Instagram, the popular online photo-sharing service that was recently bought by Facebook for US$1 billion, is banning images and accounts that condone "self-harm" behavior such as eating disorders, cutting oneself, or committing suicide.
In a blog post Friday, the company said the following:
Going forward, we won't allow accounts, images, or hashtags dedicated to glorifying, promoting, or encouraging self-harm. Should users come across content of that nature, we recommend flagging the photo or flagging the user as a "Terms of Service" violation for our Support team to review.
It is important to note that this guideline does not extend to accounts created to constructively discuss, or document personal experiences that show any form of self-harm where the intention is recovery or open discussion. While we strongly encourage people to seek help for themselves or loved ones who are suffering, we understand the importance of communication as a form of support, in order to create awareness and to assist in recovery.
In late February, blogging site Tumblr banned self-harm blogs, saying "We are deeply committed to supporting and defending our users' freedom of speech, but we do draw some limits." It also said it will show public service warnings when people search for tags such as "anorexia," "bulimia," "thinspiration," and "purging."
In March, Pinterest followed suit with its own ban.
Late last year, the National Eating Disorders Association launched Proud2Bme, a site designed to be a positive alternative to online thinspiration and pro-anorexia/pro-bulimia -- or "thinspo" and "pro-ana"/"pro-mia" -- postings. And in December, the National Suicide Prevention LifeLine teamed with Facebook on a service that lets users of the social network click a link to begin a live chat with a suicide counselor or to report posts that might indicate suicidal behavior.
Source
I'm honestly a little curious as to how these sites differentiate between discussion and promotion. Does anyone know if it works out in practice? That is, do other sites that have had this kind of ban review flagged content before deleting, or is it more haphazard?
Edited at 2012-04-30 08:37 pm (UTC)
I figure the admins will mostly rely on peer-policing when it comes to those topics.
What about if someone is writing about their present experiences? If someone talks about how their self harm makes them feel better, helps with their anxiety, or helps them get through the day (which it does for a lot of people) is that condoning it? I'm afraid peer policing or even site managers would shut people like that down too. There is a lot of harm reduction that can come out of open discussion that might look like tips and tricks to someone else.
But to people who don't understand self-harm, that probably reads as scary or my doctor condoning it or encouraging me to do it. He wasn't. He just recognized that the behavior had usefulness, and so here's a least harmful method that may work instead. It's been useful even as my anxiety gets better, because sometimes the neuropathy is as bad as ever and I still need a distraction sensation.