Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
They are harmless, so don't see why not. I rather them to censorship. I remember mainstream media was heavily editing/censoring the footage of the killing of Charlie Kirk, and even posting the "far away" shot onto the same platforms that had close up, raw, uncensored footage. I heard it debated by them if a content warning and uncensored footage would be more beneficial.
I think the high quality footage itself of it actually made people more sympathetic/outraged about it, just seeing a man die that way
This is the correct take.
Content warnings on everything seems silly until you think about what the alternative is. It's much better to have largely uncensored media that people can engage with intellectually, making their own decisions if they want to experience it or not.
The alternative is visible in the advertiser-friendly hellscape that mainstream social media has become, where people can't even say words like "kill" or "drug" without being buried by the algorithm.
For a healthy society to exist, people need to be able to interact with sensitive topics and challenging ideas.
Imagine if the the news was able to show the actual true suffering in Gaza. I remember seeing Ukranian media publish uncensored images of mangled corpses and fragments of people's skull still with a scalp and hair among rubble from Russia's invasion. I think with the interactive nature of the internet, offering a content warning, then a censored version, then an uncensored version is the way to go. I imagined an interface possibly which starts with a content warning and then a "censored" toggle visibly turned on by default, but can be toggled off.