Filtering Media and Why It Matters: An Asexual Perspective on Filtering Services
 |
| Image description: A promo image for the classic iconic series Mystery Science Theater 3000, with the asexual flag in place of the usual moon. MST3K is a series famous for rifting on media and making commentary on things. Some days, I feel like I'm doing the rifting and other days I feel like I'm the subject of the rifting. Either that, or I just couldn't think of a good cover image for this post. You be the judge. |
Originally, when planning my posts for 2022, I wanted to
include a post where I tested out and then reviewed a service I had found by
accident. That service is called VidAngel, and it’s essentially a streaming
service that allows its users to skip content they don’t want to see in shows
available through other streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, etc.
This content can range from graphic violence, to strong language, and, of
course, sex and nudity, which is the reason why I’m interested in it. As I said,
I had every intention of testing and reviewing this service, but as often
happens with my posts, things got a bit delayed for me. I’ve been working on a
lot of other projects this year and have also been trying to keep up with work and
research on other posts; as such I haven’t had the time yet to actually
test the service out.
That being said, while I was looking into the concept behind
the service, I found myself already having a lot of thoughts on it and on the
reactions people often have to it – so much so that I already have enough
material to fill an entire post even without having tested the service yet.
Therefore, I’ve decided to do the following: today’s post will focus just on
the concept of filtering media, why I believe it’s a welcome option, and why
some people view it with hostility; meanwhile, a post that I do (hopefully) at
the beginning of 2023 will then be an actual review of this specific service
after I’ve (hopefully) had time to try it for myself. When I get to the actual
review, that will focus more on the service and how it works, so consider this
a sort of prequel to that post. Here, I want to take a look at the concept in a
broader sense and have a larger discussion about media, accessibility, and
content.
The Limitations
of “Don’t Like, Don’t Watch”
Right off the bat, I feel I have to admit something
important in regard to this topic – I'm actually not entirely sure how video
streaming services like VidAngel work when it comes to the actual technology or
process involved. The company’s website shows a little bit of how you can
customize your filters and shows the many streaming services you can “connect,”
but I suspect it probably won’t make sense to me until I actually try the
service out for myself. When I do try it, I will be primarily concerned with if
it works effectively for what I would want it to do, as well as if I feel
filtering out the content makes the piece of media too difficult to understand
or get a feel of the flow.
So, for this post, I do not want to focus on those
nitty-gritty details. Rather, I want to focus on what it means to filter
content out of a piece of media and why there seems to be such strong pushback
to the concept. As I mentioned in my introduction, there are a lot of filters
in this service; for the sake of this blog and my own personal analysis, I will
obviously be focusing on the notion of filtering out sex and nudity. However, I
believe the things I’m going to discuss are relevant for any of the filters on
this or any other platform, and to the concept of filtering in general. When it
comes to VidAngel itself, one of the prevailing comments that I’ve seen come
up, not only in their own FAQ but on their social media pages, seems to be,
“Maybe you just shouldn’t watch the thing then.” While I usually support this
notion in a lot of senses, I believe there are also a few limitations to that
line of thinking. When it comes to certain types of media, I feel this thought
process can actually be an oversimplification, and I wonder if people would
still hold that belief if they understood certain experiences, such as being
the only aspec person in a group setting.
To illustrate this point, I want to use an example that is
not related to any type of media, but to a time a few years back when I was
with my friends, who decided to play the game “Cards Against Humanity.” I
really didn’t know much about the game, so I agreed… only to find out that many
of the cards in the game were sexual in nature. Now, my friends are great, and
when I expressed to them that I, as a sex-repulsed asexual, didn’t feel
comfortable with the sexual cards, they allowed me to put the cards back in the
bottom of the deck and pick new ones whenever I needed to. However, not every
group is as accepting as my friends, nor is every person necessarily okay with
expressing these types of dissenting opinions, whether they are part of an
identity or not. As for the argument of “why play at all then?”, our “Cards
Against Humanity” game is a prime example of why this viewpoint doesn’t work.
I am the fourth member of a four-person friend group. In a
game like this, while three people is theoretically possible, it greatly
reduces the functionality of the game, which means my friends will either have
less fun or will begrudgingly have to choose a different game entirely, all because of me. Furthermore, it potentially leaves me in the awkward position of either sitting there and
staring at them blankly while they play without me, or straight-up leaving the
table, being on my phone to distract myself, putting in headphones, or any
other number of behaviors that are going to further alienate me from the group,
even more than requesting they change the rules already did. I doubt that
anyone – regardless of identity – wants to put themselves in so awkward a
position.
Now, in the case of a TV show or movie, things are a little
different, sure, and asking to filter a show or a movie through a streaming
service like VidAngel when you’re among a group is probably just as awkward as
if you simply left the room, I admit. But in this day and age, there are a lot
more ways in which TV and movies can become communal activities without
everyone necessarily having to be in the same room together. Although we don’t
really gather around the water cooler during lunch break like perhaps we used to,
many pieces of media are still shared experiences. Having to opt out of
these pieces of media due to things like language, extreme violence, or sexual
situations is a level of self-isolation that really isn’t fair to demand of
people when they have options like filtering, especially when the filtering is something they do on their own time,
in the privacy of their own home (or, if in a group setting, with the consent
of those around them first, of course).
 |
| Image description: "I NEVER want to see a naked man again *cue several running by*" In this scene from the 1998 Disney animated classic Mulan, I think Mulan's face of shock and dismay is a pretty accurate depiction of me trying to navigate most media as a sex-repulsed asexual. |
Something I mention in my “Trouble With Streaming” post is my strong belief that art should not have to be censored, and TV and movies are a form of art. If I demanded that a movie not have sex or nudity in it because those things made me uncomfortable, I would 100% be in the wrong. But that’s not what I want, and it's not what VidAngel does, nor what they advocate. There is a huge different between demanding that strong language, extreme violence, or sex and nudity never be included in anything ever, and wanting an option where you can still experience a piece of media without having these things included. I think the people who criticize using a filtering service like this fear the former without thinking of the usefulness of the latter.
Again, this is something I bring up a lot on the blog, and
it’s a struggle that I feel many aspec people may go through – and one I know
acutely as a sex-repulsed asexual. When I or people like me say we don’t want
to see sex or nudity, more often than not, we aren’t making a commentary on
anyone else. We are simply making a commentary on what content we ourselves do
or do not want to see. Unfortunately, our society has made it so that people
equate “I don’t want to see that” with “and therefore no one should,” and not
without reason. There have been many times where that is exactly what happens
and where censorship, banning, and destruction of media come about because
certain topics are considered “taboo” or “indecent.”
In many ways, it reminds me of the Tumblr fiasco I mentioned
in my “fandom spaces” post, and how Tumblr’s attempt to get rid of porn bots
led to what many people felt was an unproductive witch hunt that hurt people
who used Tumblr as a healthy means to explore their sexuality. In general,
there is a lot of media that is used for that purpose, and these depictions of
sex and sexuality are important to many people and groups who have often had to
fight very hard for that representation and those depictions in the first
place. And, because they have experienced a past where either they didn’t have
those things or where those things were taken away, they are understandably
concerned. There are, without a doubt, people who would seek to take away
depictions of sex and sexuality simply because they don’t like them or don’t
think certain groups should be represented, and that is a terrible thing. It’s
even possible that some of those people may be on the asexual or aromantic
spectrums, sure. But that does not mean that every person – whether
aspec or not – who doesn’t want to see graphic sex on their TV or in their
movies is a bad person who wants to take these depictions away.
The Importance
of Being Able to “Opt-Out” Without “Turning Off”
Of course, VidAngel doesn’t just filter out things of a
sexual nature; in fact, as far as I can tell, it has an extensive and elaborate
system of tags that can be filtered, everything from strong language to graphic
violence to racial slurs. In many ways, I feel like these tags function the
same way tags might on social media sites. For instance, I’ve talked before
about tagging, using Tumblr as an example of how I wish people would get better
at tagging their posts for this exact reason – so it’s easier to use the Tumblr
blacklist feature so I don’t have to see posts that are tagged as being about
that subject matter. Not only is having that option valuable for someone like
me who is sex-repulsed, but it’s also deeply important for people who might be
triggered by certain types of content. Just like this service, the Tumblr
blacklist feature is a filter. Tagging a Tumblr post for users who don’t want
to see a specific thing is, I believe, a common courtesy, and a simple thing
that can make fandom spaces more accessible to a lot of people. If we can
accept using an optional filter on a website like Tumblr in order to avoid
squicks and triggers, shouldn’t we also accept having a service that does the
same for media?
Another way the Tumblr example speaks to similar criticisms
that filtering services receive is that we often hear “don’t like, don’t
follow” just like we hear “don’t like, don’t watch.” When it comes to Tumblr,
there are indeed certain blogs that state very clearly that they will post Not Safe For Work (NSFW) content and that you shouldn’t follow them if you don’t want to see these
things, but this issue is not so black and white. There have been many times where
I’ve followed someone because I consider them a friend and am then put in the
awkward position of having to deal with NSFW content on my dashboard, or where
I’ve followed a blog that doesn’t specifically say they’ll post NSFW content
and suddenly find myself inundated with it. So, while “don’t like, don’t
follow” seems like a simple solution on the face of it, much like “don’t like,
don’t watch,” it’s not always that simple.
The notion of “don’t follow this or that person” or “just
never open Tumblr if you don’t like it" would be a completely misguided
narrative to make an aspec fan accept. Why? Because it would essentially be
saying “If you aren’t willing to accept this content, then you either have a
greatly diminished ability to interact with this fandom, or this fandom simply
isn’t for you in general.” As I’ve said many times before, not everything can be for every person, and as a sex-repulsed aspec, I do accept that many things
are just not things I can or want to interact with. But to tell an aspec person
like me, who really can’t interact with these things comfortably, that I just
don’t get to have a fandom experience is almost a little cruel when there is a
very simple way to help people like me out. In the Tumblr example, it’s the act
of tagging posts, something that other people have the burden to do; but in the
case of something like VidAngel, no one else even needs to be involved, and the
filtering is incumbent on the individual. To me, this makes the arguments
against media filtering services even more unnecessary and prohibitive to
people who could really use them.
Similar to what I said in the Tumblr example of stumbling
across NSFW content by accident, I feel “don’t like, don’t watch” can become a broken
piece of advice because not every piece of media is abundantly clear about the
content that’s going to be within it. Some streaming sites like Netflix do have
certain tags at the beginning of media or specific episodes of shows that
almost act as a warning system, but in my experience, it’s far from extensive.
Additionally, there are many examples I can think of where a show doesn’t start
out with these types of triggers, but eventually develops them. Again, this is
something I discussed in my “Trouble With Streaming” post, specifically using the
example of the show Designated Survivor, which first aired on ABC and
was then picked up by Netflix, at which time its content shifted dramatically.
Because the show had first been a TV-14 drama on a major cable network, I had
nothing to worry about when watching it during its initial run. However, when
it went to Netflix and began to add sexual elements, I had to
anticipate that sex or sexual language would suddenly be appearing where none
had before.
I think examples like these constitute one of the biggest
limitations of what seems simple when it comes to the “don’t like, don’t watch”
argument. Media often has a way of blindsiding people, and even worse, there
are many times where media seems safe to start and rapidly proves it’s not for
one reason or another. As a viewer, you are then put in a very uncomfortable
no-win scenario: do you abandon a show you had been enjoying because you can no
longer handle the content, or do you try and navigate it with no safety net for
the sake of continuing with the story and the characters? Again, this seems
like a simple question with a simple answer, and it may seem like if someone
has that big of an issue with sex, violence, language, or even something like slurs,
then of course they’ll just make the choice to stop watching. But I raise a
counter-question – if someone has the option to keep watching a show they love
without the things that made them uncomfortable, why wouldn’t they take that
option?
Stranger Things serves as a good example of the above phenomenon in my life, albeit not when it comes to sexual content. A few months ago, I did a post about the show on the day of the fourth season’s premiere and in that post, I discussed how I’ve always enjoyed the show for its characters and storytelling, despite some of the show’s spookier elements. Those elements have always been present and even in the show’s first two seasons, I naturally spent a lot of time peering through the cracks in my fingers. There were even some elements that hit me on a level that is personally uncomfortable (to keep things as spoiler-free as possible, let’s just say there’s something in season two with a cat; things that happen to cats are a big personal no-no for me); but even so, I was able to keep watching because these things were otherwise smaller elements of the overall larger show. Unfortunately, through a little online reading, I discovered that the monster of the show’s fourth season has a kill tactic that utilizes certain elements of body horror that I absolutely cannot get past. This reiterates my earlier point extremely well because, although I’ve always known Stranger Things was a horror series and had bloody/gory elements, it never had this particular element before. Therefore, what are my options if I still want to follow the characters and storylines that I’ve been following for the last three seasons when many parts of this season will be, for me, completely unwatchable?
 |
| Image description: A spooky scene from the fourth season of Stranger Things. This is not specifically what I'm referring to when I discuss the body horror, but if you know how it's connected, then you know. |
Because I didn’t have VidAngel set up and didn’t want to hamper the enjoyment of the people I was watching with, the method I ended up employing was reading plot summaries online to find out what parts of the season I’d need to skip. In so doing, I was forced to completely spoil every single plot twist of the entire season just so I knew when I had to leave the room. In my case, I don’t actually mind spoiling things for myself and I was actually still able to enjoy the season, despite the numerous times in which I had to get up and walk away, but this might not be practical for everyone in every situation, as I think I’ve illustrated quite clearly throughout this post. So, to repeat the question I asked earlier – if someone could use a service like VidAngel to skip over things they can’t or don’t want to deal with while still getting the important plot and character beats, why wouldn’t they? And furthermore, why would someone ostracize them for it or seek to deny them that option?
I recognize that this is probably an oversimplification of
things, but I can’t help but feel like the following metaphor is apropos. Let’s
say you’re at a restaurant and you find the perfect meal, but it has one
ingredient in it that you can’t or don’t want to have, such as salt, for
instance, or dairy; or even alternately, maybe this restaurant’s meals have
been ones you’ve enjoyed a lot in the past, but they’ve recently changed their
recipes. Does this mean you have to go to a new restaurant, or settle for a
meal you maybe don’t want? In reality (with some exceptions, of course) you
would likely be able to rectify this situation fairly simply – you’d ask for
the meal to be slightly altered to fit your needs. You’re not demanding that
everyone else eat their meal like that or that the restaurant change their
recipes forever. Using this metaphor, the people who are critical of filtering
services might be akin to if someone heard you order your food differently and
walked over to your table to tell you that you were, I don’t know, ruining the
chef’s vision? Or if they began scolding the staff and chefs of the restaurant
for allowing substitutions and changes because food needs salt or dairy
or whatever the case may be. Again, I know that the situation and feelings
surrounding filtering out certain types of content is more complex and often
runs deeper than this, but I think you get my point.
Reframing the
Issue
Like I said, I know this issue is a very complex one, in
large part because various types of people are unfortunately used to being
censored and are thus on high alert for it. I don’t blame them; if anything, I
support them. For years, I’ve been passionately against things like book
banning or other types of censorship because I believe these things limit
creative expression and often shut down important conversations that we should
be having if we want a productive, open-minded, and learned society. However, I
also believe that if what we truly want is an open-minded society, that also
requires that we ask questions about accessibility and the tools we give people
to allow things to be accessible to them.
I think a lot of the criticism of VidAngel specifically
comes about in large part for a very simple reason – its name. For many people,
especially people who have been censored before, I think the service’s name
probably makes them feel like they’re being judged, like their media is bad,
amoral, or sinful (all things I’m sure many people have heard before), and it
needs to be made “good” or “pure.” I don’t pretend to know the actual
intentions behind the name, nor do I even know if I will end up liking how the
service operates, since I’ve yet to try it out. In many ways, I can see why
people would draw these unfortunate conclusions and I understand their
concerns. That’s why I think the issue needs to be reframed.
I believe that the notion of “correct content” versus
“incorrect content” is not productive to conversations like these, since there
really is no right or wrong; rather, it’s just a matter of what people want to
consume. What’s fine for one person or group of people may not be fine at all
for someone else for any variety of reasons. Just like it would be unfair for
someone like me to demand certain content be removed for my safety or benefit,
it’s likewise unfair for other people to expect me to give up my own sense of
safety simply because they don’t find my boundaries to their own taste. I don’t
believe people should be forced to give up the type of content they want to
watch, and I likewise don’t believe people should object when others choose to
filter content in private – whether through something like a Tumblr blacklist
feature or a streaming service like VidAngel.
Again, I can’t really say how this service works; I also
can’t make a commentary on things like how you should show media to your
children, since I don’t have children, nor will I. While I’m sure some would
argue that children will be exposed to these things eventually (and that’s
certainly true), as a sex-repulsed asexual, I can confirm that not every person
will grow up and magically wish to have certain content as a part of their
day-to-day media landscape. Therefore, if we truly want to make things
accessible to people, I think tools like these should be allowed to exist and
perhaps even encouraged in various forms. If people have options and tools to
help them interact with media in comfort, I believe that will only ever be a
positive thing for everyone.
 |
| Image description: Another accurate visual representation of me trying to deal with media scenes, this time courtesy of three characters in the video game Dragon Age: Inquisition - from left to right, Cullen Rutherford, Cassandra Pentaghast, and Josephine Montilyet. The fact that I headcanon Cullen and Josephine as being on the asexual spectrum makes this even more accurate. |
While I myself am doing all right in that regard (thank you, K-Dramas), not everyone has the same luxury of just finding a different thing
to watch or turning off their TV. For some people, having to interact with
parts of media that they find harmful is an unfortunate reality, but perhaps it
doesn’t have to be that way. If more people can understand or respect boundaries
and more tools can help people of all kinds exercise those boundaries, we may
be one step closer to people of all kinds being able to enjoy media again.
Comments
Post a Comment