Should internet service providers delete websites that encourage suicide or recruit people who want to commit mass suicide?

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

What kind of question is this!

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

An important question that has been asked a lot in Japan recently since the Zama serial killings. Please try posting an answer and give your reasons.

The way the question is posed, it's hard not to say "yes".

But how about this - "should SNS providers be responsible to monitor and delete accounts of users that write about wishing to commit suicide?"

I think this question is a lot more challenging.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The problem with making sites like this illegal is that any definition that encompasses the type of site in question, may very well also cover some other site not related. And who determines whether a site should be deleted according to the law - ISPs? Or will each site to be taken down require a court case? There needs to be some process wherein the owners of the site to be taken down have some sort of method of challenging it.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

No, the decision has to be defined in legislation and subsequent action taken through a communications ombudsman.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I would just let you know, that I would really like to hear some degenerate to try to justify "no" in this by saying:"Internet censoring is a violation of our democratic rights!". Such profound stupidity is the reason democracy keeps on working worse and worse.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

"should SNS providers be responsible to monitor and delete accounts of users that write about wishing to commit suicide?


-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Of course yes. Some things are just wrong. There is a right and wrong in life.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Think about the this proposal practically, realistically, and review Facebook efforts to remove content that promotes terrorism , radical militant groups using the social network for propaganda and recruiting. A totally failure.

Internet service providers even less capable of enforcement, lacking the resources  and expertise to provide public confidence to fully comply.  

There needs to be a detailed statutory legal framework, backed up by an intelligence unit, channelled through an ombudsman to instruct the ISP to remove content to ensure the process of site removal is acted upon without delay. Transparency is crucial.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

My initial reaction to the question was "Yes" however I have to agree with fxgai and Strangerland if you change the phrasing of the question it becomes less certain, and then the ISP become de facto censors, perhaps in this case some might wish them to be so, but where does it stop? Ultimately we all need to be wary of increasing the range of censorship. Knee jerk banning things is not perhaps the best way of dealing with the underlying root causes of the problem. Deal with the disease not just palliate the symptoms.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If adults want to commit suicide, truly sad as it is, then who are we to forbid it? Obviously we should attempt to intervene, but trying to force a private company to censor is not the right way. If you want to prevent the suicides, what better way to intervene than at the place where they congregate?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

itsonlyrocknrollNov. 20  11:41 pm JST Think about the this proposal practically, realistically, and review Facebook efforts to remove content that promotes terrorism , 

FB makes little to no effort to monitor content and none whatsoever to monitor advertising. Just as with e-mail spam, "advertisers" will change something ever so slightly to get a nearly duplicate ad through FB's porous filters. I think the only thing FB may be consistent about is blocking nudity.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hi Jeff Huffman, indeed both Facebook and Alphabet inc, have indicated little willingness  to accept social responsibility to cooperate and support a comprehensive methodology to action an effect system of detection and removal of online radicalisation. 

The callous exploitation of suicidal manic depressives, or the prevention of radical online Jihadism are just two examples. There are many more including the use of cutting edge data analytics in political campaigning.  

I am of the opinion there is a disconnect in society, a willingnees to tolerate online material blatantly promoting anincitement to violence and the glorification of terrorism, all in the name of preserving /guaranteeing individual rights to freedom of speech and expression. I believe there has to be 'conditions' , restrictions on these so called 'rights'.

However in the context of the original question posed, this cannot be at the confused and sometime incompetent actions of internet service providers

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With the way the question is worded, yes. Now, pages that talk about suicide and explain what it is, etc. NO. In fact, there should be more dissemination about it and ways in which people can help each other, and find support in general, including talking to those who have attempted it (and changed).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

and what can J authorities do if these sites are hosted in Chinese , Russian, European servers etc

you chop the head off one site, another will just grow back someplace else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. Censorship.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Then you keep chopping those ugly heads off. That is what this always was about. Seemingly endless struggle against those impure and wretched. You either stand up to it, or shout "FREEDOM" and let them engulf the internet.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites