Tumblr Contemplates A New Policy Against Self-Harm Blogs: Let's All Weigh In

Tumblr is a popular microblogging platform.  It lets you share anything from text to pictures to video.  According to their website, the average Tumblr user creates 14 original posts each month, and reblogs 3. The "reblog" button on all Tumblr posts allows a meme to spread rapidly across thousands of blogs with just one click.

As with other social media platforms, tumblr has an enormous reach (18,878,347,183 total posts as of the time of this blog).  Therefore, it has great potential to help and hurt the public's health as it facilitates communication among millions of people.

A few weeks ago, Tumblr presented to its users a challenge (and possible solution) regarding blogs that promote self-harm.  Their users are being asked to weigh in on the policy.  I think that is a smart move.

Here is an excerpt from the Tumblr staff blog: 

Our Content Policy has not, until now, prohibited blogs that actively promote self-harm. These typically take the form of blogs that glorify or promote anorexia, bulimia, and other eating disorders; self-mutilation; or suicide. These are messages and points of view that we strongly oppose, and don’t want to be hosting. The question for us has been whether it’s better to (a) prohibit them, as a statement against the very ideas of self-harm that they are advancing, or (b) permit them to stay up, accompanied by a public service warning that directs readers to helplines run by organizations like the National Eating Disorders Association.

We are planning to post a new, revised Content Policy in the very near future, and we’d like to ask for input from the Tumblr community on this issue.

The blog goes on to say that they currently think the right answer is to implement a policy against pro self-harm blogs.  They aim to focus only on blogs that actively glorify or promote these behaviors. They also intend to start showing public service announcements (PSAs) on specific search terms like "anorexic" or "thinsperation".  It is unclear from their post how this policy will actually be implemented.  It would take enormous staff resources to comprehensively review their site and remove concerning materials. 

Other online and social media platforms have struggled with similar issues regarding how to respond to users that may be searching for or posting worrisome content.  Here are a few examples of other challenges and solutions:

• When someone uses Google or Yahoo to search for the term "suicide", the link to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is provided as the first result.
• In December 2011, Facebook began a new service that allows "Friends" to report concerning posts.  Facebook then sends an email to the person who posted the suicidal comment encouraging them to call the hotline or click on a link to begin a confidential chat. Note that Facebook does not troll the site itself, but instead waits for reports to come in.  
• Pop Health has previously posted about the debate regarding Twitter's duty to restrict hate speech vs. its duty to promote free speech among its users.

From these examples, you can see that there have been a variety of approaches to address potentially unhealthy or unsafe posts on social media platforms.  Sites can decide to be inclusive of all posts, they can let users police each other and report concerns, they can post resources in response to keywords, they can actively prohibit certain content...or they can use some combination of these strategies.

• What strategy or combination of strategies is best for the public's health?  
• If users are prohibited from posting, does that make them more isolated and less likely to connect to services?
• Should the overall health of the user group outweigh the health of that individual?

Tumblr is encouraging users to weigh in on their plan...so I ask you to both comment here and contact them at policy@tumblr.com. 

Media Must Cover Suicides Cautiously- In Today's Philadelphia Inquirer

An editorial that I co-authored ran in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. The piece is in response to media coverage of the suicide of a Philadelphia Firefighter. In a previous blog post following a celebrity suicide, I discussed the public health implications of the media coverage that follows. It can either encourage negative behavior in the audience by including unsafe and unnecessary details like detailing suicide methods...or it can encourage positive help-seeking behavior by including resources like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. I encourage all bloggers, communication professionals, and journalists to review the expert recommendations on how to safely report on suicides.

I look forward to hearing your comments!

Google Continues to Use its Power for Public Health Good

Yesterday, Google announced its new surveillance system for Dengue Fever. Dengue Fever is a disease caused by four related viruses spread by a particular species of mosquito. It can cause high fever, rash, muscle and joint pain, and in severe cases- bleeding, a sudden drop in blood pressure (shock) and death. Millions of cases of Dengue infection occur worldwide each year. Most often, dengue fever occurs in urban areas of tropical and subtropical regions.

The system is similar to that which was previously released as their Google Flu Trends program. These systems use search queries within Google (for example those that enter the disease's name and/or symptoms) to identify trends. The Dengue system also takes advantage of a new feature called Google Correlate, which shows previously unknown correlations between search terms. These correlations allow researchers to model real world behaviors by examining internet search trends. For those who may be skeptical of this model, you should check out a publication (co-authored by Google and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-CDC) in the 2009 Nature Journal . The article reports that "because relative frequencies of certain queries were highly correlated with the percentage of physician visits in which a patient presents with influenza-like symptoms, we can accurately estimate the current level of weekly influenza activity in each region of the United States, with a reporting lag of about one day."

This is a pretty exciting addition to public health surveillance (where the goal is systematic, ongoing, data collection that is used to monitor trends, identify priorities, direct resources, identify emerging hazards, and evaluate interventions).

This is not the first time that Google has jumped into the public health field with an impressive contribution. In 2010, Google searches related to suicide started appearing with a message guiding users to the toll-free number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. The number is 1-800-273-8255. Triggered by searches such as "I want to die" or "ways to commit suicide," the number is listed next to an icon of a red telephone, at the top of the search results.

The addition of the Lifeline number came shortly after (at the suggestion of a Google user), the company started displaying the hotline for the American Association of Poison Control Centers after searches for "poison emergency."

These cases of Google's work in public health are great examples of effective health communication and public health principles:

• Identifying the primary channels through which your audience searches for health information (more and more are utilizing the internet) and delivering accurate and effective information and/or interventions via those channels.

• Maximizing data driven surveillance systems- using existing data (e.g., internet searches) to identify public health trends.

• Building strong partnerships (as evidenced by the publication by Google and CDC) CDC has partnered with a company with specific expertise and resources in an area that can be invaluable to their work.
  

Hollywood's "Dilemma": Should "Gay" Jokes Be Censored?

Recently I went to see "The Social Network". We watched several movie trailer previews, including the Ron Howard directed film "The Dilemma". The preview included a scene with Vince Vaughn exclaiming to a conference room full of colleagues, "Ladies and gentlemen...electric cars are gay". He goes on to clarify that he does not say "gay" to mean happy, instead he compares its level of "coolness" to your parents chaperoning a school dance. I leaned over to my husband and whispered, "I thought they were taking this scene out of the trailer?". I guess it had not yet been pulled (and was instead being seen by millions, as The Social Network was #1 at the box office that week).

The controversy regarding this quote began several weeks ago. CNN's Anderson Cooper was one of the first to draw attention to the preview when he appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres Show. His argument (especially in light of the recently publicized suicides involving gay children/teenagers) was that we must "make those words unacceptable cause those words are hurting kids". In addition, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) put out a statement on the situation:

"When 'gay' is used as a pejorative, it frequently sends a message- particularly to youth and their bullies- that being gay is wrong and something to laugh at. We invite Vince Vaughn to work with us and help insure that gay youth and those perceived to be gay aren't put in harm's way by such jokes".

Last week, Vince Vaughn addressed the above concerns with his own statement that highlighted his feelings that the "gay joke" should be kept in the trailer and in the movie:

"Let me add my voice of support to the people outraged by the bullying and persecution of people for their differences, whatever those differences may be. Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. Drawing dividing lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly- where does it stop?"

ABC's The View also discussed this during its "Hot Topics" show yesterday. I was actually pretty surprised that there seemed to be consensus and support for Vince Vaughn's statement. How can you censor a "character"? This was not about Vince making homophobic statements...but it was the statements of his character. What if the character is a jerk? Then he/she will sound like a jerk. Whoopi Goldberg spoke about recently watching "Roots" on TV and how much of the message was lost due to the censoring of the racist language.

I can see both sides of the argument on this one. Of course, people of all ages look to celebrities and movies to be role models and to confirm (or break) social norms. Therefore, statements using "gay" as a pejorative can absolutely influence the beliefs of an audience. However, I also understand the slippery slope of censorship and the concern that stories can no longer be told with the same honesty and depth of characters. It is also unclear how this censorship would be overseen and enforced. Can we always tell the difference between a statement of someone's beliefs and their attempt at a joke? And just because something is intended as a joke, does that really mean there are no consequences? If your boss "jokes" about how your clothes fit...it is still sexual harassment.

With tomorrow being "Spirit Day" to combat anti-LGBT bullying, it seemed very timely to toss this "dilemma" out to my readers for comment. I look forward to your thoughts.

Bullying: Is Technology Helping Us or Hurting Us?

Like many of you, my heart broke when I heard about the suicide of Tyler Clementi last week. Unsure of exactly how I wanted to focus my blog on this topic, I took a little time and read the comments coming through on Facebook and Twitter. I talked to colleagues and friends. And something that really struck me was that many people expressed that technology was the problem. All this new technology can only lead to bad things. Right? I agree that new technology has played a large part in our discussions around bullying the past few years. There seems to be an assumption on the part of the bullies that they can be protected by technology- that their identity can be kept "anonymous" in the cyber-world. Perhaps more kids bully online because it is easier to insult or hurt someone at that distance- versus right to their face. Of course, these hurtful comments or videos now have a much broader reach. They can be disseminated through the school, city, state, or even country in just minutes. And you can't take them back. I also think that technology is evolving so quickly that we don't always understand the new boundaries for privacy.

But even with all the new challenges and channels to bullying that technology brings, I still do not believe that it is the root cause. As a friend of mine tweeted this week (yes- Beth G you get a shout out here) "Thinking on the Tyler Clementi case. Tired of hearing that technology is to blame. I'm pretty sure Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei are, actually". Let's not forget the role of personal responsibility- I believe that gets lost when the blame falls squarely on technology.

So with all of that as a backdrop for this discussion, I decided that I wanted to focus my blog on how technology can also help us to combat bullying and help those at risk for suicide. Risk for suicide can increase among those who feel isolated and disconnected from resources. They can also suffer when surrounded by social norms that do not support help seeking for the resources that they need.

So I wanted to present these resources that have gone viral in just the past few days. I can't help but think about all the isolated kids/teens they may reach:

1. MTV launched an Iphone application to combat bullying called "Over the Line". Users can post a bullying scenario that they've experienced and other users can vote if it was "over the line". This has the potential to help promote positive norms/limits regarding how we treat each other. The peer support online may also encourage users to ask for help.

2. MTV was also involved in the launch of "Love is Louder". This "movement" has begun primarily in response to anti-gay bullying and suicides among LGBT youth. Viewers (and celebrities) can upload videos of support for these youth. It has been described as a way to channel the sadness and anger we all feel following these events. Again- this has the potential to build peer support among individuals that may be at risk. It also introduces celebrities or role models to support positive social norms.

3. Columnist Dan Savage has organized the "It Gets Better" campaign. The goal is to reach out to lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual youth who may be the victims of bullying and remind/assure them that things will get better. This campaign has also attracted many celebrity supporters telling their stories (e.g., Tim Gunn from Project Runway was featured on many of my friends' Facebook pages today).

4. Four days ago, Ellen DeGeneres posted "An Important Message" on YouTube regarding the recent suicides of LGBT youth. As of tonight, there had been 235,627 views of that video. She pledged her support and encouraged all of us to have zero tolerance regarding bullying and the loss of these kids/teens.

So that's the complicated story. Technology brings new prevention challenges to bullying. But it can also build peer networks and deliver resources to those in isolation. It can bring the voice of celebrities or other role models into the discussion, which can be a strong influence on kids/teens. I urge us not to write off all technology in light of recent events.

For example, if anyone reading this blog needs help- please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Their technology even allows for Veterans to chat with an online counselor. Amazing!

Technology: Building Social Connections or Breaking Them Down?

Last week, a friend at work told me that she had given up watching TV for Lent. She said "every time I give up TV, my quality of life goes up". I thought of her immediately today as I read this new article in TIME, "Logged on, checked out...of relationships?" The article discusses a study (published in the March issue of the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine) which studied adolescents during two periods of time (1988 and 2004). The adolescents who spent more time watching TV or playing video games were more likely to report lower quality relationships compared with those who logged less screen time.
I find this fascinating because I have followed the debate among colleagues and friends regarding the increase in the use of technology and its impact on social connections. For example, kids that may be "outcasts" at school may find friends online. They may have hundreds of Facebook "friends". They may find lots of kids with similar interests by joining "groups" online. However, one has to ask, are Facebook friends "real"? I personally have 355 friends on Facebook, but would only consider about 10 of those people close friends in my day to day life. Is it worth it to focus your time and attention to online activities (as noted above) to the detriment of your "real life" relationships with friends and family?
In looking at how social connectedness can be a protective factor for things like suicide, the question has also come up: "Is it the quantity or quality of relationships that really count?" In research on college students, studies like Healthy Minds are beginning to indicate that it is the quality that counts. However, unlike my previous posts where it has been easy for me to take one side or the other...I'm torn about this issue. The authors of the above study were as well...they note that there is an obvious correlation between online activities and relationship quality, but the causal link is not clear.
Therefore, I believe it is probably some happy balance that is best. Facebook friends and groups are not all superficial and time wasters. People can connect (or in many cases, "reconnect") with friends and colleagues with shared histories or interests. I've seen Friends post a concerning or unsafe status and 20 people jump in with words of encouragement or offers of help...which is wonderful. On the flip side, it helps to turn the computer or TV off and enjoy the world around us...strengthen those connections with those we live with, eat dinner away from the TV, etc. And of course on that note, I'll log off. LOST starts at 9pm ;)

Confirmed: Alexander McQueen Died by Suicide. When will Entertainment Reporters Catch on to Recommendations for Safe Reporting on Suicide?

The fashion world suffered a great loss last week. For those of you who also drool over Sandra Bullock's SAG award dress...or Sarah Jessica Parker's ensemble for the London Premiere of 'Sex and the City', you must be familiar with the designs of Alexander McQueen. The British fashion designer died by suicide last Thursday.
As I read multiple accounts of his death via various sources of entertainment news, I am continually struck by the irresponsible reporting of a celebrity suicide. In 2001, Reporting on Suicide: Recommendations for the Media, a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Mental Health, Office of the Surgeon General, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American Association of Suicidology, and Annenberg Public Policy Center was released. Research indicates that the way suicide is reported in the media can contribute to additional suicides and suicide attempts. Conversely, stories about suicide can inform readers and viewers about the likely causes of suicide, its warning signs, trends in suicide rates, and recent treatment advances. The above recommendations have been developed to assist reporters and editors in safe reporting on suicide. In 2005, these recommendations were even summarized to be a quick "At a Glance" reference for reporters.
I'm highlighting what I see as a typical entertainment news story on Alexander's death and how this and stories that first surfaced late last week basically do the opposite of what is recommended for safe reporting.

What NOT to Do:

• Avoid detailed descriptions of the suicide, including specifics of the method and location. This article provides a description of the location and method of the suicide.
  
• Avoid romanticizing someone who has died by suicide. Avoid featuring tributes by friends or relatives. Avoid glamorizing the suicide of a celebrity. Many articles have simply included tributes by fellow celebrities, such as Lady GaGa, Madonna, and Sarah Jessica Parker.
• Avoid oversimplifying the causes of suicides, murder-suicides, or suicide pacts, and avoid presenting them as inexplicable or unavoidable. Although many articles have highlighted that Alexander was a survivor of his best friend's suicide three years ago (which can be a risk factor for suicide) and that he lost his mother just a week before his own death...we don't know the myriad of risk factors that could a played a role in this tragedy. Suicide is a complex system of risk and protective factors, that cannot be explored in a two paragraph article.

What TO Do:

• Always include a referral phone number and information about local crisis intervention services. I did not see this in any articles that I read.
• Emphasize recent treatment advances for depression and other mental illness. Include stories of people whose treatment was life-saving or who overcame despair without attempting suicide. Again- Nada.
• Interview a mental health professional who is knowledgeable about suicide and the role of treatment or screening for mental disorders as a preventive strategy. Um- Nope.

But not to be discouraged! Many newspapers and news reporting organizations have begun to ask for training on this issue (SPRC is a resource). However, I would argue that the entertainment news organizations are the last to follow. Are national and statewide suicide prevention organizations reaching out to places like E! News? Access Hollywood? People Magazine? I would bet that these news organizations have a much higher readership than many local/national newspapers. Advocates, are you listening? Contact these organizations! There is a desperate need to improve the safety of reporting on celebrity suicide.

Resources:
Are you feeling desperate, alone or hopeless? Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), a free, 24-hour hotline available to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. Your call will be routed to the nearest crisis center to you.

• Call for yourself or someone you care about
• Free and confidential
• A network of more than 140 crisis centers nationwide
• Available 24/7