I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'd like to point a few things
Has this place ever been described as "pro-suicide" by any member? That seems kinda fishy, though it's probably this site nonetheless.
This is something too important, that shows the amateurism from the researchers, even tough they have high degrees (that means nothing, but the scientific community seems to care too much about that).
The site presents itself as a "pro-choice community" and, in order to picture it in another way, one must have foundations to say so. If some member described the community as being pro-suicide, it's not enough for any conclusions and a significant sample of users would have to be asked how they perceive the site to be, in order to get this information. Guess what? They didn't do it.
is it ethical to conduct studies w/o first asking for permission from at least the site?
Great question. It's legally considered ethical, so they can do it freely in our society, but, if we think about the principles of ethics in a broader way, is it ethical to observe and gather data prom vulnerable and suffering people without their consent?
Searching further, they are quoting from this site. Interesting.
Where did they find moderators describing it as a pro-suicide forum? Or an informal support network for those that wish to die by suicide? They must be referencing it from somewhere?
SN* ... identified as sodium nitrate. Interesting.
Again, the amateurism. It shows how they only did a very superficial observation in the site. Anyone who reads the resources will know what t means.
The fact that they are studying us... GOOD !!! As long as it's unbiased.
Finding the reasons why and not judging would be great. Most reasons are mental health or class issues.
When the rich keep getting richer and the poor get poorer is a big part of it. For me anyway.
Also I just don't want to do this anymore. Just barely existing so others can buy more yacht's and shit on golden toilet's.
The study if full of biases. If I presented something like that to my university, they would tell me to redo it from scratch.
Some examples:
- They classify the 3 major content themes as "exarcebating" something, but what methodology did they use to prove that people are, indeed, exarcebating things? There's no way to tell if people are either exarcebating, diminishing or describing with accuracy, because there's no way to know how each user live their lives.
- There's no category for "Others". Seriously? Not even a single one didn't fit in any category?
- The methods are described in a loose way. If the actual paper don't explain it thoroughly, something is wrong
- THe things I mentioned above
Notice that they did not include any of the posts about the downfalls of healthcare systems, not being listened to or helped by mental health services, sustained loneliness that will persist post-covid restrictions, or the consequences of lockdowns trapping many users in abusive home environments.
Nice observation. In fact, we don't have the actual paper to discuss, but, since all definition in there a re a bit loose, they may argue that it's part of he pandemic environment.
I never understood why is the forum public in the first place...
This something tricky and that may raise great polemics in here. We don't know the site owners (there has been a few posts and that's it) enough to know their intentions with this site. This place may be designed to provide us some sort of "shelter", but it may also be designed to observe us in some obscure ways.
