#ao3's filtering system is a genuienly good one imo. especially their distinction of no warnings apply vs author chose not to use warnings

[tasmanianstripes]

Re that post about content warnings...

I suspect I'm the person you saw reblog this--and I think that some of the OPs original point/intention might have been lost. It is mostly to emphasize that there's some degree of responsibility on the reader -- by this I mean, you can't get mad at an author for hiding behind tags like "creator chose not to use content warnings." It's kind of a two way street. Because if you put "cw: (triggering thing)" it protects the people who are avoiding it--- but it also may spoil the story for the people who arent. This can be problematic if that major content is actually a huge plot element and having it spoiled kind of removes the shock reaction that comes.

I'm of the opinion personally that people can and should use creator chose not to use warnings and then just a vague "this is going to deal with problematic content that could trigger you; be in a good headspace to consume" type note at the start of its something specific. I reblogged because I really wish more authors would lean into that tag function; it exists to protect both reader and writer, lets us keep our spoilers and surprises while alerting the reader that There May Be Dragons here.

Anyway, I know you don't want discourse and I'm hoping this ask just clarifies why I reblogged it rather than sounding disrespectful in any way. If you wanna reply feel free, but you don't gotta. I just felt bad when I read your post, thought you might have misunderstood my intent behind the reblog, and really wanted to explain myself.

Oh no it wasn't from you, and I totally agree with you!

This is why I mentioned that option of AO3 too because I think it's a good compromise, it doesn't spoil the story but also makes it so people know there might be some potentially triggering things if you read it. When you click on that you kind of accept that risk.

I was more so talking about when there's no warning at all, not even "Hey this has some triggering stuff in it but I can't say what because that's a spoiler, read at your own risk", and my absolute frustration with it. If that is not what OP meant then my bad, but that post came off as also defending that, mainly thanks to the inclusion of the line (paraphrasing) "the author only has the obligation to add the trigger warnings the website they're posting to requires them to" which in cases for websites like Tumblr is none (or was none for a very, very long time (untagged graphic SA fics in the Moomins tags my beloathed)) and is generally a problem where websites don't really have filters like AO3. If it's only about AO3's option to not include warnings and an AO3 post that broke containment then I agree (and my bad also), because it's clear when there are triggering subjects and the author simply chose not to include them vs if there are no triggering subjects.

I still take issues with the wording even then though, though this feels like a nitpick and I generally don't like nitpicking people over wording they use. I'm just generally frustrated because it feels like the discussion of trigger warnings is about courtesy and comfort when treating it like it is is massively underselling it and feels like intentionally picking the words to trivialise the issue and making the people who need them out to be needy and nuisances. Trigger warnings are an accessibility feature, and I'm tired of people boiling it down to simply comfort of the reader, it feels like accessibility is always an afterthought and even a nuisance to some people to deal with. It's genuinely frustrating, and maybe my personal experiences affected my reading of that post.

Sorry if my post upset you also! I admit I was pretty frustrated when writing it so I wasn't the most polite. I totally agree with you here though.