>>5961784
NTA but I disagree with your premise. When comparing the captions
>pov: bee shakes its abdomen
and
>bee shakes its abdomen
the "pov:" in the first one, while it doesn't add new information per se, still has a stylistic effect and changes the tone of the text. If you want to argue pure informational density, "bee shaking its abdomen" or even "bug shaking" themselves add zero information that isn't already contained in the gif itself.
We don't type to minimise the word count and maximise information density, and adding "pov" usually brings a meaningful stylistic difference that makes the caption not equivalent to what it would have been without.
For example, going back to the original gif
>>5961108: if it was captioned simply
>an immigrant being politely asked to use headphones in public
it would work, but a lot of captions are phrased instead in the style of
>when an immigrant is politely asked to use headphones in public
That "when" is also an extra word that can be dropped as demonstrated above, and adds zero "information", yet is an extremely common phrasing and I don't see people getting mad over it. And the two captions don't come off in exactly the same way; they have very slightly different humorous effect.
The caption
>pov: an immigrant was politely asked to use headphones in public
is simply a third option, and does not even use any extra words compared to the "when" version. And, probably subjectively, but personally it's my favourite way to phrase that caption.
>greentext
Nobody uses greentext in gif captions. That anon was obviously greentexting to quote a hypothetical caption, the > would not have been part of the actual caption.
>PoV means unbroken first person perspective, nothing else.
That gif would be the first person perspective of you witnessing an immigrant that got politely asked to use headphones in public.
Also
>>5961741.
