Discussion Were we more free back before the digital age (early 20th century, before 21st century)?

[TAW122]

This is a topic that I have pondered about and as someone who is a millennial and grew up in the 90's, I have experienced a little bit of what life was before the Internet, but most of my adolescent years was still during the Internet age. This was a time where the Internet was starting to expand and become more commonplace (before Google, Yahoo was more common as well as dial-up and then eventually DSL, but before the highspeed Internet that we have nowadays). I somewhat remember life as an elementary school and perhaps even middle schooler back then. I remember when one was a bit more free with what they can say and political correctness wasn't really as serious when I was a kid compared to today's generation (or even a decade ago). I think in the late 2000's and early 2010's that's when political correctness and the permanence of the Internet and such became more widespread. Anyhow, I remember as far back as elementary school, people used to be able to talk about guns and play around with media like that, but fast forward to early 2000's (post Columbine era as well as post 9/11), anything that mentions any hint of violence or even in jest, is treated like a serious threat and those involved are heavily probed, scrutinized, investigated, and/or treated like some terrorist/criminal. Then coupled with the fact that CTB prevention policies have also gotten more paternalistic, whereas in the past, while asylums and such existed, people were deemed insane for obviously wrong reasons (the LGBT and stuff only got taken off from the DSM in the 70's for instance, womens rights became a thing, civil rights era, etc.), I think overall people did not just question anyone or look as hard for red flags (do correct me if I'm wrong).

Anyways, so the main purpose of this thread was the discussion of whether or not we were more/less free when it came to surveillance on our freedoms in relation to CTB prevention and just in general. I feel that after growing up in the 90's then throughout the 21st century, things certainly felt less free, surveillance was ramping up, not just for national security (post Columbine, post 9/11, etc.), but also for our personal bodily autonomy. The ever growing paternalistic and far-reaching messages of CTB prevention and many of the uncanny, cringe worthy messages are plastered and promoted just about everywhere. Also, there is a culture of scoping out and profiling those who are at 'risk' for CTB, then taking action to intervene against said individual(s)' will and freedom; all in the name of health and safety. The ever growing paternalistic policies that see no end until the moral busybodies are satiated, which is something that we do not and cannot control.

So for the people who are older than me or also grew up during the time, did you feel that CTB prevention wasn't as aggressively pushed as it was today? Also were you more free during your upbringing and adulthood (mainly people who grew up in the 70's and 80's as either adolescents or even young adults in their 20's and 30's during that time period)? Sometimes I believe that we as a society and the world we live in (in 2024, in present day), we are losing our privacy and freedom little by little, bit by bit, and then the CTB prevention policies are becoming more and more prevalent as well as invasive. Not only are they being plastered everywhere, even common day to day people and one's own peers are like probes trying to scope out any signs of red flags for CTB or something, all in the name of health and safety. I certainly (as a millennial) myself, feel like we live in an age where while things are convenient thanks to technology, we also live with other challenges and loss of certain freedoms that earlier generations before us enjoyed that we no longer do. Therefore overall, I feel like our times are worse in terms of freedoms like privacy, bodily autonomy (with respect to the right to die), and many more, because not only did we lose our ability to casually say things or to vent without being immediately associated with red flags or potentially heinous people, but also we have less privacy when it comes to CTB due to the ever growing CTB prevention policies and measures around the world.

 

[Abyssal]

This is an interesting topic, I'll share my probably biased view on it.

With the internet comes globalization, where many different countries start mingling their cultures as well as leave behind some of their more unique cultural traditions. In a way, this can be negative in the case of taking on and learning about a cultures more negative attributes. I'm sure some people saw the unreasonable work hours other countries have given their employees and implemented it in their own businesses. This is a good example of how globalization can worsen our lives. On the other hand, we see an influx of people fighting for human rights and being able to speak on the terrible treatments that are normalize in their country. Some of this has already occurred and lead to improvements in how people live their lives, yet other things, like suicide rates and the pressures of school and work, have a ways to go.

Ive studied the experimentation of chimpanzees and while they are human per se, the rise of the internet has made chimpanzee experimentation nonexistent in all but one country. This may sound minor, but I believe humans are built to put themselves above other species, so I feel it's only a matter of time before they recognize that working ourselves to death and racism,homophobia,transphobia, and sexism are fought against an an increasingly positive way. It will probably take a long ass time though, maybe not in our lifetime, but I feel the internet and globalization has made this future more likely than ever.

As I said, biased take, but I feel strongly about it.

 

[AshersGirl]

It's a double edged sword.
I'm in my 40s. I grew up largely without the internet, didn't start becoming more common use until my mid to late teens, then to have a home computer and internet the family had to be at least middle class to afford it, though I do remember starting to frequent a 24/7 internet cafe where you could buy a cheap pass and live there if you liked I think I was about 16/17 at this point, but the internet was mostly chat rooms, forums, MySpace. MSN!

I don't remember much active campaigning for suicide prevention in the 90s and early 2000s, which was when the majority of my attempts happened. A&E (ER) treated you like an inconvenience and lacked empathy, the duty psyche could not care less but to go through a generic list of questions to determine if you then needed sectioned or not (I never was, no matter what I did to myself - by the time the psyche saw me I was always calm and displaying no indication of further immediate risk, and there's always a bed shortage) - so, patch you up, off you go, we will get your gp to up your SSRI dose

To be honest they never seemed to give a fuck.

But… with the digital age came the ability to mine/gather data outside of people going through a very manual process. Sources shared for research, ability to combine and analyse and come to conclusions on risk factors and mitigation. So, the powers that be started looking at the data.

The internet means us lost souls have now access to research methods that would have previously involved self teaching from lots of books, trial and error with no network to share what did or didn't work. But everyone else on the planet has access to the same info.

The internet simply means Joe Public is also very much aware of suicide statistics in a way they wouldn't have been before the internet. And Joe Public says - this is not acceptable, this is preventable - complains to the government, and the government has to pretend to give a shit. So, they restrict access to the things publically palatable to restrict access to.

You can't ban people from buying rope, it's too widely used beyond ctb though it's the method of way more suicides than SN.

You can ban people from buying SN, because it's not widely used by Joe Public, so Joe Public are not going to complain.

God forbid they didn't ban anything and actually looked at trying to fix some of the highly preventable root causes of suicide and try to fix them. No, leave people breathing but miserable and pat yourselves on the back for a job well done!

America and guns: how many people ctb by shooting themselves? How many people die from accidental shootings? How many people die from deliberate and targeted attacks? Pretty sure much higher than SN deaths. But they won't even sniff at the concept of not letting Joe Public have guns because half the country would storm the White House (with their guns ). Or at least not vote for the party who tried it. Joe Public is also hypocritical in what it deems high risk and it's mostly about whether the banning or restriction of such things would be a loss to the individual.

I don't think all the government implemented suicide prevention measures come from any place of giving a single shit about suicidal or suffering people - they had more access to such statistics before the internet anyway. The increased measures come from looking on paper like they give a shit so they can appease the masses and retain votes.

All the internet did was give people more access to information and more of a platform to scream their own opinions - and also to form larger cohorts of similarly minded people to band together and pressure government.

And re any flags raised - I don't think they give a shit about that either. It's just that if the media gets hold of the story of someone (particularly a younger persons) suicide, then they're going to report on all the indications that may have been picked up on to prevent it, and they're going to throw about concepts of blame and liability, and the masses will rally. So it's all about risk mitigation.

 

[TAW122]

This is an interesting topic, I'll share my probably biased view on it.

With the internet comes globalization, where many different countries start mingling their cultures as well as leave behind some of their more unique cultural traditions. In a way, this can be negative in the case of taking on and learning about a cultures more negative attributes. I'm sure some people saw the unreasonable work hours other countries have given their employees and implemented it in their own businesses. This is a good example of how globalization can worsen our lives. On the other hand, we see an influx of people fighting for human rights and being able to speak on the terrible treatments that are normalize in their country. Some of this has already occurred and lead to improvements in how people live their lives, yet other things, like suicide rates and the pressures of school and work, have a ways to go.

Ive studied the experimentation of chimpanzees and while they are human per se, the rise of the internet has made chimpanzee experimentation nonexistent in all but one country. This may sound minor, but I believe humans are built to put themselves above other species, so I feel it's only a matter of time before they recognize that working ourselves to death and racism,homophobia,transphobia, and sexism are fought against an an increasingly positive way. It will probably take a long ass time though, maybe not in our lifetime, but I feel the internet and globalization has made this future more likely than ever.

As I said, biased take, but I feel strongly about it.

That is an interesting take for sure, and yes, the Internet has certainly made everyone have more accessibility towards information and knowledge on a whim. It really changed the world for how it is. I certainly hope that humanity gets to a point where we won't have to work for survival, but work as a way to enrich their own lives and not have to worry about basic needs. It probably sounds utopic and perhaps even unrealistic, but maybe other futuristic changes like AI, automation, and/or other shifts in the how society operates on a macro level, that could be a possible reality. I definitely think that solving the current social issues nowadays will also contribute towards having people less wanting to CTB in the future, though having the inalienable right to CTB (while utopic and very far, if ever) would be the ultimate human right as no sentient human being that is present ever consented towards wanting to be alive.

It's a double edged sword.
I'm in my 40s. I grew up largely without the internet, didn't start becoming more common use until my mid to late teens, then to have a home computer and internet the family had to be at least middle class to afford it, though I do remember starting to frequent a 24/7 internet cafe where you could buy a cheap pass and live there if you liked I think I was about 16/17 at this point, but the internet was mostly chat rooms, forums, MySpace. MSN!

I don't remember much active campaigning for suicide prevention in the 90s and early 2000s, which was when the majority of my attempts happened. A&E (ER) treated you like an inconvenience and lacked empathy, the duty psyche could not care less but to go through a generic list of questions to determine if you then needed sectioned or not (I never was, no matter what I did to myself - by the time the psyche saw me I was always calm and displaying no indication of further immediate risk, and there's always a bed shortage) - so, patch you up, off you go, we will get your gp to up your SSRI dose

To be honest they never seemed to give a fuck.

But… with the digital age came the ability to mine/gather data outside of people going through a very manual process. Sources shared for research, ability to combine and analyse and come to conclusions on risk factors and mitigation. So, the powers that be started looking at the data.

The internet means us lost souls have now access to research methods that would have previously involved self teaching from lots of books, trial and error with no network to share what did or didn't work. But everyone else on the planet has access to the same info.

The internet simply means Joe Public is also very much aware of suicide statistics in a way they wouldn't have been before the internet. And Joe Public says - this is not acceptable, this is preventable - complains to the government, and the government has to pretend to give a shit. So, they restrict access to the things publically palatable to restrict access to.

You can't ban people from buying rope, it's too widely used beyond ctb though it's the method of way more suicides than SN.

You can ban people from buying SN, because it's not widely used by Joe Public, so Joe Public are not going to complain.

God forbid they didn't ban anything and actually looked at trying to fix some of the highly preventable root causes of suicide and try to fix them. No, leave people breathing but miserable and pat yourselves on the back for a job well done!

America and guns: how many people ctb by shooting themselves? How many people die from accidental shootings? How many people die from deliberate and targeted attacks? Pretty sure much higher than SN deaths. But they won't even sniff at the concept of not letting Joe Public have guns because half the country would storm the White House (with their guns ). Or at least not vote for the party who tried it. Joe Public is also hypocritical in what it deems high risk and it's mostly about whether the banning or restriction of such things would be a loss to the individual.

I don't think all the government implemented suicide prevention measures come from any place of giving a single shit about suicidal or suffering people - they had more access to such statistics before the internet anyway. The increased measures come from looking on paper like they give a shit so they can appease the masses and retain votes.

All the internet did was give people more access to information and more of a platform to scream their own opinions - and also to form larger cohorts of similarly minded people to band together and pressure government.

And re any flags raised - I don't think they give a shit about that either. It's just that if the media gets hold of the story of someone (particularly a younger persons) suicide, then they're going to report on all the indications that may have been picked up on to prevent it, and they're going to throw about concepts of blame and liability, and the masses will rally. So it's all about risk mitigation.

This is a very interesting and thoughtful take, and yes I agree, the Internet has made it easier for us to get our information (knowledge and sources) as well as share details of methods that otherwise may have been too risky with trial and error (sometimes leading us to potential permanent damage and debility, unable to reattempt). On the flip side, yes, this has also resulted in the State (government) crackdown and surveillance of risk factors and red flags of potential CTB as well as more paternalistic intrusion into our private lives under the guise of health and safety. I do agree that while they can ban, effective (and relatively peaceful) methods of CTB'ing, they cannot ban everything, especially common everyday tools as they have too many legitimate applications outside of CTB. I guess our best bet currently is to do enough to stay ahead of the curve, whenever it is discovered a new method (substance, material, or whatever it may be) and try to secure one's exit when possible.

Looking back, had I known that SN would be so difficult to procure nowadays and having my method not be as readily accessible due to changes in my RL situation, I would have proactively tried to secure a batch of SN back in 2020 or even early 2019 (whenever possible) just as an added blanket of safety in case things go south. Then again, SaSu was still relatively new around 2019 (with only being around for just more than a year, so maybe SN was talked about but not as extensively as the 2020s or even 2021). Anyways, this is an interesting read and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic.