6 ms·

Tumblr’s banning “self-harm” blogs that promote eating disorders and suicide

24 points by lambtron 15y ago

jrockway 15y ago
The lubricant has been applied to the slope...
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Oh here, let me try based on what I learned from the reddit/cp discussion that took place here, what, last week: - slippery slopes don't exist, they're apparently some sort of imaginary fallacy - If you argue that Tumblr shouldn't remove content at their own arbitrary discretion, that must mean you want people to have eating disorders and commit suicide. I will call you disgusting and imply that even having a discussion about censorship or suppression of content is akin to defending child porn, I mean, suicidal content. On a less sarcastic note, I really do want to hear how people are going to tell me this isn't a slippery slope. "“that actively promotes or glorifies self-injury or self-harm.”". My [imaginary] Tumblr talks about how I deprive myself of sleep working long hours, use marijuana for stress relief and recreation and how I don't like to wear my helmet when I ride my motorcycle, better find a new blog (or whatever Tumblr is) platform.
- blantonl 15y ago
  There is no "slope" when it comes to private establishments. Just like McDonalds reserves the right to not serve you if you aren't wearing shoes or a shirt, Tumblr reserves the right to limit whatever content they see fit. Freedom of speech does not apply when participating on a private organization's platform.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Why does the term "slippery slope" only apply to public rights? Again, no one is making this a legal thing. No one here is saying that Tumblr is legally required to let me blog about my suicide. We're saying that it's concerning as a [potential] user to see a provider like this arbitrarily suppressing content.
    - blantonl 15y ago
      First, who is "we?" And second, if it is a concern that Tumblr won't allow your content, why can't you develop (or find) your own platform? Just because these platforms have huge audiences doesn't mean they are appropriate for your individual message.
      - drivebyacct2 15y ago
        Sorry, I'm surely abusing the proverbial "we". I just feel that your attempting to discredit anyone who dissents as using "free speech" when this really (as you point out) isn't about free speech at all. For the record, I do use my own platform and don't really ever use Tumblr. The sorts of things I write about don't really attract the "repost"/"like" style of Tumblr and I don't think the audience would be relevant anyway. I can say that if I ever decided to start a photography blog or something where mass audiences and such were important, I would be much less likely to use Tumblr knowing that this is their policy. I guess I feel like your defending Tumblr from some sort of attack by me. Like I said, Tumblr is free to do whatever they want and their users can leave or stay. I just think this policy is a turn-off and I wouldn't be shocked if in 3 months we see "Tumblr bans tumbles(?) about drugs/rock-n-roll, etc" posts.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I don't think this is necessarily a slippery slope. AFAIK (I may be wrong though) this isn't due to external pressure or some PR fiasco (coughreddit), this is something Tumblr has decided did not reflect their company ethic, and wants off their platform. The difference between this and reddit's last run-in with offensive content is that Tumblr has shown no weakness here, whereas Reddit more than proved that a sufficiently large PR catastrophe is all it takes to change site policy. What Reddit has encouraged is more boycotts and more PR shitstorms from 3rd parties hoping to affect change on the site. Tumblr, by acting proactively, has not opened these doors (yet). They are still their own arbiters of good taste, as opposed to opening the floodgates of mob-rule.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Inventing a new company policy in response to something you found distasteful and then enforcing that upon your existing user base screams slippery slope. Especially given there is even less of a brightline standard of what violates Tumblr's policy than when we were considering reddit. It's much easier (not to trivialize it) to determine if something is child-related and sexual of nature than the entire realm of things contained in "self-injury". As I implied in my other comment, things like "self-injury" are very arbitrary and vary person-to-person. (Not that I should have to disclaim this, but I don't think things like suicide or eating disorders are "good" or healthy).
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      > "very arbitrary and vary person-to-person" Sure, but the point of this is that Tumblr is the ultimate arbiter of what falls into and out of the content policy. And honestly, I expect "Tumblr staff" as a group to be a lot more focused and a lot less fickle than the internet community at large. Compared to a reactionary response to external pressure, a la reddit, where you've essentially handed the reigns to third parties. By acting proactively instead of reacting to PR pressure, Tumblr has basically drawn a line where their content policy lies, and they shown that they will determine what does and does not violate it - not some angry blog, community vote, or other mob-based "democracy". Giving a small group of people editorial control is unlikely to lead to a slippery slope. Giving everyone editorial control certainly does, as special interests emerge and find out they can play the system.
pjscott 15y ago
There are two things here that I wish were not socially accepted: the demonization of even small amounts of body fat, and banning content you dislike "for their own good".
- ahelwer 15y ago
  It's not for their own good. It's for the good of the impressionable and emotionally unstable teenagers that would have found these communities and latched onto them as their negative impulses were validated.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    You're right, of course. I must have spent thirty or forty seconds looking for a more accurate phrase, but settled on "for their own good" because it flowed better. Now, those pro-anorexia blogs are creepy and disheartening; I looked through some a while back, and they really are as sad as they sound. If Tumblr's goal is to prevent more teenagers from latching onto that subculture, there are a few things they might try. They could stick warning banners up on the blogs in question, visibly registering their protest without going so far as to remove content. Or they might shrug regretfully and say there's not much they can do, since they hardly have a monopoly on the blogging platform market, which would be true. Setting themselves up as censors was not their only option, and as far as I'm concerned, it should have been pretty far down on the list of ideas. In general, I'm uncomfortable with the impulse to try to stop people from saying messages that you don't want others to hear.
    - ahelwer 15y ago
      I, too, am uncomfortable with such things. The slippery slope does exist, although to a lesser degree when the entity does not hold a monopoly (don't want to drive users away to more permissive options). However, the slipperiness of the slope should not preclude people stepping out onto it. It is less comfortable out there, less simple, less black-and-white than settling at one extreme or another. To take the example from the other direction, consider zero-tolerance policies for weapons at schools. I don't think many people would find it reasonable for a young student to be expelled for bringing a swiss army knife his grandfather gave him to school. Doesn't matter, says the school district. Slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? As rational individuals, we can decide where to draw the line. This vastly increases the surface area of critical attacks - the line will seem arbitrary, and there will always be boundary cases which could go one way or the other. "Why this and not that?" will be heard often. It's an easy target. So yes, the easy answer is that all discourse should be allowed. But really, I don't want people advocating that bullshit to teenagers.
rhizome 15y ago
Yet Tumblr still looks like crap on Android.
blantonl 15y ago
There will certainly be folks that decry this move as limiting freedom of speech, but the reality is this: Freedom of speech does not apply when you participate on a private organization's platform. For those that strongly oppose these types of policies from social networks, I'm very much in favor of you starting your own social network to cater to tastes and generes that suit what you feel is appropriate for your community.
- rooshdi 15y ago
  Why does anyone have to decide what is "appropriate" for a community? Why can't a community just be?
  - kstenerud 15y ago
    Because everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, has an axe to grind at some point.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      Isn't that an argument for asking people to leave their axes at home? Rather than bringing it to work and saying, "I own this company so all my users are going to have the same ideas of morality and appropriateness as me."?
      - kstenerud 15y ago
        In a perfect world, sure. But people with an axe to grind have a habit of finding all sorts of reasons to bring it out.
- jfoutz 15y ago
  That's true. You can't talk politics in the mall. OTOH if you actively encourage loitering then get pissed off when people loiter - you're a hypocritical asshole, and i think your property rights should be diminished. edit very first line from http://www.tumblr.com/about http://www.tumblr.com/about "Tumblr lets you effortlessly share anything." which is a bold faced lie.
orbitingpluto 15y ago
Anyone see an emerging problem here? 1)Increasingly the only places to talk are privately owned. 2)Private interests can control and prevent speech if in their domain. Also, just wondering if Tumblr is going to be removing Tumblr blogs that have their own domains?
- blvr 15y ago
  > 1)Increasingly the only places to talk are privately owned. What public places did we have to talk in forty years ago that we don't have now? > 2)Private interests can control and prevent speech if in their domain. If you own an newspaper/magazine/website/whatever you have a right to exercise editorial control over it. That's always been the case.
  - orbitingpluto 15y ago
    1) Perhaps I should have said proportionally. More importantly, online speech didn't exist 40 years ago. And it's all happening on someone else's privately owned infrastructure to some degree. 2) We live in a world where community events are now happening in malls. Formerly publicly owned halls have been sold off. Parks have been turned into condos with civil planning concessions of 'public' play areas and child care provisions. This should be increasingly apparent where population density is higher and/or the funds to maintain public spaces is harder to come by.
    - blvr 15y ago
      > 1) Perhaps I should have said proportionally. I don't see how that's a problem. If I had a vegetable garden and this year was a bumper year for carrots I wouldn't be complaining that there's proportionally less potatoes.
      - orbitingpluto 15y ago
        So let me get this straight, potatoes are free speech and carrots are lack of free speech? Um, pass the potatoes?
nmridul 15y ago
Now they should also ban start-up founders who brag about working without sleep continuously for days. It also promotes living disorders and there could be teens out there that would copy this and put their health in danger. Edit - Working sleepless nights may seem normal in the HN community. But, this is also something that puts the health in danger (sometimes even more than eating disorders). Now who is going to decide what is bad and what is not bad ?

24 points by lambtron 15y ago

jrockway 15y ago

The lubricant has been applied to the slope...

drivebyacct2 15y ago
Oh here, let me try based on what I learned from the reddit/cp discussion that took place here, what, last week: - slippery slopes don't exist, they're apparently some sort of imaginary fallacy - If you argue that Tumblr shouldn't remove content at their own arbitrary discretion, that must mean you want people to have eating disorders and commit suicide. I will call you disgusting and imply that even having a discussion about censorship or suppression of content is akin to defending child porn, I mean, suicidal content. On a less sarcastic note, I really do want to hear how people are going to tell me this isn't a slippery slope. "“that actively promotes or glorifies self-injury or self-harm.”". My [imaginary] Tumblr talks about how I deprive myself of sleep working long hours, use marijuana for stress relief and recreation and how I don't like to wear my helmet when I ride my motorcycle, better find a new blog (or whatever Tumblr is) platform.
blantonl 15y ago
There is no "slope" when it comes to private establishments. Just like McDonalds reserves the right to not serve you if you aren't wearing shoes or a shirt, Tumblr reserves the right to limit whatever content they see fit. Freedom of speech does not apply when participating on a private organization's platform.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Why does the term "slippery slope" only apply to public rights? Again, no one is making this a legal thing. No one here is saying that Tumblr is legally required to let me blog about my suicide. We're saying that it's concerning as a [potential] user to see a provider like this arbitrarily suppressing content.
  - blantonl 15y ago
    First, who is "we?" And second, if it is a concern that Tumblr won't allow your content, why can't you develop (or find) your own platform? Just because these platforms have huge audiences doesn't mean they are appropriate for your individual message.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      Sorry, I'm surely abusing the proverbial "we". I just feel that your attempting to discredit anyone who dissents as using "free speech" when this really (as you point out) isn't about free speech at all. For the record, I do use my own platform and don't really ever use Tumblr. The sorts of things I write about don't really attract the "repost"/"like" style of Tumblr and I don't think the audience would be relevant anyway. I can say that if I ever decided to start a photography blog or something where mass audiences and such were important, I would be much less likely to use Tumblr knowing that this is their policy. I guess I feel like your defending Tumblr from some sort of attack by me. Like I said, Tumblr is free to do whatever they want and their users can leave or stay. I just think this policy is a turn-off and I wouldn't be shocked if in 3 months we see "Tumblr bans tumbles(?) about drugs/rock-n-roll, etc" posts.
potatolicious 15y ago
I don't think this is necessarily a slippery slope. AFAIK (I may be wrong though) this isn't due to external pressure or some PR fiasco (coughreddit), this is something Tumblr has decided did not reflect their company ethic, and wants off their platform. The difference between this and reddit's last run-in with offensive content is that Tumblr has shown no weakness here, whereas Reddit more than proved that a sufficiently large PR catastrophe is all it takes to change site policy. What Reddit has encouraged is more boycotts and more PR shitstorms from 3rd parties hoping to affect change on the site. Tumblr, by acting proactively, has not opened these doors (yet). They are still their own arbiters of good taste, as opposed to opening the floodgates of mob-rule.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Inventing a new company policy in response to something you found distasteful and then enforcing that upon your existing user base screams slippery slope. Especially given there is even less of a brightline standard of what violates Tumblr's policy than when we were considering reddit. It's much easier (not to trivialize it) to determine if something is child-related and sexual of nature than the entire realm of things contained in "self-injury". As I implied in my other comment, things like "self-injury" are very arbitrary and vary person-to-person. (Not that I should have to disclaim this, but I don't think things like suicide or eating disorders are "good" or healthy).
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    > "very arbitrary and vary person-to-person" Sure, but the point of this is that Tumblr is the ultimate arbiter of what falls into and out of the content policy. And honestly, I expect "Tumblr staff" as a group to be a lot more focused and a lot less fickle than the internet community at large. Compared to a reactionary response to external pressure, a la reddit, where you've essentially handed the reigns to third parties. By acting proactively instead of reacting to PR pressure, Tumblr has basically drawn a line where their content policy lies, and they shown that they will determine what does and does not violate it - not some angry blog, community vote, or other mob-based "democracy". Giving a small group of people editorial control is unlikely to lead to a slippery slope. Giving everyone editorial control certainly does, as special interests emerge and find out they can play the system.

pjscott 15y ago

There are two things here that I wish were not socially accepted: the demonization of even small amounts of body fat, and banning content you dislike "for their own good".

ahelwer 15y ago
It's not for their own good. It's for the good of the impressionable and emotionally unstable teenagers that would have found these communities and latched onto them as their negative impulses were validated.
- pjscott 15y ago
  You're right, of course. I must have spent thirty or forty seconds looking for a more accurate phrase, but settled on "for their own good" because it flowed better. Now, those pro-anorexia blogs are creepy and disheartening; I looked through some a while back, and they really are as sad as they sound. If Tumblr's goal is to prevent more teenagers from latching onto that subculture, there are a few things they might try. They could stick warning banners up on the blogs in question, visibly registering their protest without going so far as to remove content. Or they might shrug regretfully and say there's not much they can do, since they hardly have a monopoly on the blogging platform market, which would be true. Setting themselves up as censors was not their only option, and as far as I'm concerned, it should have been pretty far down on the list of ideas. In general, I'm uncomfortable with the impulse to try to stop people from saying messages that you don't want others to hear.
  - ahelwer 15y ago
    I, too, am uncomfortable with such things. The slippery slope does exist, although to a lesser degree when the entity does not hold a monopoly (don't want to drive users away to more permissive options). However, the slipperiness of the slope should not preclude people stepping out onto it. It is less comfortable out there, less simple, less black-and-white than settling at one extreme or another. To take the example from the other direction, consider zero-tolerance policies for weapons at schools. I don't think many people would find it reasonable for a young student to be expelled for bringing a swiss army knife his grandfather gave him to school. Doesn't matter, says the school district. Slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? As rational individuals, we can decide where to draw the line. This vastly increases the surface area of critical attacks - the line will seem arbitrary, and there will always be boundary cases which could go one way or the other. "Why this and not that?" will be heard often. It's an easy target. So yes, the easy answer is that all discourse should be allowed. But really, I don't want people advocating that bullshit to teenagers.

rhizome 15y ago

Yet Tumblr still looks like crap on Android.

blantonl 15y ago

There will certainly be folks that decry this move as limiting freedom of speech, but the reality is this: Freedom of speech does not apply when you participate on a private organization's platform. For those that strongly oppose these types of policies from social networks, I'm very much in favor of you starting your own social network to cater to tastes and generes that suit what you feel is appropriate for your community.

rooshdi 15y ago
Why does anyone have to decide what is "appropriate" for a community? Why can't a community just be?
- kstenerud 15y ago
  Because everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, has an axe to grind at some point.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Isn't that an argument for asking people to leave their axes at home? Rather than bringing it to work and saying, "I own this company so all my users are going to have the same ideas of morality and appropriateness as me."?
    - kstenerud 15y ago
      In a perfect world, sure. But people with an axe to grind have a habit of finding all sorts of reasons to bring it out.
jfoutz 15y ago
That's true. You can't talk politics in the mall. OTOH if you actively encourage loitering then get pissed off when people loiter - you're a hypocritical asshole, and i think your property rights should be diminished. edit very first line from http://www.tumblr.com/about http://www.tumblr.com/about "Tumblr lets you effortlessly share anything." which is a bold faced lie.

orbitingpluto 15y ago

Anyone see an emerging problem here? 1)Increasingly the only places to talk are privately owned. 2)Private interests can control and prevent speech if in their domain. Also, just wondering if Tumblr is going to be removing Tumblr blogs that have their own domains?

blvr 15y ago
> 1)Increasingly the only places to talk are privately owned. What public places did we have to talk in forty years ago that we don't have now? > 2)Private interests can control and prevent speech if in their domain. If you own an newspaper/magazine/website/whatever you have a right to exercise editorial control over it. That's always been the case.
- orbitingpluto 15y ago
  1) Perhaps I should have said proportionally. More importantly, online speech didn't exist 40 years ago. And it's all happening on someone else's privately owned infrastructure to some degree. 2) We live in a world where community events are now happening in malls. Formerly publicly owned halls have been sold off. Parks have been turned into condos with civil planning concessions of 'public' play areas and child care provisions. This should be increasingly apparent where population density is higher and/or the funds to maintain public spaces is harder to come by.
  - blvr 15y ago
    > 1) Perhaps I should have said proportionally. I don't see how that's a problem. If I had a vegetable garden and this year was a bumper year for carrots I wouldn't be complaining that there's proportionally less potatoes.
    - orbitingpluto 15y ago
      So let me get this straight, potatoes are free speech and carrots are lack of free speech? Um, pass the potatoes?

nmridul 15y ago

Now they should also ban start-up founders who brag about working without sleep continuously for days. It also promotes living disorders and there could be teens out there that would copy this and put their health in danger. Edit - Working sleepless nights may seem normal in the HN community. But, this is also something that puts the health in danger (sometimes even more than eating disorders). Now who is going to decide what is bad and what is not bad ?