Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

thesociologicalreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#41

Post by icebraining »

bschelsea wrote: post #36
geofft wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Apple's built-in parental control tech? Literally Apple only killed the industry once they made a free alternative that does exactly this. Wanting to be a bad parent is one thing, but at least get your facts straight.

That’s false, alternatives offered by Apple don’t even come close to functionality provided by third party apps. E.g. easily using the browser instead of app.

A quick search shows it lets you block sites too[1], although you have to enable the porn blocker to do so, for some daft reason.

What do you have in mind that can't be done using that, and which was possible using a now-banned app?

[1] https://www.cultofmac.com/570719/block-website-iphone-ipad/

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#42

Post by twblalock »

bschelsea wrote: post #4
jdietrich wrote: post #2

The worst syllogism in modern politics: Something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done.

Tell me when your daughter is suicidal and suffering from ED/Self Harm.

> Tell me when your daughter is suicidal and suffering from ED/Self Harm.

Telling their parents might make things even worse. Abusive parents are, in some cases, the cause of the child's psychological problems in the first place.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#43

Post by robotresearcher »

orhmeh09 wrote: post #19
bschelsea wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PLOS One has very little reviewing standards and accepts almost all papers. Given how strongly linked smartphones are to all aspects of life. You are vastly underestimating difficulty of taking aways someone’s smartphone. Since worst case you can ask Cops and Telecom provider for location.

That is not true about PLOS One and it’s not a line to just drop whenever anyone links to a study on there. Please substantiate these kinds of statements.

It does have an unusual editorial policy:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/reviewer-guidelines

"Unlike many journals which attempt to use the peer review process to determine whether or not an article reaches the level of 'importance' required by a given journal, PLOS ONE uses peer review to determine whether a paper is technically rigorous and worthy of inclusion in the published scientific record."

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#44

Post by jdietrich »

icebraining wrote: post #35
jdsully wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the parliamentary system has proven to be more effective. In this system the Prime Minister with a majority has near dictatorial control over both the legislature and the presidency so that he/she can move quickly. However the backstop is the no confidence vote which operates like impeachment. This is not a theoretical power but is exercised relatively frequently in parliamentarian systems. Failure to p…

At least in my parliamentary country, a PM with an absolute majority can also block a no confidence vote, which is why only 1 of 30 such votes in the last 45 years have actually passed. Is it different in other countries? > I think deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have created throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government. Well, that assumes those decisions are made solely wi…

No British Prime Minister has lost a confidence motion since 1979, but I think it's worth noting that a) a PM with a majority can only block a no-confidence vote with the support of their party's MPs and b) the threat of a no-confidence motion is frequently sufficient to force a resignation.

Callaghan was the last PM to lose a no-confidence vote, but that's not the full story. Major and Brown resigned after losing an election, but Thatcher, Blair and Cameron all resigned as PM. May is expected to resign before the next general election. No US president has resigned since Nixon in 1974, which suggests a marked difference in security of tenure under the different systems - we might not kick our prime minister out of office very often, but they usually leave office of their own volition.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#45

Post by jmts »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #40

In my Twitter timeline, posts about self harm or suicidal ideation are generally met by a supportive atmosphere of concerned people. When there is the opportunity, I try to make comments that validate people in a way that doesn't promote or encourage self harm, suicide attempts, etc. I've attempted suicide. I know a fair amount about such issues. No, shutting down the conversation isn't a good move. Instead, we need…

The biggest hurdle to conversation I find in my experience is that people who have never been there find it difficult to comprehend the mental state you're in when you're depressed. At least in my experience, social media would have been just a drop in the sea. In a way, suggesting social media is a problem just reflects how little understanding people have over what is going on inside a depressed person's mind.

The moment you wake up in the morning, you have some idea whether you're going to have an 'easy day' or a 'difficult day'. From that point on, it's a constant battle against your own mind, trying to avoid letting things become a 'bad day'. If you stub your toe on the door frame leaving your bedroom, your day is now a 'bad day' and you have 12 hours of mental struggle to look forward to. You haven't even had the opportunity to find out the clothes you wanted to wear aren't clean, that you're out of milk so you have to have toast for breakfast. You haven't had a chance to drop your spoon on the floor, or accidentally slam the cupboard too loudly. You haven't made it to work or school yet where you'll have to deal with all your least favourite people. And every one of these things makes your day harder, and harder, until you can't hold it back, and all of a sudden you're being held hostage by your own mind. Shit is already hard before you get to social media. Sure, social media probably contributes, but so many things contribute, you cannot eliminate them all.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#46

Post by DoreenMichele »

jmts wrote: post #45
DoreenMichele wrote: post #40

In my Twitter timeline, posts about self harm or suicidal ideation are generally met by a supportive atmosphere of concerned people. When there is the opportunity, I try to make comments that validate people in a way that doesn't promote or encourage self harm, suicide attempts, etc. I've attempted suicide. I know a fair amount about such issues. No, shutting down the conversation isn't a good move. Instead, we need…

The biggest hurdle to conversation I find in my experience is that people who have never been there find it difficult to comprehend the mental state you're in when you're depressed. At least in my experience, social media would have been just a drop in the sea. In a way, suggesting social media is a problem just reflects how little understanding people have over what is going on inside a depressed person's mind. The…

To my mind, the bigger problem is that when people talk about big feelings, especially in any strongly expressive fashion, people get sucked into talking about feelings as if feelings are the end all and be all.

Feelings come from somewhere. When I try to engage people, I try to address root causes of feelings. I don't try to massage their feelings or something like that.

Most people either try to somehow stop the outpouring of negative feelings or respond by countering it with an outpouring of positives because their entire focus is the feelings. This tends to go bad places for everyone involved and one danger is that if everyone is nice to you when you are openly whining about being suicidal, that may actively "reward" you for being suicidal.

People who are suicidal are often people who are being generally treated like shit on a routine basis by a lot of the people around them. So being nice to them only when they are openly suicidal actively encourages suicidal ideation. Most people are too clueless to make an effort to find opportunities to engage them positively that don't promote suicidal feelings.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#47

Post by jmts »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #46
jmts wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest hurdle to conversation I find in my experience is that people who have never been there find it difficult to comprehend the mental state you're in when you're depressed. At least in my experience, social media would have been just a drop in the sea. In a way, suggesting social media is a problem just reflects how little understanding people have over what is going on inside a depressed person's mind. The…

To my mind, the bigger problem is that when people talk about big feelings, especially in any strongly expressive fashion, people get sucked into talking about feelings as if feelings are the end all and be all. Feelings come from somewhere. When I try to engage people, I try to address root causes of feelings. I don't try to massage their feelings or something like that. Most people either try to somehow stop the ou…

The difficulty people have with treating the source of a feeling is probably because a lot of the time it's difficult to identify the source. I think many people often go with what their body tells them about what might resolve a symptom that they're feeling in the short term (get drunk and party), but in the long run the root cause may be something entirely different (develop relationships that are more intellectually stimulating).

In addition to positives acting in a way that can prolong a mental illness, often they can also deepen it as well. Generally you're aware of what you could be, or should be, or want to be, but can't be and don't understand why. This in itself can trigger negative thoughts and reinforce the cycle.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#48

Post by DoreenMichele »

jmts wrote: post #47
DoreenMichele wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my mind, the bigger problem is that when people talk about big feelings, especially in any strongly expressive fashion, people get sucked into talking about feelings as if feelings are the end all and be all. Feelings come from somewhere. When I try to engage people, I try to address root causes of feelings. I don't try to massage their feelings or something like that. Most people either try to somehow stop the ou…

The difficulty people have with treating the source of a feeling is probably because a lot of the time it's difficult to identify the source. I think many people often go with what their body tells them about what might resolve a symptom that they're feeling in the short term (get drunk and party), but in the long run the root cause may be something entirely different (develop relationships that are more intellectual…

Oh, I spent about 3.5 in therapy. It's somewhat second nature at this point for me to wonder at root causes in myself.

But I feel like I failed to communicate something. Let me give a few examples from actual conversations I've had:

Someone was talking about having recently self harmed again after x amount of time refraining. They were saying they felt so ashamed and like such a failure, that refraining for so long had been a big accomplishment.

I told them it was still a big accomplishment. That fact remained true and was in no way diminished by their recent self harm.

Someone who is incredibly sweet and interesting and knowledgeable has a lot of baggage. When their baggage trips them up, they don't know how to stop and the kind, supportive replies they get keep the drama rolling. It is complicated by an "either/or" framing of certain things.

A couple of times, I've managed to say a thing that largely stopped the drama. They then took a break and did me time activities. When they "came back," they were much more able to focus on things other than their own baggage and emotional drama.

In short, I've put down a lot of baggage. I sometimes can help other people put down the baggage.

That's my focus. If they drop the baggage, their emotional landscape changes.

Because feelings come from somewhere.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#49

Post by jstarfish »

danaris wrote: post #30
jstarfish wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not Instagram's problem, nor should it be made to be. Apple could certainly do more to facilitate MDM, but a phone known for letting your parents track your GPS and MITM your communications would not prove popular with the kids. In the end the parents are the ones provisioning the device, paying the phone bill and are ultimately responsible for both it and its user...yet they have no administrative privileges ov…

Giving parents unfettered ability to violate their children's privacy does not serve the children's interests. Many parents are abusive. Many children are discovering a sexuality or identity that their parents would find unacceptable. In these cases, and many more, ensuring that the parents can read every single message their children send—and every single website they access—is much more likely to lead to serious ne…

Many children are also abusive.

It doesn't serve their interests either if in their search for identity, they end up bullied or exploited to suicide in secret by their peers.

Either way, I get what you're saying, it just sucks that FAANG reserves the right to know our children better than we ever will.

Re: Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’

#50

Post by Ntrails »

jdsully wrote: post #38
colechristensen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching Brexit doesn't inspire me with confidence about parliamentary systems, and I think it would work much worse in America which has a different set of problems. The diverse societies and economies of the regions of the US would not be well represented by a winner-take-all approach – the founders had a lot to say about the dictatorship of the majority. They had good points and the problems they feared I think wo…

The UK system has survived many hundreds of years and crises far more severe than the US has ever experienced (the US has never been at serious risk of a land invasion). No system of government is without its embarrassments and messes, but the UK's parliament has been battle tested and is proven.

To be fair the current state of the Lords is somewhat different to the historically tested one.
Post reply on HN