It seems to be an interesting question but I don't have much sophisticated to say.
I think cloud services and search engines have defended themselves with this argument for hosting controversial websites. I am not sure maybe even in the context of this website.
I am not sure about the internet. It helps me a lot to cope and increases my life quality. But there is a lot of questionable or at least controversials content. For example real life gore, filesharing websites, pirating websites, dark corners on the internet like bullying and doxxing communities, political extreme content, misinformation, sexual content like revenge porn, self-harm forums, eating disorder forums, illegal substances and weapons, spying etc. Okay maybe these are many examples.
I could now call them all a symptom for a rotten humankind. Maybe one could argue for a few of them for a nuanced consideration.
For example fan-subs of foreign content (pirating). Technically not legal but it helped many franchises to become successful.
Who defines what misinformation is? Calling the Iraq war an unjustified war was once a conspiracy.
I am anti-drugs but one can argue an adult should have the right to take the substances they want as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
Gore. I am glad I quit that. But there are websites which document war crimes. For journalists that is important to verify sources/stories.
Though there are examples which are clearly evil like revenge porn, denying the holocaust, bullying communities etc. I don't defend that crazy shit.
However I am not sure how I would think about suicide forums if I was not in the position that I currently am. I mean two different positions.
1) compared to a parallel universe in which abuse and decade long severe suicidality were foreign to me
2) compared to my current self but only having heard about this forum in the media
The first scenario. That is hard to tell because I would be a completely different human. I think I have very deep pathologies and it is really hard to tell. My first mixed manic depressive episode started with 15. I was prior to that a completely different person. I had way way less impulse, impetus and energy.
Second scenario. I am not sure I think if I never heard of this suicide forum before except for media reports I think I might would have wanted to take a look at it in order to judge by my own. I am not sure what led me to this website but I assume it was a news article. I think the media (at least in my country) is very one-sided on assisted suicide. They are very paternalisitc. I am often angry when I read the news. Personally I have come to the conclusion that I think assisted suicide should be a human right. (as the German highest court ruled it.) So I don't trust the media a lot when it comes to suicide. Many Germans welcomed the Highest court ruling 2020 in favor of liberal assisted suicide laws. There are surveys that show the German people want assisted suicide as a human right. But the elites consisting of the politicians and journalists try to fight that. The most likely new law is ridiculous and violates in my opinion the court ruling in its spirit. I think if I had read more nuanced stories about suicide I might have had more trust in the media concerning this issue. But I have to say since the first time I ever thought about assisted suicide (in school) I thought it is horrible to leave these people alone so that they feel forced to jump in front of a train or similar stuff. I considered it as very cruel and inhuman. So my personal values on suicide gave me the feeling that I have the right to decide about my own death.
Maybe this was kind of off-topic but I wanted to demonstrate that the personal relation to controversial places on the internet can be affected by biography or personal cirumstances. It is difficult to judge what an eating disorder forum means for an individual if one never was member of one or if one has no own experiences with eating disorders.
Now maybe again to the core of this question. I don't know what to say. I mean one could start to criminalize everything that is potentially damaging for our society on the internet. Politicians repeat like a mantra (at least in my country) the internet is not the wild west and no place without laws. But if one banned everything that is potentially damaging one had to ban a lot of stuff. Like really a lot which would kind of contradict some western values. An example I like to listen to sad music also about self-harm, suicide and depression. For example Linkin Park or Lil Peep. So many artists play down the risks of drugs. Some of them kind of celebrate them. (not that few) That is potentially damaging because many teens see them as role models. However one would not really consider to ban them for that. Maybe one could argue this example is only a minor damaging influence compared to let's say a place where one can buy illegal drugs.
Now I try to think about that. I mean they try to ban selling of drugs online and in real life. One important trait of the internet is its anonymity. One could argue whether anonymity on the internet is only an illusion though. This "anonymity "has huge advantages. It allows me to talk openly on a daily basis about my persisting suicidality without the sorrows whether my future boss (in the dream world that I could hold a job) will know about it.
One can ask questions which are embarassing to ask to other people in real life. For example about sexuality. Things one is deeply ashamed about and one has noone that listens to in real life. It is not a surprise that porn is so popular on the internet. Maybe it is a mirror in this relation of the human spirit.
Though it is kind of interesting. In our capitalistic world we are exposed to sexual content all the time in media and marketing. Sex sells. With sex as a method you can get clicks and attention. So the curency of this century. There are different kind of extremes concerning sex. At least this is my feeling. I think this partly is influenced by the US and prudery. For example on facebook and instagram it is forbidden to show a female nipple. Though nowadays almost everyone can easily access hard core porn by some clicks. They kind of want to extract the dirtiness of sex. They form it into a harmless version that can be shown in ads which are also appropriate for a larger audience. With the internet the embarassing/humiliating buying process in video rental shops is over.
Maybe this shows that things that we are deeply ashamed about can more easily be discussed on the internet. Maybe it is more of an honest debate. However there are also many valid contra points against that hypothesis. Like algorithms on social media that increase polarization and the idiosyncrasies of the internet which lead to echo chambers. (just wanted to use that technical term in order to sound smart lol)
Personally I like the internet (and especially youtube) because you can find so many extremely interesting niches. Our most primitive instincts unit us humans. (or at least the vast majority). We all think about sex, food, partners, (the modern person) entertainment ect. on a daily basis. Though what really makes us special and unique is our passion for certain niches. And the internet is a great tool to connect to people that share passion for a certain niche. One could also replace passion with a horribble fate/tragic biography when we think about this forum.
I think this topic is broad and abstract. I have the feeling one could talk a lot and in-depth about it. Not sure whether my analysis nailed it.
Though there are two different questions in the title.
Does the internet represent our societies? Personally I think to a certain extend but it is for example not a real substitute for real life contact to real people. This certain amount of real life contact/interactions is important for one's own sanity as I had to learn.
Should it be a mirror image?(normative) I am not sure. There are clearly certain evils that should be non-existent( in real life and on the internet). But it is difficult to judge about so many heterogenous places and concepts. Should everything that potentially can cause harm be eradicated? This would kind of imply also to ban alcohol and cigarettes. (kind of reminded me of that debate) . My conclusion is one has to decide case by case.
Such a long ass thread. I hope that is no sign for mania. But it is kind of usual for my behavior.
What do you think about it?
I think cloud services and search engines have defended themselves with this argument for hosting controversial websites. I am not sure maybe even in the context of this website.
I am not sure about the internet. It helps me a lot to cope and increases my life quality. But there is a lot of questionable or at least controversials content. For example real life gore, filesharing websites, pirating websites, dark corners on the internet like bullying and doxxing communities, political extreme content, misinformation, sexual content like revenge porn, self-harm forums, eating disorder forums, illegal substances and weapons, spying etc. Okay maybe these are many examples.
I could now call them all a symptom for a rotten humankind. Maybe one could argue for a few of them for a nuanced consideration.
For example fan-subs of foreign content (pirating). Technically not legal but it helped many franchises to become successful.
Who defines what misinformation is? Calling the Iraq war an unjustified war was once a conspiracy.
I am anti-drugs but one can argue an adult should have the right to take the substances they want as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
Gore. I am glad I quit that. But there are websites which document war crimes. For journalists that is important to verify sources/stories.
Though there are examples which are clearly evil like revenge porn, denying the holocaust, bullying communities etc. I don't defend that crazy shit.
However I am not sure how I would think about suicide forums if I was not in the position that I currently am. I mean two different positions.
1) compared to a parallel universe in which abuse and decade long severe suicidality were foreign to me
2) compared to my current self but only having heard about this forum in the media
The first scenario. That is hard to tell because I would be a completely different human. I think I have very deep pathologies and it is really hard to tell. My first mixed manic depressive episode started with 15. I was prior to that a completely different person. I had way way less impulse, impetus and energy.
Second scenario. I am not sure I think if I never heard of this suicide forum before except for media reports I think I might would have wanted to take a look at it in order to judge by my own. I am not sure what led me to this website but I assume it was a news article. I think the media (at least in my country) is very one-sided on assisted suicide. They are very paternalisitc. I am often angry when I read the news. Personally I have come to the conclusion that I think assisted suicide should be a human right. (as the German highest court ruled it.) So I don't trust the media a lot when it comes to suicide. Many Germans welcomed the Highest court ruling 2020 in favor of liberal assisted suicide laws. There are surveys that show the German people want assisted suicide as a human right. But the elites consisting of the politicians and journalists try to fight that. The most likely new law is ridiculous and violates in my opinion the court ruling in its spirit. I think if I had read more nuanced stories about suicide I might have had more trust in the media concerning this issue. But I have to say since the first time I ever thought about assisted suicide (in school) I thought it is horrible to leave these people alone so that they feel forced to jump in front of a train or similar stuff. I considered it as very cruel and inhuman. So my personal values on suicide gave me the feeling that I have the right to decide about my own death.
Maybe this was kind of off-topic but I wanted to demonstrate that the personal relation to controversial places on the internet can be affected by biography or personal cirumstances. It is difficult to judge what an eating disorder forum means for an individual if one never was member of one or if one has no own experiences with eating disorders.
Now maybe again to the core of this question. I don't know what to say. I mean one could start to criminalize everything that is potentially damaging for our society on the internet. Politicians repeat like a mantra (at least in my country) the internet is not the wild west and no place without laws. But if one banned everything that is potentially damaging one had to ban a lot of stuff. Like really a lot which would kind of contradict some western values. An example I like to listen to sad music also about self-harm, suicide and depression. For example Linkin Park or Lil Peep. So many artists play down the risks of drugs. Some of them kind of celebrate them. (not that few) That is potentially damaging because many teens see them as role models. However one would not really consider to ban them for that. Maybe one could argue this example is only a minor damaging influence compared to let's say a place where one can buy illegal drugs.
Now I try to think about that. I mean they try to ban selling of drugs online and in real life. One important trait of the internet is its anonymity. One could argue whether anonymity on the internet is only an illusion though. This "anonymity "has huge advantages. It allows me to talk openly on a daily basis about my persisting suicidality without the sorrows whether my future boss (in the dream world that I could hold a job) will know about it.
One can ask questions which are embarassing to ask to other people in real life. For example about sexuality. Things one is deeply ashamed about and one has noone that listens to in real life. It is not a surprise that porn is so popular on the internet. Maybe it is a mirror in this relation of the human spirit.
Though it is kind of interesting. In our capitalistic world we are exposed to sexual content all the time in media and marketing. Sex sells. With sex as a method you can get clicks and attention. So the curency of this century. There are different kind of extremes concerning sex. At least this is my feeling. I think this partly is influenced by the US and prudery. For example on facebook and instagram it is forbidden to show a female nipple. Though nowadays almost everyone can easily access hard core porn by some clicks. They kind of want to extract the dirtiness of sex. They form it into a harmless version that can be shown in ads which are also appropriate for a larger audience. With the internet the embarassing/humiliating buying process in video rental shops is over.
Maybe this shows that things that we are deeply ashamed about can more easily be discussed on the internet. Maybe it is more of an honest debate. However there are also many valid contra points against that hypothesis. Like algorithms on social media that increase polarization and the idiosyncrasies of the internet which lead to echo chambers. (just wanted to use that technical term in order to sound smart lol)
Personally I like the internet (and especially youtube) because you can find so many extremely interesting niches. Our most primitive instincts unit us humans. (or at least the vast majority). We all think about sex, food, partners, (the modern person) entertainment ect. on a daily basis. Though what really makes us special and unique is our passion for certain niches. And the internet is a great tool to connect to people that share passion for a certain niche. One could also replace passion with a horribble fate/tragic biography when we think about this forum.
I think this topic is broad and abstract. I have the feeling one could talk a lot and in-depth about it. Not sure whether my analysis nailed it.
Though there are two different questions in the title.
Does the internet represent our societies? Personally I think to a certain extend but it is for example not a real substitute for real life contact to real people. This certain amount of real life contact/interactions is important for one's own sanity as I had to learn.
Should it be a mirror image?(normative) I am not sure. There are clearly certain evils that should be non-existent( in real life and on the internet). But it is difficult to judge about so many heterogenous places and concepts. Should everything that potentially can cause harm be eradicated? This would kind of imply also to ban alcohol and cigarettes. (kind of reminded me of that debate) . My conclusion is one has to decide case by case.
Such a long ass thread. I hope that is no sign for mania. But it is kind of usual for my behavior.
What do you think about it?
Last edited:
