Pro-Ana: Why Silencing It Does More Harm than Good.

When girls who suffer in silence find an outlet to cry out for help, why do we insist on silencing them again? 

Anorexia nervosa is an illness, not a lifestyle choice. But many young women who are suffering from the illness claim they are not sick, that it is a choice they make and it is nobody's business. These people are clearly in denial about the severity of their disease and the damage it can do. They claim they are simply embracing the philosophy of "pro-ana". 

Pro-ana content on the internet is abundant. Pictures of emaciated women are posted to act as motivation to not eat. These pictures, labeled "thinsperation" or "thinspo" act as a goal to strive for. Many also have a section for "tips and tricks" that teach people ways to not eat, exercises for burning the most calories, and how to fool your family and friends to thinking you are eating more than you are. To the young men and women who visit these websites it seems like a God send, while everyone else looks on with disgust. 

The popular social networking sites Tumblr, Instagram, and Pinterest have publicly come out against such pro-ana activities on their servers and have started banning such activities. For instance, if you try and search for "thinsperation" on pinterest's website you will yield no results and instead get this message:

Eating disorders are not lifestyle choices, they are mental disorders that if left untreated can cause serious health problems or could even be life-threatening.

For treatment referrals, information, and support, you can always contact the National Eating Disorders Association Helpline at 1-800-931-2237 or www.nationaleatingdisorders.org. 

Websites are hoping that by banning the images and content they will promote recovery for the individuals who are sick. To many this policy seems to makes sense. Unfortunately, this is not the first time websites have tried this and there is evidence that it only makes matters worse. It has been over ten years since pro-ana websites first caught the attention of mainstream media and in those ten years the only thing that has changed are the web addresses. 

Antonio A. Casilli, an assistant professor of Digital Humanities at Telecom ParisTech, has been serving as the scientific coordinator of the ANAMIA research project. A post found on his blog, Antonio A. Casilli: BodySpaceSocity, states that censorship does not decrease the number of participants in pro-ana communities at all, in fact it ends up multiplying the content on the internet. One single pro-ana blogger may have two or three different accounts on different servers in case one of them decides to start banning. This way she/he ensures that nothing is lost. They are already packed with another settlement waiting, they have been internet nomads since their beginning. 

Pro-ana communities have had to battle censorship since the early 2000s. In August 2001 The Guardian, a newspaper based out of the U.K, published an article on their website about the development of websites that promoted anorexia. The websites were immediately met with opposition. The article stated, "Last week the internet service provider Yahoo! reacted to the explosion in the number of sites by announcing it was about to begin removing them from its web server". A year later an article for The New York Times appeared online and stated that since the removal of pro-ana sites from Yahoo, "...the sites mostly pop up on private Web servers. Since the movement has gone underground, so to speak, Web addresses are traded on the bulletin boards". However, in just a few years a new internet platform appeared that would bring the movement out of hiding: social networking. And Casilli worries that the current trend of banning will force them back underground again. He writes that when that happens, "Those who actually suffer the consequences are healthcare professionals, public decision-makers, families and charities providing information and support for people affected by eating disorders – but not for ana-mia online communities".  

Perhaps the parents and advocacy groups that are pushing for all pro-ana sites to be destroyed should  take a look at the history and rethink the strategy. When the majority of sites were in one central location, outreach and education was easier. If a parent suspected a child of having an eating disorder, chances are they were going to find them on that site. Public health officials had the chance to educate a large number of sufferers by giving them advise on treatment and facts. Once the bans started they formed smaller, closer groups on  different servers and was suspicious of any outsiders. They began to moderate their own communities and entry into the community was very difficult for someone who was not known. If someone was able to get through all of the red tape and begin to try and help and educate about the dangers of eating disorders, they were promptly expelled from the community upon discovery. 

That is until the creation of social networking sites. These sites allowed, once again, a place where a large amount of people who suffer could talk about their feelings, their fears and their hopes. This also meant that people who wanted to help could try, without being turned away by moderators.  

If the current trend of banning these sites continue, the people who suffer from eating disorders are going to be harder to find.  

Anorexia and Bulimia is a "secret shame". Before the the internet, people suffered alone and in complete silence. Because the internet allows for anonymity people can talk about what they do and how they feel openly without fear of being recognized. The shame is becoming not-so-secret anymore. Whether the people who are embracing "pro-ana" realize it or not they are crying out for help. They are standing on a rooftop and screaming to the top of their lungs, "PLEASE SAVE ME!!!" So why are we silencing their cries? 

Banning Pro-Ana: Saving Girls or Inhibiting Free Speech?

How far will websites go to prohibit self harm and what will be banned next?

Popular social networking sites Pinterest, Tumblr, and Instagram have banned "pro-ana" activities from their websites. This move is just the latest as more and more websites and blogs are attempting to ban content that some describe as "eating disorder propaganda". These social networking sites have put forth a new policy regarding content that is used to promote "self-harm". An official announcement from Tumblr was published in the staff blog (found here) outlining their two step plan to remove and discourage pro-ana content.

While many are praising the efforts of these sites to remove the questionable content, many people still remain skeptical about the decision. They do not like the idea of social networking sites limiting the freedom of speech that has been commonplace since the emergence of the internet phenomenon. Some are questioning how far these social networking sites will take it, and they worry about what might be censored and banned next.

In our society, censorship has become a dirty word that conjures up images of tyrannical governments who deny basic rights to their citizens. Even the websites themselves have continually condemned governments for attempting to censor the internet. Tumblr was at the forefront of the fight against the SOPA Bill last year (remember this?) but they were fighting against government intervention, not their own. So do they have the right to censor their own website? Yes, absolutely! First of all, it is their company they own it. Second of all, you agreed to that when you accepted the terms of service (Maybe some of you will start reading what you are agreeing to from now on.) That question is easy. The harder question is, should they? 

Legally the websites have the right to determine what is acceptable and what is not. However, this may prove to be a challenge. How can someone determine what is "pro-ana" and what is not when there are so many grey areas? Take into consideration the two photographs below: one of them was found after using the search word "thinspiration", and the other was found by using the word "beauty". So which picture is which?   

According to Google, the top picture "pro-ana" and the bottom picture is beautiful. However, both pictures are of the same woman, Natalia Vodianova. So which one should be censored? Which picture of Natalia is acceptable, and which  picture promotes self-harm? Or are they both damaging and should not be used? And do we want someone making that decision for us?

Many men might want to post either or both of those pictures to a website. And many women blog and post pictures relating to fashion and beauty, all of which consists of models who are beautiful and really skinny. So how will the websites determine who is advocating eating disorders, and who is simply sharing photographs of fashion models who are famous because they met that standard of beauty that our society  created which led to the eating disorders to begin with (see irony). 

Eating disorders are an illness of the mind and body and it is tragic. But banning the content from websites have not worked in the past, in fact it has only made it worse. If Tumblr, Pinerest, and all of the social networking sites really care about this problem then stop doing what doesn't work and try something new.