[crazydoggers]

Is it not possible that there is concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis?

It’s one thing to be talking about suicide or assisted suicide because you’ve decided it’s right for you and your situation.

It’s another to be dealing with depression from trauma, unable to get help and have no support system, and then be coerced by individuals on forums with ulterior motives.

I’m not saying I am in support of the UKs attempts, but it’s also not helpful to paint everything black and white on either side. Real solutions require dealing with the grays and the details.

edit: And for reference I have spoken to people in the later situations who have found all too many toxic individuals online who will say things like “you should definitely just kill yourself” in the midst of such situations, who after therapy consider those people to have been committing even more trauma (most likely because they get off on the control of another persons life, playing out murder fantasies etc, and who use the internets anonymity to further traumatize people at their most vulnerable)

[13415]

I doubt Ofcom are motivated by "concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis", but even then, it is clear in the context of the current discussion that they should be concerned with enforcing their legislation in their own country. The UK is free to build The Great Firewall of the United Kingdom and block half of the internet if their concern is so great.

What they cannot be allowed to do is tell organizations in other jurisdictions that they now suddenly fall under UK jurisdiction.

There are 195 countries in the world. If all of them followed a policy like UK's Ofcom, the internet would be gone in no time and world-wide user-to-user communication would become impossible for legal reasons. It's obviously not a sane position.

[crazydoggers]

> I doubt Ofcom are motivated by "concern for individuals well beings in the midst of a mental health crisis"

Do you have evidence for that? Because when I search I do see them doing investigations concerned with abuse of people including mentioning coercive and controlling behaviors

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

> If all of them followed a policy like UK's Ofcom, the internet would be gone in no time and world-wide user-to-user communication would become impossible for legal reasons.

Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. Again, not necessarily supporting the policy, but when such arguments are used against it, it’s not convincing.

[13415]

It's not a fallacy since there is nothing special or noteworthy about the UK. If every other country sent out such letters, then you'd have to block every country except your own. That's a fact. There are 195 countries in the world, no law office could possibly ensure you're complying with the laws of all of these countries within your own country. The laws are not even consistent, for example you violate the EU's GDPR by complying with Ofcom's demands. The UK's behavior sets a bad precedent that other small countries might follow. It's already enough having to keep up with US and EU regulatory demands, and we have to, since these are markets we can't ignore. Even just a few more small countries coming up with demands like Ofcom could create insurmountable legal problems for small companies like ours.

Let me put it another way: Would you comply with a similar letter from North Korea? From Russia? From China? If not, your attitude is hypocritical and inconsistent.

We're taking those threat seriously and have decided to block all UK IP numbers and not to do business with the UK for the time being. News that Ofcom might ignore such measures are worrying to us.

[crazydoggers]

What’s your company? Perhaps you have an ethical obligation to your users and should have these regulations in place. We’ve seen what happens when companies are underegulated (Facebook, etc etc)

And here’s why your argument is a fallacy:

“This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience” [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[13415]

I don't have anything major to add to what I've already said. We have indeed an ethical obligation towards our (future) customers, that's exactly why we couldn't fulfill Ofcom's demands - that would literally be illegal in our jurisdiction. Sovereign countries have their own laws (not the UK's), and in addition to these we also provide strong moderation tools. So for now we have to block the UK. We're in closed alpha stage and have a long way to go so this is purely a matter of legal prudence.

By the way, I've worked closely together with argumentation theorists at university for many years, so I know quite well what a slippery slope argument is. You should know that not all of them are fallacies.

[zb3]

> It’s one thing to be talking about suicide or assisted suicide because you’ve decided it’s right for you and your situation.

And that's what the site is for. They could improve by blocking all countries where there's free access to assisted suicide though.

> It’s another to be dealing with depression from trauma, unable to get help and have no support system, and then be coerced by individuals on forums with ulterior motives.

You've answered your own question. "And then" - exactly, THEN, not before. If they could get help, they would. But they can't so they end up there. If your alternative is that they should just suffer for years instead then I strongly disagree with this stance.

I remember one guy on a Polish forum announcing his plans which were stopped because someone called the police.. I kept checking his profile since then and it's clear that he continued to suffer and does to this day.. whoever thought that they "saved" him instead subjected him to literally years of suffering.

[crazydoggers]

> THEN, not before. If they could get help, they would. But they can't so they end up there.

This is honestly disgusting and exactly the problem. You don’t know why they couldn’t get help. There are many possible reasons and instead they should be continued to be encouraged to find proper mental health counseling, not feed into a mental health crisis talking about suicide.

And it’s not your place to decide what is suffering or not for them. That is exactly the problem. The fact that you checked on this persons profile and decided based on that he’s continuing to suffer is exactly the issue. You are not a trained mental health provider I’m sure. Encouraging someone in that place to commit suicide is exactly the problem. You are not a soothsayer who can see into this persons future. What if in 10 years that person has a child and finds true joy and meaning, glad that they went through what they did in the previous years. There are many such cases.

It’s also not your job to somehow “ease suffering” for a person on the internet you don’t know, with some kind of self satisfaction and sense of control over another’s life that you took away an individual’s suffering by helping them kill themselves.

Instead the person needs to decide for themselves, by themselves, AND they need to be in a healthy mental state to make that decision. Depression is not a healthy mental state, it’s a period of delusion.

Your comment only proves exactly why sites such as this need massive regulation, and anyone who knows someone who contemplates suicide and came out the other side living a fulfilling life with joy and happiness would understand exactly why.

And I could agree that a site talking about assisted suicide is a net positive, but the burden is on that site to ensure it is not encouraging people in mental health crisis to suicide. In an open, mostly unmoderated forum that is a very high bar indeed, and it's even higher when the company hosting such a site has a profit motive. Trained mental health providers should be available and reviewing discussions in those situations, and such regulation requiring that is in my opinion not a hinderance on free speech.

And for anyone reading these comments and suffering with depression, if you’re unable to find good mental health care, first and the very least read the following book, and know that there are people who can help you find the light on the other side:

https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380...

[zb3]

> There are many possible reasons and instead they should be continued to be encouraged to find proper mental health counseling

There are many possible reasons, that's why they should be PROVIDED with help, not "encouraged to somehow find it" as if they didn't know that something was wrong already..

> And it’s not your place to decide what is suffering or not for them. That is exactly the problem. The fact that you checked on this persons profile and decided based on that he’s continuing to suffer is exactly the issue.

It's not my place to decide, but it's THEIR place to decide. I don't need to be a trained mental health provider to see that that person is TELLING the world that they suffer, posting and interacting with other people who also suffer.

> You are not a trained mental health provider I’m sure.

No, but I am the person who used to suffer, and that makes me more qualified to talk about these problems than a trained+qualified+certified+award-winning "mental health provider" (which.. did not help me btw, others from the community did).

> Encouraging someone in that place to commit suicide is exactly the problem

I'm not encouraging anybody to commit suicide.. where did you even get this idea? My stance is to not prohibit that last resort solution.

> What if in 10 years that person has a child and finds true joy and meaning, glad that they went through what they did in the previous years. There are many such cases.

It doesn't delete these 10 years of suffering which you apparently see no problem subjecting people to. It was his decision and that decision was not respected. Should it not be interrupted, that person would not suffer ever again and we'd not need to have this discussion.

> with some kind of self satisfaction and sense of control over another’s life that you took away an individual’s suffering by helping them kill themselves.

I did NOT encourage them to do that. It was their decision and it was interrupted. The people who interrupted that have that "self satisfaction", I see things as they are. Those people didn't care about that person at all, just called the police and forgot about him. It's not that they could pay his bills or anything, they didn't care.

> AND they need to be in a healthy mental state to make that decision. Depression is not a healthy mental state, it’s a period of delusion.

Disagree, if someone decides that it's enough suffering for them, that decision should be honored. If you can't cure that person instantly, prolonging this "unhealthy state" is what I'm against.

> and anyone who knows someone who contemplates suicide and came out the other side living a fulfilling life with joy and happiness would understand exactly why.

Nothing bad would happen to that person should they not be interrupted. This search for "joy and happiness" is absurd and it blinds you so that you accept that you might subject someone to literally years of suffering.

[crazydoggers]

First, do no harm. If a forum and group of people push even one person to commit suicide that would/could have been helped by a different approach, then that community has committed harm.

Doing no harm is a high bar, and that bar requires commitment that online communities and the companies that run them almost certainly cant provide without a lot of effort. The disregard for the possibility that those communities may have caused harm (even if you believe they helped you) is alarming.

> This search for "joy and happiness" is absurd

This is the problem when people with this viewpoint get together in forums, it can create a vicious feedback cycle that are not healthy for anyone.

I'm sorry you are suffering or have suffered. But searching and finding joy and happiness is not absurd. We only have one life to live, and it definitely doesn't need to be suffering. Every one of us has the power to change that (believing you cant is a thought trap, a type of delusion.)

> Nothing bad would happen to that person should they not be interrupted

This speaks volumes. You are saying that the death of a person is nothing bad. A life.. a loved one. A child going through a momentary suffering. That death is BAD. Not understanding that is delusional thinking.

> It doesn't delete these 10 years of suffering which you apparently see no problem subjecting people to

I'm not subjecting them to anything, nor are you by not talking or telling a person how to commit suicide. That persons suffering is not your or my responsibility. But the moment you do talk to that person about how they could commit suicide, then you have taken on a responsibility. And it is an immense one, not to be taken lightly.

Finally I'll say this, all your comments indicate to me someone who is suffering from depression. If you truly believe that not to be the case, I challenge you to read the following book cover to cover, do all the exercises, and once you have finished, look back on your words and ideas and see if you may have been stuck in some delusional thinking:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0380731762?ref_=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cp_u...

And finally, if you ever actually consider suicide, I urge you to question your thinking and consider the possibility you could make a choice that in another mindset you would regret. Imagine getting high on shrooms or LSD and jumping off a roof. Depression is like that... when you come to, you realize you were just on a bad trip.

And as my favorite Starship captain says... "Never give up. Never surrender!"