CWs are not censorship. CWs are a tool to allow consent.

Boosting this again because I've just had to deal with someone railing against CWs because "you can either be in favor of freedom of speech or in favor of choosing what you hear" and :blobugh:

Show thread

@noelle cws are censorship is like repeatedly the worst take I see dudes make here

@bugpaws @noelle i think it's beat out by other takes also in the superset of "i have the right to force others to see what I have written"


@riking @bugpaws @noelle “it’s my god given right to display my bare ass in this storefront window, and the twenty thousand dollar fine for indecent exposure to children is a cross i am prepared to be crucified on”

@bugpaws @noelle is it really that hard for these dudes to click one extra time? 🙄

@noelle Is this really a thing people are saying? I mean come on...

@noelle The people who complain about "censorship" just want to offend people and not be called out for it.

@noelle Important, simple, beautiful post. Consent is definitely a vital aspect of The Fediverse, and in the broader aspect of our evolving society.

@noelle CWs are also useful for hiding punchlines and spoilers!

@noelle also the hidden by default nature of CWs is counteracted by clickbait curiousity of what is under a CW

@noelle lol, so that dude has a house full of TV's blaring all of the news channels at top volume all the time? He follows everyone he encounters on Mastodon, Twitter, etc? He believes he should have no choice in what he sees/hears so I can assume that if he walks into a room and the TV is set to static, he just sits down and watches it?

@noelle I'm just really happy that I am sufficiently unknown and on a smaller instance so I don't have to deal with this stuff. It's not that I can't "handle" it, it's just a waste of my time to have to scroll past it.

@vector @noelle what's their @ because they need to follow me. it's freedom of speech they can't say no, freedom of speech means you have to follow everybody. sorry i don't make the rules

@noelle ffs freedom of speech has a very specific definition. I hate when people whine about it when I ask them politely not to be a jerk or *gasp* criticize them! *rant rant rant*

@noelle so wait, he's got a locked account, which must mean he's using followers only toots because otherwise why have a locked account

Which must mean that he's choosing which toots to make public, and which to keep private... Isn't that self-censorship by his definition?


*says the fox whomst not consistent, or mindful enough to use CW's.*

@noelle I think a lot of infighting could be avoided if CW had just been called a "subject line" instead. Conventional terminology for email or xmpp.

@bob The trouble with "subject line" is that it doesn't imply that the rest of the message will be hidden.

@noelle It doesn't, but by convention systems with message subject lines usually hide the content and require some sort of click through. Email, Usenet news, usually RSS readers, etc.
@bob @noelle this would ideally be configurable by the user too, so I agree with subject lines. It will likely be even more useful moving forward as the fediverse gains more types of media or long-form text that should be truncated initially

@noelle I love how it's about "freedom of speech"... they're completely unable to parse how their "freedom" is based on a deliberate blindness to their privilege.

Once, someone chided me for wishing such a one could be reborn as a woman. "Why not? Maybe they'd *learn* something!"

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Elekk: Mastodon for Gamers

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!