8 ms·

> But in fact I had not intended to cancel Harris; I hadn’t intended anything at all. I would have attacked him, physically, had he been present, over a pure de

> But in fact I had not intended to cancel Harris; I hadn’t intended anything at all. I would have attacked him, physically, had he been present, over a pure delusion, which I say with shame I can’t put into words. But I was not thinking that I would hurt his reputation. I was not thinking of cause and effect in any conventional way. I was not in a mental state where I was capable of understanding long-term consequences. Once again, I will be accused of saying that I bear no responsibility for what happened, but that’s not what I’m saying or have ever said. I am saying that it is a lie to say that I had a particular outcome in mind because I was operating under the antilogic of psychosis. I know because I’m me and I was there. I’m sorry if this is inconvenient for your efforts to develop simplistic moral readings about what happened, but I assure you my psychotic disorder is harder on me than it is on you. Forgive me if I’m angry, but it is incredible the number of people who believe that their understanding of neurology and psychiatry and psychology is so complete that they can decide unilaterally for the human race that “mental illness doesn’t do that.” You can make whatever moral judgments about me you like. You have no idea what was happening in my brain and no right to speak as if you do. Social media are clearly magnifying the negative consequences of mental health issues. The problems the author describes are compounded by the fact that many other people know what happened. What I'm curious about, though, is the opposite. To what extent are social media increasing the severity of mental health issues themselves? I can imagine a kind of positive feedback loop, with social media triggering aspects of an illness, and acting out through social media amplifying the damage caused.

joedavison 5y ago
I think it’s clear that social media (or more broadly, “the internet”), is exacerbating mental health issues. At the very same time, the ability to connect with people around the world is undoubtedly also reducing mental health issues (for some) by building bridges to friendships and social connections they otherwise would not have. It is a double edged sword. The internet serves to amplify the extremes. At least that is the conclusion I draw.
- podgaj 5y ago
  We have two be careful (I have Schiozoaffective Bipolar Disorder) when going on to social media. I cannot use Facebook at all. For some reason it is always a huge trigger for me. On Twitter I go back and forth. Even Hacker News frustrates me when they keep telling me I am "posting too fast". Most times nothing is too fast for me. :) But in total, I would say some social media platforms are worse than others. I long for the calmness and organization of the old MyBB forums.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Your account has been rate limited. At some point, you did something wrong, and noone in administration could even be bothered to warn or tell you about it. That cryptic error message is what gets shown to you instead of anything descriptive. The only way to get it lifted is to email them and pinky promise never again to do the thing they didn't tell you you did in the first place. See this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024255
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      "did something wrong" seems to have a strong correlation to the ability to make hard to refute arguments for opinions that are very solidly in the "outgroup wrongthink" category on HN. The people who can only make weak arguments for the wrong sides of issues get thier accounts shadowbanned or banned for flamebait. I have no desire to converse with certain ideological groups on certain sides of certain issues but to silence (in relative terms) the ones arguing their side effectively endangers the community's ability to think critically.
    - podgaj 5y ago
      Could it be that I use a VPN frequently?
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        They don't tell me these things, either. Sorry.
smoldesu 5y ago
The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't. This greatly favors capitalism, which can perform native marketing on Twitter with brand accounts and hired reply-guys, as well as through advertisements and other methods of attention diversion. The final incarnation of this is platforms like Tik-Tok, which behave as perpetual, unfiltered streams of internet that intentionally mixes your wheat and your chaff. With relation to mental illness, this issue becomes exacerbated. The anomie, or separation from the human race, is almost intolerable on platforms like Twitter and Instagram. All of it feeds into the grinder of selling more widgets and moving more product.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  > The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't. Is this truly the case, or is it that there we less average people in online communities in the past? Online scams, lying, and deceit have been a thing since online was a thing-- why else would we have nigerian prince, rickrolling, or the term "trolling" otherwise?
itronitron 5y ago
instead of quiet desperation, people can now lead lives of shrieking desperation
kibwen 5y ago
> To what extent are social media increasing the severity of mental health issues themselves? As an analogy, I consider photosensitive epilepsy. It is unlikely that the genetic cause of epilepsy is somehow a recent mutation; we can assume that an average human a thousand years ago would have been approximately as susceptible as a human today. But for nearly the full history of humanity it would have been relatively rare for someone to suffer an episode of photosensitive epilepsy, because of the lack of environmental triggers. It's not impossible for a flame from a fire or a candle to trigger an episode, but the irregular frequency of the flickering flame means the risk is much lower. It wasn't until electric lighting, and later television, that the environment was suddenly primed to interact with a condition that had quietly existed in humanity for untold ages. To some degree, the modern prevalence of photosensitive epilepsy was a direct result of technology. So it may be with social media. I wonder if there was some predisposition to madness that had lain dormant in human brains for thousands of years, and is only now coming to the fore as a direct result of the environment that we have created with our technological advancements.
- watwut 5y ago
  There is nothing to suggest that the sort of disorder DeBoer has was not present in the past. The consequences would harsher on everyone and there would be no meds. Note that he nearly got arrested for unrelated conduct. It was not social media issue.
  - lazyasciiart 5y ago
    In fact, we know for sure that it exists in cultures with no access to media or technology in the recent past, and severe episodes of bipolar (mania) have been explained as the victim being possessed. One case: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15030281 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.1...
- jjj123 5y ago
  I think there’s another layer that’s not present with the epilepsy case. With epilepsy, it’s an unintentional and tangential side effect of a new technology. Engagement apps instead take advantage of our mental shortcomings as a core part of their business models. All that’s to say: you’re right, but with social media the problems are exacerbated because the incentives demand it.
lubujackson 5y ago
The author should know that this attitude does absolutely nothing for anyone. Throwing blame back on other people for not understanding your hardships is self-serving and a fundamentally dismissive attitude. Mental issues do not absolve actions. You feel that you are not fully responsible for your actions and that is actually fine - but as a person who caused harm you should own your ACTIONS, full stop. "I fucked up. I had a mental break and caused hurt to others.I am sorry for those actions and I am working to better handle my mental issues." Since they ask at the end what people want, it is simply that. Accept that you are the person that did these acts and hurt others. Forgive yourself for doing it, (internally) but don't deny responsibility. If it helps, blame your Public Self for being an asshole while your True Self can empathize with those hurt by Public Self. Right now you can't empathize because you are so concerned about deflecting blame from yourself. But blame is shitty and doesn't help anything - ignore blame and accept responsibility for your actions. Things can't improve until you do that first.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  > I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration. This seems to be an admission of responsibility to me.
  - alchemst 5y ago
    It seems about the weakest one possible, in that it allows accepting either only tiny amounts of responsibility, or almost total responsibility.
    - slingnow 5y ago
      Maybe you don't understand how scales work. His description allows _everything between the endpoints_ he stated. How do you arrive at only a binary choice?
- dralley 5y ago
  I believe the author did in fact say exactly this. > I did something very wrong, and the complication of my mental disorder should not excuse me entirely from blame for those actions. The degree to which any individual weighs that complication will have to be a matter of their individual ethical sense. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind about whether I should be forgiven or not. These issues are very complex, and I have had to wrestle with my culpability for my actions when manic for a long time. It’s not easy. It’s perfectly legitimate to weigh my mental illness as context and still conclude that I deserve to have social ties severed. I did in fact lose some real friends over what happened, they made their decisions in full light of my condition and history, and I can only respect that stance and hope that one day they might reconsider. > ... > I have not asked for absolution; I have asked for forgiveness. I have asked for forgiveness knowing that only guilty people have the right to ask such a thing. I am guilty of doing something terrible, and I know that some will always judge me harshly for it. I cannot ask them to do otherwise if they are moved to do so by their conscience.

joedavison 5y ago

I think it’s clear that social media (or more broadly, “the internet”), is exacerbating mental health issues. At the very same time, the ability to connect with people around the world is undoubtedly also reducing mental health issues (for some) by building bridges to friendships and social connections they otherwise would not have. It is a double edged sword. The internet serves to amplify the extremes. At least that is the conclusion I draw.

podgaj 5y ago
We have two be careful (I have Schiozoaffective Bipolar Disorder) when going on to social media. I cannot use Facebook at all. For some reason it is always a huge trigger for me. On Twitter I go back and forth. Even Hacker News frustrates me when they keep telling me I am "posting too fast". Most times nothing is too fast for me. :) But in total, I would say some social media platforms are worse than others. I long for the calmness and organization of the old MyBB forums.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Your account has been rate limited. At some point, you did something wrong, and noone in administration could even be bothered to warn or tell you about it. That cryptic error message is what gets shown to you instead of anything descriptive. The only way to get it lifted is to email them and pinky promise never again to do the thing they didn't tell you you did in the first place. See this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024255
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    "did something wrong" seems to have a strong correlation to the ability to make hard to refute arguments for opinions that are very solidly in the "outgroup wrongthink" category on HN. The people who can only make weak arguments for the wrong sides of issues get thier accounts shadowbanned or banned for flamebait. I have no desire to converse with certain ideological groups on certain sides of certain issues but to silence (in relative terms) the ones arguing their side effectively endangers the community's ability to think critically.
  - podgaj 5y ago
    Could it be that I use a VPN frequently?
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      They don't tell me these things, either. Sorry.

smoldesu 5y ago

The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't. This greatly favors capitalism, which can perform native marketing on Twitter with brand accounts and hired reply-guys, as well as through advertisements and other methods of attention diversion. The final incarnation of this is platforms like Tik-Tok, which behave as perpetual, unfiltered streams of internet that intentionally mixes your wheat and your chaff. With relation to mental illness, this issue becomes exacerbated. The anomie, or separation from the human race, is almost intolerable on platforms like Twitter and Instagram. All of it feeds into the grinder of selling more widgets and moving more product.

KittenInABox 5y ago
> The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't. Is this truly the case, or is it that there we less average people in online communities in the past? Online scams, lying, and deceit have been a thing since online was a thing-- why else would we have nigerian prince, rickrolling, or the term "trolling" otherwise?

itronitron 5y ago

instead of quiet desperation, people can now lead lives of shrieking desperation

kibwen 5y ago

> To what extent are social media increasing the severity of mental health issues themselves? As an analogy, I consider photosensitive epilepsy. It is unlikely that the genetic cause of epilepsy is somehow a recent mutation; we can assume that an average human a thousand years ago would have been approximately as susceptible as a human today. But for nearly the full history of humanity it would have been relatively rare for someone to suffer an episode of photosensitive epilepsy, because of the lack of environmental triggers. It's not impossible for a flame from a fire or a candle to trigger an episode, but the irregular frequency of the flickering flame means the risk is much lower. It wasn't until electric lighting, and later television, that the environment was suddenly primed to interact with a condition that had quietly existed in humanity for untold ages. To some degree, the modern prevalence of photosensitive epilepsy was a direct result of technology. So it may be with social media. I wonder if there was some predisposition to madness that had lain dormant in human brains for thousands of years, and is only now coming to the fore as a direct result of the environment that we have created with our technological advancements.

watwut 5y ago
There is nothing to suggest that the sort of disorder DeBoer has was not present in the past. The consequences would harsher on everyone and there would be no meds. Note that he nearly got arrested for unrelated conduct. It was not social media issue.
- lazyasciiart 5y ago
  In fact, we know for sure that it exists in cultures with no access to media or technology in the recent past, and severe episodes of bipolar (mania) have been explained as the victim being possessed. One case: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15030281 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.1...
jjj123 5y ago
I think there’s another layer that’s not present with the epilepsy case. With epilepsy, it’s an unintentional and tangential side effect of a new technology. Engagement apps instead take advantage of our mental shortcomings as a core part of their business models. All that’s to say: you’re right, but with social media the problems are exacerbated because the incentives demand it.

lubujackson 5y ago

The author should know that this attitude does absolutely nothing for anyone. Throwing blame back on other people for not understanding your hardships is self-serving and a fundamentally dismissive attitude. Mental issues do not absolve actions. You feel that you are not fully responsible for your actions and that is actually fine - but as a person who caused harm you should own your ACTIONS, full stop. "I fucked up. I had a mental break and caused hurt to others.I am sorry for those actions and I am working to better handle my mental issues." Since they ask at the end what people want, it is simply that. Accept that you are the person that did these acts and hurt others. Forgive yourself for doing it, (internally) but don't deny responsibility. If it helps, blame your Public Self for being an asshole while your True Self can empathize with those hurt by Public Self. Right now you can't empathize because you are so concerned about deflecting blame from yourself. But blame is shitty and doesn't help anything - ignore blame and accept responsibility for your actions. Things can't improve until you do that first.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
> I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration. This seems to be an admission of responsibility to me.
- alchemst 5y ago
  It seems about the weakest one possible, in that it allows accepting either only tiny amounts of responsibility, or almost total responsibility.
  - slingnow 5y ago
    Maybe you don't understand how scales work. His description allows _everything between the endpoints_ he stated. How do you arrive at only a binary choice?
dralley 5y ago
I believe the author did in fact say exactly this. > I did something very wrong, and the complication of my mental disorder should not excuse me entirely from blame for those actions. The degree to which any individual weighs that complication will have to be a matter of their individual ethical sense. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind about whether I should be forgiven or not. These issues are very complex, and I have had to wrestle with my culpability for my actions when manic for a long time. It’s not easy. It’s perfectly legitimate to weigh my mental illness as context and still conclude that I deserve to have social ties severed. I did in fact lose some real friends over what happened, they made their decisions in full light of my condition and history, and I can only respect that stance and hope that one day they might reconsider. > ... > I have not asked for absolution; I have asked for forgiveness. I have asked for forgiveness knowing that only guilty people have the right to ask such a thing. I am guilty of doing something terrible, and I know that some will always judge me harshly for it. I cannot ask them to do otherwise if they are moved to do so by their conscience.