Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Part 1

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 7 of 8
 [ 150 posts ] 
Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Part 1
Author Message
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 4994Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your eyes.

If you're not talking about Jason's paper or related responses/rebuttals/ridicule, use another thread.

Jason's wellbeing is not a subject many, if any, of us are qualified to discuss at length, so what's the point? This is a rhetorical question; I know both the answers.

Those who want to continue this discussion, please try to make it a somewhat valuable contribution to the topic.

If you're just here to hurl insults at Jason knowing that a) he reads this forum, and b) he can't remove them, then you're missing the point of this website.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:30 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

Sorry, Australopithecus, I don't wish to appear to be continuing this but I felt I had to defend my posts.

jskemp1970 wrote:
australopithecus wrote:Probably because it's a valid comparison. Mentally unstable religious fundamentalist, who makes a hobby of harassing atheists in a consistently unhinged manner. It's not wholey a million miles away, and while Jason isn't going to pop round someone's house and shoot them, someone with that level of mental instability is potentially a risk to themselves, and I say that as someone with mental health issues.

While I'm not in the camp who's worried about Jason, (melodrama is his MO, and this suicidal attitude thing is but hearsay), it's worth keeping in mind he clearly does have issues.

The only person responsible for jays mental health is jay.

If this dumbnuts is going to post his inane & often hate-filled (has he implied anyone might be child abusers recently....?) he gets exactly the response he deserves.

With all due respect, jskemp1970, that's a rather naive thing to say.

What you're saying sounds like Cain's protest: "Am I my brother's keeper?".

Someone on medication for manic depression/schizophrenia may decide to stop taking their medication because they feel alright - and then slowly slide off the edge without realising that anything's wrong.

In a community, we are all responsible for each other.

As Vivre points out, it would be easy for something to be set up to allow users to alert YouTube and/or Google to a potential concern. It seems alot easier to flag videos as DMCA than to alert The Powers That Be for a more worthwhile issue.

It was the sad incident with Tony to which I was referring - users did try to intervene but there was a time delay between anyone being able to contact the authorities and a actual intervention that contributed to the death of both Tony and the girl.

collidingmembranes wrote:It is not youtubes responsibility to vet people. People who have mental problems need to be helped by the people around them and not stigmatised by youtube saying they are not fit to post.
This is jasons only way of meeting people (apart from street preaching) it is his life, I wouldn't want to take that away from him just because he is a bit nutty, jesus Christ half of youtube are fucked up in the head.
People with mental problems will find someway to act out, if you take one thing away they will use another. You will not cure someone by take them away from youtube (and it may do more damage) If you wish to help Jason, tell him to see a doctor about his bipolar disorder, that's all we can do.
You may want to right all the wrongs in the world, but you will only stigmatise and bury the problem.

Alerting competent people to assess the issue will neither stigmatise nor bury the problem, Collidingmembranes - it would allow someone with a mental health problem to get the help they need.

Prolescum wrote:Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your eyes.

If you're not talking about Jason's paper or related responses/rebuttals/ridicule, use another thread.

Jason's wellbeing is not a subject many, if any, of us are qualified to discuss at length, so what's the point? This is a rhetorical question; I know both the answers.

Those who want to continue this discussion, please try to make it a somewhat valuable contribution to the topic.

If you're just here to hurl insults at Jason knowing that a) he reads this forum, and b) he can't remove them, then you're missing the point of this website.

Prolescum, the only reason people are posting non-paper-related posts here is that Australopithecus has merged the two topics. [Must be that avatar issue! :lol: ]

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 15, 2013 3:11 am
collidingmembranesUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:31 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Dragan Glas
Do you honestly think youtube could send mental health professionals to people on youtube? Under what authority, How would that effect peoples free speech? How mad would they need to be? What about them ancient aliens people are they mad? You can't limit people human rights because you think, they are a bit mad.
If you think Jason is a danger to himself or someone else its up to you to say something.
You are the one stigmatizing people who are a bit nutty as disfuncional suicidal murders. This prejudice is not reasonable, people need to be vetted in their every day life not a fake youtube presence but by people who know them.
Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:33 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

collidingmembranes wrote:Dragan Glas
Do you honestly think youtube could send mental health professionals to people on youtube? Under what authority, How would that effect peoples free speech? How mad would they need to be? What about them ancient aliens people are they mad? You can't limit people human rights because you think, they are a bit mad.
If you think Jason is a danger to himself or someone else its up to you to say something.
You are the one stigmatizing people who are a bit nutty as disfuncional suicidal murders. This prejudice is not reasonable, people need to be vetted in their every day life not a fake youtube presence but by people who know them.

I think you're completely missing the point I'm making.

Let's say you saw a video where a individual makes a threat to kill someone (they know) or blow-up "some place".

Bearing in mind you don't know whether this is a genuine threat or not:

1) What do you do?

2) Whom do you contact?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:32 pm
collidingmembranesUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:31 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Let's say you saw a video where a individual makes a threat to kill someone (they know) or blow-up "some place".

Bearing in mind you don't know whether this is a genuine threat or not:

1) What do you do?

2) Whom do you contact?

Kindest regards,

James


That was not what you were saying.
The FBI and the CIA MI5 etc have people who watch out for things like that. If you did contact Youtube they would act on the information.
You were saying youtube should stop people who are a bit nutty from going on youtube (judged because they make nutty videos) This will not stop mad people from being mad and is against their human rights. They only should be taken off on legal grounds with due process or if they misuse Youtubes against their terms and conditions.
This is not the best place to talk about this as it is about jasons so called paper. I do appreciate your concerns but your big brother resolve seems like killing the patient to cure the disease.
Regards,
colliding membranes
Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:31 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

Collidingmembranes, this misunderstanding between us is because you appear to have missed what I said in two earlier posts in this thread.

collidingmembranes wrote:Dragan Glas
Do you honestly think youtube could send mental health professionals to people on youtube? Under what authority, How would that effect peoples free speech? How mad would they need to be? What about them ancient aliens people are they mad? You can't limit people human rights because you think, they are a bit mad.
If you think Jason is a danger to himself or someone else its up to you to say something.
You are the one stigmatizing people who are a bit nutty as disfuncional suicidal murders. This prejudice is not reasonable, people need to be vetted in their every day life not a fake youtube presence but by people who know them.

collidingmembranes wrote:That was not what you were saying.
The FBI and the CIA MI5 etc have people who watch out for things like that. If you did contact Youtube they would act on the information.
You were saying youtube should stop people who are a bit nutty from going on youtube (judged because they make nutty videos) This will not stop mad people from being mad and is against their human rights. They only should be taken off on legal grounds with due process or if they misuse Youtubes against their terms and conditions.
This is not the best place to talk about this as it is about jasons so called paper. I do appreciate your concerns but your big brother resolve seems like killing the patient to cure the disease.
Regards,
colliding membranes

The above highlighted text from your last two posts show that you missed these earlier posts of mine.

Dragan Glas wrote:This is one of the reasons why YouTube should have a psychological team to monitor users who are unstable - like the late manic depressive user who killed a girl and then committed suicide.

Dragan Glas wrote:Collidingmembranes, I still wish YouTube had specialists to monitor and intervene when people who show signs of psychological instability start posting such videos.

Your posts seem to indicate that I was suggesting that mere business executives - "suits" - should decide whether someone is in need of medical help.

My posts were suggesting that YouTube have a team of specialists - psychiatrists/psychologists - to make an assessment of the videos' contents only.

I'm not suggesting that they go round to the posters' home themselves - this assessment would be to decide whether any further action is required.

Obviously, regardless of a explicit statement of a threat or not, they would be the best people to decide that - not you or I.

My main point remains: that YouTube should have a easy means for viewers to alert YouTube to a possible problem and then let their own specialists take it from there. I can click a button to indicate "Like" or "Dislike" but not to alert YouTube to a possible issue.

They can contact the authorities (LEA) and/or the uploader, his/her family, etc., both due to their legal and medical authority to do so.

At the moment, it's just by email - which takes too long, assuming it's not blocked through their anti-spam filter.

collidingmembranes wrote:This is not the best place to talk about this as it is about jasons so called paper.

Something else you appear to have missed - again, twice:

australopithecus wrote:Merged topics. There's no point having two.

Dragan Glas wrote:Prolescum, the only reason people are posting non-paper-related posts here is that Australopithecus has merged the two topics.

And your final comment is ... strange, to say the least:

...your big brother resolve seems like killing the patient to cure the disease.

Which takes precedence: free speech or mental health (never mind physical health)?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:47 pm
collidingmembranesUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:31 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Dragan Glas
A man killed someone with a toaster the other day, do you think toaster makers should have a team of psychologists to stop this happening?
How many times do people with mental problems who are on youtube kill people? I can think of only one? There are billions of videos on youtube and plenty of people who would wrongly say that a video needs vetted for psychotic behaviour. the DMCA doesn't work the way it should, do you really think if you had a madness flag on a video that would work? How would you get your videos up again if you are not mad? Get a letter from a psychiatrist. If you are psychotic and they take your video down, what then? They would find another release.
The terms and conditions of youtube guard against threats etc if you are mentally ill and you don't go against the terms and conditions then why should you not be allowed the same rights as everyone else? Not all people with mental problems are potential killers some are getting help by professionals, for youtube to target people on just their youtube persona who are abiding by the terms and conditions and labelling them as potential killers (and they would because that is the whole reason for it) is wrong
If you think someone is a danger to themselves or others, you must take the action, just like in the real world. There is a reason why it is hard to get people committed, because it has been exploited in the past, and if you make the people anonymous who are picking the people to be vetted, and the people doing the vetting being thorough going into peoples private lives talking to people they know, take them to a hearing on their mental stability just to find out they are just being satirical that is victimisation.
I do think people with mental health problems need more help, but if they are not doing anything wrong why should we treat them as if they are?
Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:57 pm
TheAtheistJehovahUser avatarPosts: 52Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:48 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

I think having some sort of Freudian team at hand to monitor peoples behavior on YouTube would be an arduous task which would most likely be abused anyway by being flooded with false flags.

Is not the options on YouTube sufficient as it is? YouTube's flag service is most probably rife with false flags as it is (which still come into affect giving people strikes even when there's no DMCA issues). The current services seem more than adequate given the option of complaints the flagging allows. :D
"One's belief in truth begins with doubt of all truths one has believed hitherto”. -Friedrich Nietzsche
Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:54 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

TheAtheistJehovah wrote:I think having some sort of Freudian team at hand to monitor peoples behavior on YouTube would be an arduous task which would most likely be abused anyway by being flooded with false flags.

Is not the options on YouTube sufficient as it is? YouTube's flag service is most probably rife with false flags as it is (which still come into affect giving people strikes even when there's no DMCA issues). The current services seem more than adequate given the option of complaints the flagging allows. :D

I've just had a look at YouTube and noted the "Report" flag - as I've never used it before, I'm not sure what options are available on it, if any.

I take your points, TheAtheistJehovah, about the difficulty involved but I believe my point remains.

Whom does one contact if not YouTube? - contacting LEA is pointless as you don't know which one to call. Tony was a African American, but that doesn't mean he's uploading videos in America - he could have been anywhere in the world.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:09 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

collidingmembranes wrote:Dragan Glas
A man killed someone with a toaster the other day, do you think toaster makers should have a team of psychologists to stop this happening?

With all due respect, Collidingmembranes, that's not the same thing.

collidingmembranes wrote:How many times do people with mental problems who are on youtube kill people? I can think of only one?

Agreed, yet if it's preventable then - in my view - it's worth having something in place.

collidingmembranes wrote: There are billions of videos on youtube and plenty of people who would wrongly say that a video needs vetted for psychotic behaviour. the DMCA doesn't work the way it should, do you really think if you had a madness flag on a video that would work? How would you get your videos up again if you are not mad? Get a letter from a psychiatrist. If you are psychotic and they take your video down, what then? They would find another release.

I'm not suggesting a "madness" flag - but a option on the "Report" flag for "Threat" (where a individual has made an explicit threat) and "Of concern" might be useful: the first would help prioritise such reported videos for immediate attention. You might say that there'd be abuse - but DMCAs that are abused result in federal prosecution, as VFX found out.

collidingmembranes wrote:The terms and conditions of youtube guard against threats etc if you are mentally ill and you don't go against the terms and conditions then why should you not be allowed the same rights as everyone else? Not all people with mental problems are potential killers some are getting help by professionals, for youtube to target people on just their youtube persona who are abiding by the terms and conditions and labelling them as potential killers (and they would because that is the whole reason for it) is wrong

As I intimated before, none of us watching a video know if someone has a medical problem or not - or, if they do, whether they're still taking their medication or not.

I agree that the majority of mental health sufferers are not violent - in fact, research indicates that they are less prone to violence than "normal" people. However, there are a minority who are a threat to others and themselves.

collidingmembranes wrote:If you think someone is a danger to themselves or others, you must take the action, just like in the real world.

As I mentioned to TheAtheistJehovah, the question is whom to contact? The obvious answer is YouTube.

collidingmembranes wrote: There is a reason why it is hard to get people committed, because it has been exploited in the past, and if you make the people anonymous who are picking the people to be vetted, and the people doing the vetting being thorough going into peoples private lives talking to people they know, take them to a hearing on their mental stability just to find out they are just being satirical that is victimisation.
I do think people with mental health problems need more help, but if they are not doing anything wrong why should we treat them as if they are?

Perhaps this is an "American v European" difference in perspective.

For example, LEAs in America are in general agreement that it's difficult to confiscate guns of licensed gun-owners who subsequently develop a mental health problem because the Second Amendment is invoked by the "gun lobby".

Similarly, free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment in the US - however, in the UK, slander is a prosecutable offence.

I'm not suggesting that uploaders are committed - unless they fall into the potentially violent category of mental health sufferers - but I would prefer a means of ensuring that someone who appears to need help to get it.

Nor am I suggesting that the specialists take direct action themselves - they only need contact the person, person's family or doctor (as a courtesy) - it's the latter that would take any action required.

My concern stems from - apart from the Tony incident - the fact that a number of years ago on another forum (which has since closed down) of which I was a member, one of the members was known to suffer from Type I diabetes. We'd know when his blood-glucose was dropping because his posts became increasingly unintelligible (grammar/spelling and meaning). We'd normally remind him to take his insulin. Sometimes he'd go off-line, following such incidents, for several days causing some concern about whether he was alright or not - he lived out in the middle of nowhere in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, if I remember correctly. He'd generally come back online a few days later back to normal - but during those periods we'd all be worried. Fortunately, during an early particularly worrying incident, the admins - having his IP address - contacted the emergency services to ensure he was alright. [The forum was a computer security one on which many LEA personnel posted, so there was plenty of "authority" to go about.]

Obviously, in such circumstances, we'd know whom to ask - the admins - and let them take it from there. This is not the case with someone who uploads videos - potentially from anywhere in the world.

To me, it's just a case of looking out for each other - being "my brother's keeper", as it were.

I hope you didn't take my disagreement with you as being against free speech or, indeed, against your perspective, Collidingmembranes - just "over concern" on my part for others.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:00 am
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2948Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Dragan Glas,

I appreciate where you are coming from with regards to having a team of psychologists on youtube to monitor people that might be at risk.

However I don't know if a simple button would do the job as it may well be abused by trolls. If there was a reasonably lengthy form for users to fill out prior to alerting such a team it might put some people of doing it just for a laugh, however even this probably wouldn't deter a serious troll.

Sure it might not result in anything actually being done by the psychological team, but if the system was inundated with bogus alerts it might render it useless. If they are spending time filtering through bogus alerts they might well miss a real problem or not deal with it in time.

Laurens
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:47 am
collidingmembranesUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:31 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

[quote="Dragan Glas
Nor am I suggesting that the specialists take direct action themselves - they only need contact the person, person's family or doctor (as a courtesy) - it's the latter that would take any action required.

My concern stems from - apart from the Tony incident - the fact that a number of years ago on another forum (which has since closed down) of which I was a member, one of the members was known to suffer from Type I diabetes. We'd know when his blood-glucose was dropping because his posts became increasingly unintelligible (grammar/spelling and meaning). We'd normally remind him to take his insulin. Sometimes he'd go off-line, following such incidents, for several days causing some concern about whether he was alright or not - he lived out in the middle of nowhere in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, if I remember correctly. He'd generally come back online a few days later back to normal - but during those periods we'd all be worried. Fortunately, during an early particularly worrying incident, the admins - having his IP address - contacted the emergency services to ensure he was alright. [The forum was a computer security one on which many LEA personnel posted, so there was plenty of "authority" to go about.]

Obviously, in such circumstances, we'd know whom to ask - the admins - and let them take it from there. This is not the case with someone who uploads videos - potentially from anywhere in the world.

To me, it's just a case of looking out for each other - being "my brother's keeper", as it were.

I hope you didn't take my disagreement with you as being against free speech or, indeed, against your perspective, Collidingmembranes - just "over concern" on my part for others.

Kindest regards,

James[/quote]

In an ideal world that would be great (if you could ever work out the logistics on a huge scale) But its not an ideal world people would sue you for sue you for cyberstalking, youtube would infringe data protection laws, people would misuse it to the extent that it would make no sense even having it.
Even if it worked perfectly what do you think would happen? After they are cyberstaked their private information is used against them someone comes to the door and says they are "psychiatrists sent by youtube to evaluate you" what would happen? they would shut the door and there is nothing anyone can do. if you are not a criminal psychiatric evaluations are voluntary.
in my opinion there are better ways to help these people, and that is to talk to them as a friend, offer support and entice them to see the doctor. This only really works coming from someone they know and not a faceless organisation. or maybe if youtube had a support group on a channel where you could ask them to visit. But flagging people who you think are mad just because of their youtube persona will not end well for anyone.
You say "who should we contact"? the simple fact is if it is a criminal thing they are saying or doing call the police, if they are not doing anything wrong you are just worried about their mental health, There is no one to contact, they need to go voluntarily the only person to contact is the person with the problem, give or find support for them.
Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:27 am
VivreUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:05 pmLocation: dungeon of despair Gender: Female

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Dragan Glas wrote:Obviously, in such circumstances, we'd know whom to ask - the admins

Yes, after joining YT I tried to find a way how I could reach them at all in any case, but even looking through the contract didn't leave me with a usefull contact option.

I very much doubt that the flag system is of any help, esp. if you need a quick attainability.
Searching for help just pushes you into a recursiv loop of insufficient help-pages or forum-replies.

Well, I did another search, also on LoR today and found an older thread with some hints:
Very Serious Problem. HUGE PRIVACY VIOLATION.

What might be a possible way to contact g00g is via the current address/phone/fax displayed on the main contact page:
http://www.google.com/contact/
and the subpage with addresses by countries:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/facts/locations/

greets ~ V
Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:55 pm
WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

Laurens wrote:Dragan Glas,

I appreciate where you are coming from with regards to having a team of psychologists on youtube to monitor people that might be at risk.

However I don't know if a simple button would do the job as it may well be abused by trolls. If there was a reasonably lengthy form for users to fill out prior to alerting such a team it might put some people of doing it just for a laugh, however even this probably wouldn't deter a serious troll.

Sure it might not result in anything actually being done by the psychological team, but if the system was inundated with bogus alerts it might render it useless. If they are spending time filtering through bogus alerts they might well miss a real problem or not deal with it in time.

Laurens

Thank you, Laurens, for your understanding.

I've been looking at their "Report" flag and its options as well as ways to report threats, etc.

Reporting Threats is one possibility, it seems, including a "safety and abuse report".

As regards anyone abusing this option, remember what happened to VFX for similarly abusing the DMCA report option?

As for missing a real problem, without anyone reporting issues, they certainly will!

Flagging content wrote:Users upload over 72 hours of video to YouTube every minute. With so much content on the site, it would be impossible to review it all. That’s why we rely on YouTube community members to flag content that they find inappropriate.

YouTube staff review flagged videos 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and videos that violate our Community Guidelines are removed from YouTube. Videos that may not be appropriate for all younger audiences are age-restricted.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:47 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

collidingmembranes wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Nor am I suggesting that the specialists take direct action themselves - they only need contact the person, person's family or doctor (as a courtesy) - it's the latter that would take any action required.

My concern stems from - apart from the Tony incident - the fact that a number of years ago on another forum (which has since closed down) of which I was a member, one of the members was known to suffer from Type I diabetes. We'd know when his blood-glucose was dropping because his posts became increasingly unintelligible (grammar/spelling and meaning). We'd normally remind him to take his insulin. Sometimes he'd go off-line, following such incidents, for several days causing some concern about whether he was alright or not - he lived out in the middle of nowhere in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, if I remember correctly. He'd generally come back online a few days later back to normal - but during those periods we'd all be worried. Fortunately, during an early particularly worrying incident, the admins - having his IP address - contacted the emergency services to ensure he was alright. [The forum was a computer security one on which many LEA personnel posted, so there was plenty of "authority" to go about.]

Obviously, in such circumstances, we'd know whom to ask - the admins - and let them take it from there. This is not the case with someone who uploads videos - potentially from anywhere in the world.

To me, it's just a case of looking out for each other - being "my brother's keeper", as it were.

I hope you didn't take my disagreement with you as being against free speech or, indeed, against your perspective, Collidingmembranes - just "over concern" on my part for others.

Kindest regards,

James

In an ideal world that would be great (if you could ever work out the logistics on a huge scale) But its not an ideal world people would sue you for sue you for cyberstalking, youtube would infringe data protection laws, people would misuse it to the extent that it would make no sense even having it.

Flagging/reporting is anonymous - how would individuals sue? And they could only do so if you had abused the option - like VFX (in his case, he actually boasted about DMCAing Thunderf00t's videos).

collidingmembranes wrote:Even if it worked perfectly what do you think would happen? After they are cyber-stalked their private information is used against them someone comes to the door and says they are "psychiatrists sent by youtube to evaluate you" what would happen? they would shut the door and there is nothing anyone can do.

You continue to think in terms of "Big Government/Big Brother" terms, Collidingmembranes.

The only people who would be dealing with them directly are their family and doctor - no-one else.

Mood swings have a number of different possible causes - not just psychiatric conditions.

And I'm not just talking about drug abuse.

Mood swings can be indicative of serious kidney or liver damage - as they're both involved in removing toxins from the system, damage to them can result in said toxins remaining in the system resulting in behavioural changes similar to those associated with porphyria (remember the "madness" of King George III?).

A small study showed that tryptophan is important in one's diet. Subjects in the study showed depressive-like symptoms when the level of tryptophan was reduced but developed a positive, out-going attitude when it was increased.

Again. mood swings resultant from a purely medical condition rather than "madness".

A simple blood test can identify any underlying medical conditions that might cause such mood swings.

[Being aware of typical symptoms of various medical conditions can help. In my case, I knew enough about medical health to realise that I had developed diabetes - I was getting headaches, dizzy spells, vision problems, etc. - and went to the doctor for a blood test, which confirmed it.]

collidingmembranes wrote:if you are not a criminal psychiatric evaluations are voluntary.

Actually, that isn't the case.

collidingmembranes wrote:in my opinion there are better ways to help these people, and that is to talk to them as a friend, offer support and entice them to see the doctor. This only really works coming from someone they know...

Which is what I've been suggesting all along - their family, primarily, along with their doctor.

collidingmembranes wrote:...and not a faceless organisation.

Not what I've been suggesting. (See my "Big Government/Big Brother" comment above.)

As an aside, pubs (bars, for those across "the Pond") can refuse to serve patrons - whether they've just arrived or not - whom they consider to be intoxicated. Is this a breach of their human rights? This is an example of a organisation - or, at least, staff (without medical training) - judging patrons as a potential danger to themselves and/or others (drink-driving).

collidingmembranes wrote: or maybe if youtube had a support group on a channel where you could ask them to visit.

Which is a perfectly reasonable option - for which, thank you.

collidingmembranes wrote: But flagging people who you think are mad just because of their youtube persona will not end well for anyone.

On the contrary, not reporting someone who may be a danger to themselves or others will not end well for anyone.

collidingmembranes wrote:You say "who should we contact"? the simple fact is if it is a criminal thing they are saying or doing call the police, if they are not doing anything wrong you are just worried about their mental health, There is no one to contact, they need to go voluntarily the only person to contact is the person with the problem, give or find support for them.

YouTube, as holders of their IP address, are the obvious first point of contact.... if only through a "Report" flag.

You'd have to know where a uploader lived to contact the appropriate LEA.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

Vivre wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Obviously, in such circumstances, we'd know whom to ask - the admins

Yes, after joining YT I tried to find a way how I could reach them at all in any case, but even looking through the contract didn't leave me with a usefull contact option.

I very much doubt that the flag system is of any help, esp. if you need a quick attainability.
Searching for help just pushes you into a recursiv loop of insufficient help-pages or forum-replies.

Well, I did another search, also on LoR today and found an older thread with some hints:
Very Serious Problem. HUGE PRIVACY VIOLATION.

What might be a possible way to contact g00g is via the current address/phone/fax displayed on the main contact page:
http://www.google.com/contact/
and the subpage with addresses by countries:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/facts/locations/

greets ~ V

Thank you - again! - Vivre, for yet more helpful information. ;)

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:31 pm
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4276Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

So Jason has posted a video confirming this rumour as a rumour, and whatever issues Jason may or may not have, said rumour is useless. If someone is trying to drive him off YouTube as he has suggested then they're a dick. Whether it's true or just more drama is irrelevant. It's time to stop.

So as this thread is about his paper it will be used for this purpose, not for discussing his mental health. However if anyone wants to continue the discussion on how YouTube, or any other media platform, should address people with mental health issues then they can do so in a new thread.
Image
Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:46 pm
collidingmembranesUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:31 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

On the contrary, not reporting someone who may be a danger to themselves or others will not end well for anyone.

How can the average person discern this?
If youtube started to actively seek out people who have a mental illness or people who are bipolar, who are not breaking the law just because some average joe says "That guys a nut" I would leave youtube and be actively against it.
I come from a country that had internment for years and they used all the arguments you use.
You say you want a community that helps each other, something that I would agree with. But essentially you are convicting people of thought crime(that they may are may not have). There is a legal framework for people who openly say they're going to do something wrong, there is no need for the average joe to assume you are and call big brother on you.
Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:51 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2948Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Dragan Glas wrote:Thank you, Laurens, for your understanding.

I've been looking at their "Report" flag and its options as well as ways to report threats, etc.

Reporting Threats is one possibility, it seems, including a "safety and abuse report".

As regards anyone abusing this option, remember what happened to VFX for similarly abusing the DMCA report option?

As for missing a real problem, without anyone reporting issues, they certainly will!


I guess the other main issue is that if youtube begins to accept responsibility to some degree for the mental well-being of its members, it may also put itself in a position in which it is liable for failing to do so. As it stands I assume youtube does not take responsibility for the content posted by its users much less their private lives (thus ensuring that they are not liable for copyright infringement and so on). In order to take on the level of responsibility that you propose youtube would have to make sure it gets it right, or they might face lawsuits from relatives of users who committed suicide for their inability to fulfill their stated role. From a purely legal perspective it might simply not be worth the risk for youtube---which is unfortunate but possibly true.

I feel we are heading far off topic, for which I apologise. Perhaps the mods would like to split as appropriate? Or failing that we can continue this discussion via PM if you wish Dragan Glas.

Cheers

Laurens
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:54 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2799Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Jason101 aka Jason Burn's paper discussion thread 2: Par

Greetings,

australopithecus wrote:So Jason has posted a video confirming this rumour as a rumour, and whatever issues Jason may or may not have, said rumour is useless. If someone is trying to drive him off YouTube as he has suggested then they're a dick. Whether it's true or just more drama is irrelevant. It's time to stop.

So as this thread is about his paper it will be used for this purpose, not for discussing his mental health. However if anyone wants to continue the discussion on how YouTube, or any other media platform, should address people with mental health issues then they can do so in a new thread.

I apologise for leading the thread astray, Australopithecus et al.

By all means, set up a new thread and split/copy the relevant posts to it.

Kindest regards

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:19 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 7 of 8
 [ 150 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests