However, I see it nearly daily because I consume HN using a feed reader and don’t rely on the HN homepage at all. So in my list of HN stories I see nothing flagged in my reader and will often pull up a post that should be totally appropriate for HN and hardly controversial at all just to see it now flagged and every so often interesting commentary completely shut down.
But I am not worried, because if this site gets to the point where we see these self-appointed censors make this place an uninteresting I’ll just move on.
Overall, studies across a range of trigger warning types/groups have not found there's a significantly beneficial effect (and have found some minor negative effects).
It also didn’t cover types of trigger warnings, referred to people who consider trauma part of their “core identity”, and use self reporting of ptsd. I find any online survey that uses self reporting to define the population to be lesser quality. Like when pre-Kinsey researchers did the self reported penis size study.
For "Cross-cultural communication tensions", I think this essay is excellent: https://status451.com/2016/01/06/splain-it-to-me/
Or work like the conventional commits standard, and use "CW(nudity)" and "CW(gore)" where CW = Content Warning.
But then you'd have people pedantically arguing over exactly what words to use. Maybe tags instead? "CW(nature,gore,sea,flesh)".
Of course then you'd be relying on people's good graces to classify the links correctly. I have some hope that at least a sizable minority would use the content warnings correctly, mostly because of Lemmy and Mastodon. On the fediverse, people often make an effort to describe the images they post in descriptive text, so maybe they'd classify links well enough?