#contentwarning — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #contentwarning, aggregated by home.social.
-
@Erdstern @Aljoscha Rittner (beandev) Nur was ist "unsere Kultur"? Die Mastodon-Kultur? Falls ja: Die Mastodon-Kultur ist nicht die Kultur des ganzen Fediverse und wird es auch definitiv nie werden. Nein, wirklich nicht. Egal, wie sehr sich die Mastodon-Nutzerschaft darum bemüht.
Dafür ist das Fediverse zu unterschiedlich. Gewisse Dinge in der Mastodon-Kultur funktionieren einfach nicht überall und/oder werden woanders ganz anders gehandhabt. Das wird dir jeder bestätigen, der im Fediverse etwas anderes als Mastodon als Daily Driver nutzt.
CWs sind übrigens tatsächlich ein ganz hervorragendes Beispiel. Da gibt es gigantische Unterschiede zwischen einerseits Mastodon und andererseits Friendica und seinen Nachfahren (Hubzilla, (streams), Forte).
Der erste Unterschied ist: Friendica und seine Familie haben Mastodons CW-Feld nicht. Das heißt, sie haben das schon. Aber es ist ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen. Warum sie das nicht wie Mastodon als CW-Feld gemacht haben? Weil Friendica es schon sieben Jahre länger als Zusammenfassungsfeld hat, als Mastodon es als CW-Feld hat. Und Hubzilla zwei Jahre länger. Beide waren tatsächlich schon vor Mastodon im Fediverse.
Warum Zusammenfassungen? Weil Friendica und Hubzilla ein "Zeichenlimit" von über 16 Millionen und (streams) und Forte eins von über 24 Millionen haben, wo Mastodon nur 500 Zeichen hat. Da kann man soviel auf einmal posten, daß Zusammenfassungen sinnvoll werden. Im übrigen ist Friendica nicht wie Twitter, sondern eine Kombination aus Facebook und Blog. Und gute Bloggingplattformen haben immer sowohl Titel als auch Zusammenfassungen. Friendica hat beides, seine Nachfahren auch.
Der nächste Unterschied ist auch technischer Natur: Auf Friendica, (streams) und Forte haben für Zusammenfassungen kein dediziertes Eingabefeld. Bei beiden müssen Zusammenfassungen in Tag-Paare gesteckt werden. Hubzilla hat als einziges ein dediziertes Eingabefeld für Zusammenfassungen. Das gibt es aber nur für Posts und nicht für Kommentare (alle vier haben dafür separate Editoren, genau wie Facebook und jede Bloggingplattform da draußen). Ich meine: Hast du schon mal einen Blog-Kommentar mit Zusammenfassung gesehen? Nee? Siehste. Und genau deswegen hat dieser Kommentar auch keine CW.
Und letztlich kommt noch etwas dazu, das Technik mit Kultur verbindet: Alle vier machen CWs statt dessen ganz anders, und zwar schon immer.
Auf allen vieren werden CWs vollautomatisch generiert. Aber nicht beim Schreiben eines Beitrags, sondern wenn man ihn empfangen hat. Also auf Leserseite. Optional. Mittels eines einfachen Textfilter. Und abhängig davon, welche Schlüsselwörter man CW't haben will. Ganz ohne Gemecker, was denn jetzt CW't werden muß und was auf gar keinen Fall CW't werden darf. Für dich wird's dann eben CW't, für andere wird exakt derselbe Beitrag nicht CW't.
Im Prinzip ist das wie Mastodons Filtereinstellung "Mit einer Warnung ausblenden", die es seit Version 4.0 vom Oktober 2022 gibt. Nur hatte Friendica genau dieses Feature schon gut zwölf Jahre vor Mastodon. Und in sehr viel einfacher. Statt nämlich für jedes Schlüsselwort aufwendig jeweils eine Filtereinstellung zusammenklicken zu müssen, gibt's eine Liste von Schlüsselwörtern, wo man neue einfach eintragen kann.
Teil der Kultur auf Friendica und seinen Nachfahren und ganz besonders ab Hubzilla ist Self-Empowerment. Selbstmoderation. Selbst dafür zu sorgen, daß im eigenen Stream Ruhe herrscht, statt sich von vorne bis hinten verhätscheln und sich alles auf dem Silbertablett servieren zu lassen. Teil der Kultur ist damit auch, sich seine CWs leserseitig ganz individuell für sich selbst generieren zu lassen, und wenn man selbst unangenehme Inhalte postet, entsprechende Schlüsselwörter einzubauen.
Da kannst du als Mastodon-Nutzer noch so sehr auf CWs gemäß Mastodon-Kultur und Mastodon-Regeln pochen. Auf Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte wird dir jeder sagen, daß es eine unausgegorene Kacklösung ist, das Zusammenfassungsfeld für sowas zu mißbrauchen, und Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte es tausendmal eleganter machen. Wer auf den vieren etwas von Mastodon versteht, kann sogar anmerken, daß genau die Vorgehensweise von Friendica & Co. seit gut dreieinhalb Jahren auch auf Mastodon geht.
Auf Mastodon beißt unsereins aber auf Granitkeks, weil:- Auf Mastodon gilt: Jeder Beitrag ist ein Mastodon-Tröt, es sei denn, er fällt extrem aus dem Rahmen (z. B. Titel in fett, Zusammenfassung, externer Link, das war's). Wenn etwas nicht von Mastodon kommt, merken viele das gar nicht. Und annähernd niemand kann sagen, woher etwas kommt, wenn nicht von Mastodon.
- Mehr als die Hälfte der Mastodon-Nutzer "weiß" (will sagen, glaubt zu wissen), daß das Fediverse nur aus Mastodon besteht.
- Nur wenige wissen, daß Friendica existiert.
- Von denen wissen nur wenige, daß Friendica mit Mastodon verbunden ist und mit Mastodon Inhalte austauscht.
- Von Hubzilla wissen noch sehr viel weniger Leute, von dessen Nachfahren ganz zu schweigen.
- Das Argument, daß Friendica und Hubzilla schon vor Mastodon da waren, zieht schon deshalb nicht, weil von denen, die schon mal von einem von den beiden gehört haben, sich niemand vorstellen kann, daß sie älter sind als Mastodon. "Jeder weiß" (will sagen, glaubt zu wissen), daß Mastodon der Urknall des Fediverse war und alles andere erst danach dazugekommen ist, weil Gargron ja die ganze Technologie erst erfunden hat.
- Was diese Serveranwendungen können, wissen nochmals weniger Leute. Und wenn Mastodon etwas nicht kann, ist es unvorstellbar, daß irgendwas im Fediverse das kann.
- Sogar Mastodons "Mit einer Warnung ausblenden" ist komplett unbekannt. Es hätte Mastodons CW-Kultur revolutionieren können, hat es aber nicht.
- Obendrein wurde Mastodons Kultur, die dem gesamten Fediverse aufgezwungen wird, Mitte 2022 definiert von denjenigen, die im Februar und März von Twitter abgehauen waren. Also noch auf Basis von Mastodon 3.x. Was seitdem an neuen Features dazugekommen ist, ist praktisch samt und sonders nie Teil der Mastodon-Kultur geworden.
- Letztlich "weiß" jeder auf Mastodon (will sagen, glaubt zu wissen), daß Gargron das CW-Feld von Grund auf neu erfunden hat, daß es also nie als irgendetwas anderes verwendet worden ist und auch jetzt nicht wird.
So werden weiterhin Mastodon-Nutzer von Friendica-, Hubzilla-, (streams)- und Forte-Nutzern verlangen, a) Inhaltswarnungen ins Zusammenfassungsfeld zu schreiben, b) das Zusammenfassungsfeld nur für Inhaltswarnungen zu nehmen (und nicht etwa für Zusammenfassungen, das wäre ja Mißbrauch) und c) die Zahl der Hashtags zu reduzieren (die die Friendica-, Hubzilla-, (streams)- und Forte-Nutzer verwenden, um Schlüsselwörter zum Filtern diskret im Beitrag unterbringen zu können).
Und weil Mastodon-Nutzer beim Durchsetzen ihrer Idealvorstellungen von einem Fediverse ein "Nein" nicht akzeptieren, wird sehr bald über "durchaus freundliche Hinweise" hinaus eskaliert. Ich selbst bin wahrscheinlich schon zigtausendfach blockiert worden, nur weil ich mich nicht wie ein Mastodon-Nutzer verhalte.
Wahrscheinlich würden sich exakt dieselben Mastodon-Nutzer aufregen wie das HB-Männchen, wenn sie erfahren würden, daß Friendica-Nutzer sie blockieren, weil sie z. B. das Zusammenfassungsfeld für Inhaltswarnungen mißbrauchen oder lange Posts in kleine Schnipsel von unter 500 Zeichen zerschneiden (für letzteren Fall kenne ich tatsächlich jemanden auf Friendica und inzwischen auch jemanden auf Akkoma).
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #NichtNurMastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta -
@Erdstern @Aljoscha Rittner (beandev) Nur was ist "unsere Kultur"? Die Mastodon-Kultur? Falls ja: Die Mastodon-Kultur ist nicht die Kultur des ganzen Fediverse und wird es auch definitiv nie werden. Nein, wirklich nicht. Egal, wie sehr sich die Mastodon-Nutzerschaft darum bemüht.
Dafür ist das Fediverse zu unterschiedlich. Gewisse Dinge in der Mastodon-Kultur funktionieren einfach nicht überall und/oder werden woanders ganz anders gehandhabt. Das wird dir jeder bestätigen, der im Fediverse etwas anderes als Mastodon als Daily Driver nutzt.
CWs sind übrigens tatsächlich ein ganz hervorragendes Beispiel. Da gibt es gigantische Unterschiede zwischen einerseits Mastodon und andererseits Friendica und seinen Nachfahren (Hubzilla, (streams), Forte).
Der erste Unterschied ist: Friendica und seine Familie haben Mastodons CW-Feld nicht. Das heißt, sie haben das schon. Aber es ist ein Feld für Zusammenfassungen. Warum sie das nicht wie Mastodon als CW-Feld gemacht haben? Weil Friendica es schon sieben Jahre länger als Zusammenfassungsfeld hat, als Mastodon es als CW-Feld hat. Und Hubzilla zwei Jahre länger. Beide waren tatsächlich schon vor Mastodon im Fediverse.
Warum Zusammenfassungen? Weil Friendica und Hubzilla ein "Zeichenlimit" von über 16 Millionen und (streams) und Forte eins von über 24 Millionen haben, wo Mastodon nur 500 Zeichen hat. Da kann man soviel auf einmal posten, daß Zusammenfassungen sinnvoll werden. Im übrigen ist Friendica nicht wie Twitter, sondern eine Kombination aus Facebook und Blog. Und gute Bloggingplattformen haben immer sowohl Titel als auch Zusammenfassungen. Friendica hat beides, seine Nachfahren auch.
Der nächste Unterschied ist auch technischer Natur: Auf Friendica, (streams) und Forte haben für Zusammenfassungen kein dediziertes Eingabefeld. Bei beiden müssen Zusammenfassungen in Tag-Paare gesteckt werden. Hubzilla hat als einziges ein dediziertes Eingabefeld für Zusammenfassungen. Das gibt es aber nur für Posts und nicht für Kommentare (alle vier haben dafür separate Editoren, genau wie Facebook und jede Bloggingplattform da draußen). Ich meine: Hast du schon mal einen Blog-Kommentar mit Zusammenfassung gesehen? Nee? Siehste. Und genau deswegen hat dieser Kommentar auch keine CW.
Und letztlich kommt noch etwas dazu, das Technik mit Kultur verbindet: Alle vier machen CWs statt dessen ganz anders, und zwar schon immer.
Auf allen vieren werden CWs vollautomatisch generiert. Aber nicht beim Schreiben eines Beitrags, sondern wenn man ihn empfangen hat. Also auf Leserseite. Optional. Mittels eines einfachen Textfilter. Und abhängig davon, welche Schlüsselwörter man CW't haben will. Ganz ohne Gemecker, was denn jetzt CW't werden muß und was auf gar keinen Fall CW't werden darf. Für dich wird's dann eben CW't, für andere wird exakt derselbe Beitrag nicht CW't.
Im Prinzip ist das wie Mastodons Filtereinstellung "Mit einer Warnung ausblenden", die es seit Version 4.0 vom Oktober 2022 gibt. Nur hatte Friendica genau dieses Feature schon gut zwölf Jahre vor Mastodon. Und in sehr viel einfacher. Statt nämlich für jedes Schlüsselwort aufwendig jeweils eine Filtereinstellung zusammenklicken zu müssen, gibt's eine Liste von Schlüsselwörtern, wo man neue einfach eintragen kann.
Teil der Kultur auf Friendica und seinen Nachfahren und ganz besonders ab Hubzilla ist Self-Empowerment. Selbstmoderation. Selbst dafür zu sorgen, daß im eigenen Stream Ruhe herrscht, statt sich von vorne bis hinten verhätscheln und sich alles auf dem Silbertablett servieren zu lassen. Teil der Kultur ist damit auch, sich seine CWs leserseitig ganz individuell für sich selbst generieren zu lassen, und wenn man selbst unangenehme Inhalte postet, entsprechende Schlüsselwörter einzubauen.
Da kannst du als Mastodon-Nutzer noch so sehr auf CWs gemäß Mastodon-Kultur und Mastodon-Regeln pochen. Auf Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte wird dir jeder sagen, daß es eine unausgegorene Kacklösung ist, das Zusammenfassungsfeld für sowas zu mißbrauchen, und Friendica, Hubzilla, (streams) und Forte es tausendmal eleganter machen. Wer auf den vieren etwas von Mastodon versteht, kann sogar anmerken, daß genau die Vorgehensweise von Friendica & Co. seit gut dreieinhalb Jahren auch auf Mastodon geht.
Auf Mastodon beißt unsereins aber auf Granitkeks, weil:- Auf Mastodon gilt: Jeder Beitrag ist ein Mastodon-Tröt, es sei denn, er fällt extrem aus dem Rahmen (z. B. Titel in fett, Zusammenfassung, externer Link, das war's). Wenn etwas nicht von Mastodon kommt, merken viele das gar nicht. Und annähernd niemand kann sagen, woher etwas kommt, wenn nicht von Mastodon.
- Mehr als die Hälfte der Mastodon-Nutzer "weiß" (will sagen, glaubt zu wissen), daß das Fediverse nur aus Mastodon besteht.
- Nur wenige wissen, daß Friendica existiert.
- Von denen wissen nur wenige, daß Friendica mit Mastodon verbunden ist und mit Mastodon Inhalte austauscht.
- Von Hubzilla wissen noch sehr viel weniger Leute, von dessen Nachfahren ganz zu schweigen.
- Das Argument, daß Friendica und Hubzilla schon vor Mastodon da waren, zieht schon deshalb nicht, weil von denen, die schon mal von einem von den beiden gehört haben, sich niemand vorstellen kann, daß sie älter sind als Mastodon. "Jeder weiß" (will sagen, glaubt zu wissen), daß Mastodon der Urknall des Fediverse war und alles andere erst danach dazugekommen ist, weil Gargron ja die ganze Technologie erst erfunden hat.
- Was diese Serveranwendungen können, wissen nochmals weniger Leute. Und wenn Mastodon etwas nicht kann, ist es unvorstellbar, daß irgendwas im Fediverse das kann.
- Sogar Mastodons "Mit einer Warnung ausblenden" ist komplett unbekannt. Es hätte Mastodons CW-Kultur revolutionieren können, hat es aber nicht.
- Obendrein wurde Mastodons Kultur, die dem gesamten Fediverse aufgezwungen wird, Mitte 2022 definiert von denjenigen, die im Februar und März von Twitter abgehauen waren. Also noch auf Basis von Mastodon 3.x. Was seitdem an neuen Features dazugekommen ist, ist praktisch samt und sonders nie Teil der Mastodon-Kultur geworden.
- Letztlich "weiß" jeder auf Mastodon (will sagen, glaubt zu wissen), daß Gargron das CW-Feld von Grund auf neu erfunden hat, daß es also nie als irgendetwas anderes verwendet worden ist und auch jetzt nicht wird.
So werden weiterhin Mastodon-Nutzer von Friendica-, Hubzilla-, (streams)- und Forte-Nutzern verlangen, a) Inhaltswarnungen ins Zusammenfassungsfeld zu schreiben, b) das Zusammenfassungsfeld nur für Inhaltswarnungen zu nehmen (und nicht etwa für Zusammenfassungen, das wäre ja Mißbrauch) und c) die Zahl der Hashtags zu reduzieren (die die Friendica-, Hubzilla-, (streams)- und Forte-Nutzer verwenden, um Schlüsselwörter zum Filtern diskret im Beitrag unterbringen zu können).
Und weil Mastodon-Nutzer beim Durchsetzen ihrer Idealvorstellungen von einem Fediverse ein "Nein" nicht akzeptieren, wird sehr bald über "durchaus freundliche Hinweise" hinaus eskaliert. Ich selbst bin wahrscheinlich schon zigtausendfach blockiert worden, nur weil ich mich nicht wie ein Mastodon-Nutzer verhalte.
Wahrscheinlich würden sich exakt dieselben Mastodon-Nutzer aufregen wie das HB-Männchen, wenn sie erfahren würden, daß Friendica-Nutzer sie blockieren, weil sie z. B. das Zusammenfassungsfeld für Inhaltswarnungen mißbrauchen oder lange Posts in kleine Schnipsel von unter 500 Zeichen zerschneiden (für letzteren Fall kenne ich tatsächlich jemanden auf Friendica und inzwischen auch jemanden auf Akkoma).
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #LangerPost #CWLangerPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #NichtNurMastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla #Streams #(streams) #Forte #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta -
The hierarchisation of triggers - The taxonomic classification of harm to bodies and the normalisation of violence
A mainstream media case:
When violence against pets takes place there is usually a strong trigger warning (TW) or content warnings (CW) before the act is shown/described on the mainstream media.
These warnings are supposed to avoid distress or trigger flashbacks in information consumers. It is giving them time to brace themselves in a hostile world or curl up in their inner bunker.
* When it comes to animals, such as pet abuse or injured wildlife there is often a warning by the ABCNEWS >
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=animal%20cruelty"Warning: This story contains descriptions and video of alleged animal abuse."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/no-conviction-for-queensland-health-employee-who-beat-puppy/106660238"WARNING: Readers are advised that this article contains a graphic image of an injured animal."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-26/koala-killed-after-being-dragged-behind-vehicle/106497782* The ubiquitous sexualised violence also gets a CW.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-13/hamas-systematically-used-rape-october-7-report-says/106672368* Livestock abuse often is without any warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=cattle%20animal%20abuse* Attacks on workers, or workplace injuries or death 'news' also seems to go without warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=work%20accident* The mass violence of warfare depicted on mainstream media and platform screens running 24/7 is mostly without warnings
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=gaza#violence #visibility #ContentWarning #TW #CW #newsworthiness #MSM #MediaLandscape #AustralianBroadcastingCorporation #ABCNEWS #EditorialGatekeeping #platforms #algorithms #regulation #SocialMedia #harm #HierarchicalSystem #bodies ##workers #pets #dogs #cats #livestock #meat #framing #EmotionalValence #OHS #NormalisationOfViolence #genocide
-
The hierarchisation of triggers - The taxonomic classification of harm to bodies and the normalisation of violence
A mainstream media case:
When violence against pets takes place there is usually a strong trigger warning (TW) or content warnings (CW) before the act is shown/described on the mainstream media.
These warnings are supposed to avoid distress or trigger flashbacks in information consumers. It is giving them time to brace themselves in a hostile world or curl up in their inner bunker.
* When it comes to animals, such as pet abuse or injured wildlife there is often a warning by the ABCNEWS >
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=animal%20cruelty"Warning: This story contains descriptions and video of alleged animal abuse."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/no-conviction-for-queensland-health-employee-who-beat-puppy/106660238"WARNING: Readers are advised that this article contains a graphic image of an injured animal."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-26/koala-killed-after-being-dragged-behind-vehicle/106497782* The ubiquitous sexualised violence also gets a CW.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-13/hamas-systematically-used-rape-october-7-report-says/106672368* Livestock abuse often is without any warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=cattle%20animal%20abuse* Attacks on workers, or workplace injuries or death 'news' also seems to go without warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=work%20accident* The mass violence of warfare depicted on mainstream media and platform screens running 24/7 is mostly without warnings
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=gaza#violence #visibility #ContentWarning #TW #CW #newsworthiness #MSM #MediaLandscape #AustralianBroadcastingCorporation #ABCNEWS #EditorialGatekeeping #platforms #algorithms #regulation #SocialMedia #harm #HierarchicalSystem #bodies ##workers #pets #dogs #cats #livestock #meat #framing #EmotionalValence #OHS #NormalisationOfViolence #genocide
-
The hierarchisation of triggers - The taxonomic classification of harm to bodies and the normalisation of violence
A mainstream media case:
When violence against pets takes place there is usually a strong trigger warning (TW) or content warnings (CW) before the act is shown/described on the mainstream media.
These warnings are supposed to avoid distress or trigger flashbacks in information consumers. It is giving them time to brace themselves in a hostile world or curl up in their inner bunker.
* When it comes to animals, such as pet abuse or injured wildlife there is often a warning by the ABCNEWS >
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=animal%20cruelty"Warning: This story contains descriptions and video of alleged animal abuse."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/no-conviction-for-queensland-health-employee-who-beat-puppy/106660238"WARNING: Readers are advised that this article contains a graphic image of an injured animal."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-26/koala-killed-after-being-dragged-behind-vehicle/106497782* The ubiquitous sexualised violence also gets a CW.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-13/hamas-systematically-used-rape-october-7-report-says/106672368* Livestock abuse often is without any warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=cattle%20animal%20abuse* Attacks on workers, or workplace injuries or death 'news' also seems to go without warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=work%20accident* The mass violence of warfare depicted on mainstream media and platform screens running 24/7 is mostly without warnings
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=gaza#violence #visibility #ContentWarning #TW #CW #newsworthiness #MSM #MediaLandscape #AustralianBroadcastingCorporation #ABCNEWS #EditorialGatekeeping #platforms #algorithms #regulation #SocialMedia #harm #HierarchicalSystem #bodies ##workers #pets #dogs #cats #livestock #meat #framing #EmotionalValence #OHS #NormalisationOfViolence #genocide
-
The hierarchisation of triggers - The taxonomic classification of harm to bodies and the normalisation of violence
A mainstream media case:
When violence against pets takes place there is usually a strong trigger warning (TW) or content warnings (CW) before the act is shown/described on the mainstream media.
These warnings are supposed to avoid distress or trigger flashbacks in information consumers. It is giving them time to brace themselves in a hostile world or curl up in their inner bunker.
* When it comes to animals, such as pet abuse or injured wildlife there is often a warning by the ABCNEWS >
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=animal%20cruelty"Warning: This story contains descriptions and video of alleged animal abuse."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/no-conviction-for-queensland-health-employee-who-beat-puppy/106660238"WARNING: Readers are advised that this article contains a graphic image of an injured animal."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-26/koala-killed-after-being-dragged-behind-vehicle/106497782* The ubiquitous sexualised violence also gets a CW.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-13/hamas-systematically-used-rape-october-7-report-says/106672368* Livestock abuse often is without any warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=cattle%20animal%20abuse* Attacks on workers, or workplace injuries or death 'news' also seems to go without warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=work%20accident* The mass violence of warfare depicted on mainstream media and platform screens running 24/7 is mostly without warnings
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=gaza#violence #visibility #ContentWarning #TW #CW #newsworthiness #MSM #MediaLandscape #AustralianBroadcastingCorporation #ABCNEWS #EditorialGatekeeping #platforms #algorithms #regulation #SocialMedia #harm #HierarchicalSystem #bodies ##workers #pets #dogs #cats #livestock #meat #framing #EmotionalValence #OHS #NormalisationOfViolence #genocide
-
The hierarchisation of triggers - The taxonomic classification of harm to bodies and the normalisation of violence
A mainstream media case:
When violence against pets takes place there is usually a strong trigger warning (TW) or content warnings (CW) before the act is shown/described on the mainstream media.
These warnings are supposed to avoid distress or trigger flashbacks in information consumers. It is giving them time to brace themselves in a hostile world or curl up in their inner bunker.
* When it comes to animals, such as pet abuse or injured wildlife there is often a warning by the ABCNEWS >
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=animal%20cruelty"Warning: This story contains descriptions and video of alleged animal abuse."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/no-conviction-for-queensland-health-employee-who-beat-puppy/106660238"WARNING: Readers are advised that this article contains a graphic image of an injured animal."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-26/koala-killed-after-being-dragged-behind-vehicle/106497782* The ubiquitous sexualised violence also gets a CW.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-13/hamas-systematically-used-rape-october-7-report-says/106672368* Livestock abuse often is without any warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=cattle%20animal%20abuse* Attacks on workers, or workplace injuries or death 'news' also seems to go without warnings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=work%20accident* The mass violence of warfare depicted on mainstream media and platform screens running 24/7 is mostly without warnings
https://www.abc.net.au/news/search?query=gaza#violence #visibility #ContentWarning #TW #CW #newsworthiness #MSM #MediaLandscape #AustralianBroadcastingCorporation #ABCNEWS #EditorialGatekeeping #platforms #algorithms #regulation #SocialMedia #harm #HierarchicalSystem #bodies ##workers #pets #dogs #cats #livestock #meat #framing #EmotionalValence #OHS #NormalisationOfViolence #genocide
-
CW: Gute Bildbeschreibungen bringen einen sehr viel größeren Aufwand mit sich, als ihr vielleicht glaubt; CW: lang (über 6.000 Zeichen), Fediverse-Meta, Fediverse-über-Mastodon-hinaus-Meta, Zeichenlimit-Meta, Inhaltswarnungen-Meta/Content-Warning-Meta, Hashtag-Meta, Alt-Text-Meta, Bildbeschreibungen-Meta, KI erwähnt (KI-)
(Ausnahmsweise auch mal auf Deutsch. Die englische Version ist hier.)
Bildbeschreibungen sind wichtig im Fediverse, zumindest wenn eure Posts möglicherweise auf Mastodon landen werden. Aber geht es nur um Bildbeschreibungen ganz allgemein? Geht es nur darum, überhaupt Bildbeschreibungen zu haben? Oder geht es auch um die Qualität der Bildbeschreibungen?
Blinde oder sehbehinderte Nutzer sagen, daß alles besser ist als nichts. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich, der Dateiname der Bilddatei als Alt-Text ist nutzlos. Eine Kopie des Post-Texts im Alt-Text auch; mindestens eine Handy-App für Mastodon macht das scheinbar automatisch. Irgendwelcher Kauderwelsch, der in den Alt-Text reingeschrieben wird, damit da irgendein Alt-Text steht, ist auch nutzlos.
Also schreibt ihr eine kurze Bildbeschreibung für euren Alt-Text. Das sollte viel besser sein als nichts.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung nicht detailliert genug ist.
Weil ihr eine längere Bildbeschreibung nicht schreiben könnt oder wollt, überlaßt ihr das einer KI.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung offensichtlicher KI-Slop ist. Die KI ist ungenau, sie halluziniert, sie identifizert Sachen falsch, und sie läßt immer noch Details aus.
Okay, also setzt ihr euch hin und steckt einen Haufen Zeit und Aufwand in eine handgeschriebene Bildbeschreibung, die gleichermaßen akkurat und detailliert ist. Zumindest glaubt ihr das.
Und es könnte immer noch jemand kommen und euch kritisieren und/oder sanktionieren, weil ihr bestimmte Details ausgelassen habt.
Wenn ihr eure Bildbeschreibung nicht zu deren Zufriedenheit in Ordnung bringt, dann werdet ihr als ableistisch beschimpft und blockiert mit öffentlichem Trara, damit möglichst viele andere Nutzer euch auch blockieren mögen.
Nun entwickeln sich die Mindestanforderungen für Bildbeschreibungen über die Jahre immer weiter. Was heute wichtig ist, war vor zwei Jahren nicht unbedingt wichtig. Was heute unwichtig ist, kann in zwei oder fünf Jahren durchaus auf einmal wichtig sein. Heute schon kritisieren Alt-Text-Aktivisten Bildposts, die schon etliche Jahre alt sind, aufgrund von deren Bildbeschreibungen, die sie als suboptimal ansehen. Das bedeutet, daß die Bildbeschreibungen, die ihr heute schreibt, noch so lange gut genug bleiben müssen, wie eure Bilderposts verfügbar bleiben. Falls nicht, viel Spaß dabei, durch alle eure alten Bilderposts zu gehen, sie alle zu editieren und bei allen die Bildbeschreibungen an die aktuellen Mindestanforderungen anzupassen.
Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit, langfristig vor Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei sicher zu sein: Als allererstes müßt ihr euch aufschlauen über die vielen Regeln und Richtlinien für Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen, und darüber gibt's dutzendweise englischsprachige Websites. Man kann unmöglich im voraus wissen, welche dieser Regeln von irgendjemandem bei der Alt-Text-Polizei irgendwann in der Zukunft für zwingend erforderlich erklärt werden, also solltet ihr sie jetzt schon bis aufs i-Tüpfelchen einhalten. Wenn zwei davon sich gegenseitig widersprechen, müßt ihr natürlich wissen, welche davon ihr einzuhalten habt.
Ihr müßt auch wissen, daß die Anforderungen und Qualitätsstandards für gute Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen auf Mastodon ganz andere sind als im ganzen Rest des Web. Was fürs Web gut genug ist, ist nicht zwingend auch gut genug für Mastodon.
Zu guter Letzt müßt ihr euer Publikum kennen. Und normalerweise kann jeder irgendwo im Fediverse oder sogar im Web euer Publikum sein. Es gibt nur ganz wenige Orte im Fediverse, wo ihr steuern könnt, wer in der Lage sein wird, euer Zeugs zu lesen, und Mastodon gehört nicht dazu. Ihr müßt euer Publikum kennen, und ihr müßt zumindest einschätzen können, was euer Publikum über den Inhalt eures Bildes weiß, was es nicht weiß und was es wissen muß. Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, was etwas ist, erklärt es, aber bitte im Post-Text und nicht im Alt-Text! Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, wie etwas aussieht, das aber vielleicht wissen will, dann beschreibt es.
Bei meinen eigenen Bildern ist meine Strategie, für jedes Bild zwei Beschreibungen zu schreiben. Die eine ist die kurze Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Alt-Text. Die werde ich in Zukunft auf maximal 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und seine Forks Alt-Texte, die länger als 512 Zeichen sind, löschen. Die andere ist die lange Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Post-Text. Die lange Bildbeschreibung ist volldetailliert, sie enthält alle Erklärungen, die zum Verständnis des Bildes und seiner Beschreibungen nötig sind, und sie enthält Transkripte von jedem einzelnen Stück Text, das es irgendwo innerhalb der Grenzen des Bildes gibt, egal, ob auf dem Bild lesbar oder nicht.
Memes zu posten, ist ein Stück weit einfacher. Es gibt nur eine Bildbeschreibung, die hoffentlich kurz genug für den Alt-Text ist. Aber trotzdem habe ich einen ganzen Haufen Sachen zu erklären, und weil ich mich nicht immer auf Links wie nach KnowYourMeme verlassen kann, muß ich oft selbst eine ganze Menge Erklärungen in den Post schreiben.
Idealerweise ist das Schlimmste, was mir passieren kann, daß ich dafür kritisiert werde, daß mein Alt-Text die 200-Zeichen-Marke oder mein Post die 500-Zeichen-Marke überschreitet, oder daß ich für das Letztere blockiert werde. Das Risiko, daß das passiert, reduziere ich mit einer Zusammenfassung, die eine Langer-Post-Inhaltswarnung mit der ungefähren Länge des Post enthält, und den Hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong, #CWLongPost, #LangerPost und #CWLangerPost, die dann gefiltert werden können.
Aber ich hoffe, daß keiner sagen kann, ich hätte mich nicht genug angestrengt.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #500Zeichen #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta -
CW: Gute Bildbeschreibungen bringen einen sehr viel größeren Aufwand mit sich, als ihr vielleicht glaubt; CW: lang (über 6.000 Zeichen), Fediverse-Meta, Fediverse-über-Mastodon-hinaus-Meta, Zeichenlimit-Meta, Inhaltswarnungen-Meta/Content-Warning-Meta, Hashtag-Meta, Alt-Text-Meta, Bildbeschreibungen-Meta, KI erwähnt (KI-)
(Ausnahmsweise auch mal auf Deutsch. Die englische Version ist hier.)
Bildbeschreibungen sind wichtig im Fediverse, zumindest wenn eure Posts möglicherweise auf Mastodon landen werden. Aber geht es nur um Bildbeschreibungen ganz allgemein? Geht es nur darum, überhaupt Bildbeschreibungen zu haben? Oder geht es auch um die Qualität der Bildbeschreibungen?
Blinde oder sehbehinderte Nutzer sagen, daß alles besser ist als nichts. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich, der Dateiname der Bilddatei als Alt-Text ist nutzlos. Eine Kopie des Post-Texts im Alt-Text auch; mindestens eine Handy-App für Mastodon macht das scheinbar automatisch. Irgendwelcher Kauderwelsch, der in den Alt-Text reingeschrieben wird, damit da irgendein Alt-Text steht, ist auch nutzlos.
Also schreibt ihr eine kurze Bildbeschreibung für euren Alt-Text. Das sollte viel besser sein als nichts.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung nicht detailliert genug ist.
Weil ihr eine längere Bildbeschreibung nicht schreiben könnt oder wollt, überlaßt ihr das einer KI.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung offensichtlicher KI-Slop ist. Die KI ist ungenau, sie halluziniert, sie identifizert Sachen falsch, und sie läßt immer noch Details aus.
Okay, also setzt ihr euch hin und steckt einen Haufen Zeit und Aufwand in eine handgeschriebene Bildbeschreibung, die gleichermaßen akkurat und detailliert ist. Zumindest glaubt ihr das.
Und es könnte immer noch jemand kommen und euch kritisieren und/oder sanktionieren, weil ihr bestimmte Details ausgelassen habt.
Wenn ihr eure Bildbeschreibung nicht zu deren Zufriedenheit in Ordnung bringt, dann werdet ihr als ableistisch beschimpft und blockiert mit öffentlichem Trara, damit möglichst viele andere Nutzer euch auch blockieren mögen.
Nun entwickeln sich die Mindestanforderungen für Bildbeschreibungen über die Jahre immer weiter. Was heute wichtig ist, war vor zwei Jahren nicht unbedingt wichtig. Was heute unwichtig ist, kann in zwei oder fünf Jahren durchaus auf einmal wichtig sein. Heute schon kritisieren Alt-Text-Aktivisten Bildposts, die schon etliche Jahre alt sind, aufgrund von deren Bildbeschreibungen, die sie als suboptimal ansehen. Das bedeutet, daß die Bildbeschreibungen, die ihr heute schreibt, noch so lange gut genug bleiben müssen, wie eure Bilderposts verfügbar bleiben. Falls nicht, viel Spaß dabei, durch alle eure alten Bilderposts zu gehen, sie alle zu editieren und bei allen die Bildbeschreibungen an die aktuellen Mindestanforderungen anzupassen.
Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit, langfristig vor Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei sicher zu sein: Als allererstes müßt ihr euch aufschlauen über die vielen Regeln und Richtlinien für Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen, und darüber gibt's dutzendweise englischsprachige Websites. Man kann unmöglich im voraus wissen, welche dieser Regeln von irgendjemandem bei der Alt-Text-Polizei irgendwann in der Zukunft für zwingend erforderlich erklärt werden, also solltet ihr sie jetzt schon bis aufs i-Tüpfelchen einhalten. Wenn zwei davon sich gegenseitig widersprechen, müßt ihr natürlich wissen, welche davon ihr einzuhalten habt.
Ihr müßt auch wissen, daß die Anforderungen und Qualitätsstandards für gute Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen auf Mastodon ganz andere sind als im ganzen Rest des Web. Was fürs Web gut genug ist, ist nicht zwingend auch gut genug für Mastodon.
Zu guter Letzt müßt ihr euer Publikum kennen. Und normalerweise kann jeder irgendwo im Fediverse oder sogar im Web euer Publikum sein. Es gibt nur ganz wenige Orte im Fediverse, wo ihr steuern könnt, wer in der Lage sein wird, euer Zeugs zu lesen, und Mastodon gehört nicht dazu. Ihr müßt euer Publikum kennen, und ihr müßt zumindest einschätzen können, was euer Publikum über den Inhalt eures Bildes weiß, was es nicht weiß und was es wissen muß. Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, was etwas ist, erklärt es, aber bitte im Post-Text und nicht im Alt-Text! Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, wie etwas aussieht, das aber vielleicht wissen will, dann beschreibt es.
Bei meinen eigenen Bildern ist meine Strategie, für jedes Bild zwei Beschreibungen zu schreiben. Die eine ist die kurze Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Alt-Text. Die werde ich in Zukunft auf maximal 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und seine Forks Alt-Texte, die länger als 512 Zeichen sind, löschen. Die andere ist die lange Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Post-Text. Die lange Bildbeschreibung ist volldetailliert, sie enthält alle Erklärungen, die zum Verständnis des Bildes und seiner Beschreibungen nötig sind, und sie enthält Transkripte von jedem einzelnen Stück Text, das es irgendwo innerhalb der Grenzen des Bildes gibt, egal, ob auf dem Bild lesbar oder nicht.
Memes zu posten, ist ein Stück weit einfacher. Es gibt nur eine Bildbeschreibung, die hoffentlich kurz genug für den Alt-Text ist. Aber trotzdem habe ich einen ganzen Haufen Sachen zu erklären, und weil ich mich nicht immer auf Links wie nach KnowYourMeme verlassen kann, muß ich oft selbst eine ganze Menge Erklärungen in den Post schreiben.
Idealerweise ist das Schlimmste, was mir passieren kann, daß ich dafür kritisiert werde, daß mein Alt-Text die 200-Zeichen-Marke oder mein Post die 500-Zeichen-Marke überschreitet, oder daß ich für das Letztere blockiert werde. Das Risiko, daß das passiert, reduziere ich mit einer Zusammenfassung, die eine Langer-Post-Inhaltswarnung mit der ungefähren Länge des Post enthält, und den Hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong, #CWLongPost, #LangerPost und #CWLangerPost, die dann gefiltert werden können.
Aber ich hoffe, daß keiner sagen kann, ich hätte mich nicht genug angestrengt.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #500Zeichen #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta -
CW: Gute Bildbeschreibungen bringen einen sehr viel größeren Aufwand mit sich, als ihr vielleicht glaubt; CW: lang (über 6.000 Zeichen), Fediverse-Meta, Fediverse-über-Mastodon-hinaus-Meta, Zeichenlimit-Meta, Inhaltswarnungen-Meta/Content-Warning-Meta, Hashtag-Meta, Alt-Text-Meta, Bildbeschreibungen-Meta, KI erwähnt (KI-)
(Ausnahmsweise auch mal auf Deutsch. Die englische Version ist hier.)
Bildbeschreibungen sind wichtig im Fediverse, zumindest wenn eure Posts möglicherweise auf Mastodon landen werden. Aber geht es nur um Bildbeschreibungen ganz allgemein? Geht es nur darum, überhaupt Bildbeschreibungen zu haben? Oder geht es auch um die Qualität der Bildbeschreibungen?
Blinde oder sehbehinderte Nutzer sagen, daß alles besser ist als nichts. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich, der Dateiname der Bilddatei als Alt-Text ist nutzlos. Eine Kopie des Post-Texts im Alt-Text auch; mindestens eine Handy-App für Mastodon macht das scheinbar automatisch. Irgendwelcher Kauderwelsch, der in den Alt-Text reingeschrieben wird, damit da irgendein Alt-Text steht, ist auch nutzlos.
Also schreibt ihr eine kurze Bildbeschreibung für euren Alt-Text. Das sollte viel besser sein als nichts.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung nicht detailliert genug ist.
Weil ihr eine längere Bildbeschreibung nicht schreiben könnt oder wollt, überlaßt ihr das einer KI.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung offensichtlicher KI-Slop ist. Die KI ist ungenau, sie halluziniert, sie identifizert Sachen falsch, und sie läßt immer noch Details aus.
Okay, also setzt ihr euch hin und steckt einen Haufen Zeit und Aufwand in eine handgeschriebene Bildbeschreibung, die gleichermaßen akkurat und detailliert ist. Zumindest glaubt ihr das.
Und es könnte immer noch jemand kommen und euch kritisieren und/oder sanktionieren, weil ihr bestimmte Details ausgelassen habt.
Wenn ihr eure Bildbeschreibung nicht zu deren Zufriedenheit in Ordnung bringt, dann werdet ihr als ableistisch beschimpft und blockiert mit öffentlichem Trara, damit möglichst viele andere Nutzer euch auch blockieren mögen.
Nun entwickeln sich die Mindestanforderungen für Bildbeschreibungen über die Jahre immer weiter. Was heute wichtig ist, war vor zwei Jahren nicht unbedingt wichtig. Was heute unwichtig ist, kann in zwei oder fünf Jahren durchaus auf einmal wichtig sein. Heute schon kritisieren Alt-Text-Aktivisten Bildposts, die schon etliche Jahre alt sind, aufgrund von deren Bildbeschreibungen, die sie als suboptimal ansehen. Das bedeutet, daß die Bildbeschreibungen, die ihr heute schreibt, noch so lange gut genug bleiben müssen, wie eure Bilderposts verfügbar bleiben. Falls nicht, viel Spaß dabei, durch alle eure alten Bilderposts zu gehen, sie alle zu editieren und bei allen die Bildbeschreibungen an die aktuellen Mindestanforderungen anzupassen.
Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit, langfristig vor Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei sicher zu sein: Als allererstes müßt ihr euch aufschlauen über die vielen Regeln und Richtlinien für Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen, und darüber gibt's dutzendweise englischsprachige Websites. Man kann unmöglich im voraus wissen, welche dieser Regeln von irgendjemandem bei der Alt-Text-Polizei irgendwann in der Zukunft für zwingend erforderlich erklärt werden, also solltet ihr sie jetzt schon bis aufs i-Tüpfelchen einhalten. Wenn zwei davon sich gegenseitig widersprechen, müßt ihr natürlich wissen, welche davon ihr einzuhalten habt.
Ihr müßt auch wissen, daß die Anforderungen und Qualitätsstandards für gute Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen auf Mastodon ganz andere sind als im ganzen Rest des Web. Was fürs Web gut genug ist, ist nicht zwingend auch gut genug für Mastodon.
Zu guter Letzt müßt ihr euer Publikum kennen. Und normalerweise kann jeder irgendwo im Fediverse oder sogar im Web euer Publikum sein. Es gibt nur ganz wenige Orte im Fediverse, wo ihr steuern könnt, wer in der Lage sein wird, euer Zeugs zu lesen, und Mastodon gehört nicht dazu. Ihr müßt euer Publikum kennen, und ihr müßt zumindest einschätzen können, was euer Publikum über den Inhalt eures Bildes weiß, was es nicht weiß und was es wissen muß. Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, was etwas ist, erklärt es, aber bitte im Post-Text und nicht im Alt-Text! Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, wie etwas aussieht, das aber vielleicht wissen will, dann beschreibt es.
Bei meinen eigenen Bildern ist meine Strategie, für jedes Bild zwei Beschreibungen zu schreiben. Die eine ist die kurze Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Alt-Text. Die werde ich in Zukunft auf maximal 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und seine Forks Alt-Texte, die länger als 512 Zeichen sind, löschen. Die andere ist die lange Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Post-Text. Die lange Bildbeschreibung ist volldetailliert, sie enthält alle Erklärungen, die zum Verständnis des Bildes und seiner Beschreibungen nötig sind, und sie enthält Transkripte von jedem einzelnen Stück Text, das es irgendwo innerhalb der Grenzen des Bildes gibt, egal, ob auf dem Bild lesbar oder nicht.
Memes zu posten, ist ein Stück weit einfacher. Es gibt nur eine Bildbeschreibung, die hoffentlich kurz genug für den Alt-Text ist. Aber trotzdem habe ich einen ganzen Haufen Sachen zu erklären, und weil ich mich nicht immer auf Links wie nach KnowYourMeme verlassen kann, muß ich oft selbst eine ganze Menge Erklärungen in den Post schreiben.
Idealerweise ist das Schlimmste, was mir passieren kann, daß ich dafür kritisiert werde, daß mein Alt-Text die 200-Zeichen-Marke oder mein Post die 500-Zeichen-Marke überschreitet, oder daß ich für das Letztere blockiert werde. Das Risiko, daß das passiert, reduziere ich mit einer Zusammenfassung, die eine Langer-Post-Inhaltswarnung mit der ungefähren Länge des Post enthält, und den Hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong, #CWLongPost, #LangerPost und #CWLangerPost, die dann gefiltert werden können.
Aber ich hoffe, daß keiner sagen kann, ich hätte mich nicht genug angestrengt.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #500Zeichen #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta -
CW: Gute Bildbeschreibungen bringen einen sehr viel größeren Aufwand mit sich, als ihr vielleicht glaubt; CW: lang (über 6.000 Zeichen), Fediverse-Meta, Fediverse-über-Mastodon-hinaus-Meta, Zeichenlimit-Meta, Inhaltswarnungen-Meta/Content-Warning-Meta, Hashtag-Meta, Alt-Text-Meta, Bildbeschreibungen-Meta, KI erwähnt (KI-)
(Ausnahmsweise auch mal auf Deutsch. Die englische Version ist hier.)
Bildbeschreibungen sind wichtig im Fediverse, zumindest wenn eure Posts möglicherweise auf Mastodon landen werden. Aber geht es nur um Bildbeschreibungen ganz allgemein? Geht es nur darum, überhaupt Bildbeschreibungen zu haben? Oder geht es auch um die Qualität der Bildbeschreibungen?
Blinde oder sehbehinderte Nutzer sagen, daß alles besser ist als nichts. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich, der Dateiname der Bilddatei als Alt-Text ist nutzlos. Eine Kopie des Post-Texts im Alt-Text auch; mindestens eine Handy-App für Mastodon macht das scheinbar automatisch. Irgendwelcher Kauderwelsch, der in den Alt-Text reingeschrieben wird, damit da irgendein Alt-Text steht, ist auch nutzlos.
Also schreibt ihr eine kurze Bildbeschreibung für euren Alt-Text. Das sollte viel besser sein als nichts.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung nicht detailliert genug ist.
Weil ihr eine längere Bildbeschreibung nicht schreiben könnt oder wollt, überlaßt ihr das einer KI.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung offensichtlicher KI-Slop ist. Die KI ist ungenau, sie halluziniert, sie identifizert Sachen falsch, und sie läßt immer noch Details aus.
Okay, also setzt ihr euch hin und steckt einen Haufen Zeit und Aufwand in eine handgeschriebene Bildbeschreibung, die gleichermaßen akkurat und detailliert ist. Zumindest glaubt ihr das.
Und es könnte immer noch jemand kommen und euch kritisieren und/oder sanktionieren, weil ihr bestimmte Details ausgelassen habt.
Wenn ihr eure Bildbeschreibung nicht zu deren Zufriedenheit in Ordnung bringt, dann werdet ihr als ableistisch beschimpft und blockiert mit öffentlichem Trara, damit möglichst viele andere Nutzer euch auch blockieren mögen.
Nun entwickeln sich die Mindestanforderungen für Bildbeschreibungen über die Jahre immer weiter. Was heute wichtig ist, war vor zwei Jahren nicht unbedingt wichtig. Was heute unwichtig ist, kann in zwei oder fünf Jahren durchaus auf einmal wichtig sein. Heute schon kritisieren Alt-Text-Aktivisten Bildposts, die schon etliche Jahre alt sind, aufgrund von deren Bildbeschreibungen, die sie als suboptimal ansehen. Das bedeutet, daß die Bildbeschreibungen, die ihr heute schreibt, noch so lange gut genug bleiben müssen, wie eure Bilderposts verfügbar bleiben. Falls nicht, viel Spaß dabei, durch alle eure alten Bilderposts zu gehen, sie alle zu editieren und bei allen die Bildbeschreibungen an die aktuellen Mindestanforderungen anzupassen.
Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit, langfristig vor Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei sicher zu sein: Als allererstes müßt ihr euch aufschlauen über die vielen Regeln und Richtlinien für Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen, und darüber gibt's dutzendweise englischsprachige Websites. Man kann unmöglich im voraus wissen, welche dieser Regeln von irgendjemandem bei der Alt-Text-Polizei irgendwann in der Zukunft für zwingend erforderlich erklärt werden, also solltet ihr sie jetzt schon bis aufs i-Tüpfelchen einhalten. Wenn zwei davon sich gegenseitig widersprechen, müßt ihr natürlich wissen, welche davon ihr einzuhalten habt.
Ihr müßt auch wissen, daß die Anforderungen und Qualitätsstandards für gute Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen auf Mastodon ganz andere sind als im ganzen Rest des Web. Was fürs Web gut genug ist, ist nicht zwingend auch gut genug für Mastodon.
Zu guter Letzt müßt ihr euer Publikum kennen. Und normalerweise kann jeder irgendwo im Fediverse oder sogar im Web euer Publikum sein. Es gibt nur ganz wenige Orte im Fediverse, wo ihr steuern könnt, wer in der Lage sein wird, euer Zeugs zu lesen, und Mastodon gehört nicht dazu. Ihr müßt euer Publikum kennen, und ihr müßt zumindest einschätzen können, was euer Publikum über den Inhalt eures Bildes weiß, was es nicht weiß und was es wissen muß. Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, was etwas ist, erklärt es, aber bitte im Post-Text und nicht im Alt-Text! Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, wie etwas aussieht, das aber vielleicht wissen will, dann beschreibt es.
Bei meinen eigenen Bildern ist meine Strategie, für jedes Bild zwei Beschreibungen zu schreiben. Die eine ist die kurze Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Alt-Text. Die werde ich in Zukunft auf maximal 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und seine Forks Alt-Texte, die länger als 512 Zeichen sind, löschen. Die andere ist die lange Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Post-Text. Die lange Bildbeschreibung ist volldetailliert, sie enthält alle Erklärungen, die zum Verständnis des Bildes und seiner Beschreibungen nötig sind, und sie enthält Transkripte von jedem einzelnen Stück Text, das es irgendwo innerhalb der Grenzen des Bildes gibt, egal, ob auf dem Bild lesbar oder nicht.
Memes zu posten, ist ein Stück weit einfacher. Es gibt nur eine Bildbeschreibung, die hoffentlich kurz genug für den Alt-Text ist. Aber trotzdem habe ich einen ganzen Haufen Sachen zu erklären, und weil ich mich nicht immer auf Links wie nach KnowYourMeme verlassen kann, muß ich oft selbst eine ganze Menge Erklärungen in den Post schreiben.
Idealerweise ist das Schlimmste, was mir passieren kann, daß ich dafür kritisiert werde, daß mein Alt-Text die 200-Zeichen-Marke oder mein Post die 500-Zeichen-Marke überschreitet, oder daß ich für das Letztere blockiert werde. Das Risiko, daß das passiert, reduziere ich mit einer Zusammenfassung, die eine Langer-Post-Inhaltswarnung mit der ungefähren Länge des Post enthält, und den Hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong, #CWLongPost, #LangerPost und #CWLangerPost, die dann gefiltert werden können.
Aber ich hoffe, daß keiner sagen kann, ich hätte mich nicht genug angestrengt.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #500Zeichen #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta -
CW: Gute Bildbeschreibungen bringen einen sehr viel größeren Aufwand mit sich, als ihr vielleicht glaubt; CW: lang (über 6.000 Zeichen), Fediverse-Meta, Fediverse-über-Mastodon-hinaus-Meta, Zeichenlimit-Meta, Inhaltswarnungen-Meta/Content-Warning-Meta, Hashtag-Meta, Alt-Text-Meta, Bildbeschreibungen-Meta, KI erwähnt (KI-)
(Ausnahmsweise auch mal auf Deutsch. Die englische Version ist hier.)
Bildbeschreibungen sind wichtig im Fediverse, zumindest wenn eure Posts möglicherweise auf Mastodon landen werden. Aber geht es nur um Bildbeschreibungen ganz allgemein? Geht es nur darum, überhaupt Bildbeschreibungen zu haben? Oder geht es auch um die Qualität der Bildbeschreibungen?
Blinde oder sehbehinderte Nutzer sagen, daß alles besser ist als nichts. Aber seien wir mal ehrlich, der Dateiname der Bilddatei als Alt-Text ist nutzlos. Eine Kopie des Post-Texts im Alt-Text auch; mindestens eine Handy-App für Mastodon macht das scheinbar automatisch. Irgendwelcher Kauderwelsch, der in den Alt-Text reingeschrieben wird, damit da irgendein Alt-Text steht, ist auch nutzlos.
Also schreibt ihr eine kurze Bildbeschreibung für euren Alt-Text. Das sollte viel besser sein als nichts.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung nicht detailliert genug ist.
Weil ihr eine längere Bildbeschreibung nicht schreiben könnt oder wollt, überlaßt ihr das einer KI.
Und dann werdet ihr kritisiert und sanktioniert, weil eure Bildbeschreibung offensichtlicher KI-Slop ist. Die KI ist ungenau, sie halluziniert, sie identifizert Sachen falsch, und sie läßt immer noch Details aus.
Okay, also setzt ihr euch hin und steckt einen Haufen Zeit und Aufwand in eine handgeschriebene Bildbeschreibung, die gleichermaßen akkurat und detailliert ist. Zumindest glaubt ihr das.
Und es könnte immer noch jemand kommen und euch kritisieren und/oder sanktionieren, weil ihr bestimmte Details ausgelassen habt.
Wenn ihr eure Bildbeschreibung nicht zu deren Zufriedenheit in Ordnung bringt, dann werdet ihr als ableistisch beschimpft und blockiert mit öffentlichem Trara, damit möglichst viele andere Nutzer euch auch blockieren mögen.
Nun entwickeln sich die Mindestanforderungen für Bildbeschreibungen über die Jahre immer weiter. Was heute wichtig ist, war vor zwei Jahren nicht unbedingt wichtig. Was heute unwichtig ist, kann in zwei oder fünf Jahren durchaus auf einmal wichtig sein. Heute schon kritisieren Alt-Text-Aktivisten Bildposts, die schon etliche Jahre alt sind, aufgrund von deren Bildbeschreibungen, die sie als suboptimal ansehen. Das bedeutet, daß die Bildbeschreibungen, die ihr heute schreibt, noch so lange gut genug bleiben müssen, wie eure Bilderposts verfügbar bleiben. Falls nicht, viel Spaß dabei, durch alle eure alten Bilderposts zu gehen, sie alle zu editieren und bei allen die Bildbeschreibungen an die aktuellen Mindestanforderungen anzupassen.
Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit, langfristig vor Mastodons Alt-Text-Polizei sicher zu sein: Als allererstes müßt ihr euch aufschlauen über die vielen Regeln und Richtlinien für Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen, und darüber gibt's dutzendweise englischsprachige Websites. Man kann unmöglich im voraus wissen, welche dieser Regeln von irgendjemandem bei der Alt-Text-Polizei irgendwann in der Zukunft für zwingend erforderlich erklärt werden, also solltet ihr sie jetzt schon bis aufs i-Tüpfelchen einhalten. Wenn zwei davon sich gegenseitig widersprechen, müßt ihr natürlich wissen, welche davon ihr einzuhalten habt.
Ihr müßt auch wissen, daß die Anforderungen und Qualitätsstandards für gute Alt-Texte und Bildbeschreibungen auf Mastodon ganz andere sind als im ganzen Rest des Web. Was fürs Web gut genug ist, ist nicht zwingend auch gut genug für Mastodon.
Zu guter Letzt müßt ihr euer Publikum kennen. Und normalerweise kann jeder irgendwo im Fediverse oder sogar im Web euer Publikum sein. Es gibt nur ganz wenige Orte im Fediverse, wo ihr steuern könnt, wer in der Lage sein wird, euer Zeugs zu lesen, und Mastodon gehört nicht dazu. Ihr müßt euer Publikum kennen, und ihr müßt zumindest einschätzen können, was euer Publikum über den Inhalt eures Bildes weiß, was es nicht weiß und was es wissen muß. Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, was etwas ist, erklärt es, aber bitte im Post-Text und nicht im Alt-Text! Wenn euer Publikum nicht zwingend weiß, wie etwas aussieht, das aber vielleicht wissen will, dann beschreibt es.
Bei meinen eigenen Bildern ist meine Strategie, für jedes Bild zwei Beschreibungen zu schreiben. Die eine ist die kurze Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Alt-Text. Die werde ich in Zukunft auf maximal 512 Zeichen beschränken, weil Misskey und seine Forks Alt-Texte, die länger als 512 Zeichen sind, löschen. Die andere ist die lange Bildbeschreibung; die kommt in den Post-Text. Die lange Bildbeschreibung ist volldetailliert, sie enthält alle Erklärungen, die zum Verständnis des Bildes und seiner Beschreibungen nötig sind, und sie enthält Transkripte von jedem einzelnen Stück Text, das es irgendwo innerhalb der Grenzen des Bildes gibt, egal, ob auf dem Bild lesbar oder nicht.
Memes zu posten, ist ein Stück weit einfacher. Es gibt nur eine Bildbeschreibung, die hoffentlich kurz genug für den Alt-Text ist. Aber trotzdem habe ich einen ganzen Haufen Sachen zu erklären, und weil ich mich nicht immer auf Links wie nach KnowYourMeme verlassen kann, muß ich oft selbst eine ganze Menge Erklärungen in den Post schreiben.
Idealerweise ist das Schlimmste, was mir passieren kann, daß ich dafür kritisiert werde, daß mein Alt-Text die 200-Zeichen-Marke oder mein Post die 500-Zeichen-Marke überschreitet, oder daß ich für das Letztere blockiert werde. Das Risiko, daß das passiert, reduziere ich mit einer Zusammenfassung, die eine Langer-Post-Inhaltswarnung mit der ungefähren Länge des Post enthält, und den Hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong, #CWLongPost, #LangerPost und #CWLangerPost, die dann gefiltert werden können.
Aber ich hoffe, daß keiner sagen kann, ich hätte mich nicht genug angestrengt.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Zeichenlimit #Zeichenlimits #ZeichenlimitMeta #CWZeichenlimitMeta #500Zeichen #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #Bildbeschreibung #Bildbeschreibungen #BildbeschreibungenMeta #CWBildbeschreibungenMeta -
CW: Good image descriptions require a much bigger effort than you may think; CW: long (over 5,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, character limit meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned (AI-)
Image descriptions are important in the Fediverse, at least if your posts have a chance to reach Mastodon. But is it only about having image descriptions in general? Is it only about having image descriptions at all? Or is it about image description quality as well?
Blind or visually-impaired users say that anything is better than nothing. But seriously, the image file name as the alt-text is useless. So is a copy of the post text as the alt-text; at least one mobile app for Mastodon seems to do that automatically. So is some gibberish written into the alt-text, just so that there's some alt-text.
So you write a short image description for your alt-text. That should be much better than nothing.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description lacks detail.
Since you can't or don't want to write a longer description, you leave that to an AI.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description is obvious AI slop. The AI is inaccurate, it hallucinates, it misidentifies things and it still leaves out details.
Okay, so you sit down and put quite some time and effort into a hand-written image description that's both accurate and detailed. At least you think so.
And still, someone may come and criticise and/or sanction you for having left out certain details.
If you don't fix your image description to their satisfaction, you're insulted as ableist and blocked very publicly so that as many other users as possible block you, too.
Now, minimum quality standards for image descriptions are evolving over time. What matters now didn't necessarily matter two years ago. Things that don't matter now may matter in two years or in five years. Even today, alt-text activists criticise image posts that are several years old for image descriptions that they consider less than optimal. This means the image descriptions that you write today must be good enough for as long as your image posts stay available. If they aren't, have fun going through all your old image posts, editing them and upgrading the image descriptions to the latest minimum requirements.
There's only way to be safe from Mastodon's alt-text police in the long run: First of all, you must educate yourself about all the rules and guidelines of alt-texts and image descriptions, and there are dozens of websites about these. You can't know beforehand which ones of these rules will be declared mandatory by someone from the alt-text police in the future, so you'd better follow them to a tee already now. Of course, when two rules contradict each other, you must know which one to follow.
Also, you must know that the requirements and quality standards for good alt-texts and image descriptions on Mastodon are different from the entire rest of the Web. What's good enough for the Web isn't necessarily good enough for Mastodon.
Lastly, you must know your audience. And normally, your audience can be anyone anywhere in the Fediverse or even on the Web. There are only very few places in the Fediverse where you can control who will be able to read your stuff, and Mastodon isn't one of them. You must know your audience, and you must at least be able to estimate what they know about the contents of your image, what they don't know and what they need to know. If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something is, explain it, but please do so in the post text and not in the alt-text! If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something looks like, but it may want to know, describe what it looks like.
As for my own images, my strategy is to write two image descriptions for each image. One is the short image description; it goes into the alt-text. I'm going to limit that to a maximum of 512 characters because Misskey and its forks delete alt-texts that are over 512 characters long. The other one is the long image description; it goes into the post text. The long image description is fully detailed, it contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its descriptions, and it contains transcripts of every last bit of text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable in the image or not.
Posting memes is a bit easier. There is only one image description that's hopefully short enough to go into the alt-text. But I still need to explain a whole lot of things, and as I can't always rely upon links to websites like KnowYourMeme for explanations, I often have to write a whole lot of explanations into the post.
Ideally, the worst that could happen to me is being criticised for my alt-text exceeding 200 characters or my post exceeding 500 characters or being blocked for the latter. I reduce the chance for that to happen with a summary that includes a long post content warning with the rough length of the post and the hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong and #CWLongPost that can be filtered. I almost always add hashtags for folks to filter.
But I hope that nobody can say I haven't tried hard enough.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
CW: Good image descriptions require a much bigger effort than you may think; CW: long (over 5,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, character limit meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned (AI-)
Image descriptions are important in the Fediverse, at least if your posts have a chance to reach Mastodon. But is it only about having image descriptions in general? Is it only about having image descriptions at all? Or is it about image description quality as well?
Blind or visually-impaired users say that anything is better than nothing. But seriously, the image file name as the alt-text is useless. So is a copy of the post text as the alt-text; at least one mobile app for Mastodon seems to do that automatically. So is some gibberish written into the alt-text, just so that there's some alt-text.
So you write a short image description for your alt-text. That should be much better than nothing.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description lacks detail.
Since you can't or don't want to write a longer description, you leave that to an AI.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description is obvious AI slop. The AI is inaccurate, it hallucinates, it misidentifies things and it still leaves out details.
Okay, so you sit down and put quite some time and effort into a hand-written image description that's both accurate and detailed. At least you think so.
And still, someone may come and criticise and/or sanction you for having left out certain details.
If you don't fix your image description to their satisfaction, you're insulted as ableist and blocked very publicly so that as many other users as possible block you, too.
Now, minimum quality standards for image descriptions are evolving over time. What matters now didn't necessarily matter two years ago. Things that don't matter now may matter in two years or in five years. Even today, alt-text activists criticise image posts that are several years old for image descriptions that they consider less than optimal. This means the image descriptions that you write today must be good enough for as long as your image posts stay available. If they aren't, have fun going through all your old image posts, editing them and upgrading the image descriptions to the latest minimum requirements.
There's only way to be safe from Mastodon's alt-text police in the long run: First of all, you must educate yourself about all the rules and guidelines of alt-texts and image descriptions, and there are dozens of websites about these. You can't know beforehand which ones of these rules will be declared mandatory by someone from the alt-text police in the future, so you'd better follow them to a tee already now. Of course, when two rules contradict each other, you must know which one to follow.
Also, you must know that the requirements and quality standards for good alt-texts and image descriptions on Mastodon are different from the entire rest of the Web. What's good enough for the Web isn't necessarily good enough for Mastodon.
Lastly, you must know your audience. And normally, your audience can be anyone anywhere in the Fediverse or even on the Web. There are only very few places in the Fediverse where you can control who will be able to read your stuff, and Mastodon isn't one of them. You must know your audience, and you must at least be able to estimate what they know about the contents of your image, what they don't know and what they need to know. If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something is, explain it, but please do so in the post text and not in the alt-text! If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something looks like, but it may want to know, describe what it looks like.
As for my own images, my strategy is to write two image descriptions for each image. One is the short image description; it goes into the alt-text. I'm going to limit that to a maximum of 512 characters because Misskey and its forks delete alt-texts that are over 512 characters long. The other one is the long image description; it goes into the post text. The long image description is fully detailed, it contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its descriptions, and it contains transcripts of every last bit of text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable in the image or not.
Posting memes is a bit easier. There is only one image description that's hopefully short enough to go into the alt-text. But I still need to explain a whole lot of things, and as I can't always rely upon links to websites like KnowYourMeme for explanations, I often have to write a whole lot of explanations into the post.
Ideally, the worst that could happen to me is being criticised for my alt-text exceeding 200 characters or my post exceeding 500 characters or being blocked for the latter. I reduce the chance for that to happen with a summary that includes a long post content warning with the rough length of the post and the hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong and #CWLongPost that can be filtered. I almost always add hashtags for folks to filter.
But I hope that nobody can say I haven't tried hard enough.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
CW: Good image descriptions require a much bigger effort than you may think; CW: long (over 5,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, character limit meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned (AI-)
Image descriptions are important in the Fediverse, at least if your posts have a chance to reach Mastodon. But is it only about having image descriptions in general? Is it only about having image descriptions at all? Or is it about image description quality as well?
Blind or visually-impaired users say that anything is better than nothing. But seriously, the image file name as the alt-text is useless. So is a copy of the post text as the alt-text; at least one mobile app for Mastodon seems to do that automatically. So is some gibberish written into the alt-text, just so that there's some alt-text.
So you write a short image description for your alt-text. That should be much better than nothing.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description lacks detail.
Since you can't or don't want to write a longer description, you leave that to an AI.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description is obvious AI slop. The AI is inaccurate, it hallucinates, it misidentifies things and it still leaves out details.
Okay, so you sit down and put quite some time and effort into a hand-written image description that's both accurate and detailed. At least you think so.
And still, someone may come and criticise and/or sanction you for having left out certain details.
If you don't fix your image description to their satisfaction, you're insulted as ableist and blocked very publicly so that as many other users as possible block you, too.
Now, minimum quality standards for image descriptions are evolving over time. What matters now didn't necessarily matter two years ago. Things that don't matter now may matter in two years or in five years. Even today, alt-text activists criticise image posts that are several years old for image descriptions that they consider less than optimal. This means the image descriptions that you write today must be good enough for as long as your image posts stay available. If they aren't, have fun going through all your old image posts, editing them and upgrading the image descriptions to the latest minimum requirements.
There's only way to be safe from Mastodon's alt-text police in the long run: First of all, you must educate yourself about all the rules and guidelines of alt-texts and image descriptions, and there are dozens of websites about these. You can't know beforehand which ones of these rules will be declared mandatory by someone from the alt-text police in the future, so you'd better follow them to a tee already now. Of course, when two rules contradict each other, you must know which one to follow.
Also, you must know that the requirements and quality standards for good alt-texts and image descriptions on Mastodon are different from the entire rest of the Web. What's good enough for the Web isn't necessarily good enough for Mastodon.
Lastly, you must know your audience. And normally, your audience can be anyone anywhere in the Fediverse or even on the Web. There are only very few places in the Fediverse where you can control who will be able to read your stuff, and Mastodon isn't one of them. You must know your audience, and you must at least be able to estimate what they know about the contents of your image, what they don't know and what they need to know. If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something is, explain it, but please do so in the post text and not in the alt-text! If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something looks like, but it may want to know, describe what it looks like.
As for my own images, my strategy is to write two image descriptions for each image. One is the short image description; it goes into the alt-text. I'm going to limit that to a maximum of 512 characters because Misskey and its forks delete alt-texts that are over 512 characters long. The other one is the long image description; it goes into the post text. The long image description is fully detailed, it contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its descriptions, and it contains transcripts of every last bit of text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable in the image or not.
Posting memes is a bit easier. There is only one image description that's hopefully short enough to go into the alt-text. But I still need to explain a whole lot of things, and as I can't always rely upon links to websites like KnowYourMeme for explanations, I often have to write a whole lot of explanations into the post.
Ideally, the worst that could happen to me is being criticised for my alt-text exceeding 200 characters or my post exceeding 500 characters or being blocked for the latter. I reduce the chance for that to happen with a summary that includes a long post content warning with the rough length of the post and the hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong and #CWLongPost that can be filtered. I almost always add hashtags for folks to filter.
But I hope that nobody can say I haven't tried hard enough.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
CW: Good image descriptions require a much bigger effort than you may think; CW: long (over 5,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, character limit meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned (AI-)
Image descriptions are important in the Fediverse, at least if your posts have a chance to reach Mastodon. But is it only about having image descriptions in general? Is it only about having image descriptions at all? Or is it about image description quality as well?
Blind or visually-impaired users say that anything is better than nothing. But seriously, the image file name as the alt-text is useless. So is a copy of the post text as the alt-text; at least one mobile app for Mastodon seems to do that automatically. So is some gibberish written into the alt-text, just so that there's some alt-text.
So you write a short image description for your alt-text. That should be much better than nothing.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description lacks detail.
Since you can't or don't want to write a longer description, you leave that to an AI.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description is obvious AI slop. The AI is inaccurate, it hallucinates, it misidentifies things and it still leaves out details.
Okay, so you sit down and put quite some time and effort into a hand-written image description that's both accurate and detailed. At least you think so.
And still, someone may come and criticise and/or sanction you for having left out certain details.
If you don't fix your image description to their satisfaction, you're insulted as ableist and blocked very publicly so that as many other users as possible block you, too.
Now, minimum quality standards for image descriptions are evolving over time. What matters now didn't necessarily matter two years ago. Things that don't matter now may matter in two years or in five years. Even today, alt-text activists criticise image posts that are several years old for image descriptions that they consider less than optimal. This means the image descriptions that you write today must be good enough for as long as your image posts stay available. If they aren't, have fun going through all your old image posts, editing them and upgrading the image descriptions to the latest minimum requirements.
There's only way to be safe from Mastodon's alt-text police in the long run: First of all, you must educate yourself about all the rules and guidelines of alt-texts and image descriptions, and there are dozens of websites about these. You can't know beforehand which ones of these rules will be declared mandatory by someone from the alt-text police in the future, so you'd better follow them to a tee already now. Of course, when two rules contradict each other, you must know which one to follow.
Also, you must know that the requirements and quality standards for good alt-texts and image descriptions on Mastodon are different from the entire rest of the Web. What's good enough for the Web isn't necessarily good enough for Mastodon.
Lastly, you must know your audience. And normally, your audience can be anyone anywhere in the Fediverse or even on the Web. There are only very few places in the Fediverse where you can control who will be able to read your stuff, and Mastodon isn't one of them. You must know your audience, and you must at least be able to estimate what they know about the contents of your image, what they don't know and what they need to know. If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something is, explain it, but please do so in the post text and not in the alt-text! If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something looks like, but it may want to know, describe what it looks like.
As for my own images, my strategy is to write two image descriptions for each image. One is the short image description; it goes into the alt-text. I'm going to limit that to a maximum of 512 characters because Misskey and its forks delete alt-texts that are over 512 characters long. The other one is the long image description; it goes into the post text. The long image description is fully detailed, it contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its descriptions, and it contains transcripts of every last bit of text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable in the image or not.
Posting memes is a bit easier. There is only one image description that's hopefully short enough to go into the alt-text. But I still need to explain a whole lot of things, and as I can't always rely upon links to websites like KnowYourMeme for explanations, I often have to write a whole lot of explanations into the post.
Ideally, the worst that could happen to me is being criticised for my alt-text exceeding 200 characters or my post exceeding 500 characters or being blocked for the latter. I reduce the chance for that to happen with a summary that includes a long post content warning with the rough length of the post and the hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong and #CWLongPost that can be filtered. I almost always add hashtags for folks to filter.
But I hope that nobody can say I haven't tried hard enough.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
CW: Good image descriptions require a much bigger effort than you may think; CW: long (over 5,300 characters), Fediverse meta, Fediverse-beyond-Mastodon meta, character limit meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, alt-text meta, image description meta, AI mentioned (AI-)
Image descriptions are important in the Fediverse, at least if your posts have a chance to reach Mastodon. But is it only about having image descriptions in general? Is it only about having image descriptions at all? Or is it about image description quality as well?
Blind or visually-impaired users say that anything is better than nothing. But seriously, the image file name as the alt-text is useless. So is a copy of the post text as the alt-text; at least one mobile app for Mastodon seems to do that automatically. So is some gibberish written into the alt-text, just so that there's some alt-text.
So you write a short image description for your alt-text. That should be much better than nothing.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description lacks detail.
Since you can't or don't want to write a longer description, you leave that to an AI.
But then you're criticised and sanctioned because your image description is obvious AI slop. The AI is inaccurate, it hallucinates, it misidentifies things and it still leaves out details.
Okay, so you sit down and put quite some time and effort into a hand-written image description that's both accurate and detailed. At least you think so.
And still, someone may come and criticise and/or sanction you for having left out certain details.
If you don't fix your image description to their satisfaction, you're insulted as ableist and blocked very publicly so that as many other users as possible block you, too.
Now, minimum quality standards for image descriptions are evolving over time. What matters now didn't necessarily matter two years ago. Things that don't matter now may matter in two years or in five years. Even today, alt-text activists criticise image posts that are several years old for image descriptions that they consider less than optimal. This means the image descriptions that you write today must be good enough for as long as your image posts stay available. If they aren't, have fun going through all your old image posts, editing them and upgrading the image descriptions to the latest minimum requirements.
There's only way to be safe from Mastodon's alt-text police in the long run: First of all, you must educate yourself about all the rules and guidelines of alt-texts and image descriptions, and there are dozens of websites about these. You can't know beforehand which ones of these rules will be declared mandatory by someone from the alt-text police in the future, so you'd better follow them to a tee already now. Of course, when two rules contradict each other, you must know which one to follow.
Also, you must know that the requirements and quality standards for good alt-texts and image descriptions on Mastodon are different from the entire rest of the Web. What's good enough for the Web isn't necessarily good enough for Mastodon.
Lastly, you must know your audience. And normally, your audience can be anyone anywhere in the Fediverse or even on the Web. There are only very few places in the Fediverse where you can control who will be able to read your stuff, and Mastodon isn't one of them. You must know your audience, and you must at least be able to estimate what they know about the contents of your image, what they don't know and what they need to know. If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something is, explain it, but please do so in the post text and not in the alt-text! If your audience doesn't necessarily know what something looks like, but it may want to know, describe what it looks like.
As for my own images, my strategy is to write two image descriptions for each image. One is the short image description; it goes into the alt-text. I'm going to limit that to a maximum of 512 characters because Misskey and its forks delete alt-texts that are over 512 characters long. The other one is the long image description; it goes into the post text. The long image description is fully detailed, it contains all explanations necessary to understand the image and its descriptions, and it contains transcripts of every last bit of text anywhere within the borders of the image, readable in the image or not.
Posting memes is a bit easier. There is only one image description that's hopefully short enough to go into the alt-text. But I still need to explain a whole lot of things, and as I can't always rely upon links to websites like KnowYourMeme for explanations, I often have to write a whole lot of explanations into the post.
Ideally, the worst that could happen to me is being criticised for my alt-text exceeding 200 characters or my post exceeding 500 characters or being blocked for the latter. I reduce the chance for that to happen with a summary that includes a long post content warning with the rough length of the post and the hashtags #Long, #LongPost, #CWLong and #CWLongPost that can be filtered. I almost always add hashtags for folks to filter.
But I hope that nobody can say I haven't tried hard enough.
#FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #500Characters #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta -
@Truth Collector Partially, it's because I've learned lots of things about the Fediverse that most others didn't. Things that might be useful.
Partially, I'm waiting for someone to challenge what I've said and e.g. say that eye contact only counts as such when a) the eyes are actually clearly visible as eyes, and b) they look directly at the camera. Or even only when it's a full facial portrait (= it isn't eye contact when some random stranger somewhere in the background of the image happens to look at the camera).
Still, if it were for me, Mastodon wouldn't even have its CW field. Mastodon and its community would rely on the poster forcing the exact same CWs upon everyone, regardless of whether or not they need these CWs.
If it were for me, Mastodon would have had the "Hide with warning" filter setting which it introduced in October, 2022 from its very beginning in early 2016 on. And it would be set in stone in Mastodon's community and Mastodon's culture that this setting generates CWs.
Basically, this is what Friendica (created in 2010, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed) and Hubzilla (created in 2015, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed; I'm on Hubzilla, by the way) have been doing it for much longer than Mastodon has even been around.
The idea is like this: If you want certain content hidden behind a button, set up a filter with a keyword that hides any content with that keyword behind a button, automatically, and most importantly, only for you individually. (Friendica, Hubzilla: Add that keyword to the "NSFW" filter list. It does the same.)
If you want to post something sensitive or potentially triggering, you add that keyword to your post, either as part of the actual post text or as a hashtag at the end of the post.
Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered the usual way won't see your post at all. Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered as described above will get your post, but hidden behind a button. Everyone who doesn't have that keyword filtered will get your post in plain sight, conveniently unhidden.
The advantage is that only those who need something hidden behind a CW will have it hidden behind a CW. Those who don't won't.
Alas, while the technology is there (on Friendica since 2010, on Hubzilla since 2015, on Mastodon since 2022), at least on Mastodon nobody will ever use it. It came too late to become part of Mastodon's culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla -
@Truth Collector Partially, it's because I've learned lots of things about the Fediverse that most others didn't. Things that might be useful.
Partially, I'm waiting for someone to challenge what I've said and e.g. say that eye contact only counts as such when a) the eyes are actually clearly visible as eyes, and b) they look directly at the camera. Or even only when it's a full facial portrait (= it isn't eye contact when some random stranger somewhere in the background of the image happens to look at the camera).
Still, if it were for me, Mastodon wouldn't even have its CW field. Mastodon and its community would rely on the poster forcing the exact same CWs upon everyone, regardless of whether or not they need these CWs.
If it were for me, Mastodon would have had the "Hide with warning" filter setting which it introduced in October, 2022 from its very beginning in early 2016 on. And it would be set in stone in Mastodon's community and Mastodon's culture that this setting generates CWs.
Basically, this is what Friendica (created in 2010, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed) and Hubzilla (created in 2015, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed; I'm on Hubzilla, by the way) have been doing it for much longer than Mastodon has even been around.
The idea is like this: If you want certain content hidden behind a button, set up a filter with a keyword that hides any content with that keyword behind a button, automatically, and most importantly, only for you individually. (Friendica, Hubzilla: Add that keyword to the "NSFW" filter list. It does the same.)
If you want to post something sensitive or potentially triggering, you add that keyword to your post, either as part of the actual post text or as a hashtag at the end of the post.
Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered the usual way won't see your post at all. Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered as described above will get your post, but hidden behind a button. Everyone who doesn't have that keyword filtered will get your post in plain sight, conveniently unhidden.
The advantage is that only those who need something hidden behind a CW will have it hidden behind a CW. Those who don't won't.
Alas, while the technology is there (on Friendica since 2010, on Hubzilla since 2015, on Mastodon since 2022), at least on Mastodon nobody will ever use it. It came too late to become part of Mastodon's culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla -
@Truth Collector Partially, it's because I've learned lots of things about the Fediverse that most others didn't. Things that might be useful.
Partially, I'm waiting for someone to challenge what I've said and e.g. say that eye contact only counts as such when a) the eyes are actually clearly visible as eyes, and b) they look directly at the camera. Or even only when it's a full facial portrait (= it isn't eye contact when some random stranger somewhere in the background of the image happens to look at the camera).
Still, if it were for me, Mastodon wouldn't even have its CW field. Mastodon and its community would rely on the poster forcing the exact same CWs upon everyone, regardless of whether or not they need these CWs.
If it were for me, Mastodon would have had the "Hide with warning" filter setting which it introduced in October, 2022 from its very beginning in early 2016 on. And it would be set in stone in Mastodon's community and Mastodon's culture that this setting generates CWs.
Basically, this is what Friendica (created in 2010, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed) and Hubzilla (created in 2015, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed; I'm on Hubzilla, by the way) have been doing it for much longer than Mastodon has even been around.
The idea is like this: If you want certain content hidden behind a button, set up a filter with a keyword that hides any content with that keyword behind a button, automatically, and most importantly, only for you individually. (Friendica, Hubzilla: Add that keyword to the "NSFW" filter list. It does the same.)
If you want to post something sensitive or potentially triggering, you add that keyword to your post, either as part of the actual post text or as a hashtag at the end of the post.
Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered the usual way won't see your post at all. Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered as described above will get your post, but hidden behind a button. Everyone who doesn't have that keyword filtered will get your post in plain sight, conveniently unhidden.
The advantage is that only those who need something hidden behind a CW will have it hidden behind a CW. Those who don't won't.
Alas, while the technology is there (on Friendica since 2010, on Hubzilla since 2015, on Mastodon since 2022), at least on Mastodon nobody will ever use it. It came too late to become part of Mastodon's culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla -
@Truth Collector Partially, it's because I've learned lots of things about the Fediverse that most others didn't. Things that might be useful.
Partially, I'm waiting for someone to challenge what I've said and e.g. say that eye contact only counts as such when a) the eyes are actually clearly visible as eyes, and b) they look directly at the camera. Or even only when it's a full facial portrait (= it isn't eye contact when some random stranger somewhere in the background of the image happens to look at the camera).
Still, if it were for me, Mastodon wouldn't even have its CW field. Mastodon and its community would rely on the poster forcing the exact same CWs upon everyone, regardless of whether or not they need these CWs.
If it were for me, Mastodon would have had the "Hide with warning" filter setting which it introduced in October, 2022 from its very beginning in early 2016 on. And it would be set in stone in Mastodon's community and Mastodon's culture that this setting generates CWs.
Basically, this is what Friendica (created in 2010, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed) and Hubzilla (created in 2015, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed; I'm on Hubzilla, by the way) have been doing it for much longer than Mastodon has even been around.
The idea is like this: If you want certain content hidden behind a button, set up a filter with a keyword that hides any content with that keyword behind a button, automatically, and most importantly, only for you individually. (Friendica, Hubzilla: Add that keyword to the "NSFW" filter list. It does the same.)
If you want to post something sensitive or potentially triggering, you add that keyword to your post, either as part of the actual post text or as a hashtag at the end of the post.
Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered the usual way won't see your post at all. Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered as described above will get your post, but hidden behind a button. Everyone who doesn't have that keyword filtered will get your post in plain sight, conveniently unhidden.
The advantage is that only those who need something hidden behind a CW will have it hidden behind a CW. Those who don't won't.
Alas, while the technology is there (on Friendica since 2010, on Hubzilla since 2015, on Mastodon since 2022), at least on Mastodon nobody will ever use it. It came too late to become part of Mastodon's culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla -
@Truth Collector Partially, it's because I've learned lots of things about the Fediverse that most others didn't. Things that might be useful.
Partially, I'm waiting for someone to challenge what I've said and e.g. say that eye contact only counts as such when a) the eyes are actually clearly visible as eyes, and b) they look directly at the camera. Or even only when it's a full facial portrait (= it isn't eye contact when some random stranger somewhere in the background of the image happens to look at the camera).
Still, if it were for me, Mastodon wouldn't even have its CW field. Mastodon and its community would rely on the poster forcing the exact same CWs upon everyone, regardless of whether or not they need these CWs.
If it were for me, Mastodon would have had the "Hide with warning" filter setting which it introduced in October, 2022 from its very beginning in early 2016 on. And it would be set in stone in Mastodon's community and Mastodon's culture that this setting generates CWs.
Basically, this is what Friendica (created in 2010, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed) and Hubzilla (created in 2015, connected to Mastodon for as long as Mastodon has existed; I'm on Hubzilla, by the way) have been doing it for much longer than Mastodon has even been around.
The idea is like this: If you want certain content hidden behind a button, set up a filter with a keyword that hides any content with that keyword behind a button, automatically, and most importantly, only for you individually. (Friendica, Hubzilla: Add that keyword to the "NSFW" filter list. It does the same.)
If you want to post something sensitive or potentially triggering, you add that keyword to your post, either as part of the actual post text or as a hashtag at the end of the post.
Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered the usual way won't see your post at all. Everyone who has that keyword automatically filtered as described above will get your post, but hidden behind a button. Everyone who doesn't have that keyword filtered will get your post in plain sight, conveniently unhidden.
The advantage is that only those who need something hidden behind a CW will have it hidden behind a CW. Those who don't won't.
Alas, while the technology is there (on Friendica since 2010, on Hubzilla since 2015, on Mastodon since 2022), at least on Mastodon nobody will ever use it. It came too late to become part of Mastodon's culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Friendica #Hubzilla -
@jupiter_rowland It feels like what you're doing is important, even if I can't / don't know how to call it, it makes sense there are more sensitive out there.
Your saying it is helping and working my side as I can already see it's worthy and working. even though I might not know remedy other than #CW.
How is it you came to doing this explaining / education awareness - what would you like to see beyond maybe CW eye-contact fields on platforms, #Mastodon / #Fediverse etc?
-
@jupiter_rowland It feels like what you're doing is important, even if I can't / don't know how to call it, it makes sense there are more sensitive out there.
Your saying it is helping and working my side as I can already see it's worthy and working. even though I might not know remedy other than #CW.
How is it you came to doing this explaining / education awareness - what would you like to see beyond maybe CW eye-contact fields on platforms, #Mastodon / #Fediverse etc?
-
@jupiter_rowland It feels like what you're doing is important, even if I can't / don't know how to call it, it makes sense there are more sensitive out there.
Your saying it is helping and working my side as I can already see it's worthy and working. even though I might not know remedy other than #CW.
How is it you came to doing this explaining / education awareness - what would you like to see beyond maybe CW eye-contact fields on platforms, #Mastodon / #Fediverse etc?
-
@jupiter_rowland It feels like what you're doing is important, even if I can't / don't know how to call it, it makes sense there are more sensitive out there.
Your saying it is helping and working my side as I can already see it's worthy and working. even though I might not know remedy other than #CW.
How is it you came to doing this explaining / education awareness - what would you like to see beyond maybe CW eye-contact fields on platforms, #Mastodon / #Fediverse etc?
-
@jupiter_rowland It feels like what you're doing is important, even if I can't / don't know how to call it, it makes sense there are more sensitive out there.
Your saying it is helping and working my side as I can already see it's worthy and working. even though I might not know remedy other than #CW.
How is it you came to doing this explaining / education awareness - what would you like to see beyond maybe CW eye-contact fields on platforms, #Mastodon / #Fediverse etc?
-
@Truth Collector It's really hard to explain to a neurotypical person who absolutely doesn't know this feeling, and who absolutely can't relate to it. It's even harder for me because I, personally, don't know this feeling from first-hand experience myself.
In addition, it isn't just "yes" or "no". Different people experience eye contact differently, and different people may feel uncomfortable about it in different ways.
I've read somewhere (I don't know where, and I don't have a link) that some neurodivergent people, upon seeing a picture with eye contact, feel like the person on that picture is looking through their eyes, right into their brain, their mind, their very soul. In this case, it feels intrusive to them. Even though it's "only" a picture.
But it isn't necessarily that and only that. Here's a quote-post from someone on Mastodon who actually is autistic, and who explains what images with eye contact feel like to them individually.
RE: https://mastodon.moule.world/@MOULE/112839238866393700
Also, there is this comment on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/18x1rdm/comment/kg75s54/.I'm not diagnosed, but have always hated eye contact to the point where people on the cover of magazines would disturb me, specially those in the pile of magazines you'll find in the toilets, I would always turn them over to hide the faces. Now I wouldn't need a CW for that online, but depending on the context it does make me feel uneasy. I've been staying at my sister's over the holidays, she has pictures of family and friends on her fridge, I would sit with my back turned to it and feel like I was being stared at.
Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers or reports about this. All there is about neurodivergence and eye contact is about how neurodivergent people don't make and maintain eye contact in conversations. And these tend to immediately and only go into the direction of "they don't do that because they can't recognise faces". Neuroscientists seem to only have understood this phenomenon that far (probably also because literally every last neuroscientist is as bog-standard neurotypical as they ever come, so there are none who can analyse their own experiences).
This may also be because this entire phenomenon is so very obscure. It's only an issue in a few select online spaces. It probably originated on pre-Yahoo! Tumblr which was chock-full of neurodivergent young people up and down and and back and forth across the whole spectrum. I guess one reason why they used Tumblr was that it had a dedicated content warning field, much like the one on Mastodon, only that it was invented from scratch for this purpose and not, like on Mastodon, a re-purposed text field that originally had a wholly different use (true story).
But this whole phenomenon only existed on Tumblr and nowhere else on the Web, much less in real life.
When Yahoo! took over Tumblr, they changed the rules in such way that entire communities were driven away, including many neurodivergent users. They often found a new home on Twitter. But Twitter doesn't have a dedicated content warning field, so the entire concept of CW-ing topics that may trigger people or make them feel unbearably uncomfortable lay dormant there.
It only came back when many of those who had been chased away from Tumblr to Twitter when Yahoo! took over Tumblr were chased away from Twitter to Mastodon when Elon Musk toook over Twitter. And Mastodon does have a CW field. So this entire concept was revived.
Unlike Tumblr, however, the greater Fediverse is not a place where enclosed and totally secluded bubbles can exist, at least not at the same degree as on Tumblr. Especially not if Mastodon is involved. So you have young neurodivergent people whom a whole lot of things may turn into quivering nervous wrecks for reasons that even their shrinks would fail to understand if they had any. They demand just about everything be CW'd. And they inevitably encounter much more mentally stable, bog-standard neurotypical people who are like, "Can't relate, don't understand, not gonna comply."
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
@Truth Collector It's really hard to explain to a neurotypical person who absolutely doesn't know this feeling, and who absolutely can't relate to it. It's even harder for me because I, personally, don't know this feeling from first-hand experience myself.
In addition, it isn't just "yes" or "no". Different people experience eye contact differently, and different people may feel uncomfortable about it in different ways.
I've read somewhere (I don't know where, and I don't have a link) that some neurodivergent people, upon seeing a picture with eye contact, feel like the person on that picture is looking through their eyes, right into their brain, their mind, their very soul. In this case, it feels intrusive to them. Even though it's "only" a picture.
But it isn't necessarily that and only that. Here's a quote-post from someone on Mastodon who actually is autistic, and who explains what images with eye contact feel like to them individually.
RE: https://mastodon.moule.world/@MOULE/112839238866393700
Also, there is this comment on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/18x1rdm/comment/kg75s54/.I'm not diagnosed, but have always hated eye contact to the point where people on the cover of magazines would disturb me, specially those in the pile of magazines you'll find in the toilets, I would always turn them over to hide the faces. Now I wouldn't need a CW for that online, but depending on the context it does make me feel uneasy. I've been staying at my sister's over the holidays, she has pictures of family and friends on her fridge, I would sit with my back turned to it and feel like I was being stared at.
Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers or reports about this. All there is about neurodivergence and eye contact is about how neurodivergent people don't make and maintain eye contact in conversations. And these tend to immediately and only go into the direction of "they don't do that because they can't recognise faces". Neuroscientists seem to only have understood this phenomenon that far (probably also because literally every last neuroscientist is as bog-standard neurotypical as they ever come, so there are none who can analyse their own experiences).
This may also be because this entire phenomenon is so very obscure. It's only an issue in a few select online spaces. It probably originated on pre-Yahoo! Tumblr which was chock-full of neurodivergent young people up and down and and back and forth across the whole spectrum. I guess one reason why they used Tumblr was that it had a dedicated content warning field, much like the one on Mastodon, only that it was invented from scratch for this purpose and not, like on Mastodon, a re-purposed text field that originally had a wholly different use (true story).
But this whole phenomenon only existed on Tumblr and nowhere else on the Web, much less in real life.
When Yahoo! took over Tumblr, they changed the rules in such way that entire communities were driven away, including many neurodivergent users. They often found a new home on Twitter. But Twitter doesn't have a dedicated content warning field, so the entire concept of CW-ing topics that may trigger people or make them feel unbearably uncomfortable lay dormant there.
It only came back when many of those who had been chased away from Tumblr to Twitter when Yahoo! took over Tumblr were chased away from Twitter to Mastodon when Elon Musk toook over Twitter. And Mastodon does have a CW field. So this entire concept was revived.
Unlike Tumblr, however, the greater Fediverse is not a place where enclosed and totally secluded bubbles can exist, at least not at the same degree as on Tumblr. Especially not if Mastodon is involved. So you have young neurodivergent people whom a whole lot of things may turn into quivering nervous wrecks for reasons that even their shrinks would fail to understand if they had any. They demand just about everything be CW'd. And they inevitably encounter much more mentally stable, bog-standard neurotypical people who are like, "Can't relate, don't understand, not gonna comply."
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
@Truth Collector It's really hard to explain to a neurotypical person who absolutely doesn't know this feeling, and who absolutely can't relate to it. It's even harder for me because I, personally, don't know this feeling from first-hand experience myself.
In addition, it isn't just "yes" or "no". Different people experience eye contact differently, and different people may feel uncomfortable about it in different ways.
I've read somewhere (I don't know where, and I don't have a link) that some neurodivergent people, upon seeing a picture with eye contact, feel like the person on that picture is looking through their eyes, right into their brain, their mind, their very soul. In this case, it feels intrusive to them. Even though it's "only" a picture.
But it isn't necessarily that and only that. Here's a quote-post from someone on Mastodon who actually is autistic, and who explains what images with eye contact feel like to them individually.
RE: https://mastodon.moule.world/@MOULE/112839238866393700
Also, there is this comment on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/18x1rdm/comment/kg75s54/.I'm not diagnosed, but have always hated eye contact to the point where people on the cover of magazines would disturb me, specially those in the pile of magazines you'll find in the toilets, I would always turn them over to hide the faces. Now I wouldn't need a CW for that online, but depending on the context it does make me feel uneasy. I've been staying at my sister's over the holidays, she has pictures of family and friends on her fridge, I would sit with my back turned to it and feel like I was being stared at.
Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers or reports about this. All there is about neurodivergence and eye contact is about how neurodivergent people don't make and maintain eye contact in conversations. And these tend to immediately and only go into the direction of "they don't do that because they can't recognise faces". Neuroscientists seem to only have understood this phenomenon that far (probably also because literally every last neuroscientist is as bog-standard neurotypical as they ever come, so there are none who can analyse their own experiences).
This may also be because this entire phenomenon is so very obscure. It's only an issue in a few select online spaces. It probably originated on pre-Yahoo! Tumblr which was chock-full of neurodivergent young people up and down and and back and forth across the whole spectrum. I guess one reason why they used Tumblr was that it had a dedicated content warning field, much like the one on Mastodon, only that it was invented from scratch for this purpose and not, like on Mastodon, a re-purposed text field that originally had a wholly different use (true story).
But this whole phenomenon only existed on Tumblr and nowhere else on the Web, much less in real life.
When Yahoo! took over Tumblr, they changed the rules in such way that entire communities were driven away, including many neurodivergent users. They often found a new home on Twitter. But Twitter doesn't have a dedicated content warning field, so the entire concept of CW-ing topics that may trigger people or make them feel unbearably uncomfortable lay dormant there.
It only came back when many of those who had been chased away from Tumblr to Twitter when Yahoo! took over Tumblr were chased away from Twitter to Mastodon when Elon Musk toook over Twitter. And Mastodon does have a CW field. So this entire concept was revived.
Unlike Tumblr, however, the greater Fediverse is not a place where enclosed and totally secluded bubbles can exist, at least not at the same degree as on Tumblr. Especially not if Mastodon is involved. So you have young neurodivergent people whom a whole lot of things may turn into quivering nervous wrecks for reasons that even their shrinks would fail to understand if they had any. They demand just about everything be CW'd. And they inevitably encounter much more mentally stable, bog-standard neurotypical people who are like, "Can't relate, don't understand, not gonna comply."
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
@Truth Collector It's really hard to explain to a neurotypical person who absolutely doesn't know this feeling, and who absolutely can't relate to it. It's even harder for me because I, personally, don't know this feeling from first-hand experience myself.
In addition, it isn't just "yes" or "no". Different people experience eye contact differently, and different people may feel uncomfortable about it in different ways.
I've read somewhere (I don't know where, and I don't have a link) that some neurodivergent people, upon seeing a picture with eye contact, feel like the person on that picture is looking through their eyes, right into their brain, their mind, their very soul. In this case, it feels intrusive to them. Even though it's "only" a picture.
But it isn't necessarily that and only that. Here's a quote-post from someone on Mastodon who actually is autistic, and who explains what images with eye contact feel like to them individually.
RE: https://mastodon.moule.world/@MOULE/112839238866393700
Also, there is this comment on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/18x1rdm/comment/kg75s54/.I'm not diagnosed, but have always hated eye contact to the point where people on the cover of magazines would disturb me, specially those in the pile of magazines you'll find in the toilets, I would always turn them over to hide the faces. Now I wouldn't need a CW for that online, but depending on the context it does make me feel uneasy. I've been staying at my sister's over the holidays, she has pictures of family and friends on her fridge, I would sit with my back turned to it and feel like I was being stared at.
Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers or reports about this. All there is about neurodivergence and eye contact is about how neurodivergent people don't make and maintain eye contact in conversations. And these tend to immediately and only go into the direction of "they don't do that because they can't recognise faces". Neuroscientists seem to only have understood this phenomenon that far (probably also because literally every last neuroscientist is as bog-standard neurotypical as they ever come, so there are none who can analyse their own experiences).
This may also be because this entire phenomenon is so very obscure. It's only an issue in a few select online spaces. It probably originated on pre-Yahoo! Tumblr which was chock-full of neurodivergent young people up and down and and back and forth across the whole spectrum. I guess one reason why they used Tumblr was that it had a dedicated content warning field, much like the one on Mastodon, only that it was invented from scratch for this purpose and not, like on Mastodon, a re-purposed text field that originally had a wholly different use (true story).
But this whole phenomenon only existed on Tumblr and nowhere else on the Web, much less in real life.
When Yahoo! took over Tumblr, they changed the rules in such way that entire communities were driven away, including many neurodivergent users. They often found a new home on Twitter. But Twitter doesn't have a dedicated content warning field, so the entire concept of CW-ing topics that may trigger people or make them feel unbearably uncomfortable lay dormant there.
It only came back when many of those who had been chased away from Tumblr to Twitter when Yahoo! took over Tumblr were chased away from Twitter to Mastodon when Elon Musk toook over Twitter. And Mastodon does have a CW field. So this entire concept was revived.
Unlike Tumblr, however, the greater Fediverse is not a place where enclosed and totally secluded bubbles can exist, at least not at the same degree as on Tumblr. Especially not if Mastodon is involved. So you have young neurodivergent people whom a whole lot of things may turn into quivering nervous wrecks for reasons that even their shrinks would fail to understand if they had any. They demand just about everything be CW'd. And they inevitably encounter much more mentally stable, bog-standard neurotypical people who are like, "Can't relate, don't understand, not gonna comply."
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
@Truth Collector It's really hard to explain to a neurotypical person who absolutely doesn't know this feeling, and who absolutely can't relate to it. It's even harder for me because I, personally, don't know this feeling from first-hand experience myself.
In addition, it isn't just "yes" or "no". Different people experience eye contact differently, and different people may feel uncomfortable about it in different ways.
I've read somewhere (I don't know where, and I don't have a link) that some neurodivergent people, upon seeing a picture with eye contact, feel like the person on that picture is looking through their eyes, right into their brain, their mind, their very soul. In this case, it feels intrusive to them. Even though it's "only" a picture.
But it isn't necessarily that and only that. Here's a quote-post from someone on Mastodon who actually is autistic, and who explains what images with eye contact feel like to them individually.
RE: https://mastodon.moule.world/@MOULE/112839238866393700
Also, there is this comment on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mastodon/comments/18x1rdm/comment/kg75s54/.I'm not diagnosed, but have always hated eye contact to the point where people on the cover of magazines would disturb me, specially those in the pile of magazines you'll find in the toilets, I would always turn them over to hide the faces. Now I wouldn't need a CW for that online, but depending on the context it does make me feel uneasy. I've been staying at my sister's over the holidays, she has pictures of family and friends on her fridge, I would sit with my back turned to it and feel like I was being stared at.
Unfortunately, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers or reports about this. All there is about neurodivergence and eye contact is about how neurodivergent people don't make and maintain eye contact in conversations. And these tend to immediately and only go into the direction of "they don't do that because they can't recognise faces". Neuroscientists seem to only have understood this phenomenon that far (probably also because literally every last neuroscientist is as bog-standard neurotypical as they ever come, so there are none who can analyse their own experiences).
This may also be because this entire phenomenon is so very obscure. It's only an issue in a few select online spaces. It probably originated on pre-Yahoo! Tumblr which was chock-full of neurodivergent young people up and down and and back and forth across the whole spectrum. I guess one reason why they used Tumblr was that it had a dedicated content warning field, much like the one on Mastodon, only that it was invented from scratch for this purpose and not, like on Mastodon, a re-purposed text field that originally had a wholly different use (true story).
But this whole phenomenon only existed on Tumblr and nowhere else on the Web, much less in real life.
When Yahoo! took over Tumblr, they changed the rules in such way that entire communities were driven away, including many neurodivergent users. They often found a new home on Twitter. But Twitter doesn't have a dedicated content warning field, so the entire concept of CW-ing topics that may trigger people or make them feel unbearably uncomfortable lay dormant there.
It only came back when many of those who had been chased away from Tumblr to Twitter when Yahoo! took over Tumblr were chased away from Twitter to Mastodon when Elon Musk toook over Twitter. And Mastodon does have a CW field. So this entire concept was revived.
Unlike Tumblr, however, the greater Fediverse is not a place where enclosed and totally secluded bubbles can exist, at least not at the same degree as on Tumblr. Especially not if Mastodon is involved. So you have young neurodivergent people whom a whole lot of things may turn into quivering nervous wrecks for reasons that even their shrinks would fail to understand if they had any. They demand just about everything be CW'd. And they inevitably encounter much more mentally stable, bog-standard neurotypical people who are like, "Can't relate, don't understand, not gonna comply."
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
CW: When eye contact is eye contact, and what you have to do; CW: long post (over 2,500 characters), Fediverse meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, eye contact mentioned
Eye contact is not limited to full facial portraits of people looking directly into the camera.
Eye contact is not even limited to looking directly into the camera at all.
Eye contact is whenever there is at least one eye anywhere in the image. No matter where it is. No matter how small the eye and how big the image is.
Ask autistic people, and they'll likely confirm. And they'll also likely confirm that it triggers them.
In fact, eye contact is even when you, as a neurotypical person, cannot even see the eye because it's less then a pixel.
Imagine an image of 20 megapixels. Now imagine there's a person somewhere in the image, only four pixels high and about one pixel wide. This means the head is half a pixel high and a third of a pixel wide.
Even if the person is looking directly at the camera, this still means that each individual eye is 1/15 of a pixel wide and maybe 1/30 of a pixel high. That's 1/450 or a bit over 0.2% of a pixel. That's about 1/9,000,000,000 or a bit over 0.000,000,01% of the whole image. If the person is looking directly at the camera.
Nonetheless, this may trigger some autistic people even if the person is not even looking into the general direction of the camera.
It doesn't even have to be a person. It may just as well be an animal or a fantasy creature or a robot or a sculpture or a stylised face or even only a single stylised eye.
I've actually had all this confirmed by @Yohan Yukiya Sese Cuneta 사요한🦣 who knows enough actually diagnosed autistic people to know.
So it doesn't matter how big or infinitely small the eye is. It doesn't matter where it's looking. If there's at least one eye in your image, it counts as eye contact.
If you, as the user who posts the image, know for certain that there is at least one eye in the image, you're obliged to- have the image automatically blanked or blurred
- make sure that Mastodon will blank the image, too
- add the content warning "CW: eye contact" to your post
- add the hashtags #EyeContact and #CWEyeContact to your post, especially the former which some people out there may have filtered
You're only excused not to do so if you yourself honestly don't know that there is at least one eye in the image.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
CW: When eye contact is eye contact, and what you have to do; CW: long post (over 2,500 characters), Fediverse meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, eye contact mentioned
Eye contact is not limited to full facial portraits of people looking directly into the camera.
Eye contact is not even limited to looking directly into the camera at all.
Eye contact is whenever there is at least one eye anywhere in the image. No matter where it is. No matter how small the eye and how big the image is.
Ask autistic people, and they'll likely confirm. And they'll also likely confirm that it triggers them.
In fact, eye contact is even when you, as a neurotypical person, cannot even see the eye because it's less then a pixel.
Imagine an image of 20 megapixels. Now imagine there's a person somewhere in the image, only four pixels high and about one pixel wide. This means the head is half a pixel high and a third of a pixel wide.
Even if the person is looking directly at the camera, this still means that each individual eye is 1/15 of a pixel wide and maybe 1/30 of a pixel high. That's 1/450 or a bit over 0.2% of a pixel. That's about 1/9,000,000,000 or a bit over 0.000,000,01% of the whole image. If the person is looking directly at the camera.
Nonetheless, this may trigger some autistic people even if the person is not even looking into the general direction of the camera.
It doesn't even have to be a person. It may just as well be an animal or a fantasy creature or a robot or a sculpture or a stylised face or even only a single stylised eye.
I've actually had all this confirmed by @Yohan Yukiya Sese Cuneta 사요한🦣 who knows enough actually diagnosed autistic people to know.
So it doesn't matter how big or infinitely small the eye is. It doesn't matter where it's looking. If there's at least one eye in your image, it counts as eye contact.
If you, as the user who posts the image, know for certain that there is at least one eye in the image, you're obliged to- have the image automatically blanked or blurred
- make sure that Mastodon will blank the image, too
- add the content warning "CW: eye contact" to your post
- add the hashtags #EyeContact and #CWEyeContact to your post, especially the former which some people out there may have filtered
You're only excused not to do so if you yourself honestly don't know that there is at least one eye in the image.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
CW: When eye contact is eye contact, and what you have to do; CW: long post (over 2,500 characters), Fediverse meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, eye contact mentioned
Eye contact is not limited to full facial portraits of people looking directly into the camera.
Eye contact is not even limited to looking directly into the camera at all.
Eye contact is whenever there is at least one eye anywhere in the image. No matter where it is. No matter how small the eye and how big the image is.
Ask autistic people, and they'll likely confirm. And they'll also likely confirm that it triggers them.
In fact, eye contact is even when you, as a neurotypical person, cannot even see the eye because it's less then a pixel.
Imagine an image of 20 megapixels. Now imagine there's a person somewhere in the image, only four pixels high and about one pixel wide. This means the head is half a pixel high and a third of a pixel wide.
Even if the person is looking directly at the camera, this still means that each individual eye is 1/15 of a pixel wide and maybe 1/30 of a pixel high. That's 1/450 or a bit over 0.2% of a pixel. That's about 1/9,000,000,000 or a bit over 0.000,000,01% of the whole image. If the person is looking directly at the camera.
Nonetheless, this may trigger some autistic people even if the person is not even looking into the general direction of the camera.
It doesn't even have to be a person. It may just as well be an animal or a fantasy creature or a robot or a sculpture or a stylised face or even only a single stylised eye.
I've actually had all this confirmed by @Yohan Yukiya Sese Cuneta 사요한🦣 who knows enough actually diagnosed autistic people to know.
So it doesn't matter how big or infinitely small the eye is. It doesn't matter where it's looking. If there's at least one eye in your image, it counts as eye contact.
If you, as the user who posts the image, know for certain that there is at least one eye in the image, you're obliged to- have the image automatically blanked or blurred
- make sure that Mastodon will blank the image, too
- add the content warning "CW: eye contact" to your post
- add the hashtags #EyeContact and #CWEyeContact to your post, especially the former which some people out there may have filtered
You're only excused not to do so if you yourself honestly don't know that there is at least one eye in the image.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
CW: When eye contact is eye contact, and what you have to do; CW: long post (over 2,500 characters), Fediverse meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, eye contact mentioned
Eye contact is not limited to full facial portraits of people looking directly into the camera.
Eye contact is not even limited to looking directly into the camera at all.
Eye contact is whenever there is at least one eye anywhere in the image. No matter where it is. No matter how small the eye and how big the image is.
Ask autistic people, and they'll likely confirm. And they'll also likely confirm that it triggers them.
In fact, eye contact is even when you, as a neurotypical person, cannot even see the eye because it's less then a pixel.
Imagine an image of 20 megapixels. Now imagine there's a person somewhere in the image, only four pixels high and about one pixel wide. This means the head is half a pixel high and a third of a pixel wide.
Even if the person is looking directly at the camera, this still means that each individual eye is 1/15 of a pixel wide and maybe 1/30 of a pixel high. That's 1/450 or a bit over 0.2% of a pixel. That's about 1/9,000,000,000 or a bit over 0.000,000,01% of the whole image. If the person is looking directly at the camera.
Nonetheless, this may trigger some autistic people even if the person is not even looking into the general direction of the camera.
It doesn't even have to be a person. It may just as well be an animal or a fantasy creature or a robot or a sculpture or a stylised face or even only a single stylised eye.
I've actually had all this confirmed by @Yohan Yukiya Sese Cuneta 사요한🦣 who knows enough actually diagnosed autistic people to know.
So it doesn't matter how big or infinitely small the eye is. It doesn't matter where it's looking. If there's at least one eye in your image, it counts as eye contact.
If you, as the user who posts the image, know for certain that there is at least one eye in the image, you're obliged to- have the image automatically blanked or blurred
- make sure that Mastodon will blank the image, too
- add the content warning "CW: eye contact" to your post
- add the hashtags #EyeContact and #CWEyeContact to your post, especially the former which some people out there may have filtered
You're only excused not to do so if you yourself honestly don't know that there is at least one eye in the image.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
CW: When eye contact is eye contact, and what you have to do; CW: long post (over 2,500 characters), Fediverse meta, content warning meta, hashtag meta, eye contact mentioned
Eye contact is not limited to full facial portraits of people looking directly into the camera.
Eye contact is not even limited to looking directly into the camera at all.
Eye contact is whenever there is at least one eye anywhere in the image. No matter where it is. No matter how small the eye and how big the image is.
Ask autistic people, and they'll likely confirm. And they'll also likely confirm that it triggers them.
In fact, eye contact is even when you, as a neurotypical person, cannot even see the eye because it's less then a pixel.
Imagine an image of 20 megapixels. Now imagine there's a person somewhere in the image, only four pixels high and about one pixel wide. This means the head is half a pixel high and a third of a pixel wide.
Even if the person is looking directly at the camera, this still means that each individual eye is 1/15 of a pixel wide and maybe 1/30 of a pixel high. That's 1/450 or a bit over 0.2% of a pixel. That's about 1/9,000,000,000 or a bit over 0.000,000,01% of the whole image. If the person is looking directly at the camera.
Nonetheless, this may trigger some autistic people even if the person is not even looking into the general direction of the camera.
It doesn't even have to be a person. It may just as well be an animal or a fantasy creature or a robot or a sculpture or a stylised face or even only a single stylised eye.
I've actually had all this confirmed by @Yohan Yukiya Sese Cuneta 사요한🦣 who knows enough actually diagnosed autistic people to know.
So it doesn't matter how big or infinitely small the eye is. It doesn't matter where it's looking. If there's at least one eye in your image, it counts as eye contact.
If you, as the user who posts the image, know for certain that there is at least one eye in the image, you're obliged to- have the image automatically blanked or blurred
- make sure that Mastodon will blank the image, too
- add the content warning "CW: eye contact" to your post
- add the hashtags #EyeContact and #CWEyeContact to your post, especially the former which some people out there may have filtered
You're only excused not to do so if you yourself honestly don't know that there is at least one eye in the image.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #EyeContactMeta #CWEyeContactMeta #Autism #Autistic #Neurodivergent #Neurodivergence #Inclusion #Inclusivity #A11y #Accessibility -
@Sean C. @Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken @Justin Ferrell I've once encountered someone who seemed to suffer from such extreme PTSD that they demanded everyone CW literally absolutely everything. And, of course, the Mastodon way by forciing all these CWs upon absolutely everyone all the same.
Now, I'm not even on Mastodon myself. I'm on Hubzilla which is doing CWs way differently from Mastodon, which has been doing that for longer than Mastodon has even existed, much less has had CWs.
We don't do CWs poster-side. We don't write CWs into the summary field. In fact, the summary field, which Mastodon has been using as a CW field since 2017, is still a summary field here. A summary field makes a whole lot of sense here, for while most Mastodon servers have a hard-coded character limit of 500, Hubzilla doesn't really have any character limit at all.
Also, we can't do Mastodon-style CWs in replies which are called "comments" here. Like on Facebook, like on Tumblr, like on every last blog out there, but very much unlike on Mastodon, our post editor and our comment editors are wholly separate things. The comment editor can't do summaries. Why not? Because, have you ever seen a blog comment with a summary?
No, we have our CWs automatically generated and reader-side. We have a kind of filter called "NSFW" that can automatically hide content behind a CW. It's basically Mastodon's "Hide with a warning", but as its own keyword filter list and seven years before Mastodon introduced "Hide with a warning". (Twelve years actually because Hubzilla inherited that feature from Friendica.)
When we post sensitive or disturbing content, we make sure that those who may not want to see that content have their filters triggered. We do so by making sure that appropriate keywords are in the post text (easy-peasy when you can post over 33,000 times more characters than on Mastodon) or by adding hashtags. The latter is what I do, hence the many hashtags down there.
It's also the only way to have a comment hidden. Again, Hubzilla doesn't have a summary field (= Mastodon CW field) for replies, so it has to rely on people making filters for uncomfortable content.
This could be a thing on Mastodon as well. After all, in October, 2022, Mastodon 4.0 introduced "Hide with a warning" to its filters which does the exact same thing as NSFW on Friendica and Hubzilla: hide messages depending on keywords. However, Mastodon's entire culture was defined in mid-2022 by those who had fled from Twitter in early 2022, so it's based on Mastodon 3.x without "Hide with a warning".
Besides, the vast majority of Mastodon users don't even know that Mastodon has "Hide with a warning", much less what it does. Precious few even seem to know that Mastodon has filters in the first place. And next to nobody knows what the non-Mastodon Fediverse has, nor do they care, also because most Mastodon users don't even know that the Fediverse goes beyond Mastodon, Pixelfed and PeerTube.
In addition, while Hubzilla is all about empowering its users to self-moderate their stream, the "Mastodon experience" is generally perceived as being coddled and pampered all over. By mods who remove unwanted content and by all the other users who hide uncomfortable content. Hide it from everyone all the same, regardless of whether or not someone needs that, just because one person needs it.
So back to the beginning: This person took Mastodon's culture to the absolute extreme. And they demanded that I a) adopted Mastodon's way even though it'd b) clash with Hubzilla's culture which is my native culture and c) exaggerate it to the maximum.
Of course, my suggestion to use "Hide with a warning" filters didn't come to fruition. For one, that would have required an infinite number of individual filters on Mastodon. Besides, that person felt entitled to have protection from literally absolutely any and all kinds of content served to them on a silver platter.
I think I ended up Superblocking them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Hubzilla #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #MastodonCulture -
@Sean C. @Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken @Justin Ferrell I've once encountered someone who seemed to suffer from such extreme PTSD that they demanded everyone CW literally absolutely everything. And, of course, the Mastodon way by forciing all these CWs upon absolutely everyone all the same.
Now, I'm not even on Mastodon myself. I'm on Hubzilla which is doing CWs way differently from Mastodon, which has been doing that for longer than Mastodon has even existed, much less has had CWs.
We don't do CWs poster-side. We don't write CWs into the summary field. In fact, the summary field, which Mastodon has been using as a CW field since 2017, is still a summary field here. A summary field makes a whole lot of sense here, for while most Mastodon servers have a hard-coded character limit of 500, Hubzilla doesn't really have any character limit at all.
Also, we can't do Mastodon-style CWs in replies which are called "comments" here. Like on Facebook, like on Tumblr, like on every last blog out there, but very much unlike on Mastodon, our post editor and our comment editors are wholly separate things. The comment editor can't do summaries. Why not? Because, have you ever seen a blog comment with a summary?
No, we have our CWs automatically generated and reader-side. We have a kind of filter called "NSFW" that can automatically hide content behind a CW. It's basically Mastodon's "Hide with a warning", but as its own keyword filter list and seven years before Mastodon introduced "Hide with a warning". (Twelve years actually because Hubzilla inherited that feature from Friendica.)
When we post sensitive or disturbing content, we make sure that those who may not want to see that content have their filters triggered. We do so by making sure that appropriate keywords are in the post text (easy-peasy when you can post over 33,000 times more characters than on Mastodon) or by adding hashtags. The latter is what I do, hence the many hashtags down there.
It's also the only way to have a comment hidden. Again, Hubzilla doesn't have a summary field (= Mastodon CW field) for replies, so it has to rely on people making filters for uncomfortable content.
This could be a thing on Mastodon as well. After all, in October, 2022, Mastodon 4.0 introduced "Hide with a warning" to its filters which does the exact same thing as NSFW on Friendica and Hubzilla: hide messages depending on keywords. However, Mastodon's entire culture was defined in mid-2022 by those who had fled from Twitter in early 2022, so it's based on Mastodon 3.x without "Hide with a warning".
Besides, the vast majority of Mastodon users don't even know that Mastodon has "Hide with a warning", much less what it does. Precious few even seem to know that Mastodon has filters in the first place. And next to nobody knows what the non-Mastodon Fediverse has, nor do they care, also because most Mastodon users don't even know that the Fediverse goes beyond Mastodon, Pixelfed and PeerTube.
In addition, while Hubzilla is all about empowering its users to self-moderate their stream, the "Mastodon experience" is generally perceived as being coddled and pampered all over. By mods who remove unwanted content and by all the other users who hide uncomfortable content. Hide it from everyone all the same, regardless of whether or not someone needs that, just because one person needs it.
So back to the beginning: This person took Mastodon's culture to the absolute extreme. And they demanded that I a) adopted Mastodon's way even though it'd b) clash with Hubzilla's culture which is my native culture and c) exaggerate it to the maximum.
Of course, my suggestion to use "Hide with a warning" filters didn't come to fruition. For one, that would have required an infinite number of individual filters on Mastodon. Besides, that person felt entitled to have protection from literally absolutely any and all kinds of content served to them on a silver platter.
I think I ended up Superblocking them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Hubzilla #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #MastodonCulture -
@Sean C. @Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken @Justin Ferrell I've once encountered someone who seemed to suffer from such extreme PTSD that they demanded everyone CW literally absolutely everything. And, of course, the Mastodon way by forciing all these CWs upon absolutely everyone all the same.
Now, I'm not even on Mastodon myself. I'm on Hubzilla which is doing CWs way differently from Mastodon, which has been doing that for longer than Mastodon has even existed, much less has had CWs.
We don't do CWs poster-side. We don't write CWs into the summary field. In fact, the summary field, which Mastodon has been using as a CW field since 2017, is still a summary field here. A summary field makes a whole lot of sense here, for while most Mastodon servers have a hard-coded character limit of 500, Hubzilla doesn't really have any character limit at all.
Also, we can't do Mastodon-style CWs in replies which are called "comments" here. Like on Facebook, like on Tumblr, like on every last blog out there, but very much unlike on Mastodon, our post editor and our comment editors are wholly separate things. The comment editor can't do summaries. Why not? Because, have you ever seen a blog comment with a summary?
No, we have our CWs automatically generated and reader-side. We have a kind of filter called "NSFW" that can automatically hide content behind a CW. It's basically Mastodon's "Hide with a warning", but as its own keyword filter list and seven years before Mastodon introduced "Hide with a warning". (Twelve years actually because Hubzilla inherited that feature from Friendica.)
When we post sensitive or disturbing content, we make sure that those who may not want to see that content have their filters triggered. We do so by making sure that appropriate keywords are in the post text (easy-peasy when you can post over 33,000 times more characters than on Mastodon) or by adding hashtags. The latter is what I do, hence the many hashtags down there.
It's also the only way to have a comment hidden. Again, Hubzilla doesn't have a summary field (= Mastodon CW field) for replies, so it has to rely on people making filters for uncomfortable content.
This could be a thing on Mastodon as well. After all, in October, 2022, Mastodon 4.0 introduced "Hide with a warning" to its filters which does the exact same thing as NSFW on Friendica and Hubzilla: hide messages depending on keywords. However, Mastodon's entire culture was defined in mid-2022 by those who had fled from Twitter in early 2022, so it's based on Mastodon 3.x without "Hide with a warning".
Besides, the vast majority of Mastodon users don't even know that Mastodon has "Hide with a warning", much less what it does. Precious few even seem to know that Mastodon has filters in the first place. And next to nobody knows what the non-Mastodon Fediverse has, nor do they care, also because most Mastodon users don't even know that the Fediverse goes beyond Mastodon, Pixelfed and PeerTube.
In addition, while Hubzilla is all about empowering its users to self-moderate their stream, the "Mastodon experience" is generally perceived as being coddled and pampered all over. By mods who remove unwanted content and by all the other users who hide uncomfortable content. Hide it from everyone all the same, regardless of whether or not someone needs that, just because one person needs it.
So back to the beginning: This person took Mastodon's culture to the absolute extreme. And they demanded that I a) adopted Mastodon's way even though it'd b) clash with Hubzilla's culture which is my native culture and c) exaggerate it to the maximum.
Of course, my suggestion to use "Hide with a warning" filters didn't come to fruition. For one, that would have required an infinite number of individual filters on Mastodon. Besides, that person felt entitled to have protection from literally absolutely any and all kinds of content served to them on a silver platter.
I think I ended up Superblocking them.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #Fediverse #Mastodon #Hubzilla #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #MastodonCulture -
@Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken Yes, I wish more servers had this rule and enforced it.
Officially appointed moderators only go by the server's written rules, and they only enforce them against local users.
The HOA, on the other hand, have some rules in their heads. Everyone has different rules. And they enforce them against everyone, even regardless of where everyone actually is. Like, they attack Friendica users for allegedly misusing the CW field because they neither know that these users are not on Mastodon, much less where they actually are, nor that Mastodon's CW field has been an abstract field on Friendica for seven years longer than it has been a CW field on Mastodon.
This is part of what makes the Fediverse a minefield once your messages start reaching Mastodon.
I can't say that I'll stop being so overly careful with everything and putting such a big effort particulary into image descriptions, summaries/content warnings and hashtags for filter-triggering purposes if more or even most Mastodon servers adopt and enforce this rule. The irony is that this rule actually protects my long hashtag lines.
In fact, rules like these also ought to include that nobody must be policed for writing "too long" posts because there are places in the Fediverse that neither have character limits to worry about nor a character-limiting culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta -
@Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken Yes, I wish more servers had this rule and enforced it.
Officially appointed moderators only go by the server's written rules, and they only enforce them against local users.
The HOA, on the other hand, have some rules in their heads. Everyone has different rules. And they enforce them against everyone, even regardless of where everyone actually is. Like, they attack Friendica users for allegedly misusing the CW field because they neither know that these users are not on Mastodon, much less where they actually are, nor that Mastodon's CW field has been an abstract field on Friendica for seven years longer than it has been a CW field on Mastodon.
This is part of what makes the Fediverse a minefield once your messages start reaching Mastodon.
I can't say that I'll stop being so overly careful with everything and putting such a big effort particulary into image descriptions, summaries/content warnings and hashtags for filter-triggering purposes if more or even most Mastodon servers adopt and enforce this rule. The irony is that this rule actually protects my long hashtag lines.
In fact, rules like these also ought to include that nobody must be policed for writing "too long" posts because there are places in the Fediverse that neither have character limits to worry about nor a character-limiting culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta -
@Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken Yes, I wish more servers had this rule and enforced it.
Officially appointed moderators only go by the server's written rules, and they only enforce them against local users.
The HOA, on the other hand, have some rules in their heads. Everyone has different rules. And they enforce them against everyone, even regardless of where everyone actually is. Like, they attack Friendica users for allegedly misusing the CW field because they neither know that these users are not on Mastodon, much less where they actually are, nor that Mastodon's CW field has been an abstract field on Friendica for seven years longer than it has been a CW field on Mastodon.
This is part of what makes the Fediverse a minefield once your messages start reaching Mastodon.
I can't say that I'll stop being so overly careful with everything and putting such a big effort particulary into image descriptions, summaries/content warnings and hashtags for filter-triggering purposes if more or even most Mastodon servers adopt and enforce this rule. The irony is that this rule actually protects my long hashtag lines.
In fact, rules like these also ought to include that nobody must be policed for writing "too long" posts because there are places in the Fediverse that neither have character limits to worry about nor a character-limiting culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta -
@Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken Yes, I wish more servers had this rule and enforced it.
Officially appointed moderators only go by the server's written rules, and they only enforce them against local users.
The HOA, on the other hand, have some rules in their heads. Everyone has different rules. And they enforce them against everyone, even regardless of where everyone actually is. Like, they attack Friendica users for allegedly misusing the CW field because they neither know that these users are not on Mastodon, much less where they actually are, nor that Mastodon's CW field has been an abstract field on Friendica for seven years longer than it has been a CW field on Mastodon.
This is part of what makes the Fediverse a minefield once your messages start reaching Mastodon.
I can't say that I'll stop being so overly careful with everything and putting such a big effort particulary into image descriptions, summaries/content warnings and hashtags for filter-triggering purposes if more or even most Mastodon servers adopt and enforce this rule. The irony is that this rule actually protects my long hashtag lines.
In fact, rules like these also ought to include that nobody must be policed for writing "too long" posts because there are places in the Fediverse that neither have character limits to worry about nor a character-limiting culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta -
@Stefan Bohacek @Blorbo Admin Chicken Yes, I wish more servers had this rule and enforced it.
Officially appointed moderators only go by the server's written rules, and they only enforce them against local users.
The HOA, on the other hand, have some rules in their heads. Everyone has different rules. And they enforce them against everyone, even regardless of where everyone actually is. Like, they attack Friendica users for allegedly misusing the CW field because they neither know that these users are not on Mastodon, much less where they actually are, nor that Mastodon's CW field has been an abstract field on Friendica for seven years longer than it has been a CW field on Mastodon.
This is part of what makes the Fediverse a minefield once your messages start reaching Mastodon.
I can't say that I'll stop being so overly careful with everything and putting such a big effort particulary into image descriptions, summaries/content warnings and hashtags for filter-triggering purposes if more or even most Mastodon servers adopt and enforce this rule. The irony is that this rule actually protects my long hashtag lines.
In fact, rules like these also ought to include that nobody must be policed for writing "too long" posts because there are places in the Fediverse that neither have character limits to worry about nor a character-limiting culture.
#Long #LongPost #CWLong #CWLongPost #FediMeta #FediverseMeta #CWFediMeta #CWFediverseMeta #CW #CWs #CWMeta #ContentWarning #ContentWarnings #ContentWarningMeta #AltText #AltTextMeta #CWAltTextMeta #ImageDescription #ImageDescriptions #ImageDescriptionMeta #CWImageDescriptionMeta #Hashtag #Hashtags #HashtagMeta #CWHashtagMeta #CharacterLimit #CharacterLimits #CharacterLimitMeta #CWCharacterLimitMeta -
@stefan @admin I once wrote https://karl-voit.at/2022/06/05/mastodon-cw-misuse/ which adds some aspects to the discussion on CWs.
YMMV
-
@stefan @admin I once wrote https://karl-voit.at/2022/06/05/mastodon-cw-misuse/ which adds some aspects to the discussion on CWs.
YMMV
-
@stefan @admin I once wrote https://karl-voit.at/2022/06/05/mastodon-cw-misuse/ which adds some aspects to the discussion on CWs.
YMMV
-
@stefan @admin I once wrote https://karl-voit.at/2022/06/05/mastodon-cw-misuse/ which adds some aspects to the discussion on CWs.
YMMV
-
@stefan @admin I once wrote https://karl-voit.at/2022/06/05/mastodon-cw-misuse/ which adds some aspects to the discussion on CWs.
YMMV