Trigger warnings are not spoilers. They are more likely to warn about the side effects that can occur with a multimedia product, says our author.

Transmission trigger warnings are comparable to food allergy warnings Photo: imago

A friend recently said he had been spoiled. He had watched a movie on Netflix, but before starting, the streaming provider showed him a warning: The movie was about violence, rape and murder. The friend was outraged. So he already knew what would happen in the movie.

He is not alone in his critical attitude: Jürn Kruse commented in Übermedien that, in addition to violence, suicide and eating disorders, Netflix also had to warn against alcohol abuse and violence against children, because these are also content sensitive. However, there would then be a risk that each and every warning would be missed and the long list of content warnings would look like an instruction booklet. And psychologist Thomas Weber explained in an interview with Taz that the term “trigger warning” itself can provoke fears in those affected, and that defining other people's trigger points by outsiders is invasive and presumptuous. He advocates for a more sober “index.”

It's true, it's understandable, I'll accept it. We still need them, in some form. To me, trigger warnings are comparable to warnings on foods for allergy sufferers. If you are not allergic, you may think such labels are unnecessary. But they can save the lives of those affected. If there is no content warning on a movie or social media post, in most cases this will not be fatal. But, for example, victims traumatized by violence may suffer a nervous breakdown or go into a state of shock if they are faced without warning with the same type of violence that they themselves have suffered.

Streaming providers should therefore follow the brochure idea that Kruse feared and list all sensitive content with great precision. This way, traumatized people know what to expect. You can pause again, listen to yourself, listen to your gut, ask yourself: Do I want to expose myself to this? And the longer the list is, the more affected people they target: not only violence, but also alcohol abuse, gambling addiction or depression can trigger something in people who have gone through these same situations.

Things get really nasty at the movies.

Some streaming providers only have a synopsis, as Weber suggests, next to the story description. Another alternative to the offensive display would be a warning button that those affected could click. This way, people like my friend would no longer be “spoiled.” However, I don't think these less visible variants are good solutions. First, traumatized people sometimes forget that they have experienced something bad. Secondly, we, as a society, only develop sensitivity towards traumatized people when we encounter them in everyday life.

This text comes from Laborable day. Our left-wing weekly! Every week, wochentaz is about the world as it is and as it could be. A left-wing weekly with a voice, attitude and a special vision of the world. New every Saturday on newsstands and of course by subscription.

Streaming at home is the lesser evil. It can be really uncomfortable for those affected in public spaces, for example in the cinema. Because a traumatized person can't just walk away quickly.

Friends and family can provide support and let those around them know if they have seen a film that shows something that could re-traumatize those affected. It is not always easy to keep sensitivity sharp during free time. But that little stress is not comparable to what those affected have to experience every day in terms of triggers.