4 ms·

You can't impale yourself on information.

by kick 7y ago

recursive 7y ago
Traumatizing experiences are real, and they're made out of information.
mjfisher 7y ago
It can be harmful when you're not yet developed enough to evaluate that information (and the motives of the people peddling it) properly. There are plenty of online communities that e.g. normalize and encourage eating disorders or suicide, for example. It's our duty to educate our children well enough that they'll eventually be able to make smart decisions themselves - but that takes time and guidance.
- kick 7y ago
  Encouraging them to come to you when they see something suspicious or that's instructing them to do something is the solution to this problem, it doesn't seem likely that arbitrary censorship is the right solution. You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. Blocking 'icky' content is easier (notably, it isn't impossible) than blocking bad ideas. The trick is to talk about what they read online, it's not to stop them from reading it at all.
  - woofcat 7y ago
    >You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. See now you're just trolling. You think economics books, and newspapers are more damaging than sites encouraging self harm...
    - kick 7y ago
      This filter does not block sites encouraging self-harm. This filter blocks adult sites. My claim was that the filter only blocks things that are less harmful than what I listed. I don't think that's untrue, and stand by what I said. It is literally impossible to block all sites containing an idea via DNS filtering. It's substantially more plausible to block 'icky' sites. It's noted elsewhere in this thread that the filter doesn't block Facebook (which has many communities encouraging self-harm) nor reddit (which has countless communities that do so). The harms that the above poster cites (pro-ana & pro-suicide sites) are not and cannot be censored via use of a DNS filter.
      - woofcat 7y ago
        So you're saying since the solution isn't perfect, we should do away with it?
        kick 7y ago
        The anti-solution isn't even attempting to be a solution. It's not that it isn't perfect. It's that it's not even resembling anything close to a solution: it's actively harmful to the goals that are apparently trying to be achieved.
joezydeco 7y ago
I'll strengthen the second point of my post: Rule one of parenting is that you don't get to tell other parents how to do their job. I'll raise my kids the way I see fit - and that includes exposing them to certain things and choosing to not expose them to other things. Religion or atheism? Personal safety or fuck it, we'll buy more bandages. Vegan or meat eating? There are a myriad of decisions you make day to day but, above all, you as a random internet commenter don't get to make that decision. I do.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  To a certain degree. Of course folks have their kids taken away all the time, for egregious neglect.
  - joezydeco 7y ago
    Of course.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Or for letting them play outside without supervision.
- kick 7y ago
  Sure, I don't get to make your parenting decisions for you. I don't want to make them for you. Much better to leave that to the parent (and the government, for when the parent fails). However, I can criticize certain decisions as abusive. That's what I'm doing, and it's not targeted at you as much as it is the decision. It's an abusive action. While someone may not be able to change how someone parents, they can definitely say that something they're doing is abusive.
- organsnyder 7y ago
  Every time I see someone making absolutist statements about other people's parenting—even something as seemingly obvious as, "I'd never get my kid a candy bar at the grocery store if they were misbehaving"—I assume they don't have kids themselves. One thing I've learned as a parent is that every kid is different, every situation is different, and there are always tons of undercurrents that aren't immediately visible. Are there shitty parents out there? Of course. But for every shitty parent there are ten parents just trying to get through the day and do the best for their children, often under extenuating circumstances that are difficult for many of us to fathom.
WorldMaker 7y ago
No, but you can seriously damage your mental health (among other problems with "information"), and that is a very real problem.
debaserab2 7y ago
Sure you can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_of_Tide_Pods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_of_Tide_Pods
- kick 7y ago
  Surely you'd agree that's not the fault of the information as much as leaving small children in reach of poisonous objects without teaching them that they shouldn't consume them, wouldn't you? The article notes that it was already a problem before the meme started, and the amount of consumption caused by the internet meme (18 cases; no deaths noted out of those) is still minuscule.
  - debaserab2 7y ago
    Considering the demographic targetted by the meme was teenagers, I'd say it doesn't matter if you taught them or not. Disinformation campaigns on the internet are a thing. Kids don't flawlessly execute every piece of good advice given and sometimes you really do need to stop little Johnny from jumping off a bridge just because his friend said so.
    - kick 7y ago
      The demographic targeted by the meme was teenagers. This does not imply that teenagers were the majority of people who ended up consuming the pods. Kids don't flawlessly execute every piece of good advice given, sure, but if you give them the proper foundation it's extremely unlikely that they would do something like this. Partially related but by no means an argument against your main point: there's a fun xkcd comic that points out how absurd the bridge argument is. Parent: No, you can't go. Cueball: But all my friends— Parent: If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? Cueball: Oh, jeez. Probably. Parent: What!? Why!? Cueball: Because all my friends did. Cueball: Think about it — which scenario is more likely: Cueball: Every single person I know, many of them levelheaded and afraid of heights, abruptly went crazy at exactly the same time... Cueball: ...or the bridge is on fire? Parent: ...I, uh...hmm. Cueball: Imagine reading this on CNN: "Many fled their vehicles and jumped from the bridge. Those who stayed behind..." Cueball: Is something good about to happen to those people? Parent: Maybe they'll find cookies? Cueball: OK, you stay. I'm jumping.

You can't impale yourself on information.

by kick 7y ago

You can't impale yourself on information.

recursive 7y ago

Traumatizing experiences are real, and they're made out of information.

mjfisher 7y ago

It can be harmful when you're not yet developed enough to evaluate that information (and the motives of the people peddling it) properly. There are plenty of online communities that e.g. normalize and encourage eating disorders or suicide, for example. It's our duty to educate our children well enough that they'll eventually be able to make smart decisions themselves - but that takes time and guidance.

kick 7y ago
Encouraging them to come to you when they see something suspicious or that's instructing them to do something is the solution to this problem, it doesn't seem likely that arbitrary censorship is the right solution. You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. Blocking 'icky' content is easier (notably, it isn't impossible) than blocking bad ideas. The trick is to talk about what they read online, it's not to stop them from reading it at all.
- woofcat 7y ago
  >You'll get far more damaging views from viewing Facebook, a book written by an economist or the front page of a news outlet than anything blocked by one of these filters. See now you're just trolling. You think economics books, and newspapers are more damaging than sites encouraging self harm...
  - kick 7y ago
    This filter does not block sites encouraging self-harm. This filter blocks adult sites. My claim was that the filter only blocks things that are less harmful than what I listed. I don't think that's untrue, and stand by what I said. It is literally impossible to block all sites containing an idea via DNS filtering. It's substantially more plausible to block 'icky' sites. It's noted elsewhere in this thread that the filter doesn't block Facebook (which has many communities encouraging self-harm) nor reddit (which has countless communities that do so). The harms that the above poster cites (pro-ana & pro-suicide sites) are not and cannot be censored via use of a DNS filter.
    - woofcat 7y ago
      So you're saying since the solution isn't perfect, we should do away with it?
      - kick 7y ago
        The anti-solution isn't even attempting to be a solution. It's not that it isn't perfect. It's that it's not even resembling anything close to a solution: it's actively harmful to the goals that are apparently trying to be achieved.

joezydeco 7y ago

I'll strengthen the second point of my post: Rule one of parenting is that you don't get to tell other parents how to do their job. I'll raise my kids the way I see fit - and that includes exposing them to certain things and choosing to not expose them to other things. Religion or atheism? Personal safety or fuck it, we'll buy more bandages. Vegan or meat eating? There are a myriad of decisions you make day to day but, above all, you as a random internet commenter don't get to make that decision. I do.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
To a certain degree. Of course folks have their kids taken away all the time, for egregious neglect.
- joezydeco 7y ago
  Of course.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Or for letting them play outside without supervision.
kick 7y ago
Sure, I don't get to make your parenting decisions for you. I don't want to make them for you. Much better to leave that to the parent (and the government, for when the parent fails). However, I can criticize certain decisions as abusive. That's what I'm doing, and it's not targeted at you as much as it is the decision. It's an abusive action. While someone may not be able to change how someone parents, they can definitely say that something they're doing is abusive.
organsnyder 7y ago
Every time I see someone making absolutist statements about other people's parenting—even something as seemingly obvious as, "I'd never get my kid a candy bar at the grocery store if they were misbehaving"—I assume they don't have kids themselves. One thing I've learned as a parent is that every kid is different, every situation is different, and there are always tons of undercurrents that aren't immediately visible. Are there shitty parents out there? Of course. But for every shitty parent there are ten parents just trying to get through the day and do the best for their children, often under extenuating circumstances that are difficult for many of us to fathom.

WorldMaker 7y ago

No, but you can seriously damage your mental health (among other problems with "information"), and that is a very real problem.

debaserab2 7y ago

Sure you can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_of_Tide_Pods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_of_Tide_Pods

kick 7y ago
Surely you'd agree that's not the fault of the information as much as leaving small children in reach of poisonous objects without teaching them that they shouldn't consume them, wouldn't you? The article notes that it was already a problem before the meme started, and the amount of consumption caused by the internet meme (18 cases; no deaths noted out of those) is still minuscule.
- debaserab2 7y ago
  Considering the demographic targetted by the meme was teenagers, I'd say it doesn't matter if you taught them or not. Disinformation campaigns on the internet are a thing. Kids don't flawlessly execute every piece of good advice given and sometimes you really do need to stop little Johnny from jumping off a bridge just because his friend said so.
  - kick 7y ago
    The demographic targeted by the meme was teenagers. This does not imply that teenagers were the majority of people who ended up consuming the pods. Kids don't flawlessly execute every piece of good advice given, sure, but if you give them the proper foundation it's extremely unlikely that they would do something like this. Partially related but by no means an argument against your main point: there's a fun xkcd comic that points out how absurd the bridge argument is. Parent: No, you can't go. Cueball: But all my friends— Parent: If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too? Cueball: Oh, jeez. Probably. Parent: What!? Why!? Cueball: Because all my friends did. Cueball: Think about it — which scenario is more likely: Cueball: Every single person I know, many of them levelheaded and afraid of heights, abruptly went crazy at exactly the same time... Cueball: ...or the bridge is on fire? Parent: ...I, uh...hmm. Cueball: Imagine reading this on CNN: "Many fled their vehicles and jumped from the bridge. Those who stayed behind..." Cueball: Is something good about to happen to those people? Parent: Maybe they'll find cookies? Cueball: OK, you stay. I'm jumping.