Preventing Harmful Behaviour in Online Communities

Censorship and Interventions

Zoe Alderton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000571332
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Marketing numérique

Preventing Harmful Behaviour in Online Communities explores the ethics and logistics of censoring problematic communications online that might encourage a person to engage in harmful behaviour.

Using an approach based on theories of digital rhetoric and close primary source analysis, Zoe Alderton draws on group dynamics research in relation to the way in which some online communities foster negative and destructive ideas, encouraging community members to engage in practices including self-harm, disordered eating, and suicide. This book offers insight into the dangerous gap between the clinical community and caregivers versus the pro-anorexia and pro-self-harm communities – allowing caregivers or medical professionals to understand hidden online communities young people in their care may be part of. It delves into the often-unanticipated needs of those who band together to resist the healthcare community, suggesting practical ways to address their concerns and encourage healing. Chapters investigate the alarming ease with which ideas of self-harm can infect people through personal contact, community unease, or even fiction and song and the potential of the internet to transmit self-harmful ideas across countries and even periods of time. The book also outlines the real nature of harm-based communities online, examining both their appeal and dangers, while also examining self-censorship and intervention methods for dealing with harmful content online.

Rather than pointing to punishment or censorship as best practice, the book offers constructive guidelines that outline a more holistic approach based on the validity of expressing negative mood and the creation of safe peer support networks, making it ideal reading for professionals protecting vulnerable people, as well as students and academics in psychology, mental health, and social care.

Section II Harmful Ideas Online

4 An Overview of Echoing Self-Harmful Behaviours and the Internet

DOI: 10.4324/9781003126065-6

Introduction

The only people that understand are you people, here in the online world and if I didn’t have that then I know I would not be here. But the ‘outsiders’ see, they just don’t understand that. I don’t know whch way to turn, I don’t know what to do. Suicidal thoughts are frequently entering my mind, a screaming noise seems to be nested inside my head [sic].

(Lou 2003)

People who turn to self-harmful online spaces tend to be in significant pain. This pain, and its symptoms, can be very isolating experiences. Those who cut, starve, or otherwise hurt themselves to communicate distress are generally met with horror or misunderstanding by those who have not experienced this depth of pain or the responses to pain they have chosen. The internet is a place where people who make deviant choices can come together and find support and empathy. It is also a place where self-harmful behaviours can echo, teaching individuals dangerous new techniques, normalising secrecy in the face of distress, or leading to competitive behaviour over the question of who is the sickest, bravest, or the furthest from health. In this chapter, I explore a more nuanced take on the content and functions of pro-self-harmful behaviour groups. Some elements are acutely dangerous, while others are very supportive. There is a complex spectrum of content and outcomes, meaning there is no singular way to interpret or ‘deal with’ these spaces.

A key question when examining online groups is whether discussions about the positive aspects of self-harmful behaviour, and explicit images and instructions, can lead to an increase in echoing self-harmful behaviour. There are valid concerns that young people who are prone to self-harm and risky behaviours will see information about suicide online, thus making them vulnerable to suicidal ideation (Kirmayer 2012, p. 1016). The same can be said of activities like cutting or purging. Certainly, there are users in these spaces who believe such problematic things as “THIN IS THE ONLY WAY WORTH LIVING! so… starve me, please!;)” (Becca 2007), and who communicate such mantras with others. Nevertheless, despite suggestions from the media, only a minority of pro-ana bloggers actually describe their illness as a lifestyle choice (Yeshua-Katz 2015, p. 1352). Engaging with pro-ana spaces does not necessarily lead to increased levels of disordered behaviour (Mulveen and Hepworth 2006, p. 283). While echoing self-harmful behaviour certainly occurs in these spaces, its actual manifestation is more subtle and unpredictable than might be initially imagined. In this chapter, I explore common themes and behaviours in self-harmful internet communities, and examine how actions like scripting facilitate hubs of resistance against stigmatisation and normative medical belief.

An Overview of Online Dangers

Overall, research is inconsistent about the relative dangers of the online space. As Hanson notes, proactive self-harmful communities would not exist without the internet and its boundless, asynchronous nature. Nevertheless, while it is incorrect to say that the internet can do something like “evoke eating disorders in women … the electronic frontier [may be] complicit in the provocation of certain pre-existing behavior” (Hanson 2003, p. 37). This has happened through the creation of online spaces where eating disorders (and other self-harmful behaviours) could be given new social and discursive attention. In such online spaces, the pathological status of self-harmful behaviour does not stop discussions or articulations of distress and other complex feelings amongst participants (Burke 2012, p. 43). To explain this phenomenon, Haas et al. use the terminology “Online Negative Enabling Support Group” (ONESG). Such groups thrive due to the anonymity of the internet protecting them during the expression of extreme or stigmatised views. In this safe space, participants can have their negative behaviours and self-images viewed in an affirming way and discussed without challenge. This is in contrast to typical support groups where participants are encouraged to reframe their self-image in a positive light and work towards constructive and socially accepted behaviours (Haas et al. 2011, pp. 51–52). Similarly, Pater et al. use the term “support networks” to denote groups that support actions associated with disease (2016, p. 1187). These groups can be in support of actions as significantly deviant and dangerous as suicide and can lead to outcomes including completed suicide pacts (Seko 2008).

As internet usage has grown, self-harmful activities have increased alongside greater awareness of such emotional issues (Adler and Adler 2011, p. 168, Le et al. 2012, p. 344). Discussions between participants have become international and asynchronous, transcending older temporal boundaries (Hanson 2003, p. 38). These experiences are intimate but also free or very low-cost, making them an accessible way of connecting deeply with others (Swannell et al. 2010, p. 178). Disembodied communication of this kind can be appealing to those who struggle with close social contact (Brady 2014, p. 219). Nevertheless, these discussions have the potential to be extremely damaging and dangerous, such as guides for effective suicide plans and access to lethal drugs from unregulated pharmacies (Luxton et al. 2012, p. s196). Online communities are both a sanctuary for deviant behaviours like self-harm or -starvation and a place where these harmful behaviours become exacerbated over time (Maratea and Kavanaugh 2012, p. 105). They can lead to blurring of online and offline behaviours and identities, which can be problematic in terms of the spread of deviance (Hipple Walters et al. 2016, p. 223). They can also feed the transmutation of individual suffering into group suffering, thus spreading negative affect and fostering distressed worldviews (Alderton 2018, p. 6).

A significant perceived threat of the internet is the ability for “web 2.0”¹ users to create and share their own content without needing the external approval of governing bodies like book publishers or censorship boards. On a more domestic level, this means children creating and sharing ideas without the consent and control of their parents. This has led to a new area of concern, which Boyd et al. dub “youth-generated problematic content” (including sexting, spreading videos of gang fights, and creating communities to promote eating disorders and self-harm). They specify that teens have contributed to online problematic content since the 1990s, which has often been of concern to adults and parents. But through the rise of social media and social networking, this content has become more socially prominent and more impactful on everyday lives (2011, p. 3). It has also raised questions about the impact of unregulated, interactive new media on mass and point clusters (Pirkis and Robinson 2014, p. 6). Increasingly, young people have opportunities to gather spectators and drive discussion or feedback on their original content.

If their expression is stigmatised or marginalised, there is a greater chance of social disapproval in their offline lives than there is in a uniquely curated online space. Discrimination and sanction are less likely on the internet where those with similar beliefs and behaviours can be found (Bell 2007, p. 451). Web 2.0 has thus facilitated highly personalised social media content that can stand against normative mass media. Social media is increasingly visually rich and engaging, allowing users to feel genuine connection with others and challenge the values and behaviours they have gained from offline socialisation. This can often be dysfunctional and lead to activities like increased body surveillance (Perloff 2014, p. 366) and distorted belief systems within networks of peers (Peebles et al. 2012, p. s62). Overall, evidence suggests that adolescents who invest their time in electronic communications and internet browsing have lower psychological wellbeing than those who also devote time to in-person social activities, sports, community groups, and so on (Twenge et al. 2018, p. 765). While these in-person interactions are not necessarily free from negative interactions like bullying, the online manifestations of such interactions are broader reaching, harder to detach from, and last longer as digital artefacts (Pater et al. 2016, pp. 1195–1196). Deviant ideas and practices are preserved. Next, I draw on the example of pro-ana communities where deviant anti-medical ideas and behaviours are shared, creating a space that offers both genuine and much-needed support alongside echoing clusters of harmful behaviour.

Online Scripting in Echoing Self-Harmful Behaviour

A significant way in which self-harmful behaviour can form an echoing contagion is through online scripting. Communities dedicated to activities like starvation or cutting render these actions as deeply communal pursuits used to communicate with and connect to others. This idea draws on research from Lewis and Baker who proposed that repeated discussion of self-harm can lead to what they call “NSSI² scripts”. These scripts can lead vulnerable people to decide that self-harm is functional and justifiable since other people who they talk to online present it in this way. Repeatedly reading about self-harm experiences, especially from favourable protagonists like online friends or idols, reinforces the idea that self-harm is justifiable or that it is a useful tool for the reduction of distress (2011, pp. 390–391). As such, many self-harmers see the exchange of images showing their scars and injuries as normal. This is because sharing pictures of all aspects of life is now a typical online activity (Sternudd 2012, p. 430). Adolescents are growing less judgemental about suicidal and self-harm behaviours due to the manner in which these activities are portrayed in modern youth culture (Fortune and Hawton 2007, p. 443). Se...