Shorter how? Shorter by saying "Don't go on social media."
But, I suppose people are going to go there anyway, so I suppose the article is relevant.
When graphic videos go viral, like the recent fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see.
People have different tolerances for "disturbing" content, so yes, it should be up to the user. Kind of like with the Content Rating System here.
The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it.
One could argue that you chose to watch it by being on the platform in the first place.
Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness.
And I went to the link to the "study" and it's not enough to convince me that this is the correct conclusion. Still, whatever the reason, if you don't want to see certain types of media, that's your choice.
Practical steps you can take
I'm obviously not going to copy all of them here.
Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being.
This is just going to make you see less content overall, not just less disturbing content.
Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material.
I have no reason to disbelieve this, but it seems to me to be one of those things where, even if it's not true, it helps to assume that it is.
I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online.
Oh, now I see the author's bias.
You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class...
You know what's worse than the worst, most disturbing content on social media?
