 |
Problems of ASH and Ashers
Ash and ashers have many problems. This essay tries to explain the nature of these problems and possible approaches for solving them.
There are various forums which are related to ash. The most problematic is the alt.suicide.holiday Usenet newsgroup. First there are problems with trolls, and cross-posts which are not really related to the specific content in ash, but disrupt other unmoderated newsgroups as well. Although such posts make the newsgroup more difficult to read, they could be easily ignored.
The more problematic posts are from pro-life posters who attack ash or target specific ashers. Although it is possible to kill-file the posters, it is more difficult to kill-file replies to such posts. Kill-file is an option some newsreaders have to block posts with certain characteristics. The most common way this is used is to block posts made by a specific author. The problem is that replies are made by ashers who argue with the original posters, and these replies can not be kill-filed according to author.
One easy solution is that ashers agree that all replies to such posts contain the word "TROLL" in the subject header. This would indicate that the post is about a post from a person who does not agree with the values of ash, and is trying to be disruptive. This way readers can decide to kill-file according to the contents of the subject line, eliminating all posts with the word "TROLL" in the subject line.
The problems in this solution is that not all people know how to kill-file. In fact, not every newsreader is capable of kill-file-ing. It may be the case that a newsreader is able to kill-file only according to the author, but not according to a specific word in the subject line. Another problem is that ashers have to be careful to answer such posts only after adding the word "TROLL" to the subject line. This norm is used to some extent, but not as often as it should. If it were used consistently it might solve the problem to some degree.
This still does not solve the problem for people who have newsreaders which are unable to kill-file.
Another option is that once a "troll" is identified, ashers stop replying to his posts. Some people are interested that this solution be adopted. The problem is that there are always people who are not able to resist answering attacks. Again, if ashers were able to establish a norm of not answering to trolls then this solution might work.
In order to make one of these norms work, ash, as a community, has to decide which one to adopt and then pursue its implementation by talking to people who break the norm, and asking them to stop. Perhaps if this would go on for enough time, and by enough ashers, then the norm would be accepted.
A different solution which is already implemented, is to use other forums which offer greater control. Mailing lists and irc channels allow a moderator to ban people from the group. The signal to noise ratio in such groups is much better than the ash newsgroup.
Still, there are some people who wish to remedy the situation for the ash newsgroup, or at least have a similar forum on Usenet. One possibility is to retro-moderate ash, by canceling posts which have been posted by other people. However, this might cause a cancel war on ash, which would also cause genuine posts on ash to be canceled. In addition, it is an opening for heated debate since somebody has to decide which posts to cancel, and ashers might not be in agreement on this. In addition, some ashers claim that the trolls stir conversation on the group and make arguments which require us to rethink our positions and reach deeper insights about what ash is about. According to this view, the trolls are a more integral part of ash than we are willing to admit, and therefore their posts should not be canceled.
Another option is to create a new moderated Usenet newsgroup. It is possible, but it requires organization.
Yet another option is that we create a web service which allows users to read a filtered version of ash. This filter may be partially automatic and partially determined by the user. The user can determine whether he wants to see troll posts or not. Ashers will go over the posts, determine which ones are trolls, and tag them. The user can choose to skip over all tagged posts. This solution also requires some organization, and writing some software to implement the web service.
2) Problems of the ASH Subculture
Similar to individuals, a group also has an identity. The identity of ash are those things which make ash what it is. Who we are, our values, what we want as a group are all parts of ash's group identity.
In turn we define ourselves by the groups we belong to. Our own identity is influenced by the identity of the groups with which we associate.
When I was younger I could not understand why suicide was not legitimate. However, I had nobody to talk to. I thought that if everybody believes that suicide is not an option then there must be something flawed in my reasoning. This experience was very alienating.
In some sense, finding ash was like finding myself. It allowed me to reflect more openly about my beliefs. The identity of the group has a part in shaping the identity of its members. However, at the time I joined ash, the identity was not very clear.
Since then ash web sites and FAQs have been written. They provide some descriptions of our group identity. However, our group identity is muddled because ash is unmoderated, so anyone can post to it, even those who oppose the values of ash.
There is still much to do in order to solidify our identity. Society views us as mentally ill, deranged, selfish, stupid and cowardly. We should oppose this stigma and present the situation from our point of view, not presenting suicide as desirable in general, but simply as a valid option. We would like to show ash in a better light not so much for the purpose of changing the views of society, but for changing our attitude towards ourselves.
One identity-related task is trying to define ash better. What exactly is ash? What is the group we call ashers? What sets us apart from other groups, in real life (CoE, euthanasia movements) and in cyberspace (alt.support.depression)? This has largely been answered by the Introduction FAQ.
Another task is to further defend and explain our views. The "Debate" FAQ is a step in that direction. It tries to show that our views cannot be easily dismissed. Although it was originally written for the main purpose of reducing the amount of posts which attack ash, it is more successful in its role of establishing a more positive group identity. It shows that we are not stupid, irrational or immoral for holding our views.
We could take this a step further. It is possible to say a little more than "we have answers to claims that we are wrong", we can write documents with a much stronger message explaining why we are right. A document positively promoting the right to choose.
2.1.3) What we want and its impact
This would conclude presenting our case from the philosophical-moral aspect. But can our views be translated to reality? If not then our desires for choice could be dismissed simply on the grounds of being impractical.
For this purpose our views should be translated to suggestions for laws, guidelines for organizations which could help in self termination, etc. This should be done in a way which would demonstrate that it is reasonably possible to prevent abuse of the right to die.
Arguably, it is not enough to show that abuse can be prevented at the level of the individual. If an entire society abuses (or more precisely over-uses) the right to die then the very fabric of society can be damaged in ways which have not been taken into account in any previous analysis suggested here.
The implementation of the laws suggested previously can lead to a decline in the perceived value of human life. This can cause an increase in violent crime, careless behavior such as increased participation in dangerous hobbies, negligence of life-saving organizations such as hospitals and fire-fighters, etc. Taken to the extreme it can be claimed that since almost anybody feels suicidal at one time in their lives, overuse would cause a rapid decline in the population which would lead to chaos.
Perhaps it is not enough to suggest laws which will benefit individuals in the short term. The long term impact of such laws on society should be assessed and analyzed.
We also have a problem to present our views to outsiders. One group of non-ashers who occasionally post to the group are people who have a friend or relative who have committed suicide. Sometimes they post not as saviors, but as people in grief. They try to explain the consequences of suicide for those who are left behind.
These people should be treated with great care. We should be thankful to them for sharing their thoughts with us and help us to consider if suicide should really be a choice we should take (although we do not consider the pain of others as an overriding factor, it is something which is important to many of us, and we can take it into account if we so desire).
It is my belief that we can help such people to ease their grief by explaining our unique point of view to them. Usually those who commit suicide do not wish to cause pain to their relatives, and indeed the grief caused by a suicide is a one of the stronger arguments against suicide. It is thus our duty IMHO, to do what we can to ease the pain, especially in cases where people contact us and thus might be more receptive to our ideas. We can help to dissolve the stigma of suicide, and present it as a positive choice. This in turn might help relieve anger and guilt.
Ash has a general problem of shortage of reliable information, on any topic which is unique to ash. Although information which is relevant for ashers is available in the scientific literature, it is difficult to access. First, such articles and not intended to be read by laymen. To make the information useful to ashers, the results must be rephrased to make it accessible to a wide audience. In addition, the information is difficult to find, and it is not organized in a way which is meaningful to ashers. This requires research to find relevant articles and collect results of different articles together in order to compose something which is readable and meaningful. This requires a lot of work and dedication.
Another, simpler issue of information is saving backups, not only of our information, but of other important web pages as well, since these may deleted at any moment.
There is an ethical problem of publicizing methods on the web which are accessible to children. This can be solved by rating the pages.
A primary objective of ours should be the removal of any and all inhibitions to freely express ourselves. We wish to transform the climate from one of fear and distrust to one of a relaxed openness.
There are two sources of danger. First, for people who are suicidal and post about it on the group, if they spell out their plans too clearly, it is likely that somebody may intervene by notifying the police. Second, even if you have no intentions of committing suicide, the existence of news archivers means that anyone can see everything you have ever posted - it can be a friend, your parents or even your boss. Google allows users to exclude their posts from archiving by adding a header to the post, however, not all newsgroup archivers recognize this header.
A different risk involves people who we usually consider as "insiders". An incident happened on an irc channel associated with ash. One person was trying to lure women to let him help them commit suicide. There is a difference between group suicide, and a man helping a women commit suicide. The question in the latter case is what is the interest of the man? The man might be a sick individual. Such problems are likely to occur only if ashers meet in real life.
One way to encourage openness is by use of anonymity. There is a lot of information on the web about anonymity, but one has to do quite a lot of research in order to choose which method is the best and then to set things up. On top of this technical solutions for anonymity change rapidly: some services cease to exist and new ones start and software are updated. And all this should support multiple computer platforms and email clients.
Obvious practical issues concerning ash are: What does it mean to live with the desire to commit suicide? How does one decide whether or not to commit suicide? How does one go about exiting if one so desires?
There are many problems. If an individual or a small group decides to solve a problem then it might be solved. However, there are problems whose nature is such that they cannot be solved by a small group. Furthermore, there is no coordination between people working on related projects and this may cause duplicate efforts.
Consider that ashers are good at discussions, but they have little experience in collaborating or making decisions in a group. This stands in the way of wider cooperation which could potentially be employed to many of our problems in a more systematic fashion.
In this article we presented just some of the problems facing ash and ashers, and some of things which can be done about them. However, very little is being done to address these problems. There are several reasons for this. Most ashers are not really aware of what are the problems and what can be done about them. Also, the lack of any organization makes it difficult to write or solve problems since ashers are good at discussion, but not at problem solving or action. Awareness of our problems, and awareness that we are ill-equipped to solve them, are the first step we need to make in order to proceed.
