3 ms·

Surely you would agree that there are limits, socially determined or otherwise? Would you be OK with your child seeing a motorcyclist's head blown off? A man's

Surely you would agree that there are limits, socially determined or otherwise? Would you be OK with your child seeing a motorcyclist's head blown off? A man's distended anus? There are no limits on the internet. I saw all these things because I didn't know any better, or because I was morbidly curious. It didn't ruin me or give me PTSD or anything, but it definitely shaped my personality. I regret it now, in my mid-twenties.

dkuntz2 13y ago
I think the crux is that you were "morbidly curious". Being denied access through one medium isn't going to deter someone curious enough. Sure the internet is a HUGE medium, and it's a lot easier to get access to that material using the internet, but that content's been around for almost as long as we've had photography. Why exactly do you regret it?
- archagon 13y ago
  I was morbidly curious to the extent that if somebody put a nasty link in front of me, I would have followed it. But I didn't actively seek those things out. To some extent, it was a test of macho-ness: can I handle this gore? What about this birth defect? I think a lot of kids are like that. I regret it because I feel it's shaped my personality, lessened my sense of empathy, and put a bunch of disgusting images in my head that I'll never be able to get rid of.
  - judk 13y ago
    Why don't you feel.empathy for the people whose suffering you saw?
Crito 13y ago
I'd draw the line at where PTSD is actually induced. IE, actual damage. Replace "motorcyclist missing a head" with "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps" and I don't think anybody would think it particularly strange that disturbing images are available to view. Yeah, there is historic significance behind those examples, but that doesn't really come into play when considering the effects of disturbing images on people, does it?
- archagon 13y ago
  I could be wrong, but I think PTSD can be induced with images. The Hiroshima/Nazi photos were powerful because they were such a rare display of extreme violence. (At least, that's how I remember feeling when I first saw them.) Plus, their impact was lessened because they were grainy, old, and black and white. Would you be OK with kids today seeing a modern mass grave -- bodies hacked up, heads cut off, etc.? Me, I'd be wary.
  - Crito 13y ago
    If there was a decent chance of standard internet gore causing PTSD, then it would be an epidemic. Most kids have unfiltered unsupervised access to the internet (particularly now in the era of portable internet connected devices), but they seem to be turning out fine. I think it is good for kids to see photographs of modern atrocities and war crimes. I wouldn't want them to make the mistake of assuming that is something restricted to fiction and history. I don't think the "physically ill" feeling is necessary to appreciate the severity or magnitude of those sort of images. In fact, I suspect those sort of feelings cloud the mind and prevent you from taking it all in. An academic appreciation for the horrors of reality is more important that a "gastrointestinal" appreciation.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - andrewflnr 13y ago
      Of course they're going to seem to turn out fine. The effects, when they exist, are mostly private and easy to hide. I'm not going to defend the PTSD hypothesis in particular, or that it's important to be aware of past horrors. But there are real forms of trauma that only require seeing things, and it doesn't much matter whether it's in real life or a picture, only whether it's truly believed.
  - Crake 13y ago
    >I could be wrong, but I think PTSD can be induced with images. You're wrong. I know tumblr likes to use the word "trigger" for just about everything, but real diagnosed PTSD is predicated on events significantly more traumatizing than seeing some photographs. There's nothing life-threatening about an image, no matter how disturbing.

dkuntz2 13y ago

I think the crux is that you were "morbidly curious". Being denied access through one medium isn't going to deter someone curious enough. Sure the internet is a HUGE medium, and it's a lot easier to get access to that material using the internet, but that content's been around for almost as long as we've had photography. Why exactly do you regret it?

archagon 13y ago
I was morbidly curious to the extent that if somebody put a nasty link in front of me, I would have followed it. But I didn't actively seek those things out. To some extent, it was a test of macho-ness: can I handle this gore? What about this birth defect? I think a lot of kids are like that. I regret it because I feel it's shaped my personality, lessened my sense of empathy, and put a bunch of disgusting images in my head that I'll never be able to get rid of.
- judk 13y ago
  Why don't you feel.empathy for the people whose suffering you saw?

Crito 13y ago

I'd draw the line at where PTSD is actually induced. IE, actual damage. Replace "motorcyclist missing a head" with "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps" and I don't think anybody would think it particularly strange that disturbing images are available to view. Yeah, there is historic significance behind those examples, but that doesn't really come into play when considering the effects of disturbing images on people, does it?

archagon 13y ago
I could be wrong, but I think PTSD can be induced with images. The Hiroshima/Nazi photos were powerful because they were such a rare display of extreme violence. (At least, that's how I remember feeling when I first saw them.) Plus, their impact was lessened because they were grainy, old, and black and white. Would you be OK with kids today seeing a modern mass grave -- bodies hacked up, heads cut off, etc.? Me, I'd be wary.
- Crito 13y ago
  If there was a decent chance of standard internet gore causing PTSD, then it would be an epidemic. Most kids have unfiltered unsupervised access to the internet (particularly now in the era of portable internet connected devices), but they seem to be turning out fine. I think it is good for kids to see photographs of modern atrocities and war crimes. I wouldn't want them to make the mistake of assuming that is something restricted to fiction and history. I don't think the "physically ill" feeling is necessary to appreciate the severity or magnitude of those sort of images. In fact, I suspect those sort of feelings cloud the mind and prevent you from taking it all in. An academic appreciation for the horrors of reality is more important that a "gastrointestinal" appreciation.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - andrewflnr 13y ago
    Of course they're going to seem to turn out fine. The effects, when they exist, are mostly private and easy to hide. I'm not going to defend the PTSD hypothesis in particular, or that it's important to be aware of past horrors. But there are real forms of trauma that only require seeing things, and it doesn't much matter whether it's in real life or a picture, only whether it's truly believed.
- Crake 13y ago
  >I could be wrong, but I think PTSD can be induced with images. You're wrong. I know tumblr likes to use the word "trigger" for just about everything, but real diagnosed PTSD is predicated on events significantly more traumatizing than seeing some photographs. There's nothing life-threatening about an image, no matter how disturbing.