9 ms·
> I have seen many fans, in the face of being told the reason for these changes, say that it doesn’t matter because they aren’t personally epileptic. This is, a
by alexey-salmin 2y ago
> I have seen many fans, in the face of being told the reason for these changes, say that it doesn’t matter because they aren’t personally epileptic. This is, as you might understand, incredibly personally frustrating, and yes, very ableist. In saying this, these fans claim that disabled people do not have a right to feel safe when watching their favorite series, and that their wellbeing doesn’t matter in comparison to a few brighter shots of teenagers using their magic powers to punch each other.
I don't get it. Why is it bad wanting to see the unsafe version for yourself?
> Over 2500 fans signed a change.org petition asking Crunchyroll to take down this edited, safe, version of the series and instead upload an unedited version that was true to the original vision—even if it had the potential to cause seizures.
That's not how I read the petition in question. People are asking to get access to the original that they know exist. I can't find a paragraph that demands deletion of the edited safe version.
>> As fans, we implore Crunchyroll to try to acquire an uncut version of the simulcast as we are paying good money each month for the services they provide.
- 999900000999 2y agoThis is a giant liability issue for any company. If you want the raw version, I'm sure it's out there...
- ballenf 2y agoI'm skeptical unless the company has promised its shows to be safe for epileptics. Is this because it's for kids? Anyone have a source for this?
- Uehreka 2y ago> unless the company has promised its shows to be safe for epileptics Many jurisdictions have regulations requiring this. It’s also not a tough criteria to fulfill. Most of the things you need to avoid are pretty obvious, and the less obvious things can be caught by automated tools. The blowback for creating or hosting epilepsy-triggering content is pretty intense. It’s not something most companies want to play around with. I don’t get why people want CrunchyRoll to host this content so bad. It feels like people demanding to be able to set off firecrackers on a wheelchair ramp. Sure it probably won’t hurt anyone most of the time, but why do people want this one specific thing so badly when they can get it somewhere else?
- small_scombrus 2y agoIf you host (and charge for access to) content that causes a seizure and don't have warnings & stuff then there's a good argument to be made that your negligence caused any seizures that may arise. Especially if there's a perfectly good non-seizure causing version right there. Promising that content won't cause seizures is one thing, knowing that it already has is another.
- echelon 2y agoLooks like this is it? (Seizure warning) : https://youtu.be/7gOlodTlpwk https://youtu.be/7gOlodTlpwk (Seizure warning!) It's about a minute of rapid red-to-blue cycles. It's fairly intense.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- makeitdouble 2y agoReading from the petition: > This petition may be pointless and may not affect the outcome of this season, but if not that, hopefully it can affect Crunchyrolls future simulcasts from suffering the same fate as Jujutsu Kaisen is right now. I'm not a CR customer, have they ever offered multiple versions of their synchronized on air series （simulcast)? I'd assume it would only be a single chosen version, with perhaps an alternative days or months after airing, but from an effort and financial perspective I wouldn't expect it. At no point does the petition ask for separate versions (it argues the dimmed version make them nauseous), it's a commenter that surfaces the option, so I see TFA's point standing.
- brailsafe 2y ago> As fans, we implore Crunchyroll to try to acquire an uncut version of the simulcast as we are paying good money each month for the services they provide. Seems like they want Crunchyroll to offer it, I wasn't able to spot a mention of taking the safe one down; it's an uncharitable or invalid characterization on the part of the author imo
- makeitdouble 2y agoThe whole vibe of the petition was dismissive of the issues and only argued for getting the flashing version, so I understand author's view. E.g. > These things are supposed to help prevent seizures, [...] the ghosting is almost making the visual stimuli worse as people have attested to feeling nauseous and dizzy from the obscene amounts of frame blending. Emphasis mine. I don't know how bad the blurring was in motion, but I read the petitioner's argument as "this version is worse in every way for reasons that are only hypothetical". I really don't see much room for a generous interpretation.
- Aeolun 2y agoThe generous interpretation that it makes them nauseous instead of giving them an epileptic attack. I’m nearly certain for 90% of people the problem is entirely psychosomatic.
- 2y ago
- xethos 2y ago> I don't get it. Why is it bad wanting to see the unsafe version for yourself? Because, as shown in Japan and called out in TFA, even those without a history of seizures can have them. These can be bad enough, even in those with no history of seizures, to warrant a visit to the ER.
- notpushkin 2y agoYeah, but if I know that and still want to try it?
- handoflixue 2y agoNo one is stopping you from tracking it down and watching it; the request is merely that it not be the version aired on TV, nor the default on streaming media like Crunchyroll. That seems like a pretty reasonable middle ground to me - if you can only host one version, host the safe version. If you want to host multiple versions, feel free to add the unsafe cut as an alternative.
- throwaway290 2y agoIt is not middle ground if it requires breaking the law... "Not enough money? No one is stopping you from defrauding someone or robbing a bank" Edit: I meant piracy
- handoflixue 2y agoI think you might be responding to the wrong thread? My comment had nothing to do with illegal behavior
- bmicraft 2y agoWell, how do you "track something down" when it isn't provided through official channels?
- alphan0n 2y ago
- Uehreka 2y agoIf they just want to see the unedited version, it feels lazy to demand that CrunchyRoll track down and host the episode when (in the time it takes to read the petition) you can just do some Googling and find it. Right now anyone who wants to see it can track it down (and the Streisand Effect will ensure that remains the case) but it isn’t so easy to find that someone would stumble across it by accident. Why change that status quo? This kind of feels like a troll petition, especially with that weird invocation of “we are paying good money each month for the services they provide”. People often tack that sentence on to something when it’s clear that what they’re asking for isn’t self-evidently necessary.
- notpushkin 2y agoIt's not necessary, but it is nice to have. IMO demanding the original version would be inappropriate, but you can ask for it.
- denkmoon 2y agoYou can simply "just do some Googling and find it" for literally everything on CrunchyRoll. That's called piracy though, and there are various reasons why people buy a crunchyroll subscription instead of doing that. Seems quite a reasonable request to me.
- fennecbutt 2y agoI cancelled my c roll sub because they don't have anything on there. None of the older classic anime, only the newer ones which I'm not really interested in. Every time I look up an older one (2000s) to watch it, they don't have it. So no wonder people pirate it all.
- nox101 2y agoAgree. The whole world doesn't need to give up alcohol/peanuts/gluten just because some people are allergic. It should be enough to put to a warning for them so they can safely avoid those things. Similarly, a warning on a version had has potentially problematic strobing seems like enough? I've certainly seen that warning on several things recently.\\ I noticed this issue in Kaiju 8. It was so bad I thought my TV was broke. It was clear the scene was supposed to be brighter and flashy but it was at like 50% brightness. I had incorrectly guessed at first that it was the TV not liking some extra bright scene. Turns out it was this. It did arguably ruin the scene. An analogy would be if someone walked up to the TV and turned down the volume by 50% for an action scene.
- Qwertious 2y ago>I don't get it. Why is it bad wanting to see the unsafe version for yourself? Half the point of the article is that the seizures frequently occur in people who had no history of seizures, i.e. who were "not epileptic". Thus, saying "I don't care, I'm not epileptic" is pure nonsense.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Why is it bad wanting to see the unsafe version for yourself? No one has said it is bad to want that. Being free to want that doesn't mean you are entitled to have someone fulfill your desire for you.
- sevensor 2y agoI think the allergy analogy people are deploying in these comments is misleading. It’s more like you’re asking for a car without seatbelts because you’ve never been in an accident. These visual patterns are dangerous even for people with no history, according to the article, and the consequences of a seizure can be severe. The author suffered a fractured spine! This is not a reasonable thing to have in the environment; it’s good that we’ve established protections.
- bmicraft 2y agoIt's more like asking for mandatory seatbelts in a world where most people are completely immune to any kind of car crash and will not get so much as a scratch from any kind of collision.