[mostlove]

"I'm scared that I'll end up like the first 300 people who had all of their info dumped on [anonymity network] Tor, with people going through them, reading everything about their lives and abusing their info for identity thefts."

Also another good reason for people not to seek mental help, on top of being able to own a gun.

And with the recent rush to transition online, I hope this 2018 hack doesn't give the bad guys any ideas.

[friendlybus]

Another good reason to not go to Catholic confession or store your cash in the Panama paper's islands or go to a scientology session or store your credit information with equifax. Secrets have to exist somewhere.

Socially ostracizing people for leaked mental help information is like laughing at fat people who had their gym treadmill data leaked. That's where you go to solve your problems, data leak or not.

[Memosyne]

> Secrets have to exist somewhere

This location exists below the cranium or somewhere securely encrypted and private.

> Socially ostracizing people for leaked mental help information is like laughing at fat people who had their gym treadmill data leaked

And like that example it happens despite whatever ideal moral system we want to espouse (never watched AFHV?). Advising people to not seek mental health care because of social acceptance is a valid concern since the consequences are real and critical. In 1952 Alan Turing admitted to performing homosexual acts and was subsequently charged with gross indecency - he was punished for sharing his secret. What do you think would happen if someone pursued mental health care to resolve a deviance in 2020?

"Hello Bob, I'm quite happy you've come to seek help with your problem... but first constable Alice would like to have a word with you. Oh, and I'm afraid you won't be allowed to leave the country or own a firearm; plus I've already spoken to your employer and he "suggests" you take a permanent leave of absence to resolve these issues. No worries Bob, just doing my job! Hm? Your girlfriend and friends dumped you after finding out? That's a shame, Bob."

If you want to act like there are no downsides to these solutions then I'm afraid you're being particularly naive. By all means fight for the right to have these people not discriminated against but don't mislead people by suggesting that you've already won the war when you clearly have not. Some lack the fortitude and recruiting them through disingenuous advertising is unethical.

[friendlybus]

Some mental health problems are quite serious. People should own that by taking refuge in the mental health process. There is respect to be had in that path.

Are you saying that homosexuality is a mental health topic that Alan was trying to solve earnestly in private? I don't know what to say about legal acceptance of sexual choices and it's not the same thing as earnestly trying to solve a defined mental health issue, which is a legal act. A possible legal outcome for a lot of the behaviours in therapeutic secrets would be more therapy until healed.

[Memosyne]

I'm arguing that your secrets, especially if they're socially taboo, are best kept to yourself unless you are fully aware of the consequences. I'm against disguising mental health care as something inherently beneficial to the patient. If people are fully aware of what will happen to them then I have no problem, but there is simply not enough transparency in this process and some are lulled into a false sense of security by the advertising.

You can read the Turing story here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing#Conviction_for_indecenc...

My point with Turing was that here was a man who lived a decent life up until he exposed himself to society, thinking that this society would help him solve an unrelated problem. In truth, society is only motivated by self-interest (of the collective) and sometimes having you live a decent life is simply not in its best interest.

[friendlybus]

You can't ever be fully aware of the consequences, and you can't keep every secret to yourself. Sure, take some to the death bed if you want, I think we should heartily defend the right to "make the mistake" of telling a secret to someone private and stand up for the horrible crime of seeking help in an isolating society. Nice name by the way, we don't all have the memory of a goddess to properly order our secrets in.

____

Okay I've skimmed your HN history for juicy secrets to make a point. You're a teenager who doesn't trust people (with some parts of yourself) and writes your secret emotions down on paper to send to fake people. You think a public psychological label is a life-and-death matter. You seem to think 'How to win friends & influence people' is an acceptable instruction book for manipulating people. So you are somewhat exposed already.

The point of therapy is to not need it anymore. If you have hang ups about it, or other topics, you should go there until you don't need to anymore. There is nothing inherently good or bad about having a socially approved and useful set of ideas to contain chaos.

The psychological disorders are like tools. They don't describe what you are, they are a useful label for closing up Pandora's box again and give people some relief from an unknown illness. Having a psychologist label you or anybody else as narcissistic, sociopathic or psychopathic is no more dangerous than being called a jay-walker. If you know what it means and what you are, then it's manageable.

There are some secrets that will get your life messed up. For every Turing, you have a Tom Cruise or the people who went to Epstein's island or whoever else has taboo secrets and still succeeds. There are not good or virtuous secrets and you are wise to be aware of their impact. The majority of secrets are uninteresting and commonplace.

[Memosyne]

You are referencing my comments without the proper context:

> who doesn't trust people

I do not trust people because I write in a journal? How is this incriminating? I don't find it any more peculiar than speaking to oneself or opening with "dear diary" -- as if those who address their text to something inanimate are any better. I fail to see any merit in this revelation aside from attacking my character. I could try and dig up something equally irrelevant from your history but I find that act to be in poor taste.

> You seem to think 'How to win friends & influence people' is an acceptable instruction book for manipulating people

Once again the context is conveniently missing: the individual I was replying to described himself as someone who dislikes talking to average people (had a sense of superiority). I figured rather than offer him something vague and patronizing like, "be nice and try to be humble", I would endorse a resource that would offer solutions pertinent to the subject matter. I was not sharing my own personal opinions; one does not have to ascribe morality to a function in order to see merit in its execution towards an objective.

> You think a public psychological label is a life-and-death matter

Not entirely, no. But is this a minority opinion? Why would they blackmail the patients if they didn't believe that some would be willing to pay? I have recently lost someone precious to me as a result of similar circumstances and my mishandling of the situation by encouraging therapy and medication played a key role in her suicide. I apologize if my original comment appeared unnecessarily reflexive -- I'm still reeling from the guilt and I could be projecting some of that bias in my response to these types of things.

I think if something necessitates intervention then by all means seek professional care. But if you're unsure and living a decent life make sure you exhaust all other options before considering yourself diagnosed with whatever label is put in vogue by pseudo-scientists. If you think some secrets are uninteresting consider if they'll remain that way when the culture inevitably shifts and society decides to reject certain categories of people. The normal of yesterday too often becomes the enemy of a better tomorrow.

[jermaustin1]

> Also another good reason for people not to seek mental help, on top of being able to own a gun.

Your feeling is well-founded, as much as you are being downvoted. This is actually a huge topic in the ongoing evolution of digitizing client records in psychotherapy.

My wife (a marriage and family therapist) was taught in school that about 20 years ago insurance started requiring a diagnosis to reimburse for treatment, and ongoing treatment plans to be uploaded to their portal to continue reimbursing more than the standard 3-6 sessions most insurers felt was adequate.

This cause a HUGE backlash among psychotherapist, because depression would be considered a pre-existing condition, and also if it is on your records, life insurance was nearly impossible to secure, future non-workplace health insurance was hard to get, etc.

So everyone started using various "adjustment disorders", or acute grief (I think that's the term they use for loss of a loved one) as an ethical way around marring an otherwise healthy persons permanent record. There are times when it is more ethical to put a real diagnosis, usually so that you can have them referred to a more specialized clinician.

[williamtwild]

mostlove said:

"Also another good reason for people not to seek mental help,"

Are you actually advocating that people ignore health issues and not seek help because the way you worded you statement it certainly seems so.

[Retric]

There are significant real world negative consequences to seeking mental health. That’s a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a good general solution for this stuff. For example, at some point mental illness results in loss of custody for the safety of their children. Getting that right isn’t some easy thing, and mental heath is a common enough problem that people will occasionally get this seriously wrong in both directions.

[tim333]

I'm reminded of the poor Canadian lady who was unable to transit the US to go on a cruise because she'd been treated for depression https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refuse...

[johnchristopher]

I read it as "that will scare and preveont people who need it to seek mental help".

[part1of2]

I would prefer to make it more personal, like "Im worried my (or my family's) healthcare information would be used against me, that's why we need strong privacy" or "We can all agree that you wouldnt want your child's counselor's notes on the Internet"

[textgel]

A) A large number of people have had their wellbeing put at risk due to placing sensitive information about themselves in a location that was compromised.

B) mostlove pointed out that this would give reason not to continue doing this in future.

We have two statements here.

These two statements when examined closely might have a connection between one another don't you think?

Could it be the case that there might be a possible rational connection between them both? That perhaps the consequences of the first might lead to the second? That a rational adult with an IQ in single digits or greater might be able to understand basic cause and effect, and that looking at a certain statement (lets pick a random one and say statement A) might lead to certain conclusions such as (lets pick at random again and pick B). Could it be that a basic understanding of human behaviour (Thing causes damage to human > human avoid thing) could have led to this conclusion being drawn?

Or would such a concept require further elaboration and perhaps diagrams to help those unable to grasp it?

[heavenlyblue]

How does owing a gun would help here?

[est31]

I think they meant it in the way that if you want to own a gun now or in the future, you shouldn't seek mental health help. And now, as hacks can reveal the data to your employer/school/in laws, there can be discrimination from that angle as well. That was their point I think.

[faceplanted]

It doesn't help, he's saying that losing the ability to own a gun is a disincentive to seeking professional help.

[kayodelycaon]

I don’t know of any mental health diagnosis that can bar someone from owning a gun in the US.

Even if you receive inpatient treatment, as long as you went voluntarily, doesn’t change that.

[srtjstjsj]

You could do a simple check to find out what your don't know:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/pos...

[mmm_grayons]

Well yes, having a basic and fundamental liberty restricted without harming others is a tremendous disincentive.