Hacker News Reader

Comment by malvosenior | Hacker News Reader

This seems more like a media company thing than a tech company thing. Surely there have been other depictions of suicide in the media? Did they have the same corresponding uptick in suicide rates? That would have been a good addition to the article.

That being said, I really don't think we should dumb down or "tame" our art for the sake of safety. It's important to allow artists (the show creators in this case) the ability to tell any story that speaks to them, especially when that deals with sensitive issues like suicide.

The warning before the show seems like a good idea though.

View on HN

>Surely there have been other depictions of suicide in the media? Did they have the same corresponding uptick in suicide rates?

Yes.[0] Newspapers try not to cover suicide whenever possible and when they do they always also write about emergency suicide prevention hotlines. At least in switzerland.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-suicide-media/suic...

I understand there are also certain other guidelines about how to report such stories as well.

Here's one from the UK National Union of Journalists.

https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/mental-health-and-suicide-report...

I use this one because they're journalists and so understand the balance of freedom of speech with not causing harm.

They're quite old.

The BBC also has guidance here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-an...

They've unhelpfully put them in a section titled "harm and offence", so if I ever contact the BBC about poor reporting I have to say that I'm not bothered about offence, I'm letting them know about something that may cause harm.

Art shouldn't be free from criticism though. And the ways in which this particular work is poorly executed do to some degree line up with why this work can be harmful (or more than it should be), so I don't think dealing with these criticisms and making good art are mutually exclusive.

I haven't seen the show so can't comment on my opinion of it, but this is a personal choice. Almost certainly there are many people who enjoy the show in its current form.

Parents shouldn't let their children watch shows they don't approve of. For everyone else, just don't watch if it bothers you. Yes, it's fine to criticize and comment, but creators are under no obligation to listen to the critics and in most cases are better off sticking to their original vision.

This isn't people being offended by content. This is a show that causes harm. The scientific consensus is that this show has harmed people.

I didn't say it was about people being offended. My point is that we shouldn't expect art to be bland and harmless. Some art will cause harm (just like tons of things in our society do: alcohol, gambling...). We collectively need to toughen up, accept that not everything is safe and enjoy the multitude of choices we have in how we live our lives.

> alcohol, gambling

Both of these are strictly regulated, right? I don't think you're suggesting that media companies should be similarly regulated, but I don't know why you'd mention them.

>We collectively need to toughen up

Unfortunate phrasing in the context of vulnerable children killing themselves.

You're skipping the concept of communal concepts though.

I have the message I get from my parents, the message I get from "everyone else" (which is really several messages from various groups), and the message I determine for myself. That latter is heavily influenced by what the other messages say. (See the other current HN article about student drinking being decided by how much they think others are drinking).

To simply say "Choose for yourself and your children, I'll do the same, and we shouldn't talk about it" is a de facto declaration that society as a whole approves of the behavior/activity.

On this particular issue I honestly have no idea where I stand...I know of and believe the impact that (deliberately or inadvertently) "encouraging" suicide has (or even just coverage)...but I also don't like the idea of being against discussing and exploring ideas. The solution is to DISCUSS what to do, not just pretend we're all fully informed individualists.

I mostly agree with this. Like I said, I think it's ok to criticize and talk about it. My point is that no artist is under any obligation to bend to the will of critics.

Oh really and how far are you willing to take it? For instance, should child pornography also be untamed so long as it's known as art?

The line is at consent. You can consent to watch something, child pornography most definitely does not have the consent of the people in it and is rightfully illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com