To be fair to the guy you are commenting to, it auto plays while scrolling through Lemmy, at least on mine. So I can see some people may end up seeing it that didn’t want to. 🤷
But you didn’t actually see anyone die. You know it from news reports. Also I’m not referring to this video. I just think the NSFW label is overused and abused in terms of click-baiting.
It is, and it also becomes a weapon for the growing puritan culture.
But a huge explosion, that’s a plane crash, where 9 people die in an accident is still NSFW. It is not a video of cute cats playing in the sun, it is a video of people fucking dying, even if you can’t easily make out people bits explode in the fireball.
Perhaps your argument would work…50 years ago? Today with trump and ubiquitous cams…this is everyday news. People getting shot in schools, and doing crazy stuff. It really brings the reality to the fore front on our existence. We are easily extinguish…and all life is precious…so we should all endeavor for peace and coexistence.
No I get it, things have absolutely changed. Things that 50 years ago would be gross and offensive today is casual or even still professional speak and vice versa. That still doesn’t change the fact that I think it is and should be considered NSFW or have a caution or warning that it contains death.
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.
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.
Not everyone enjoys watching others die.
Then don’t watch a video labelled plane crash?
To be fair to the guy you are commenting to, it auto plays while scrolling through Lemmy, at least on mine. So I can see some people may end up seeing it that didn’t want to. 🤷
Velma is a woman, not a guy.
So?
Oof, someone downvoted you for this? I’m sorry, that’s super petty. Thank you for saying something!
Your aggressive feminism does not go uncelebrated behind the scenes. Yw.
But you didn’t actually see anyone die. You know it from news reports. Also I’m not referring to this video. I just think the NSFW label is overused and abused in terms of click-baiting.
It is, and it also becomes a weapon for the growing puritan culture.
But a huge explosion, that’s a plane crash, where 9 people die in an accident is still NSFW. It is not a video of cute cats playing in the sun, it is a video of people fucking dying, even if you can’t easily make out people bits explode in the fireball.
Perhaps your argument would work…50 years ago? Today with trump and ubiquitous cams…this is everyday news. People getting shot in schools, and doing crazy stuff. It really brings the reality to the fore front on our existence. We are easily extinguish…and all life is precious…so we should all endeavor for peace and coexistence.
No I get it, things have absolutely changed. Things that 50 years ago would be gross and offensive today is casual or even still professional speak and vice versa. That still doesn’t change the fact that I think it is and should be considered NSFW or have a caution or warning that it contains death.
Fine, then throw a CW at least.
You don’t need to dig your heels in on insisting people should watch this death video.
The title saying it’s a video of a plane crashing isn’t a warning enough?
Not all airplane crashes are deaths, sometimes the plane and the road exchange insurance information afterwards.
And the rules request a CW when applicable.
And that’s not what you asked for.
I conceded CW is fair enough and you continued to argue.
And I thanked you at the end of our back and forth, upvoted you, and now you’re back here nagging at me?What the fuck?Ah that was another user who was much more polite than you were. Nevermind.
My original point still stands - this should have a CW or NSFW because it is a death video.
No you didn’t?
Edited.
I agree, there should’ve been some warning at least. It is tragic and horrific.
Thank you, that’s the only point I was trying to make.
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.
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.