3 ms·

Serious question: should the whole internet have content warnings for anything that might be found objectionable by someone? This seems super mild. Maybe embe

Serious question: should the whole internet have content warnings for anything that might be found objectionable by someone? This seems super mild. Maybe embed it in site metadata, and then you specify your preferred experience in your browser of choice?

moralestapia 11mo ago
[flagged]
- buellerbueller 11mo ago
  Yes; that's my point. Is there a way of making the internet better, such that this can be handled more seamlessly, so that the people impacted by things that others find mild can just...avoid it? Not all internet has a landing page where someone can post a "trigger warning" (for lack of a better term). Nor should it: trigger warnings don't work, and may even be harmful.
  - toss1 11mo ago
    Now this actually sounds like a good use-case for LLM/'AI'-enhanced browsers. Everyone has different triggers and YUK! levels and it would take an insane amount of time & effort to encode all that, and setup on each different person's client side, but an 'AI-browser' with 'smart filtering' (or whatever they'd call it) would likely be quick to setup for each user's (dis-)tastes and be quite flexible in recognizing the patterns and taking the desired action (hide, warn, summarize w/o the triggers, sanitize, etc.). Maybe it already exists(?) but I've avoided 'AI-browsers', keeping my use in their apps/sites.
    - moralestapia 11mo ago
      I worked on that for a little while on 2022, for kids! Definitely an opportunity there.
  - kulahan 11mo ago
    I don't think it's going to work to aggressively hide from anything moderately uncomfortable for the rest of one's browsing experience.
- ericmcer 11mo ago
  It's a dogs nose with a scab on it lol
- throwuxiytayq 11mo ago
  If you find these pictures distressing, you might want to consider consciously and carefully exposing yourself to more of the same to build a minimal amount of tolerance. I’m pretty sure it’s literally impossible to go through life without experiencing (sometimes personally) medical conditions that are significantly more visually unpleasant. I’m not a huge fan of the meat-creature-universe we all rolled, but it literally is what it is.
- denkmoon 11mo ago
  Never seen roadkill? Or a bird pecked to death by other birds? Biology is brutal, reality is brutal, this is very mild.
justsomehnguy 11mo ago
This was already tried literally decades ago[0]. Now answer some questions: what should happen when some objectionable people would access a site what doesn't have anything in the site metadata? what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain? Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel. [0] eg https://www.isumsoft.com/internet/enable-content-advisor-in-internet-explorer-10-11.html https://www.isumsoft.com/internet/enable-content-advisor-in-...
- buellerbueller 11mo ago
  >what should happen when some objectionable people would access a site what doesn't have anything in the site metadata? >what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain? Nothing; publishers on the internet don't owe anyone anything, but that doesn't mean they can't try. >Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel. That is always going to be a battle; I don't think this suggestion is a meaningful paradigm shift in either way. One could argue that this satisfies the needs of the "TATC" crowd, because it puts the control in the parents hands, via browser, and is therefore a less centralized solution.

moralestapia 11mo ago

[flagged]

buellerbueller 11mo ago
Yes; that's my point. Is there a way of making the internet better, such that this can be handled more seamlessly, so that the people impacted by things that others find mild can just...avoid it? Not all internet has a landing page where someone can post a "trigger warning" (for lack of a better term). Nor should it: trigger warnings don't work, and may even be harmful.
- toss1 11mo ago
  Now this actually sounds like a good use-case for LLM/'AI'-enhanced browsers. Everyone has different triggers and YUK! levels and it would take an insane amount of time & effort to encode all that, and setup on each different person's client side, but an 'AI-browser' with 'smart filtering' (or whatever they'd call it) would likely be quick to setup for each user's (dis-)tastes and be quite flexible in recognizing the patterns and taking the desired action (hide, warn, summarize w/o the triggers, sanitize, etc.). Maybe it already exists(?) but I've avoided 'AI-browsers', keeping my use in their apps/sites.
  - moralestapia 11mo ago
    I worked on that for a little while on 2022, for kids! Definitely an opportunity there.
- kulahan 11mo ago
  I don't think it's going to work to aggressively hide from anything moderately uncomfortable for the rest of one's browsing experience.
ericmcer 11mo ago
It's a dogs nose with a scab on it lol
throwuxiytayq 11mo ago
If you find these pictures distressing, you might want to consider consciously and carefully exposing yourself to more of the same to build a minimal amount of tolerance. I’m pretty sure it’s literally impossible to go through life without experiencing (sometimes personally) medical conditions that are significantly more visually unpleasant. I’m not a huge fan of the meat-creature-universe we all rolled, but it literally is what it is.
denkmoon 11mo ago
Never seen roadkill? Or a bird pecked to death by other birds? Biology is brutal, reality is brutal, this is very mild.

justsomehnguy 11mo ago

This was already tried literally decades ago[0]. Now answer some questions: what should happen when some objectionable people would access a site what doesn't have anything in the site metadata? what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain? Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel. [0] eg https://www.isumsoft.com/internet/enable-content-advisor-in-internet-explorer-10-11.html https://www.isumsoft.com/internet/enable-content-advisor-in-...

buellerbueller 11mo ago
>what should happen when some objectionable people would access a site what doesn't have anything in the site metadata? >what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain? Nothing; publishers on the internet don't owe anyone anything, but that doesn't mean they can't try. >Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel. That is always going to be a battle; I don't think this suggestion is a meaningful paradigm shift in either way. One could argue that this satisfies the needs of the "TATC" crowd, because it puts the control in the parents hands, via browser, and is therefore a less centralized solution.