Slf hve nt watchd tht vdeo bt ws tld tht thr sistr sd tht thre r 'zero' recvry rsourcs on th/ webste
If ppl hve angr 2wrds th/ ste thn tht = up 2 thm bt Y d/ ppl hve 2 b lyng 2 xagger8 abt th/ ste in ordr 2 mke thr argmnts
Evn Titacrul vdeo hd a hedlne of 'Do It' whch = specflly nt allowd on th/ ste
The first half is an analysis of one particular case where the 17 year old kid took SN and then changed his mind, but died anyway. It's quite reasonable the way it is done. It's not good that children are here, just not sure how to stop it. In the video they argue it is just a checkbox and that's it, everyone is allowed on. Which from memory is true?
The second half takes aim at the site. The core of the criticism is that confused teenagers like Vlad find it, and then instead of trying to recover, they slowly get pushed towards suicide instead, both in public forums and private chats. That he started out as this vulnerable teenager sharing his problems and then by the end became confident that suicide was right and he could do it, because of the echo chambers here, even beginning to help others do the same and giving detailed help with SN protocols. And then they say without the site, he wouldn't have been able to put together the poison kit that killed him, which is true.
I don't disagree with their point in relation to children. But I don't know how to fix it. And I don't think banning the whole site to fix that issue is the answer. I also question the notion that without the site, he wouldn't have committed suicide anyway, although the method would have been different.
