A restrictive approach assumes complete condemnation and stigmatization. Many commentators believe that such practices should be unequivocally recognized as reprehensible and unacceptable. This means socially stigmatizing creators, boycotting their content, and condemning them in the media. The goal is to create a strong norm: "we do not touch the memory of the dead for fun . "
In extreme cases, even criminalization has been advocated—for example, creating a law prohibiting insulting the memory of a deceased person by attributing fabricated statements to them. However, this is legally difficult and raises the risk of censorship, so soft measures are more often discussed: pressuring platforms to remove such content as violating "community rules" (e.g., harmful or offensive). The aforementioned petition to YouTube, for example, was in this spirit.
A restrictive approach also involves educating recipients – making them aware that by watching and sharing such videos, they are supporting unethical practices.
A regulatory approach involves establishing rules or frameworks. Some experts suggest that, rather than a complete ban (which may be unenforceable), it would be better to develop a code of ethics or platform rules for such content. For example, it could be required to label such materials as unverified entertainment content or add a disclaimer stating "for entertainment purposes only" (such proposals have been raised in online discussions).
Platforms could also demonetize videos that use the name of a recently deceased person in a sensational way – which would reduce the financial incentive not only for self-proclaimed spiritualist media outlets, but also for tabloids, for example.Yet another proposal is a "grace period" : for example, no pseudo-paranormal or generally sensational content about a given person may be published for X months after their death. The latter would sound reasonable from the perspective of protecting the family's feelings—allowing time for mourning—though it's difficult to enforce globally.
Regulation could also take the form of official guidelines within the media industry (something like an annex to a journalistic code for online creators). Perhaps the most influential content creators themselves could develop an unwritten rule that "we don't do this, it's substandard," which would become the norm.
The liberal approach, on the other hand, assumes tolerance for content attributing unverifiable statements to deceased persons as artistic or religious expression. There are those who say, "We live in a free society; if people want to believe in spirits and record such things, that's their business ." This approach assumes treating EVP and spiritist messages as a form of cultural expression that has a right to exist alongside other phenomena (much like religious beliefs, which are also unverifiable from a rational perspective, yet no one prohibits them).
According to this logic, society's role isn't to ban content, but rather to criticize it and not watch it if you don't like it. Proponents of this approach emphasize freedom of speech and artistic freedom—because some of these films could be considered a form of modern creepypasta, electronic folklore, or performance art.
Some even argue that contacting the dead is, in a sense, an age-old human need (e.g., through All Souls' Day rites, prayers, and 19th-century spiritualist mediumship), so the current trend is merely a new form of an old phenomenon—perhaps bizarre, but not condemnable as long as no malicious intent is present. Critics, of course, retort that the intentions are usually commercial , but the liberal approach assumes: "Don't like it? Don't watch it. Let others live with their beliefs . "A moderate approach argues that education and self-regulation are paramount. This middle ground posits that, instead of extremes (ban vs. allow everything), the best solution is to educate both creators and audiences . Creators should be aware of their responsibility and the limits of decency (social campaigns or statements by media authorities condemning such content could help here). Audiences should approach it with skepticism and empathy: understanding that this is an unverifiable show and considering how they would feel if it happened to someone close to them.
The moderate approach hopes that the market will eventually reject the most distasteful forms as the audience matures and loses its excitement. In the meantime, platforms can make minor adjustments (such as limiting the promotion of such materials). This approach emphasizes culture and custom over law, believing that moral norms can be socially established without top-down prohibitions.
Which path will prevail? Perhaps after a period of wild enthusiasm for supposed messages from deceased celebrities and victims of tragedy, a sense of sobriety will come. It's already clear that the reputations of creators who create "messages from the dead" often quickly deteriorate – the online community can harshly criticize them, and sometimes even "cancel" them (as part of cancel culture ) . Some, once stigmatized, withdraw from such content.
It's possible that in the future , clear, informal norms will emerge : for example, digital mourning, whereby no self-respecting person will touch the subject of a person's spirit until a year has passed since their death. Or perhaps platforms will introduce filters and safeguards to curb the deluge of, for example, "spirit box celebrity" videos.
On the other hand, as long as there is an audience hungry for this type of content, there will be those willing to satisfy that hunger. Human fascination with the afterlife, celebrities, and victims of tragic events is enduring – hence, "conversations with the ghosts of famous people" will continue to resurface in one form or another.
However, it's worth discussing this, as we are doing now, while being mindful of all the ethical and social nuances. This way, each of us can form an informed opinion and make a decision: should we thumbs up and subscribe next time we see "the latest update from a deceased celebrity" online?
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz