you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 1 week ago (63 children)

We're not marking death videos with NSFW these days?

  • source
  • hideshow 63 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 1 week ago (18 children)

    Is it NSFW? There's no gore, no nudity, and no swearing. The title and community already state it's not exactly feel good but I don't see anything that you wouldn't see in any Marvel movie.

    Some servers (including the one I'm on just now) don't show anything tagged as NSFW, as an easy means of complying with stupid internet laws. Using the NSFW tag as a catch all term for anything you may not want to see then censors large amounts of content.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Why would you be involved in a server that blocks content like that. Basically every Lemmy browser has the option to not show NSFW content. This shouldn't be done at the instance level and should be left for the user. You should move instances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 1 week ago* (9 children)

    Yes watching this video knowing that 9 people have died upon impact makes this a death video.

    What's so wrong with erring on the side of caution and putting NSFW or a CW up?

    The title and community already state it’s not exactly feel good but I don’t see anything that you wouldn’t see in any Marvel movie.

    Just because you are desensitized to watching death doesn't mean the rest of us are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    CW fair enough, but NSFW blocks it from several servers erroneously.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    Maybe death videos shouldn't be pushed so easily into people's timelines. Let people choose to watch it if they want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Let people choose to watch it if they want.

    Right back at you.

    This video was one of the top stories on the BBC's website today and I'm sure many other news websites around the world. It was "censored" by pausing for 1 second at the point of collision but otherwise it was the exact same video.

    If the BBC are putting it on their front page it's unlikely to be NSFW.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

    What?? Nine real people DIE instantly in a fucking fireball explosion in this video.

    Of course this should be tagged NSFW.

    Fix your server, get on a different one, fix your laws, or figure out a way to bypass the block. Don't not comply with community standards that everybody else uses because your country is messed up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    There's a discussion possible.

    I know people who look at the news at work and that often talks about Israel and the USA killing people all over the place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    Then don’t look for the ATC communication with the airplane. That’s NSFL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    It’s just a window into the horrible moments as people suddenly realize they are about to die and are unable to prevent it. It’s NSFL because it’s likely to stick with you long after you’ve heard it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago*

    Yeah, I was a frequenter of r/watchpeopledie when it was still a thing and consider that audio right up there with the videos from there that would stick with you.

    It's worse than the 9/11 call from the guy above the impact site

    Tap for descriptionthat includes the start of the collapse, because while we the listeners knew he and everyone else he was with was about to die, they didn't know that for sure and still had hope they might get out of that alive.

    You can tell that while there's a bit of denial remaining, she knows it's over and she's panicking from the very start of the event. At first she says they were dropping at 10k feet per minute, then she says 20k feet per minute and I think that's when she went from scared of potential death to scared of certain death.

    The video is nothing compared to how real the audio makes it feel. Like you can imagine how it might have been but the audio makes it much more vivid than that three frames of plane followed by a dust cloud and explosion do.

    Edit: fixed spoiler tag

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (34 children)

    Question is, why are we marking videos NSFW when there's nothing to it. I've seen many.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    I've seen so many.

    Because no matter how many NSFW videos you watch, it doesn't change the video being NSFW.

    You realize you are not the only person in the world, right? And that's why standards and conventions exist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (29 children)

    Not everyone enjoys watching others die.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Then don't watch a video labelled plane crash?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    To be fair to the guy you are commenting to, it auto plays while scrolling through Lemmy, at least on mine. So I can see some people may end up seeing it that didn't want to. 🤷

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (22 children)

    But you didn't actually see anyone die. You know it from news reports. Also I'm not referring to this video. I just think the NSFW label is overused and abused in terms of click-baiting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    It is, and it also becomes a weapon for the growing puritan culture.

    But a huge explosion, that's a plane crash, where 9 people die in an accident is still NSFW. It is not a video of cute cats playing in the sun, it is a video of people fucking dying, even if you can't easily make out people bits explode in the fireball.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    Perhaps your argument would work...50 years ago? Today with trump and ubiquitous cams...this is everyday news. People getting shot in schools, and doing crazy stuff. It really brings the reality to the fore front on our existence. We are easily extinguish...and all life is precious....so we should all endeavor for peace and coexistence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    No I get it, things have absolutely changed. Things that 50 years ago would be gross and offensive today is casual or even still professional speak and vice versa. That still doesn't change the fact that I think it is and should be considered NSFW or have a caution or warning that it contains death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    Fine, then throw a CW at least.

    You don't need to dig your heels in on insisting people should watch this death video.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    The title saying it's a video of a plane crashing isn't a warning enough?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    And that's not what you asked for.

    I conceded CW is fair enough and you continued to argue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (7 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (5 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Where did I say anybody should be forced to watch anything? I said NSFW blocks content from being visible to many servers, implying it should only be used when the content truly fits the definition of NSFW. This is a distressing video, but not NSFW.

    If you don't want to risk seeing videos of this nature I think it's probably best you block this community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago

    I disagree with what the news does, then. Even if they show it, they really should say something like "this video clip is graphic and is uncensored. It contains people dying".... Nah, the more I think about what they should say, the more I think they really shouldn't show it so easily. There needs to more barrier to entry, but the more barrier to entry with them still showing it, the more I feel like them showing it at all is wrong.

    Like maybe if we went back to the thing where an anchor said like "this video is inappropriate for sensitive viewers" and gave 5-10 seconds of warning, followed by basically "this is your last chance to not watch".

    Because deep down, I think there's a part of me that is against hiding the ugly parts of life and death and trauma. I think unnecessary trauma should be avoided, but like a lot of people in here are arguing, this stuff isn't exactly uncommon.

    So when it comes down to it, I don't have a perfect solution for tv cable news. For fediverse, though, and the wider Internet and text based info, we have warnings like NSFW and content warnings for common rough triggers like rape or abuse or stuff that can trigger PTSD. And putting those warnings on stuff for people is just the right thing to do. Because it isn't for you, it's for other people who don't know exactly how it's going to impact them until it's too late. There are certain things you can't unsee. Like jars, horses, elbows, chainsaws, gunshots, or other stuff. And just because something isn't a majority opinion doesn't disqualify it from having a warning. That just ends up catering to already overserved demographics.

    Like if even a few people are gonna be traumatized by a video that literally contains death, the correct response isn't to say "too bad so sad fuck you" and not tag it. Especially when the convention is to tag it. Just tag it, it costs nobody anything.

    And if it adds to government censorship, that's truly unfortunate, but I don't suggest we untag all NSFW content just so they can bypass that. Because that also harms the few to sate the many. In that situation, either the people on the censorship instances need to deal with that, or a compromise should be made, such as a non-tag warning. Like just putting the warning in the title. That accomplishes the actual warning whilst also giving people with the censorship laws their death videos. Everybody's happy.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)