Hacker News Reader

Comment by hux_ | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

>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.

Deviation from normal behavior and generally accepted morals is absolutely not a definition of mental illness. A bank robber isn't mentally ill by virtue of robbing a bank. I don't believe you've ever read the DSM in any of its editions.

>No conceivable context would make that chain of actions acceptable.

No one said they were acceptable.

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

People do horrible, outrageous things without diagnosable mental illnesses all the time.

>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.

The assumption that any horrible, irrational crime must be due to mental illness--obviously this diminishes culpability. Have you never heard of pleading insanity? If someone is genuinely out of their mind, they cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way a normal person would be held responsible.

Diminishes and eliminates are two different words for a reason. The other thing I think you're missing here is that there's a certain level of rationality implied with someone who robs a bank. Ignoring morals, sure, but rationality nonetheless.

Random shooting sprees tend to lack that rationality - as this one does. There's no chain of cause and effect that goes from "youtube demonetized my videos" to "I'm going to shoot random people at youtube with no understanding of their responsibility, and later myself".

This I just wrong from the start. If there’s a single overarching definition of mental illness, it’s “clinical significance” and not deviation from the norm. Of course it’s not that simple either, but it is a common thread throughout all of them.

This only moves the definition down one level. If clinical significance (in general, not just in psychology) isn't based on deviation from a norm, what is it based on?

The degree to which something interferes in someone’s life, their ability to function, etc. If you’re suicidally depressed, or psychotic, it’s a clear distinction for obvious reasons. It’s not about comparing to some standard, you can believe strange things, be unhappy, and so on, but if it starts to make you unable to live your life, it might be a problem.

There's an argument to be made that engaging in murder-suicide is of absolute interference to one's life and ability to function.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com