Interesting Links for 08-01-2023

[andrewducker]

1. The Power of Indulging Your Weird, Offbeat Obsessions

(tags:obsession science research advice viaPatrickHadfield )

2. Trigger warnings for innate parts of people's lives are not a good idea

(tags:triggerwarnings minorities )

Comments

[mellowtigger]

As implemented in Mastodon programming, the content warnings are a visual mess, even if you choose settings that automatically show them so they aren't also a carpal tunnel hazard. Instead of being metadata that the viewer can choose how to handle, they are actively bad gui features. Separately from Mastodon, as a concept, they don't help trauma survivors. A recent meta-analysis reached the conclusion that they simply don't work for their intended purpose.

[andrewducker]

That didn't really answer my question though

You said we should label conversations better, but also that you were against trigger warnings. And I don't understand what a trigger warning is that isn't a label.

[wildeabandon]

A trigger warning is a very specific kind of label, which implies that the thing which is labelled is likely to be traumatising. A culture of providing content notes on a neutral basis provides all the benefits of trigger warnings, but doesn't cause the problem highlighted in the post you linked to of making people feel as though there's something wrong with them because an aspect of their life is being flagged as traumatic.

[mellowtigger]

Ah! Yes, hashtags are already far into that territory, simultaneously an unobtrusive part of the grammar while also meta-tags that can be used for filtering. That alone might suffice if people and platforms used the technology more commonly. Hashtags don't have to be provided before/after/outside other text, because they are explicitly part of the text already. Use accurate words, and your text is already self-identified for topic indexing. An index which the reader can choose to use as labels, providing "Warning: Hazardous Content Ahead!" interruptions not specifically provided by the author.

If that explanation doesn't convey a distinction, then perhaps a counter-question would help. Why would a subject field on a webpage or a chapter title in a book ever need the words "Content Warning" included, if the subject or title was itself an accurate description of the following contents? I'm arguing that those two words chosen by a text's author will add no value. Instead, offer automation that allows readers to customize their personal experience so they feel more self-agency in the resulting interaction. Chapters and indexes are the solution used prior to the computing era, but they work only if they are accurate, not leading readers into inaccurately-identified distractions. Use accurate words, and automation can provide the rest. (Like hashtag filtering, but maybe in the future with AI providing useful "topic clouds" from our actual text, upon which our personal customizations will choose to present/hide discussions for us.)

[andrewducker]

Ah, so like the tags on this post, which inform, but don't specifically call out some specific things as being traumatising?

Yes, I agree, things that already have tags don't need anything more specific in general.

If only more sites allowed separate meta tags.