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.
No comments:
Post a Comment