The Why & How of Content Warnings
In the age of the internet and the oversaturation of information, one of the consistent issues that comes up is the removal of context and real-time inference. While I am certainly not going to glamorize the past, I have found it necessary in my personal practice to use a rear view mirror to understand what we’ve lost, so that we might best strategize on how to replace it. The effects of internet-based interactions can range from personal disagreements to historical erasure. The question, as I understand it, is then: how do we respond to such effects, particularly through the lens of abolition, mutual aid, and community care? I believe that the internet requires us to be more intentional about how we communicate with others, because we do not have the added data of physical proximity to inform our interactions. Additionally, I believe that a prominent method of strengthening that baseline of intentionality is by using content warnings.
Content warnings - also known as trigger warnings - are not quite the same entity nor function as movie ratings. Content warnings are not a blanket statement about general levels of “mature content”. Rather, trigger warnings flag specific content that can traumatize and/or re-traumatize people. For example: if you enter a recovery space, a certain level of warning is implied in its very existence, but if someone wishes to discuss details of specific detrimental behaviors, a trigger warning is often requested.
By prefacing content with a warning, you build informed consent between you and your audience/community. If given an adequate alert, the person viewing or hearing your content can decide their own threshold and whether or not they are willing to engage with something that may be traumatizing to them. In order for this exchange of information to actualize full consent, your trigger warning must include two essential components: first, it must address specifics; and second, it must come before the referenced content.
For example: if I were to post a photo of a crime scene, it is not sufficient for me to put a caption underneath that says “trigger warning: crime scene.” Instead, what I would need to do is look into the specifics of the content and say something like “trigger warning: blood, violence, bodily trauma, cops” or whatever is actually in the content. Then, I would need to place the warning somewhere before the photo. Both of these elements are necessary for making sure that the viewer has full agency and time to decide if they consent to viewing, reading, or otherwise consuming whatever the content is.
In addition to laying out the “how” of content warnings, I think it’s also important to circle back to the “why.” Content warnings can seem overwhelming, because they consistently take time. It takes time to step back from the immediacy of the internet and responsibly put out content into the world. And that is precisely the point: infusing our daily relational practices with intentionality and accountability in response to the effects of modern internet culture.
A popular narrative put out by the media is that younger generations are too fragile to cope with “the real world.” Firstly, it’s important to acknowledge that by framing a rebuttal like that, you’re acknowledging that the real world is harmful and traumatizing. And if that is the case, why shouldn’t we protect or at the very least inform folks about experiencing that harm? We are not the gatekeepers of others’ emotional health journeys. It is not our responsibility to force healing on someone, nor is it actually healing to force traumatic exposure on someone. Secondly, shouldn’t that acknowledgment call for an investment in creating a less harmful world, not telling folks to become acclimated to hurt? What does it mean to build a world that doesn’t ask people to be capable of constantly confronting trauma? What does it mean to build a world that is not just recovery from trauma, but also preventing trauma in the first place?
None of what I have said is to imply that we must censor what we talk about, especially when it comes to our own platforms (content warnings and contextual appropriateness are two different topics). What I am claiming is that content warnings are necessary for building a relationship that centers informed consent between you and your audience/community. By centering consent in this efficient way, we practice how to mitigate harm, especially when we are dealing with the effects of virtual communication and the decrease of context and physical cues. We do not have to earn our places in this world by augmenting our ability to hold harmful things. Our place in this world comes from the care with which we treat other people.