As part of the “Stop animal suffering in social networks” campaign, the World Animal Protection Society provides information about the problem of unrestricted depiction of animal suffering. According to the motto “No likes for animal suffering”, the association shows how users should react to this. An overview:

Social networks are a platform for photos and videos of and with animals - but all too often there is massive animal suffering underneath, which can still spread without restriction due to inadequate community standards and a lack of legal basis. The World Animal Welfare Society – a non-profit organization based in Berlin, or WTG for short – has taken on the issue as part of the #StopTierleiding campaign. They address the operators of social networks and the federal government with the demand for a consistent approach to the hitherto unrestricted depiction of animal suffering.

At the same time, the WTG provides information work for users of the networks and encourages them to recognize animal suffering as such. Because there is a world of difference between direct violence and disrespectful treatment of animals - the reaction to the corresponding content should be carefully chosen. Here we show you some excerpts from the extensive guide on the topic; you can find the full version at: https://welttierschutz.org/stoppt-tierleid/leitfaden-tierleid/ .

Note: This is exclusively about animal suffering content that does not serve any information or documentation purposes, i.e. that is posted by the creators purely for clicks, reach or supposedly good entertainment.

Clear animal suffering

The German animal protection law states:

§1: “No one may cause pain, suffering or damage to an animal without a reasonable reason.”

For the World Animal Protection Society, the content of clear animal suffering includes all content whose act would be punishable because it represents a type of physical and/or psychological suffering of animals that cannot be relativized by any circumstance, i.e. so-called reasonable reason. Examples of such content include:

The depiction of brutal violence against animals, such as:

  • Animals are intentionally injured or severely mistreated, such as in the so-called “ Animal Crush Challenge ”,
  • Animals have their snouts bandaged with adhesive tape
  • Animals have their paws glued together with glue (#cattape challenge),
  • Animal fights are advertised,
  • live animals are prepared or consumed directly,
  • Animals are hunted, slaughtered or killed improperly and in violation of animal welfare,
  • Animals are mutilated for fashion purposes through tattoos and piercings,
  • Animals are shown uncritically or euphemistically with cropped tails or ears and shortened tails.

The depiction of animal suffering caused by avoidable human contact with wild animals

  • Wild animals that are obviously kept as pets privately and not in an animal-friendly manner in the household,
  • Wildlife apparently being used by travelers for selfies, thereby promoting wildlife selfie tourism and wildlife trafficking,
  • Wild animals whose keeping is only possible with great effort and knowledge in an animal-friendly manner or whose procurement is generally relevant to animal welfare (e.g. because they are caught in the wild or promote illegal wild animal trade and poaching), which are advertised or offered for private pet keeping.

Staged rescues, so-called fake rescues:

  • Content of this kind - usually simply titled, for example, "Man saves dog from python" - deliberately puts the animals in these situations in order to gain reach with a supposed rescue video. They can also be defined as so-called staged rescues. You can also find instructions for recognizing this specific animal suffering content here: https://welttierschutz.org/fake-rescues/ .

The depiction of animals in situations of animal suffering, which is supposed to be “funny”, e.g

  • of animals that overheat severely or have their freedom of movement severely restricted, for example by coverings,
  • of animals being deliberately frightened, as in the #kulikitaka challenge, which resulted in animals dying.
  • of animals that correspond to torture: Examples include dogs that suffer from severe breathing problems up to and including fatal pug dog encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), or cats that suffer lifelong due to short-headedness (brachycephaly) or short stature. Hybrid animals such as Savannah and Bengal cats or wolf hybrids of the first generations as well as animals that have been bred to extremely large or small sizes, such as so-called teacup dogs and munchkin cats, are also problematic from an animal welfare perspective.

Users should not react to content that clearly shows animal suffering and should instead consistently report it to the moderator teams of the respective network.

Suspicion of animal suffering

Things are more difficult with content in this category. The WTG assigns content to the definition of suspected animal suffering that clearly indicates animal suffering, but cannot be clearly declared as such without further context - the criminal liability of the acts would therefore not be clearly clarified under the Animal Welfare Act, since in many examples the offense in § 1 mentioned “reasonable reason” for animal suffering could exist. For a final evaluation, points such as the animal's body language, the context and the underlying relationship between animal and human are crucial.

In the following examples, however, the context is not sufficiently provided, which is why suffering of the animal depicted is possible or probable, but cannot be clearly proven.

  • One frequently shared piece of content is footage in which people maintain close contact with wild animals, but the location or reason for the closeness remains unclear. Some of the animals are also bathed. The context would be essential here in order to be able to assess the situation: rescued wild animals will have to be cared for in wildlife rescue centers and bathed as part of the necessary veterinary treatment. For these wild animals, contact with humans may be crucial to their lives, and the animal suffering that may be associated with this must therefore be accepted. At the same time, this procedure can also be staged and therefore not a reasonable reason as it is unnecessary and very painful. They can also be wild animals that have been illegally taken from the wild or bred for pet keeping or selfie tourism. The cases can only be clearly assessed if the background to the contact between wild animals and humans becomes clear.
  • If animals' freedom of movement is restricted in photos and videos, for example through disguises, this may initially indicate animal suffering. The #ScrunchieCat challenge offers a number of examples, for which cats have their ears bandaged with hairbands. However, it remains to be assessed individually whether the animal is suffering and can only be conclusively assessed based on the animal's behavior.
  • Photos in which animals are fed incorrectly are often difficult to classify, such as dogs being fed foods such as avocados, spiced meat or chocolate as part of #Mukbang challenges. It is clearly animal suffering when the type and amount of feeding can have life-threatening consequences.

In the cases mentioned, only the context and often the precision of the recording - whether video or photo - allow a conclusive classification. In the interests of animal welfare, the WTG recommends that, if in doubt, you choose the animal. This means that you should assume that the animal is suffering until the opposite becomes obvious.

Users should respond to suspected cases of animal suffering - i.e. content that could be about animal suffering but cannot be conclusively assessed without context - using the comment function and ask for further information and background information about the recording. Please point out to the creator that the context is missing and that you suspect animal suffering. If there is no response, please report this content consistently.

Disrespectful treatment

In WTG's experience, many recordings of animals that spread particularly quickly and often without reflection on social networks represent disrespectful treatment of animals. In some cases, the content even encourages imitation - and could end in situations of animal suffering.

  • This refers, for example, to content for which animals are staged: Although this does not cause animal suffering, the animals are placed in unnatural situations to portray the animal's discomfort, fear or irritation, against better knowledge.
  • There are also examples of disrespectful behavior in which dead animals are staged in a supposedly funny way. The fact that content of this type is often generated in the first place in order to create “entertaining” content and thus gain reach is shown by the frequent use of hashtags such as #trynottolaugh (German: Try not to laugh) or as part of challenges encourage others to imitate. The assessment of whether the depiction is disrespectful to the animal is always in the eye of the viewer and must be defined individually.

However, if there is a lack of respect for animals, this can be a precursor to animal suffering. Because the content could be imitated, which could also result in an increase in representation and result in animal suffering. The content also poses the risk that people's general view of animals will change and measures to strengthen animal protection could be weakened, as the WTG writes.

Users of the networks are therefore asked to be careful here: If content seems disrespectful towards animals, please point out to the person creating it that the content does not correspond to your feeling that animals should be treated with respect. At the same time, you should not distribute the post, but rather report it to the moderator team.

No likes for suffering

The World Animal Protection Society believes it is imperative that social networks recognize animal suffering and respond accordingly. As long as this does not happen, users are obliged to take decisive action against them. This means: Before distributing any animal content, you should always ask yourself whether the content is conducive to animal welfare.

  • Is it clear animal suffering or is the context clear and supplemented by useful information?
  • If it isn't, please give the animal the benefit of the doubt - and don't spread the content any further. Instead, you should always report the content to the networks’ moderator teams.

What else you can do:

  • Spread the word: Share this article on the networks of your choice and let other users know about it.
  • Support the World Animal Protection Society's demand with your signature: The association is calling for a petition to stop the display and distribution of animal suffering content on social networks: www.welttierschutz.org/tierleid-stoppen .


If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:

📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.

Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!

* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!


Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )