earlier replies
Replying to @CiblesGD @_Cochu
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
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.
1
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
Replying to @CochuU_ @_Cochu
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.

May 18, 2021 路 4:28 PM UTC

1
2
Replying to @CiblesGD
And that is a real usage of the words content warning. Essentially, it's informing you of what you're about to see, read, hear, etc. My idea of a content warning is just "this is what the following post/media will contain"
1
2