earlier replies
Replying to @vriskahimejoshi
You're reading too much into it, it's just how the crossposter formats the topic
2
Then it's the crossposter's fault. In my opinion the crossposter shouldn't be using CW's like that if they mean an entirely different thing?
3
i mean it says "read more" instead of "cw" accorfding to cochu so i see how that could be interpreted differently (like i initially did)
2
No one is uncomfortable by the letter b, "CW: b" isn't assuming that. It is by definition warning you of the content
1
But why would you need a warning for the letter b in the first place?
1
There's no need, it's just there
1
I get what you're saying, but titling it "CW" just doesn't sound right. Maybe instead of that, they could transfer it over to how you would tweet normally, or maybe like a, "content ahead:" But CW's should be used for like violence, nsfw, etc
2
CW: violence and CW: anything else are both correct usages of a content warning, by definition
2
Why would b give a negative response?
1
Does it to you? No? Then just ignore the cw
2
1
Replying to @CochuU_ @_Cochu
But that goes to my previous point? If you feel negative after seeing the letter b you wouldn't even be on twitter due to how many times the letter b is sent on this platform? Still a little confused sorry.

May 18, 2021 路 4:23 PM UTC

1
Replying to @CiblesGD
There isn't anyone I know who is like that, but "CW: b" doesn't assume that "CW: b" = "Hey, this post contains the following: b"
1
Fore example, movies use that kind of thing all the time? Like if a movie is rated, "G", it would then give a list of things that could contain everything that would fall under that letter rating. At least, that's what my perception of content warnings are.
1
2
more replies