ABC says conspiracy web sites are contributing to mental health issues

Originally posted by Yoda411

Originally posted by Kratos1220
From what I understand about mental illnesses like this, anything can set them off. Should we also censor sci-fi or horror movies because the mentally ill can't see that it's just a movie?

Key word there. Sci-Fi. There is a reason why it must be labeled Sci-Fi. We have to use our own consciousness to separate truth from fiction on a conspiracy forum, an ability not every individual possesses.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean all conspiracies are "Sci-Fi" and many of them are supported by facts and evidence while some are not. However, this doesn't mean you should censor conspiracy websites just because a select few don't have the capacity to decipher truth from BS. How's that fair and where does this kind of thinking end? Conspiracy theories are needed in a world where the people we should be able to trust can't be trusted and their "truth" must be challenged. I think time will show that many "conspiracies" turn out to be truth, but certainly not all of them. I think just the fact that ABC decided to release an article like this means we are on the right track and making them nervous.

A disclaimer might work, but if reading this site makes you paranoid, don't read it. Simple as that. There's no need to take it away from everyone else.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Jesus Christ, you hate Muslims for their religion, but if anyone says anything bad about the Christofascists, well, damn them to hell!

You are a HYPOCRITE.

reply to post by Kratos1220


We will all agree that Internet Censorship is not the answer. The question at hand is whether or not they do in fact contribute to mental health issues.

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by Kratos1220

 

We will all agree that Internet Censorship is not the answer. The question at hand is whether or not they do in fact contribute to mental health issues.

It could contribute, but that could apply for many, many things. My thought while reading through this thread is why is this being singled out by ABC when there are so many other sources of fuel for this kind of thing.

My concern is that the fire this article is trying to light under people is the generalization that conspiracy websites and readers = mentally ill people. I fear that this article is the road to this kind of censorship. That's why I say be careful what you support.

reply to post by Yoda411

Where we draw the line is almost the subject for a different Internet Censorship thread. I don't believe that censoring the internet solves the problem...

absolutely - I agree

...the study of psychology has a long road ahead and the way we deal with mentally ill individuals varies from patient to patient...

again - I agree

this article is either about controlling information

or it's about the opinion of one individual or group - mostly concerning David Icke

or it's about nothing

do they have an Editor there at ABC?

abcnews.go.com...

Home > Health > Mind & Mood News

What's Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?
As Conspiracy Communities Grow, Mental Health Docs Are Left With Big Questions

By LAUREN COX
ABC News Medical Unit
Dec. 12, 2008

it's worth reading again



[edit on 12/15/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

Originally posted by Kratos1220

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by Kratos1220

 

We will all agree that Internet Censorship is not the answer. The question at hand is whether or not they do in fact contribute to mental health issues.

It could contribute, but that could apply for many, many things. My thought while reading through this thread is why is this being singled out by ABC when there are so many other sources of fuel for this kind of thing.

My concern is that the fire this article is trying to light under people is the generalization that conspiracy websites and readers = mentally ill people. I fear that this article is the road to this kind of censorship. That's why I say be careful what you support.

The debate to remain is whether or not the statement the article is making is true, not what the repercussions for the article are.

If politicians want Internet Censorship laws passed they need not the help of ABC or the support of citizens; we (the citizens) do not vote on legislation. It need be approved by a pre-screened pre-approved group of politically motivated (potentially corporation funded) individuals.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


yes....watching the news makes me sick and when its over, i kinda want to vomit. go figure, not so much on ats though.

reply to post by Yoda411

We will all agree that Internet Censorship is not the answer

Leave me out of the "all" regarding Internet Censorship. Things went too far, when a person on the brink of suicide, was urged to "do it" by people watching. I'm sorry, but this sort of thing SHOULD be censored!
It is obvious that the person who eventually DID commit suicide had mental problems, and needed help, not encouragement to commit suicide. I draw the line with things like that.
However, I don't think that people merely expressing their opinions on issues should be censored.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


True enough. I think that behavior borders on accomplice to murder.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


It should also be noted that the individual with the depression who unfortunately succumbed to his suicidal thoughts was not doing so because he was exposed to alternative/conspiratorial topics.

His circumstance, as tragic as it was, is not representative of ATS and as well cannot really be used as support for the ABC article.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
reply to post by ProfEmeritus

 

It should also be noted that the individual with the depression who unfortunately succumbed to his suicidal thoughts was not doing so because he was exposed to alternative/conspiratorial topics.

His circumstance, as tragic as it was, is not representative of ATS and as well cannot really be used as support for the ABC article.

That is a 100% factual statement just so everyone knows where I stand on that branch of this discussion.

reply to post by MemoryShock

t should also be noted that the individual with the depression who unfortunately succumbed to his suicidal thoughts was not doing so because he was exposed to alternative/conspiratorial topics. His circumstance, as tragic as it was, is not representative of ATS and as well cannot really be used as support for the ABC article.

No, I perfectly understand that, and I was not implying that it was. However, I wanted to make it clear, in my opinion, that some censoring is needed. In fact, of course, even ATS censors posts, when people violate the T & C of ATS, and that is justified. I also think that in some cases, items may have to be censored, if possible harm could come as a result of such items, for instance, when it might cause wide-spread panic.

reply to post by Yoda411

True enough. I think that behavior borders on accomplice to murder.

I completely agree with you. It reminds me of the case of the unfortunate young women many years ago, who was on the top of a building, threatening to jump, and the crowd encouraged her to jump, which she did.

Originally posted by Yoda411

The debate to remain is whether or not the statement the article is making is true, not what the repercussions for the article are.

If politicians want Internet Censorship laws passed they need not the help of ABC or the support of citizens; we (the citizens) do not vote on legislation. It need be approved by a pre-screened pre-approved group of politically motivated (potentially corporation funded) individuals.

I'm not particularly interested in the question of whether or not conspiracy websites sometimes contribute to the delusions of already-unbalanced individuals – I think that's been hashed out pretty extensively over the last couple days in this thread, and at this point probably no one is going to change their mind

I am interested in the repercussions of this article, and in the motivations for this article, and I think that's what I'm seeing more and more other posters start to address.

I'm not particularly concerned about legislated censorship of the Internet, at least not imminently, though I do think that they would need some popular support to get that done (among other things, they'd have to figure out where they'll come down on the question of internet porn, which I'm sure would have powerful interest groups both for and against).

What I am concerned about is that the mass media has a stranglehold on the American imagination, and on how most people view various issues.

I did not have any particular interest in conspiracy theory, or any other "alternative topic", when I first found ATS. What I did, and do, have is a deep interest in the human mind, both individual and collective; in story-telling as a means to understand and shape the world; and in the manipulation of public images (propaganda) as a means of control.

And that's where this ABC article (as well as articles that have run in the last couple months in the NYTimes, Washington Post, and various scholarly journals) fit in.

Internet-based "conspiracy" sites are increasingly being linked in mainstream media and in academic publication with mental illness, and specifically as contributing factors to mental illness.

Whether it occasionally happens is a moot point: as Spiramirabilis points out, the delusional mind can find fodder in the Joy of Cooking just as easily as in Icke's theories.

The point is that the media is trying to override the old stereotype of the tinfoil-wearing, amicable, eccentric, but fundamentally harmless kook and replace it with an image of clinical paranoid schizophrenia which poses a brand-new challenge to the mental health community.

The associations that the media successfully attaches to things in the public mind really matter, not just in terms of whether legislation will be passed, but in terms of how open the public is to a site like ATS where among all the b.s. you can find really important instances of questioning the power structure, economic structure, scientific establishment, and even ourselves.

The tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist is marginalized, but not a symbol of fear to most of the public.

The spectre of developing paranoid schizophrenia (or having a loved one do so) through exposure to nontraditional belief systems is a very real, very modern, fear.

The free press is trying to support "anti free speech"? I am not surprised they pulled the article after rethinking what they had first published...

It's basically everything a journalist is to work against. Must of been some junior hobby journalist without true journalistic qualifications. Probably got fired in the process too

Originally posted by americandingbat
The point is that the media is trying to override the old stereotype of the tinfoil-wearing, amicable, eccentric, but fundamentally harmless kook and replace it with an image of clinical paranoid schizophrenia which poses a brand-new challenge to the mental health community.

When you say "the media" is doing all of this, who are you referring to? Are we to assume the author of this article, Lauren Cox, had no choice in writing this opinion column? Was the concept handed down from the Illuminati?

Originally posted by ravenflt
It's basically everything a journalist is to work against. Must of been some junior hobby journalist without true journalistic qualifications. Probably got fired in the process too

Actually she is an Reporter/Assistant Producer.


Lauren Cox’s Education

* Boston University

M.S., Science and Medical Journalism, 2006 — 2007

* Smith College

B.A., English, minor chemistry, minor French, 2001 — 2005




[edit on 12/15/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by americandingbat

The spectre of developing paranoid schizophrenia (or having a loved one do so) through exposure to nontraditional belief systems is a very real, very modern, fear.

a fear which was only supported - and encouraged - by creating a scapegoat of sorts

as opposed to educating anyone with an unbiased and well researched report

brought to you by the ABC News Medical Unit

in the end I have to wonder who's fault it really is - the people providing the news, or the people who don't expect more from the news

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
a fear which was only supported - and encouraged - by creating a scapegoat of sorts

Dare I suggest "invented"?

And it may well be that we get the news we ask for. Hence the urgency of recognizing it for what it is.

Reply to Yoda411

When you say "the media" is doing all of this, who are you referring to? Are we to assume the author of this article, Lauren Cox, had no choice in writing this opinion column? Was the concept handed down from the Illuminati?

See, this is the thing about public perception and the manipulation of public perception. It doesn't require a conspiracy – it's a lot more subtle than that.

Perhaps you've even witnessed it happen here at ATS, where a seemingly crazy idea gets floated, batted around for a bit, reacted to, added onto, and a couple months later it's "everyone knows that"?

I suspect that Lauren Cox is honestly concerned that we may have an internet-fueled epidemic of schizophrenia on our hands. Or maybe she is just well aware that an article about it will draw attention. It contains enough attention-grabbing words and concepts; draws on ("acceptable") mass conspiracy culture (TV and movies), titillates with a view into the private nightmares of a few, and provides a (imo) sleazy face (Icke) to go with it.

You don't think they teach how to structure an article to grab attention in journalism school?

[edit on 12/15/08 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat

Dare I suggest "invented"?

:-)

or if you want to really cut loose and get crazy with the whole theme -

maybe, ironically, a conspiracy to shut down conspiracy theorists

(from someone who doubts there was much genuine concern - but, maybe I'm just feeling a little extra cynical today)

Originally posted by americandingbat
I suspect that Lauren Cox is honestly concerned that we may have an internet-fueled epidemic of schizophrenia on our hands. Or maybe she is just well aware that an article about it will draw attention. It contains enough attention-grabbing words and concepts; draws on ("acceptable") mass conspiracy culture (TV and movies), titillates with a view into the private nightmares of a few, and provides a (imo) sleazy face (Icke) to go with it.

I would have to agree, I believe she was genuine in writing the article. We all have to admit, she has a very nice resume.

The repercussions? Some will agree with her, some will not. She allowed enough slack in the article for each individual to make up their own mind as they read it.

Is this going to cause Internet Censorship? Absolutely not. Is it going to generate support for Internet Censorship? I sincerely doubt it.

I don't even consider this an attempt to dis-credit the conspiracy theory crowd. Just one point of view from an educated journalist, whom I have to agree with.