Re:A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Trigger Warnings
by everforward on Friday November 25, 2022 @02:20PM
(#33745851)
I typically see content flagged NSFL when it's generally repulsive regardless of background (excepting those seeking out the content). Stuff like graphic videos of beheadings or people set on fire that's upsetting even to people with no traumatic background. It's kind of like a trigger warning for an average person; background doesn't matter if the content is bad enough.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Trigger Warnings
by dmix on Friday November 25, 2022 @06:55PM
(#33748307)
NSFW/NSFL is a completely different animal than trigger warnings. Only 3 categories exist: 1) no warning, 2) NSFW, 3) NSFL.
Trigger warnings are hyper-specific to the audience and could involved thousands (or infinite) potential 'triggers' and a huge variety of audience categories/groups. The burden on the platforms, writers, and general audience is magnitudes higher for some questionable value.
Re:A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Trigger Warnings
by avar on Friday November 25, 2022 @07:54PM
(#33748706)
Typically, but it's also watered down to the point of being synonymous with "icky" in some contexts.
E.g. you'll see posts of the inside of wasp nests and the like being marked NSFL on Reddit.
NSFW has also evolved to mean "disable preview", among other things. E.g. it's used to hide the punchline of visual jokes on Reddit.