There's two separate claims in Atwood's essay that I don't agree with. First, a lot of social networking involvement is a waste of time and is emotionally exha

There's two separate claims in Atwood's essay that I don't agree with. First, a lot of social networking involvement is a waste of time and is emotionally exhausting. A lot of times it can be highly addictive and participation becomes dysfunctional. People quit communities all the time when they recognize that things are just not working out. There is nothing wrong with that and it's a good thing. When other members feel they have to defend the community to the point of attacking others just for leaving, using divisive and derogatory terms such as "ragequitting", then it is no longer a community or social board, but is a cult. Cults defame members who leave simply because they have left, which is perceived as an act of betrayal and heresy. Communities do not. Second, Aaron didn't quit anything. He picked a meaningful date to end his life. Aaron was highly rational and carefully thought things through, it's clear in his writings. He knew he could have handled six months or 7 years in prison. This was an act of self-immolation, the ultimate protest of injustice. It is a time honored and effective last resort message used only in extreme situations of injustice, which is certainly the case of the judicial system in the US which has in recent years descended into a police state like system interested in power and control but not justice. Self-immolators almost never leave suicide notes. There is no need to since it is obvious to all why they have committed their protest. This is clear here, just looking around people are upset and they know and understand exactly why he did this and it has to do with the Federal Prosecutor, not a chemical imbalance in his brain. No one in Tunisia was talking about chemical imbalances in Mohammed Bouazizi's brain, it was obvious that his act was a protest as well. Additionally, regarding depression, Aaron wrote he was glad he had insurance to allow him to see someone, and his family has stated Aaron has never been diagnosed with depression and was not depressed. Those claiming his action was because of suicidal depression have only weak circumstantial support for their case based on blog entries, and have to completely ignore all the circumstances of what was going on. Blogging that you sometimes feel depressed is not evidence of mental illness. Seeing a therapist is not evidence of mental illness. Occasional depression itself is not evidence of mental illness. It is a normal part of the human condition. Remote medical diagnosis here by the general public is similar to the remote lawyering in the commonly made but unproven claims that he did anything at all criminal other than misdemeanor trespassing. An indictment is not a conviction. Violations of terms of service do not rise to the level of criminality according to the Drew appeal decision, so the whole basis of the case is very questionable.