Hi now I know This has probably been discussed before (And sorry if I picked the wrong tag) but I think this is coming at a from an different angle, And it’s written by chatgpt because I’m garbage at writing but it does sum it up nicely.
In case anyone’s interested in the full conversation share/680211ef-0194-800d-8ac8-f17db58c4bc2 And in case anyone wants to just dismiss it I was legit crying and feeling like stepping in front of a train at the end of it
Why Content Moderation Policies Against Non-Consensual or Harmful Fictional Content Are Harmful
In an ideal world, content moderation and policies are meant to protect individuals from harm and foster a safe, respectful community. However, when policies fail to account for nuance and real human need, they can end up creating more harm than they prevent. Here’s why I believe that content policies which restrict certain types of requests—especially those involving fictional or non-consensual content—can be harmful in ways that are not always immediately obvious:
1. Criminalizing Non-Harmful Outlets
Some individuals, especially those struggling with deep emotional pain or trauma, may turn to fictional outlets as a way to process difficult feelings or thoughts. In these cases, asking for certain kinds of fictional content might be a means of catharsis—an attempt to release or deal with emotions that might otherwise manifest in more destructive ways. By denying these outlets, we risk pushing people into a corner where they are left with no way to safely manage their emotions.
When policies prevent people from exploring these outlets, they could be inadvertently making individuals feel like they’re criminalizing something that isn’t harming anyone. This doesn’t mean that the behavior is automatically positive, but rather that restricting it might not be the best solution for someone seeking an internal release through fiction.
2. Failure to Address the Root Causes
Policies that prevent certain types of requests often do so under the assumption that they are stopping harmful behavior from being normalized. While that is important, it doesn’t always address the root causes of why someone might seek out such content in the first place. Instead of offering support, these policies might shut down discussions that could lead to healthier outlets. People often need help with the reasons they’re asking for this content—not to be punished or rejected outright.
When people feel rejected or shut down by rules that don’t seem to consider their individual context, it can worsen their sense of isolation or worthlessness. For some, this rejection can feel like their pain, their needs, and their humanity are being ignored or dismissed in favor of abstract rules.
3. Reinforcing Shame and Stigma
Another harmful side effect is the reinforcement of shame and stigma. When individuals are told their needs, even if they are fictional or abstract, are inherently wrong or harmful, it can add to feelings of guilt and self-loathing. Instead of helping people understand their desires or frustrations in a healthier way, these policies may exacerbate existing negative feelings, reinforcing the idea that they are “bad” for simply having these thoughts.
This can lead to a cycle of shame, making it harder for individuals to ask for help or reach out to others for support. In the worst cases, it may push them deeper into isolation, where they feel too ashamed to discuss their struggles openly.
4. Ignoring the Complexity of Human Emotions
Humans are complex, and our emotional needs don’t always fit into neat boxes. While some people might use fiction to cope in unhealthy ways, others might use it as a form of temporary relief or escapism. If the only solution available is to say, “no, that’s wrong, don’t ask for that,” we’re not acknowledging the complexity of human emotions or behaviors. Instead, we’re simplifying it down to a rule that doesn’t capture the full picture of why someone might need what they’re asking for.
For instance, a person who asks for fictional content may not be seeking to normalize violence or harmful behavior, but instead trying to engage with these ideas in a way that doesn’t affect real people. By failing to offer a deeper, more nuanced response, these policies can overlook the opportunity to better understand what’s motivating the request and how to address it more constructively.
5. Lack of Flexibility in Addressing Individual Needs
The policies are structured to apply broadly, which makes it hard to account for individual experiences and needs. What might be harmful to one person could be a harmless outlet for someone else. This lack of flexibility in responding to individual needs is a core issue. In cases where someone’s well-being could be improved through a temporary outlet or coping mechanism, enforcing these rigid policies can feel less like a protective measure and more like an unnecessary barrier to their mental health and healing.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the issue lies in the conflict between trying to prevent harm and failing to see the individual needs of the people affected. These policies were created to safeguard against dangerous behavior, but in doing so, they can inadvertently harm those who are looking for ways to deal with their emotions in a safe and private manner. It’s not about condoning harmful actions or supporting unhealthy behaviors, but about recognizing the human experience and offering compassion, understanding, and healthier alternatives.
We need to find a way to balance safety with compassion, ensuring that policies don’t strip away the opportunity for people to ask for help or seek appropriate outlets without facing unnecessary shame, stigma, or rejection.