like PTSD, panic attacks, anxiety issues, then you can make a decision.
Probably only a very small percentage of women in the amusement park are pregnant on any given day. That does not mean we should take down the signs warning them they should not ride the roller coaster does it?
Re: (Score:2)
So some Shakespeare plays need trigger warnings in case some snowflake gets upset? Give me a break. Some people just can't cope with life, that doesn't mean everything needs to be cotton wooled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trigger warnings are fine. It means that the person viewing the content consented to it. Even if it drives up viewership, thereby spreading the content farther and wider, it is still good because a person who has willingly given consent is less likely to be traumatized. The only thing being important here is that the trigger warning is accurate and descriptive about the subject of the content.
Re: Oh please (Score:2)
So youâ(TM)re saying that because they have a mental health condition they donâ(TM)t deserve to have any accommodations? You wouldnâ(TM)t say âoeoh please, people who canâ(TM)t walk are either babies or amputees, the whole wheelchair ramp thing should be binned immediatelyâ
Re: (Score:2)
You don't reduce the whole of society down to some childhood state just because some people can't cope. And your wheelchair ramp argument is BS because to make it equivalent you'd have to put ramps anywhere there's a minor bump on a footpath.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to be a classic example of the kind of thing that happens all the time nowadays. As far as I can tell, originally "trigger warning" was meant to be for things that could trigger a panic attack or PTSD flashback in people who have PTSD or other severe mental or emotional problems as a result of some past trauma. Like content depicting child abuse for those who were victims of it, rape, that kind of stuff. Maybe also those with extreme phobias, where some content could also trigger that kind of mel
Re:Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)
I’m not sure I really get the intention of trigger warnings for non-extreme individuals as you mention; I'm genuinely interested to know why they exist, and if they actually work in practice.
The most common examples of trigger warnings (particularly when they are literally called and labelled as “trigger warning”) I see are 1) in a YouTube video about (say) unsolved crimes that start with a trigger warning saying "this video deals with subjects including suicide and child sexual assault"... or 2) a news article about the trial of (say) an accused violent rapist that says underneath the headline "this article covers violent sexual assault".
Surely by mentioning the "trigger", anyone who doesn't want to think about that stuff is now thinking about that stuff?! It's the whole "don't think of a blue elephant" thing.
Sure, you might say "ah no, it's for people who don't want to hear about those subjects *in depth*... but then why have they clicked on a video about the suspicious suicide of a diddler or a news article about Pakistani rape gangs in the first place if the subject matter is likely to upset them? Someone wants to read about the rape gangs as long as the subject of rape is completely avoided? It's a literal impossibility to do that.
As I say, I'm talking about trigger warnings in the way they are commonly used. I totally believe that (for instance) a TikketyTok video should warn people that it's about to show a man being beheaded before launching into the gruesome 4k slo-mo gore. The majority of people would surely want to be warned so they could say “no”. But that's not a TRIGGER warning, it's a CONTENT warning (and an “unexpected upcoming content warning” at that. The two are very different. The whole "triggering" thing is about the SUBJECT MATTER, not the content itself.
So... does anyone here at all actually react to a trigger warning labelled as such? Have you clicked on a news article about a subject that is something you want to avoid, and then shut down the browser window when the trigger warning tells you that, yes indeed, the article you have clicked on does actually discuss the subject matter that you already knew you would want to avoid? What factor have I missed here?
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that people are "triggered" by the mere mention of the word, but it tends not to be like that for most.
I've known people who died by suicide, I've had pets die, and for a while after that I'd prefer not to watch stuff that deals with those issues. I wouldn't have a catastrophic episode if I did, but why hurt myself when I don't have to? And I can completely understand why people for whom the trauma is much worse would need to avoid it, not out of choice but necessity.
Also keep in mind that
Re: Oh please (Score:2)
I scan the headlines and rarely click through because of reasons. Decent journalism is rare nowadays. Misinformed reporting, opinions hiding inside, lack of subject matter knowledge, lack of depth, all make the so called articles close to worthless. "Articles" with less than 75 words, 4 sentences are common enough on formerly august sites like WaPo and the Guardian, for you to know your reading clickbait.
If the article is about Charlie getting shot in the
Re: (Score:2)
"formerly august sites"? Can I ask what you meant?
Re: (Score:2)
august - adjective - Respected and dignified: synonym: grand.
There was a time when the Washington Post was considered a respectable source of news with journalistic standards that you could trust. The Guardian... wellll... ok... I think it would be considered left leaning, but in the UK, afaik, it's possibly the only non-right leaning paper in the UK. So perhaps worthy just because it was an opposing perspective.
So, in my world, these papers were once pretty respectable and trustable within reasonable
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but this is probably the same rule that leads to "warning: may contain peanuts" on a bag of peanuts. I'm buying peanuts so of course I hope the bag contains peanuts and someone who is allergic to peanuts will not touch the bag of peanuts with or without the warning.
However, the rule is that if something contains even a trace amount of peanuts, it needs the warning and there is no exception for "it obviously contains peanuts so the warning is not necessary".
So, I guess the same applies to content, so y
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense is in short supply these days. So what can you expect. Its like coffee cups that warn the content might be hot. Yeah it is supposed to be, but someone somewhere would do something stupid and then try to blame someone else if they did not do the CYA.
Its also true that we live in a world where you can walk down the grocery aisle and see a lot of bottles labeled "Juice" for which if you read the fine print contain little or no fruit/vegetable juice. I am not sure it is -inconceivable- a product
Re: (Score:2)
The warning for peanuts is for people with allergies. Obviously someone who knows he has a peanut allergy will not touch a bag with peanuts, but some other food may not be obvious that it contains peanuts and allergies can be triggered by a very small amount (something I would likely even not taste or notice), for example, a machine was used to process peanuts, then was used to process some other food and was not cleaned thoroughly. So, the warning on something that may have 0.01% of peanuts in it but is no
Re: (Score:2)
However, the rule is that if something contains even a trace amount of peanuts, it needs the warning and there is no exception for "it obviously contains peanuts so the warning is not necessary".
Yes that's the rule: There's no carved out exception for the "obvious" cases. This is almost certainly a good thing. The rule is simple: if it may contain peanuts, print "may contain peanuts". This is zero extra cost.
It looks a little daft on a packet of peanuts, but if the absolute worst consequence of a law is a m
Re: (Score:2)
The rule is simple: if it may contain peanuts, print "may contain peanuts". This is zero extra cost.
Yeah, I guess the exception could be made to the wording of the warning. For example, allow printing "definitely contains peanuts" on food that obviously contains peanuts.
Re: (Score:2)
I’m not sure I really get the intention of trigger warnings for non-extreme individuals as you mention; I'm genuinely interested to know why they exist, and if they actually work in practice.
It's easy. While most of the time I don't care sometimes I don't want to see something awful and will avoid something with a trigger warning.
As I say, I'm talking about trigger warnings in the way they are commonly used. I totally believe that (for instance) a TikketyTok video should warn people that it's about to show a man being beheaded before launching into the gruesome 4k slo-mo gore. The majority of people would surely want to be warned so they could say “no”. But that's not a TRIGGER warning, it's a CONTENT warning (and an “unexpected upcoming content warning” at that. The two are very different. The whole "triggering" thing is about the SUBJECT MATTER, not the content itself.
No, that's a trigger warning https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm arguing with the aid of the term's literal meaning. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
If a beheading or something would bother me, then I wouldn't search for it.
If it came up on my Facebook feed, I'd scroll past it.
Problem solved.
Because I was picked on in school, does that mean I have PTSD and can have the world move the traffic cones for me? No, it doesn't... I'd just have to grow up and deal with it.
Now... if it's PTSD from being in 'Nam or something, I can understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
If a beheading or something would bother me, then I wouldn't search for it.
If it came up on my Facebook feed, I'd scroll past it.
Problem solved.
Wow, way to not understand the point of these warnings.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the warnings is to tell whoever searched for and clicked on the video of a hanging that the video may be a trigger.
If a video about a hanging is a trigger for you... maybe you shouldn't search for and/or click on a video about a hanging... problem solved (and, maybe Youtube or whatever shouldn't be hosting a video like that).
Re: (Score:2)
Or... do you mean that every single person is traumatized and needs to be handled with kid gloves?
Re: (Score:2)
I know someone who is really afraid of snakes, to the point that this person reacts negatively to a photo or even a drawing of a snake, but can talk about them.
So, "warning, there are snakes in this video" would be helpful.
So, maybe the same applies to the content warnings? just mentioning the word is not a problem, but describing in detail is?
Re: (Score:2)
and you realize that this person is mentally ill, correct?
and you realize that YOU are mentally ill, correct?
Re: Oh please (Score:2)
If you're in treatment and utilizing trigger warnings - great.
If you're not in treatment and you're relying on trigger warnings you need to seek expert level therapy now.
Guess whos usually the ines complaining about the lack of trigger warnings... hint, it isnt the first group.
Re: (Score:2)
Not wanting to deal with certain topics right now does not require "expert level therapy", that's just the normal way that normal people are after experiencing a difficult event in their lives.
Re: Oh please (Score:2)
If you need trigger warnings you need to be in therapy.
If you want to avoid certain content you can do research on it and avoid it.
If you're avoiding your trauma and expecting the rest of the world to conform to your avoidance strategy you need therapy.
Story from a few years ago was someone in a history course wanting to avoid discussion/essay on a particular topic due to PTSD; he went to the professor and worked out an alternative that was quite reasonable.
You know who doesn't do that? The trigger warning
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you realize that in 2020 there were 13M (5% of) American's with PTSD"
Sure, now its defined as anyone who has bad stress and some symptoms because of it.
The purpose of trigger warnings (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole purpose of trigger warnings is to advise people who already know that they have psychological triggers that can cause an uncontrollable cascade of emotions. It's not to keep the queasy from tossing their cookies. It gives empowered individuals (like those with properly diagnosed PTSD) the information they need to use that power.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole purpose of trigger warnings is to advise people who already know that they have psychological triggers that can cause an uncontrollable cascade of emotions. It's not to keep the queasy from tossing their cookies. It gives empowered individuals (like those with properly diagnosed PTSD) the information they need to use that power.
Thats the reason demanded by lawyers and legal liability.
The obvious other reason we have any reasonable content warnings online is because we don’t police children worth a damn on the internet. And all of us have plenty of shit we wish we could unsee.
All this report shows is that ignorance about harm has desensitized most parents and children to the point where they will grow up and have to psychologically manage a hell of a lot more than previous generations did. Content warnings do serve a purpos
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
^1,000% this!^
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess that 90% of people don't need trigger warnings but they'd be more important for the 10%. Wonder how that aligns with the research
Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics (Score:3)
So basically the same as stickering albums from days past, with the same motivations- do-gooderism with unintended consequences.
And can we finally admit that much like music before, this was never intended to serve the public but stroke the egos of the pearl clutching class?
And can we further admit the same of locking down the web, for the children, may have noble intentions, but the methods are completely counter-productive?
Nope. I guess another generation has to suffer through this idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically the same as stickering albums from days past, with the same motivations- do-gooderism with unintended consequences.
It is not. The parental advisory was a puritanical attempt to help parents control what their teenagers listened to. Trigger warnings are so that a viewer can control what they watch/read/listen to themselves.
And can we finally admit[...]
No, because why would we "admit" something that's incorrect?
And can we further admit the same of locking down the web[...]
You are deeply confused
Come on.. (Score:3)
The problem is, this is all subjective.
I find it triggering that we're living in a world where two people can't have a discussion about apples and oranges without triggering somebody into a meltdown for assuming they hate bananas.... This is becoming so common...
I imagine people are just hitting a point of exhaustion with a lot of this trigger and whatever else talk. But I'm no expert...
I hope people are getting exhausted..
The purpose of a trigger warning (Score:5, Insightful)
That is totally off-base!
A trigger warning is for people who have trauma that may be triggered by the content. Most people don't have serious trauma (at least I hope so).
If people want to use it as a guide, that makes no difference to its usefulness to those that need it.
Re: (Score:3)
You are completely correct however I feel the need to add that the reason people may find trigger warnings annoying is because the number of people who think they need trigger warnings is vastly larger than the number of people who actually do.
It's often the latter type that demands ever more warnings and they often enough do it in obnoxious manners.
Re:The purpose of a trigger warning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fast-forward 20 years and it's become yet another once-valid tool corrupted to serve those who define themselves by minor hangups and demand the world yield to them.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Woah! Put a trigger warning on that, I got trolled by a logician!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was it ever valid? Is avoidance an effective means of overcoming trauma?
Don't assume that people who are using trigger warnings to avoid content which sets them off are not doing anything to overcome their trauma.
If it's not reinforced, trauma tends to fade over time with our memories, if the trauma is not replayed. People can do this to themselves through their own unaided recall, but it can also happen due to triggers. Avoiding triggers doesn't guarantee that a trauma will become more distant, but it can be part of that process.
Re: (Score:2)
Avoidance is an effective means of avoiding the response cascade of trauma.
The most effective treatments are types of exposure therapy, but in a controlled environment. Usually gradually talking about your own trauma and exposure to milder real life triggers in increasing doses.
Just because exposure is a treatment does not mean that all exposure is good.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said "overcoming"? If you overcome the trauma you don't get triggered by it. This is avoiding the triggering (yes it's in the name) of a response to an existing trauma.
You can't overcome claustrophobia by staying in the open, but you can prevent having a panic attack as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it started, yeah. Fast-forward 20 years and it's become yet another once-valid tool corrupted to serve those who define themselves by minor hangups and demand the world yield to them.
Is this another "omg the WOKE are coming"? It sounds like you're more triggered than anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Some random questions - have suicides gone up or down since "trigger warnings" were invented? How did people manage before these warnings? How did humanity survive through the times when everyone was repeatedly traumatized by the harshness of life? People would see half their children die horribly and persevered none the less. How did they do that without being warned every time they might see a child?
Humanity never needed it before, despite high
Re: (Score:2)
True. But it's not enough that Jane/John Doe can deal with the content if they so choose. Certain things trigger me. And since you cannot restrict where I go or what I read, these things must be removed. For my well being. It's a foot in the door for cancel culture.
Trigger warnings also imply that I must modify my behavior to protect my own well being. I accept no such responsibility and expect that society bend to accomodate me.
Triggers (Score:4, Insightful)
A sane middle ground would be like movie ratings: a simple content list available on request, not blocking the start screen or page. Adults can judge what they want to read. If someone cannot handle deciding for themselves, the warning will not help anyway. It just signals how badly the author wants to be seen as caring. Warnings should serve clarity, not self-congratulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Once per new game I would have thought, since you might be playing it on a computer someone else installed it on.
Re: (Score:3)
This is in tons of games, including games that don't need it like Snowrunner, and it displays every time. It does this because it's easier than thinking about how many times it should display, and also because the game has no way to know whether there is a new player or spectator sitting in front of the screen or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the numbers not justify the warnings? The warnings cost absolutely nothing. Putting a trigger warning on something takes really no time and costs nothing. Even if it only affect 1% of the people who engage with the material, is no cost worth that 1%? I would say yes. Now the flipside, are the people constantly complaining about trigger warnings worth it? If you see a trigger warning and it doesn't affect you, what exactly have you lost that you feel the need to tell everyone how you feel about the
Re: (Score:2)
Is the seizure warning skippable? If not, how long does it remain on the screen?
Now, take that number... however many seconds it is that someone decided it takes to read that warning that everyone MUST read EVERY TIME they play that game... and multiply it by the number of people who bought the game times the average number of times they will play the game during the time they own it, and calculate for hours. This is variable a. From there, you can use analytics to determine the typical user's social coh
Re: (Score:2)
A seizure warning needs to be given every time because the person with epilepsy might not have been the one who installed the game or first booted it.
Come on, who is the virtue signalling snowflake here, the one who took the advice of lawyers and medical experts and briefly displayed a flashing lights warning briefly, or the one complaining that they are mildly inconvenienced by the life-saving message that doesn't affect them personally?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you even sure it's just a delay, and not covering loading?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... if a video of a dead body (don't know why that'd be on YT, but whatever) triggers you, why are you looking up videos about dead bodies?
Soon, and I can see it happening... you'll have to submit your entire medical history and psych profile just to check the news on CNN.
Just because a lot of us on here were around during 9/11, can we all claim PTSD?
One clever trick..it's not what you think (Score:2)
It must have stopped working because those are gone now.
Why can't I search on them? (Score:2)
Slashdot (Score:2)
Seems to triggering a few people this morning. Keep up the good work!
They don't understand trigger warnings (Score:3)
Duh (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Trigger warnings" are performative.
They fully succeeded at saying "look how enlightened I am", which was their actual goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is performative. You fully succeeded in saying "look how much of a wanker I am".
You are whining that people are taking a tiny amount of effort and minute amount of screen space to help people with PTSD (you know like military veterans, firefighters etc) take care of themselves. It's no skin off your nose and does you zero harm. If you find that objectionable it's because you're a sociopath.
A "trigger warning" is not aimed at everybody (Score:4, Informative)
It is aimed at people that do not want to see specific things and people that know they have mental issues with specific things. Hence ordinary people ignoring trigger warnings is entirely fine and works as designed.
Seem to me this study has no merit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a little personal accountability.
That is what I am saying. The trigger warning is there for a reason and is probably a good idea, but people ignoring it is not a sign of any kind of problem I can see.
Curiosity? The cheeky non-binary Mars robot? (Score:2)
Good for he / they.
They aren't there for the 90% (Score:4, Informative)
Trigger warnings are for people who have some deep emotional trauma or PTSD associated with the named topic. One would hope that 10% or less are that damaged. You put a trigger warning in front of a video that discusses or depicts sexual abuse for abuse survivors suffering from PTSD, not for the general population who finds it disturbing. Hopefully everyone finds it disturbing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends.
If someone is in active recovery, they may exactly know what they can handle at that point. For example, someone who had sexual abuse in their history knows they don't need to see someone else's depiction. That's not going to help them face and overcome it and will more likely set them back for the day. If they're going into an R rated movie, the trigger warning is right there in the rating system. That's not the case for all media.
Or, it might be that on some days they can handle it, and some da
because (Score:2)
... The very concept that an adult needs a warning before being conditioned by something uncomfortable is *fundamentally asinine*.
If it's something that shouldn't be engaged with by children, then it's what we used to call "adult content" and we don't let young people consume it.
Next: how water is wet and the sun comes up in the east.
Warning: This post may contain graphic content. (Score:3)
Ha! Made ya look!
They're the modern day content warnings/ratings on (Score:2)
Boy who cried wolf. (Score:3)
There's now a trigger warning before Gone with the Wind.
If you make it so to put them before the tamest of tame shit, people will just ignore them. Trigger Warners did this to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (about Gone With The Wind)
It's the same issue with ADD in the 90's... if your kid gets a little distracted, he has ADD... give him these two pills of Ritalin, and he'll be fine!
Trigger warnings (Score:2)
if you need trigger warnings the first question to ask:
Are you being treated for your trauma? If not, the trigger warning is useless to you as it only encourages avoidance behavior if you're relying on it anyway.
There are some narrow circumstances where I think they're relevant to everybody, but their prevalence diminishes that and results in exactly what this paper points out.
I use TV ratings to determine if something is of interest sometimes. Sex? Yes. Violence? Yes. Etc. often times shows without any of
90% "ignore" rate seems great to me (Score:2)
I don't expect the vast majority of people to need Content/Trigger warnings so if only 10% of people are not choosing to watch something that seems perfectly fine. I've seen other posts comparing it to epilepsy warnings and that seems a fair comparison which is probably relevant to even less of the population (just checked, around 1% for epilepsy). It's still probably way more useful than most ESRB or MPAA warnings.
That being said I do believe they are often done in very biolerplate and CYA manners which ar
As expected (Score:2)
The warnings are not intended to protect viewers
They are intended to protect publishers from lawsuits by sensitive, litigious people
Publishers can reply...We warned you
No Funny? (Score:2)
As usual.
Top /. Trigger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are conflating dog whistles with trigger warnings....
Re: (Score:2)
I remember some malware before that actually required the recipient to enter a password from the email body to unzip the encrypted payload and run the decrypted payload...
That wasn't done to obtain user consent. That was to keep virus scanners from inspecting the contents of the payload.