Isn’t there an NSFL tag? Idk, feels pretty obvious not to post this shit in communities that don’t commonly host gore
Comment on He died doing what he loved.
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
Please NSFW this for people who are specifically trying to avoid images of someone getting killed.
kogasa@programming.dev 2 hours ago
macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Then that would be NSFL, not work. This is safe for work.
DioramaOfShit@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Eat shit pussy
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 hour ago
People with PTSD exist and are on the same internet as you. People browse the internet in public where they don’t want to be flashing around images of dead people.
Behave like MAGA if you want, I just won’t be the one seeing it.
Raiderkev@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Yeah, this. I’m at my kid’s soccer practice ffs
Canconda@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
[deleted]AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 8 hours ago
People can care about school shootings while also not wanting to see a dying body and someone's bloody gunshot wound randomly appear on their timeline when they're just trying to look at some fucking memes.
This is like if I started filling your timeline with random snuff films and gore videos, and when you complained, went "OH you don't like this? Well the human trafficking victims used in these videos didn't either."
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
Deranged way to respond to someone who asked that a post be flagged as NSFW for people who don’t want see footage of someone being killed. Do you think anyone wouldn’t ask for footage of the school shooting to also be marked NSFW?
Go hang out in gore communities if the best reason you have to shove images of death in peoples’ faces is “victims also had to see it.” Seeing shit like that regularly is incredibly psychologically damaging, and you have no idea what other people are dealing with when they scroll across something real and violent like this.
Talk to a therapist if you think shoving these images in the faces of people who don’t want to see it is normal.
Canconda@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
[deleted]ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
Are you trying to get people to send you beheading videos?
Cybersec@piefed.social 8 hours ago
Oh you’re so tough and badass
pticrix@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
nice of you to assume only American eyes are here, not at all feeding into the American exceptionalism trope, nope, not at all.
Chozo@fedia.io 8 hours ago
Not everybody here is American, dude.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
/u/dessalines I would suggest that community consensus should be able to apply the NSFW tag without poster or moderator intervention.
I think some “moderation actions” should be better crowdsourced beyond simple upvote/downvote system, to offload the burden on moderators who can then, only review community consensus actions, rather than perform all actions themselves and have to view and decide everything. One example of this is the “community notes” of Xitter. I think there is a lot of opportunity for improvement compared with the shadowy and unaccountable ways that moderation is usually performed on social media.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
Yeah, you could keep usual moderators as the basis and ultimate arbiters, but it would be, at the very least, interesting to try your approach. E.g., anyone can check the mod queue and be randomly assigned to moderate a recently reported post, and to avoid abuse or mistakes it could require 2 or 3 people agreeing on how to resolve something.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 hours ago
I would also like to see most moderation actions, be a filter applied client side and under full control of the user. Moderation becomes a “default view” of the consensus, that users are not forced to abide.
After that, we can have client side ability to ignore certain user’s moderation action based on their account history and history of reliable judgment and the user could decide how much weight to give to various actors in the ecosystem