![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 62 to 86 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 7:11:36
In reply to Re: Really? that is weird-mine changed tonight » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on October 27, 2009, at 6:43:40
Oh, I had no hope that he'd decide not to do this.
But I did hope he'd be respectful enough to mitigate his invitation and facilitation.
That hope is rapidly dwindling.
Posted by psych chat on October 27, 2009, at 8:32:03
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 6:05:40
> > It's up to you not to post identifying information.
>
> Unfortunately, it's only up to me in the future to choose what to post in terms of this understanding of Babble. I can't choose what to post in the past. In the past I posted with a level of vulnerability that was commensurate with my comfort with the risk involved. Now you've changed the level of risk, but I can't change the level of vulnerability in what I've already posted.
>
> I understand that you are determined to do this. But I am asking that you respect your current posters enough to apply this only to new posts, so that posters can choose what to post under these conditions. Or else to allow people to remove prior posts.
>
> I know you think you've explained your reasoning, but I certainly don't understand it. Why do you see people choosing to tweet someone else's post? Would they be tweeting it to their friends and coworkers? Will they understand the risk to that? You currently have people actively consent to be your twitter friend or facebook friend because you acknowledge that it could lead others in their lives to Babble and that there could be consequences. Are you warning them about that each time they tweet? What would be the difference that you considered informed consent necessary in one and not in the other?
>
> Who do you see tweeting these posts? Given the inherent risk involved, why would those searching for answers, as we were, tweet anyone's posts? Even their own? Presumably most of us came here for privacy and anonymity. Perhaps we do wish to protect ourselves from those who might take our innermost thoughts and feelings and tweet them to whoever will listen. You haven't shared all that much here. You haven't made yourself vulnerable. So please don't in any way presume to understand to guess how we feel. Maybe you could ask.
>
> Even in this, I notice the vulnerability is all on our side. You haven't said why you are doing this, or explained how you think it will work. Your thoughts and feelings are still private. Ours aren't.
>
> You didn't answer my question. Does this have anything to do with the proposal that is in, on using social media to build an online community? If so, oughtn't you use social media to build a *new* online community? What is the nature of this proposal? I'm sure, since this information is already on the web on your Twitter page, that you won't mind if it is brought here to babble. If this is to be a paper given, perhaps babblers would appreciate a chance to speak and let the hearers know how it feels to be on this end.
>
> I can't believe, it sickens me to think of it, that Twitter and Facebook would accept "contributions" from babble under these conditions. I would not think very kindly of anyone who was careless enough of my vulnerability to tweet or link on facebook anything I've written here, without first asking. Nor of someone who would edit my previous posts to include an icon that says tweet this post, or link this post to facebook.
>
> I can add that request to every single post I write from now on. Can I please edit every single post I've written in the past to include that information right above the twitter icons you've edited those previous posts to include? Icons, that being present on my previous posts, leave the impression that they were there when I posted them.
>
> Also, by linking to Twitter and Facebook terms of service, are you implying that you bear no responsibility for use of our posts through buttons you edited our posts to contain? I don't know whether you have legal responsibility, but in providing those buttons you have, in my opinion, made yourself morally responsible for their use.
>
> {I request that no one tweet or link any of my posts without asking me first.}
>I feel the same way.
Posted by psych chat on October 27, 2009, at 8:47:11
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2009, at 4:59:06
I don't think it would necessarily be sick, twisted, outrageous, or demeaning to share/tweet a post about suicidality or rape or abuse. People post in the first place because they're looking for support or information, and they're more likely to find it if more people see their post.
Bob
--
Well I think if a victim put a huge banner on the front of their house "I was raped" or "I want to kill myself"- they are more likely to find more support...but people don't do that Bob. And the people those sought support from should not do that either, because it would be considered out of line.
If a person was suffering and sought help from another after being raped/sexually abused, and the person they sought help from went and told a bunch of people that person was raped -it WOULD be considered socially unacceptable and sick or twisted.
I believe you are wrong. ***I think people just want social mores to apply here like they do outside of here. I believe your assertion that people are feeling anxiety because of change is nowhere even close to the truth.
I don't even think this is a matter of opinion. Just observe reality, how our culture functions.
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 9:21:04
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Dr. Bob, posted by psych chat on October 27, 2009, at 8:47:11
Thank you. I was trying to figure out how to respond to that comment from Dr. Bob, and you did it much better than I could have.
Posted by seldomseen on October 27, 2009, at 10:29:37
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2009, at 4:59:06
Dr. Bob,
Thank you for your response to our concerns.
I suppose you and I could argue all day about what constitutes increased risk of identity disclosure by deduction. I maintain that there is increased risk here. However, one could also argue, that via our posts, that the increased risk to participants has been disclosed. So in my mind, that is resolved.
I absolutely agree with you that there is a lot of wisdom on babble and would further add that it is worth sharing, which is why I did not opt out of letting *you* tweet anything you may have found of value in any of my posts.
I know that you realize that beyond babble and behind each and every post, there is a person - not just a posting name.
I just have to hope that others will realize the same.
Then again, I guess that hope has always been there. This is the internet. Every post I make becomes a part of it - searchable, linkable and exploitable by all comers.
In my opinion, ultimately all that has been shattered here is an illusion of privacy - expedited by the presence of two little buttons at the bottom of each post. It's almost funny.
I guess I'm grieving the loss of that illusion.
It's hard to know if that loss will end up changing my posting habits. Ironically, as of right now, I'm posting more, but sadly sharing less. I can't say if that will be the case in the future.
Seldom.
Posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:09:59
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Dr. Bob, posted by psych chat on October 27, 2009, at 8:47:11
Yes, ditto, psyh chat.
> Well I think if a victim put a huge banner on the front of their house "I was raped" or "I want to kill myself"- they are more likely to find more support...but people don't do that Bob. And the people those sought support from should not do that either, because it would be considered out of line.
>
> If a person was suffering and sought help from another after being raped/sexually abused, and the person they sought help from went and told a bunch of people that person was raped -it WOULD be considered socially unacceptable and sick or twisted.
>
> I believe you are wrong. ***I think people just want social mores to apply here like they do outside of here. I believe your assertion that people are feeling anxiety because of change is nowhere even close to the truth.
>
> I don't even think this is a matter of opinion. Just observe reality, how our culture functions.
Posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:34:31
In reply to Re: I still don't understand » floatingbridge, posted by Phillipa on October 26, 2009, at 20:47:12
Hi, all. I still don't feel that the heart of my (some of our?) concern is yet being addressed.
Why not place a nice big icon for sharing on the Babble Welcome page? I would not feel my promise not to be twittered was violated, because I would not feel singled out. Maybe share icons at the top of the board pages, too. (Though I do feel the psych board is unique in the on-going personal nature of some of the sharing.) After all, this is not a blog where the writers unanimously agree to share any section of their blog, and by doing so increase readership and popularity (and advertising $) by getting more 'hits'.
Case in point, our fellow babbler in distress last night. Not everyone would be interested in this situation in the same way. Everyone here has heard of rubbernecking at an accident. The way the Babble community responded was compassion in action.
Please do not compromise the trust that has been built over the years. Yes, change is uncomfortable. We all know that. Change with some consent, with sensitivity to community input and needs is ideal and makes a stronger community. This, in turn, will attract more members--members with the best intentions, like the ones we saw in swift action last night.
I feel I am only asking for a certain level of civility and respect.
fb
Posted by rskontos on October 27, 2009, at 12:34:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » rskontos, posted by Dr. Bob on October 27, 2009, at 3:51:19
Dr Bob, I would also like you to be civil. I found that you made a significant change without letting us know. If you were going to do this, you could have found a way to let only new stuff be posted but this goes all the way back to our archives posts. Posts which a huge majority of this website said no too posting on Twitter or Facebook. I feel betrayed by you, therefore the conclusion I concluded after I asked you to honor no Twittering or Facebook sharing is to find that now a simply button places any post anytime by anyone , how else can I feel about what you have done.
I have things posted here that i havent' shared with my p-doc and therapists nor family so how would I want it all shared on two public forums that is not directly involved with trying to support mental health like Babble is suppose to. I wasn't uncivil I reacted as someone who felt betrayed. And your response is to just say don't put anyone down meaning you. How about how you made me feel. Did you address it. I emailed you prior to posting but you, Dr. Bob have upset me in a way that no one has in a long while. I feelthat as a professional md who specializes in mental health your changes are not to be made lightly but you often act in a way that without knowing what is in your head or heart we are left to feel powerless. That is a dangerous emotion in most people but those that joined this site to find support, I feel you must think more carefully than the creators of Twitter or Facebook. I went looking on Twitter for your site and I came across just in the search engine people calling each other vulgar language, it is obvious there is no civility guidelines for that site and yet you(Dr. Bob), who takes your own civility guidelines quite seriously ask us to be open about our words and our own issues just being posted there without our knowledge and on sites that civility is not a concern. I can't understand this. I feel betrayed and now with your response of giving me my PBC which is only directed at your actions, I see you haven't really heard me.
So again, I don't need links to how to be civil, I need open information about why you took the actions you took. Because ultimately Dr. Bob I reacted to you and you gave me a form letter to protest my response to your actions. My post only led to you feeling put down, because I said Dr. Bob and he. I know that all the others posters here know who I am talking about, how are you going to response so I don't feel put down now for a PBC.
Are you, Dr. Bob, concerned at all about how we feel?
I guess it is just time to find another support system. Babble's time for me has run out.So can you honor my request to have all my posts to stay within the confines of Babble and not on Twitter or Facebook. I can see that I am no longer welcomed here by you, Dr Bob, or you would have answered me, not PBC'd me.
Goodbye, I will continue checking to make sure my posts stay where they need to. And check your records, I know what is civil and not, I haven't been PBC'd in three years time. So I don't need an education I need real responses from you. But I did not get them. I got patted on the head instead.
Good luck with Babble Dr Bob, I think it might be a sinking ship.
rsk
Posted by rskontos on October 27, 2009, at 12:46:44
In reply to One more option, please?, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:34:31
FB,
You are right. I find that we all signed a statement of consent when we joined but not to the current changes initiated. Dr Bob needs to get a new consent from each of us if he changes the means of this forum to interact with two other forums that aren't the same in terms of mental health versus social function. Facebook and even more so, Twitter have absolutely no civility guidelines. I found so much foul language without * going on within Twitter that I have no reason to want to join it. Dr Bob hangs onto his guidelines quite stringently and so how can he ask us to be ok with this exchange without a rejoining of Babble participants with a new consent to all of this or the option of dropping out entirely with all that person's posts dropping out with them. This is a fair question. And I don't think it is fair of Dr Bob to say is this because you have anxiety issues coming up, it implies that you are mental health issue person and your concerns are not valid. That is what I get when dr Bob posed that question. No it is not anxiety Dr Bob it is a change in our implied consent without any input. This has nothing to do with each other. It is only that Twitter and Facebook I could choose to join and place anything I ever posted on Babble there, but I don't for reasons that I feel are obvious. I felt bullied when you, Dr Bob, implied it was anxiety on my part that isn't warranted. Is this what you are implying that I am anxious only because I have health issues?Please answer that.
rsk
Posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 14:12:03
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » psych chat, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:09:59
One thing that saddens me is the extent to which people here are unconsciously showing such possibly hurtful attitudes about the 'rest of the world"-- as if we --and "they"--as human beings didn't share a lot of the same pain, and as if these "other" people were likely to be rubberneckers, voyeurs, somehow not worthy of being aware of our thoughts, or part of "our" community.
We all share even a distrust and anxiety about others-- but I hope that we all can find it in ourselves to remember that we share with these others a lot of the same human experiences, hopes, fears, and losses.
. Bob isn't suggesting that anyone's most private revelations be pasted on their housefront. Who here thinks that we are going to do that to one another? And why is it that we can't feel that this unknown "they" really are "us"--rather than people somehow unable to receive what we have to offer in the spirit in which it was given?
Nadezda
Posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 14:30:10
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 14:12:03
Oh dear, Nadezda, I am the one that brought up rubberneckers. Yes, I do not trust 'everyone' w/ the same information. I am sorry that you read into my comments that I've divided the world into 'us' and 'them'. That was not my intentions, and I can see how exegesis lead you to that. As I question myself now as I write, I find that I do not believe the world is divided as such. However, as a person w/ my own experiences, I have learned how to take care of myself in a world that can be, at times, quite insensitive.
As a person who has had to learn allot about intimacy and sharing, I have found, for myself, that somethings are best not shared with everyone the same way or with the same intensity. One aspect of babble that I like and haven't found anywhere else to date online is the amount of care and trustworthiness of the posters. I am concerned that that may become eroded by the plan as is. I don't see any reason why a discussion about modifying the plan to suit some people's comfort levels (and to honor past agreements) might be objectionable or need become contentious.
fb
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 14:12:03
FWIW, I think this will have about as much effect as a firecracker in the rain. I just don't see a lot of random people tweeting babble or old posts. Nor do I have a problem with anyone reading Babble.
My issue is with posts that I made with the understanding that they were Babble posts. Googleable yes, to be used in Dr. Bob's research yes. To be used outside of those parameters by third parties with Dr. Bob's facilitation, no. My issue is with Dr. Bob and expecting from him a certain level of respect and honor. My issue is feeling very very disappointed in someone I thought I could, to a certain extent, trust.
It may well be that no one on earth ever tweets my posts. I see no reason why anyone would have any desire to do so.
That makes no difference to what Dr. Bob has done. In fact, it may make it worse. Because eroding my trust in Babble and him for absolutely nothing is a bit insulting.
What is the big deal about limiting it to future posts. To allowing people to choose what to post if there's going to be a linking icon on the bottom of each post. If Babble remains viable, then he'll have plenty of posts to tweet. If Babble picks up in numbers because of this then he'll have even more. And he won't lose Daisy, and he won't lose rsk, and he won't lose others who may be on the cusp of leaving over having our innermost thoughts handed over so cavalierly for third parties to use.
Maybe it's different on the meds board. Perhaps there isn't the same sort of emotional engagement when talking about medications.
This has nothing to do with Twitter people or Facebook people versus Babble people. This has to do with Babble people and our relationship with Dr. Bob. Which could be different for different Babblers.
But when Bob makes this about a fear of change, I feel hurt. And when you make this about tribal feelings of one group versus another, I have to admit I feel hurt. This is about respect and integrity. And to do the administrator the honor of feeling safe enough to express ourselves here. And having him *not* tell us, oh well, this will be a good reminder of how foolish you were to feel that safe here. A nice after the fact reminder. Goodness, you shouldn't have been so silly as to give and receive help through making yourself vulnerable, because you never know when those things will be taken out of context and used elsewhere, and here, I'll just make it easy for others to do that so that you'll have this great benefit of knowing you were never safe to begin with.
Posted by rskontos on October 27, 2009, at 15:25:39
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
Posted by 10derHeart on October 27, 2009, at 16:03:44
In reply to Re: well said Dinah, and thanks (nm) » Dinah, posted by rskontos on October 27, 2009, at 15:25:39
Posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
I may not be paying enough attention, Dinah-- but I simply don't see it the way you do.
I actually don't know what Bob has done. It's not clear to me what it means that he's put these notations at the bottom of posts. Maybe he's explained it and I missed it-- and his explanation was abysmal. In which case, I'd appreciate a link to his explanation.
I don't want to put words in Bob's mouth, but maybe he's worried that Babble may cease to exist precisely because he doesn't make it accessible on and visible to people on facebook and twitter. Maybe he thinks the shape and structure of connection on the internet has changed and without making babble part of these new, dominant forms of communication, he's depriving it of new life. And maybe he believes that this is important enough to the survival and renewal of babble that he's willing to risk some of what he's created to create it in a better, more forward=looking way. Maybe he has some totally different motive-- of course.
I don't know. My sense , though, is that as much as it's about Bob, it's about a deep distrust and even devaluing of those who are not us-- it's about "us" as somehow special and different from those others on debased vehicles like twitter and facebook.
I don't think you can cabin off one from the other-- if people were empathic, and available to be touched and even affected by-- and drawn into-- our community, what Bob did wouldn't be so awful.
I agree maybe he did it without enough thought about people's feelings-- and fears-- and without taking time to introduce it in a careful way. But I happen to think that we should give Bob the benefit of the doubt. Even if it wasn't the best way-- I wonder that there isn't room to let him make some further response.
It may very well be that it should be about future posts, or that his ideas are open to revision. It bothers me greatly to see us as a group being so closed and so prone to give things the least favorable interpretations. Yes, this is a sensitive issue-- but the tone toward Bob recently has been disturbing, and while this may give everyone a sense of moral righteousness, it's not really that Bob betrayed us. That seems to me to be some sort of meme, or phantasy, that's being played out here-- without really being examined.
I'm very sorry if my way of thinking hurts you-- but it's not about you personally, or anyone here personally-- it's just that a group dynamic seems to have been set into motion, and to have a life of its own.
Nadezda
Posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 19:12:55
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
But we are persons. There is no other way to take it but personally.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20091022/msgs/922966.html
If I'm understanding this correctly, someone has already used this twice even though Daisy specifically requested that it not be done.
I do not see how this in any way promotes a supportive Babble community.
Posted by Phillipa on October 27, 2009, at 20:06:22
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 19:12:55
Speaking from the med board perspective with still so much unacceptance of medications for psych issues by neighbors and family have no interest in this topic and have actually threatedned and they do mean it as they have influential jobs that if any of my posts end up there I'm disowned. Facebook is for fun. In my experience not one post has ever been about meds it's about lighter topics and having fun. The real world not medication. Which brings up another topic for me insurance companies, Jobs, etc. certainly can use this against you. And meanwhile a suicidal poster has never been addressed to the best of my knowledge by Dr. Bob. Posting doesn't reflect it. Just read a facebook page and people are joking and having fun. And know personally that those on my page are not there to talk psych issues. Some left babble to find a fun place. And we have fun. Intelligence silly test, Mafia wars, build a farm. Anyway that's my opinion on the topic.
Posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 22:43:01
In reply to One more option, please?, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 11:34:31
but here's a link to NPR's story on Facebook:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114187478&ft=1&f=2
Posted by 10derHeart on October 28, 2009, at 1:45:01
In reply to we already know this, » floatingbridge, posted by floatingbridge on October 27, 2009, at 22:43:01
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 2:45:14
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by Dinah on October 27, 2009, at 15:09:21
There is a 1 in front of the facebook icon on the previous post.
This might be because someone clicked the icon but did not confirm.
But if someone actually linked to my post on Facebook, I have asked that no one do that. I didn't include my request in this particular post, but given the content of the post, I had hoped it was obvious.
While it is clear that it isn't uncivil under Babble policy to do so against my expressed wishes and when it clearly causes me distress, it is something I take rather seriously. I don't know why anyone on earth would wish to link my posts to anything, or tweet my posts, but I find it extremely upsetting should anyone do so against my wishes and without asking first.
{I request that no one tweet or link any of my posts without asking me first.}
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 3:07:59
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Dinah, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 2:45:14
Of course, this could also be enormous fun for anyone who wanted to torment me in a bob-approved manner. Like my baby brother did. If that's anyone's motivation now or in future, and I'm not saying it is, then I hope Dr. Bob's providing of such a plaything is heartily appreciated. To offset how I feel about it.
If people are just playing with the buttons, perhaps it would be thoughtful to experiment on the experimenter's own posts?
{I request that no one tweet or link any of my posts without asking me first.}
Posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 3:20:33
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dinah on October 28, 2009, at 3:07:59
Perhaps Babble should be left to those who don't mind this.
I know I can't tolerate living in this environment.
Yeah, yeah, I know Dr. Bob. I have to do what's best for me, and don't let the door hit me on the way out. Please don't say it. I've said it for you.
{I request that no one tweet or link any of my posts without asking me first.}
Posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:08:47
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Nadezda on October 27, 2009, at 19:02:46
There may be as many different reasons for objecting to Face/Twit links as there are people objecting to it. I would never presume to have divined a simple explanation for the responses of a large group of complicated individuals.
Do you lock your car? I do, when I remember, even though I know 99.9% of the people who walk by my car have no intention of stealing it, and even though I know that one determined skillful person can drive it off even though I have locked it. Would I leave it unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, and paste a banner on it saying "Take Me"? No. All safety is an illusion, but prudent precautions can reduce the likelihood of misfortune.
You may not understand the feelings being expressed here, but please do not reduce them to some formula that may be comforting to you, but may be perceived as disrespectful by others.
Posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:17:45
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:08:47
Posted by Nadezda on October 28, 2009, at 13:34:34
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Nadezda, posted by henrietta on October 28, 2009, at 9:08:47
I wasn't characterizing everyone's response, but rather a general sense I had of a group dynamic. Each individual comes as it differently, and there are many individuals who have quite separate concerns.
Perhaps Babble is no longer safe for certain people. I think Bob should reconsider his changes in light of the feelings people have expressed of unsafety. However, I do detect a tone in the discussion that I find unsettling.
I hope those who read my posts will interpret the motives as benevolently as possible,, since I mean no disrespect to people who are fearful and see dangers where there may not be as many as they imagine. The fears of others is very common-- and yes-- there may be one person who will steal your car. Does that justify the rampant fear and many locking-up and gating measures that people take to protect themselves? And the atmosphere of vulnerability and suspicion that it involves? That, I suppose, is a question one could debate and consider more deeply-- but there are costs to locking up everything..
Nadezda
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.