Hacker News Reader

Comment by nomilk | Hacker News Reader

> encourage you to take a more curious ..

But:

> Is there a single site ... ?

is asking for a tiny bit of evidence (this is gentle curiousness; the antithesis of combative). Earnestly, are you able to provide one site that 'promotes eating disorders', so I can be educated?

If the answer is 'any site with charismatic too-slim people', isn't that extremely difficult to administer, and possibly become horribly discriminatory, for example if a site has a user profile of a beautiful but illegally[1] slender person, doesn't that 'promote eating disorders'? Would a site admin be legally compelled to block that user, or at least censor their profile pic?

I literally don't know what's legal vs illegal in this sphere, and suspect 99% of others are the same, and that probably includes the legislators themselves. Those claiming to know precisely what's il/legal in this context are probably overconfident.

View on HN

If you search slang for anorexia and bulimia (ana and mia, respectively), it comes up. The slang helps remove the stigma and feels more friendly/cool. Thinspo/thinspiration is another term used by that community. "Help me love ana".

With that search, there are sites that come up [1]. These terms are also used on reddit, instagram, etc for people to share tips (to be better anorexics/bulimics).

[1] https://strongerinana.weebly.com/index.html

Thanks for the example.

> This website is for support for those with an eating disorder who feel alone and by themself with this issue.

Where are people with anorexia and bulimia supposed to get support/information if forums about the topics are untenable?

Many can't beat the condition, and there's potential benefit in learning to accept and live with it.

I'm not saying the site is unequivocally good, just that it's not unequivocally bad, therefore onerous regulation that has huge side-effects on information sharing to curb something that's arguably net-beneficial is dubious and shouldn't be pursued without strong evidence that 1. It will work as intended, and 2. It will actually be beneficial.

In general, the internet has shifted away from this "laissez-faire" line of thinking.

A site that helps people live with these disorders means more people dealing with negative effects of eating disorders like hair loss, ruined teeth, suicide/mental illness, and cardiovascular damage. These effects in turn increase healthcare costs for the government via the NHS.

Bombarding anyone with these disorders with information to get better is far better for society. If people can't change, then this strategy is better for the people who can, who would otherwise get stuck in a community supportive of unhealthy behavior.

You can't call it unequivocally good or bad, but the doctor's treating the disorder can. The government bean counters have. The studies that these groups produce do (simple search brings up dozens). The politicians fighting for these bills have and will call it good.

(I liked the more free internet, but it doesn't exist anymore and here we are.)

> Where are people with anorexia and bulimia supposed to get support/information if forums about the topics are untenable? Many can't beat the condition, and there's potential benefit in learning to accept and live with it.

Sending an anorexic to a pro-ana site is like sending someone with major depressive order to a pro-suicide site. These sites are not support groups for people struggling to cope with anorexia, they’re sites that tell you tips for overcoming your body’s defences to starving it to death

I don't believe in banning websites but that website is unequivocally bad.

It's a website that reinforces all the cognitive distortions of anorexia. It's the equivalent of a website for depression that says "You know how you feel like life isn't worth living, you're right it isn't, everyone who tells you that with treatment it will get better is lying to you. Here's a bunch of inspirational blog posts about how wonderful suicide is and 10 ways to kill yourself."

Anorexia is not a very stable condition, you can't really just accept it and live with it. Anorexia is built on a positive feedback loop. Obsession with thinness drives low body weight, and low body weight increases the obsession. Most anorexics get worse when not being treated. This is one of the reason it has such a staggeringly high mortality rate.

If you come from an angle of ‘I’ve never seen it therefor it’s just whack a mole’ don’t be surprised if people read it as simple rejection rather than curiosity. Using language like ‘Is there a single site?’ doubles down on it.

This article describes social media groups, on the major platforms, that encourage eating disorders https://rollingout.com/2024/10/08/eating-disorder-groups-on-...

Young children being treated for eating disorders as inpatients in hospitals almost always have been in contact with some kind of eating disorder glorification.

But the article doesn't give a single site or name a single community; it provides zero evidence of its claims.

> Camille, a 20-year-old who has struggled with an eating disorder since middle school, described her community as initially intended to be a safe space but ultimately spiraling out of control due to algorithmic influence

If these claims are true, why not simply demonstrate it; at least state the name of the community so readers can cross reference (to ensure it's not 'boogyman' | typical alarmist-bait), or show us screenshots, or create a dummy twitter account and scroll down the feed as evidence of 'algorithmic influence'. That's 15 minutes work. Why doesn't the journalist do that? Is it possible these things aren't nearly as bad as they claim?

Algorithms will promote what the user clicks on and engages with. Simply: three dots -> Not interested in this post. That retrains the algorithm. And if people are seeking harmful content, they'll find it with or without algorithms, with or without twitter, with or without the internet! Are we banning books next? And conversation? What about reasoning in one's own mind, that too?

There’s that combativeness again.

I didn't read his questions nearly as combative as I read yours. And I say that as someone who's very aware of and very adverse to the idea and tactic of concern trolling.

I've spent enough time working with teams dedicated to combatting proana, and other S/SH issues, so I know pretty well how significant a problem it is. If I'd only read the above non-answers I'd probably be likely to take the side of the person you responded to.

If you think he's being combative, I'd hope you'd defuse it with redirection, instead of overt hostility. Especially if one of the issues you care about is how harmful proana, anorexia, S/SH and adjacent issues are, I'd assume you knew you need to start with compassion and understanding.

He’s not concern trolling he’s just being contrary with the inputs because he fundamentally disagrees with law that is the topic here. First, question the existence of EVERYTHING in a bad faith way.

I think you’ve misread that I have any stake at all in proana/anorexia promotion - I just know it exists and the “online 10 hours a day for 10 years” guy who hasn’t come across it went straight to ‘is there a single site’ rather than I dunno, googling it.

No more combative than “2+2 isn’t five”.

If trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence is perceived as combative, it’s a canary for that individual - to become better at handling trenchant dismissal of claims unsupported by evidence.. challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach. We should all do it, all the time. Sorry if it seems combative. Maybe it is, but it’s optimal and normal.

Do you do this with everything? Search down examples of child sexual abuse material and murders before you believe they exist?

I don’t think it a “dubious” claim at all - you’ve been on the internet there is a community for _everything_ it’s not surprising there is a community for this.

Traditionally the method is there are some things that people just assume exist and for things outside that circle they require some smidgen of evidence to believe in. It is a bit like me saying I believe there are people in the Arctic (never really seen evidence of it, but seems reasonable) vs. pixies (if I'm being asked to believe in pixies, I'd like to see some evidence).

The idea that there are sites promoting eating disorders does seem to me plausible by default, but nomilk does allude to a good point that without examples it is hard to talk about harms. These sites, if they exist, might be quite difficult to find without going and looking for them. I don't remember ever seeing a hint of such a site.

I suppose the difference for me is I've not seen any examples of Child sexual abuse online. Its obviously a bad thing, so steps taken to prevent that directly are a good thing. When you start restricting everyone, in order to stop that harm, then you need to start quantifying risks.

This isn't arresting murderers, this is restricting the sale of rope that murderers might use on their victims. or to get more specific. this isn't banning clubs where murderers can get together. this is imposing checks on all clubs to make sure there aren't any murderers in them.

If it reasonable for the boy scouts to do checks on their members to make sure that a few of them aren't planning a murder? should the boy scouts be responsible if a few boys do go and murder someone? a murder that was planned in the scout hut?

This is restricting the sale of "how to murder people" handbooks, even at garage sales. Therefore every garage sale proprietor is burdened to make sure they aren't selling a handbook explaining how to murder people, even if they got a load of miscellaneous items from an anonymous person.

> challenging dubious claims is the default, most rational approach

I would bet ignoring dubious claims is the default. Challenging and questioning any claims is a better default but I don’t think it is a common default reaction by many people.

Perhaps it is because censoring the content is more important to the authors than citing the "dangerous" content.

>Is it possible these things aren't nearly as bad as they claim?

Under the premises of the censors, you shouldn't examine or question their claims. This is for your own safety. Instead, you should implicitly trust the authority figures to dole out trustworthy information.

Approaching the topic with the tools of rational inquiry is a form of wrong-think.

Search for “pro Ana” websites

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1357034x1244082...

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2186

Reply on news.ycombinator.com