[hux_]

You are talking about people with mental illness. I think the platforms produce mental illness. If you influence and produce a certain kind of behaviour through appropriate reward mechanisms and then after a few years of conditioning reduce/remove the reward what do you think happens? Mental illness. YouTube has conditioned a generation of people to chant "subscribe like and share" like a robots. The day the "subscribe like and share" model stops being viable the robots will break down.

For those who care about doing something here is a starting point - humanetech.com

[token_throwaway]

The platforms might be the difference between crazy and crazier, but nobody is going from normal to psychotic because of YT.

[droidist2]

True, well I think everyone has a boiling point, some people just have a lower specific heat.

[wu-ikkyu]

That depends on how define psychotic.

YT's algorithm has a habit of recommending extremist content because it captivates users and keeps them on the platform.

[Wingwing]

Where has it been described that the woman was suffering from mental illness? That seems like a retroactive label.

[Karunamon]

I think mental illness is automatically implied when you go on a shooting spree for a video sharing site's monetization policies.

[maldusiecle]

People doing things that you consider irrational is not automatically "mental illness." To conflate the two is both to absolve criminals and terrorists of moral responsibility and to stigmatize the mentally ill, most of whom are not homicidal.

Unless you have specific evidence of a particular mental illness, this kind of statement is irresponsible.

[Karunamon]

I'm not sure the relativism is called for here, given the specific context of this case.

[maldusiecle]

A position doesn't become "relativism" just because you don't want to hear it. It's not relativism to point out that people have responsibility for their actions, nor to point out that mental illnesses do not generally make people homicidal.

Regardless of what is ultimately found out about the case, people were claiming mental illness before they had information to support that, as they do in nearly all of these cases.

[Karunamon]

Mental illness is described in terms of deviance from "normal" behavior and conformance to generally accepted morals. I think this is trivially proven from a lay read of the DSM.

A shooting spree in reaction to an website's policy change is both immoral and irrational. No conceivable context would make that chain of actions acceptable.

How could one look at this action and assume mental illness does not exist?

It's not relativism to point out that people have responsibility for their actions, nor to point out that mental illnesses do not generally make people homicidal.

Saying mental illness exists based on their behavior is not even close to the same thing as saying that they did not have culpability for their actions, and it's both unfair and disingenuous to imply I did.

[Wingwing]

I don't remember reading that in the DSM. You perpetuate this problem when you trivialize their concerns in this way.

[aoeusnth1]

If wanton violence against random employees of a company is a rational response in your mind to ad policies, I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe get some help.

[eurticket]

While I agree with you, I think Wing is trying to say equating Mental Illness And bad, immoral, unjustified behavior isn't correct.

[forgottenpass]

Isn't the umbrella definition of mental disorder simply how well one can productively assimilate into the social status quo?

e.g.: Homosexuality was removed from that book, and inattentive children are still in.