File: 1629315310008.jpg (5.67 KB, 204x204, 1:1, 18697964_10155357246269108….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
View-harm, I will define, is the psychological harm done to another when they view a body or a photograph of a body. Some parts of the body are especially potent, therefore laws require covering those parts in public and standards forbid showing those parts on many websites. But people may be offended by any part of any body (eyes, nose, teeth, hair), or offended by the fashion of bodily display (hair style, make-up). I don't believe in objective beauty or ugliness, so there is no, I suppose, defense against view-harm there. A good person must not use their power to hurt those around them.2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
I think, though, fursonas or pony-sonas help defend against view-harm. Perhaps we can share other ideas for keeping those around us safe.
File: 1629858216319.jpg (60.12 KB, 640x512, 5:4, 1628798180359.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Have you heard of the term 'overfitting'?
File: 1629892053004.png (359.8 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google
Yes, when inferences are made from accidental patterns that don't do well at predicting what's being modeled.
That's bad, I guess, but I'm not sure it's psychologically damaging.>>9684
Interesting. View-harm might be a class of information hazard. I suppose you could say it's really information gained in a view that does the mental damage, although exactly what information is hard to say.