Talk:Information hazard

Examples

Would it be appropriate to describe some examples of information hazards on this page? The only one I can find mention of is Roko's basilisk. Noaht2 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I added Roko's basilisk, and I look forward to the discussions of whether it should be censored on wikipedia. Cheers ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). --Nanite (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What about that Tik-Tok trend about stealing cars (the Kia and Hyundai challenge)? 75.90.159.50 (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

if you need examples, just look towards the deltarune fandom. weird, freedom, revolve, pink and yellow, route, shadow, and big shot are all very good examples of that fandom. ~2026-13846-95 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

if you need examples, just look towards the deltarune fandom. weird, freedom, revolve, pink and yellow, route, shadow, and big shot are all very good examples of that fandom. ~2026-13846-95 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Nice Topic, More references can be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyeshaBD (talk • contribs) 05:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This page is mildly annoying but I've taken the liberty of adding more relevant topics.

I feel like the McCollough effect is relevant at least in some capacity. I also think that Roko's Basilisk is in fact Stupid, and I propose a counter, wherein an AI would be offended or otherwise incensed by the Basklisk and its existence, and thus it becomes a catch 22. In any case, back to civility, I would appreciate cite help and some better formatting. I also can't remember my password, but I'm pretty sure the user should be SkynetPR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.158.144.117 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AyeshaBD (talk • contribs) 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

infohazard types

Information that could trigger impulses or traumatic memories could also qualify 2600:1006:B125:2B3A:F85F:AFFF:FEC8:8803 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we add a SCP pop culture section?

In SCP, Infohazard is used for information that can harm anyone who knows it. I just wanna know if I should add this. MilitaryFan047 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Cognitohazard should be mentioned somewhere as well, as this and infohazard have slightly different definitions. Nervelita (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No, its not really relevant outside of that piece of fiction. Though it could be mentioned briefly in a "In Fiction" section. Or as one of the "See Also" links. Databased (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely, and will add the SCP Foundation as one of the See Also links.

Moosetwin (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The specific idea of a Cognitohazard as it is used in SCP fiction is incredibly common in most other fiction types, and has been used in our own history.

The idea that simply knowing specific forbidden knowledge is all it takes to be corrupted is a core feature of fiction like Warhammer 40K and others. In fact, in some fiction "corruption" is itself defined as "having knowledge of X or Y".

As of November 2025, this page does not actually explain this type of hazard, though it does link to similar, but slightly different examples of it such as Roko's Basilisk.

This feels like it should be it's own separate "in Fiction" section.

Or it would, if it wasn't something that we humans have believed and used as justification for bad behavior.

Example: Jane knows X. Therefore she is corrupt. Burn the witch. ~2025-34596-58 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Because any list of infohazards is definitely itself an infohazard, we should absolutely include a circular link to this page in the list at the bottom, and then screenshot it and add an entry to the article for self-referential humor. Atomic putty? Rien! 17:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember writing this Atomic putty? Rien! 18:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Types of Infohazards that may be fictional or theoretical

There seems to be somewhat of an edit war about “cognitohazards,” which seems to be a term invented by the SCP foundation, but can be applicable to real ideas (like Roko's Basilisk), and other pop culture references, like in Star Trek TNG S5E23 “I, Borg.”

I'd propose that there should be a separate section about either “information hazards in pop culture” or “unconfirmed classifications.”

I'd like to reach an agreement before making this change. <3

Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"In pop culture" sections are usually fine, as long as they're supported by reliable, secondary sources. I think you may have an issue with cognitohazards, however; when I removed it yesterday, I did so after looking for sources. The best I could come up with were user-generated sources like wikis, social media posts, SEO churnalism, and Know Your Meme-level sites. Nothing that we'd consider reliable in any way. Maybe others will have better luck, though. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: INFO 505 - Foundations of Information Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Waveformleaf (article contribs). Peer reviewers: TheChosenOneAnakin, AyeshaBD, Scholarlycoffee.

— Assignment last updated by AyeshaBD (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Lichtenberg figures (or Fractal Burning)

A number of people have died due to improper “fractal burning”. I’d consider these infohazard fatalities (e.g. death as a result of learned [albeit incomplete] information) 213.122.76.207 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure on this being an info hazard. If we included "fractal burning" we should also include other dangerous activities, which would naturally make the article a bit too broad. Guitarplex (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Distinction in ideas

Perhaps this can be distinguished in Infohazard vs "Cognitohazard" as someone else suggested, but the two terms (or infohazard itself) seems to imply two different ideas:

Firstly, some peice of information (especially true) that could be used, or encourages, something that causes harm

Secondly, an idea or piece of information that itself is harmful.

In the movie "Pontypool", the latter idea is explored: A certain understanding of a word becomes contagious, and other people who hear the word and understand it the same way become "infected" with the idea and either programmed by this idea, or by accident, repeat it, causing it to spread and cause a linguistic-zombification apocalypse.

While the difference is subtle, it is significant.

A dangerous pathogens DNA sequence could be an infohazard because someone could use that to create the pathogen, however we could argue that the written sequence is just a translation and that the information of the DNA is only truly encoded in the molecule, what the translation actually represents: then, the DNA ITSELF, as the "form" of the molecule(s), rather than the physical molecule, is the infohazard. Perhaps all genetic life can be described as an info-creature, as it is mutating information that carries on the legacy of any one dna molecule.

That said, the information and the physical substance is hard to disentangle. We often think about information existing outside of physical reality, eg. that the form of any one thing is timeless, but perhaps this is not the case: information then is a contingent physical property and must thus be infinitely unique, as every material thing is... at least in classical physics, perhaps not so with quantum physics. 2A0A:EF40:1466:7F01:C9FA:C2E8:21DF:367 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Information hazard is knowledge whose derivative application after exposure or knowing--acting on the knowledge--generates the hazard.

Cognitohazard, isn't that more psychology where it's based on immediate negative effect (hazard) to the person who gains, understands or perceives the knowledge/experience?

Infohazard=I learn thing, and me doing anything with that thing is hazardous.

Cognitohazard=I learn thing, and the act of or because of the act of learning the thing, I am negatively impacted; gaining the knowledge is hazardous.

Right? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Or, even more diluted:

Me learn infohazard, me use infohazard = danger.

Me learn cognitohazard, me need mental health resources NOW. SeaDragon1 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

For some reason I can't inline reply to you here? Do you have a sourced example for each? I'd like to see how it's discussed in terms of examples. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 07:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It's important to note that cognitohazards are real.

Though, with the ones I know, the "harm" part is relatively minor.

It is not a simple case of having a new understanding and suddenly going insane.

Often, learning a new thing will cause you to notice it everywhere.

You always saw it, but it was just visual "noise" that got ignored because you didn't understand it.

At the risk of spreading a rather mild one (You have been warned).

:A person might see signs and stylized writing all the time and never think about it.

Or, they might think about it and see nothing wrong.

If that person is then taught some basic Type Setting knowledge like proper Kerning, they will suddenly see examples of improper kerning EVERYWHERE.

If they are the type of person who is bothered by constantly seeing this mistake being made every day, or even simply that it causes them to waste more time by noticing the constant mistakes, we have a cognitohazard.

~2025-34596-58 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Amendment: Or, even more diluted:
Me learn infohazard, me use infohazard = danger.
Me learn cognitohazard, me haunted* by it for the rest of my life (maybe).

* Correct word choice may instead be "affected" SeaDragon1 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, why is this box non-ending? SeaDragon1 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, just had to wrap it in the {{collapse}} template.

Little thing I know

Some horror/paranormal YouTubers apply cognitohazards to something (Usually an image) that can cause physical or mental harm. I'm sure it's just pseudoscientific rubbish, but, if there are enough scores, it's worth a mention. An editor from Mars (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is Suffering risks in See Also?

I don't quite see the connection between infohazards and suffering risks; Can someone explain it to me, please? ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The difference between infohazard and cognitohazard

An infohazard is information that could be harmful if acted on, and a cognitohazard is information that is harmful merely by knowing it. This distinction is not made in the article and the terms are presented as interchangeable in the introduction. Lownicro (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)