![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 105 to 129 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 9:30:50
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 4:59:05
You are tweeting all of the newbies posts automatically from this website. How do they have a chance to opt out if they don't even know you--a doctor--are doing this? Maybe they think the icons are there for THEM to be able to tweet or facebook their comment. When I first came here, I did not look at the Admin board for months. They might not either.
Also, in seeing this forum is run by a psychiatrist, people might think they you would respect for their safety and privacy, as much as possible, on a public forum. I know I initially did. I would never in a million years think a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, would be tweeting my mental health related discussions out to his 200+ followers. In most of my past experiences, my PDocs and/or therapists had the utmost concern for my safety and confidentiality and honored that. Who would ever think a psychiatrist would be doing what you are doing?
You are also tweeting the comments of those who asked not to be tweeted when you tweet others' posts - because people who asked you not to tweet them have replied in some cases. In doing this, and the above, you are discouraging others to respond and support others, making it less likely a newbie or another person will get help.
It's common to see those icons at the bottom of blogs (I don't recall ever seeing them linked to individual comments on forums-though I would guess it likely would in some forums). I had always thought they were for those who wish to tweet or facebook or whatever their own comments. I've never seen a forum administrator using those icons to redistribute others comments. But I mostly see them on blogs, not on support forum individual posts.
"...someone might tweet it, and someone else might see it, know the answer, and come here to reply. Wouldn't that be helpful to the poster
A new person who arrives here to find help from a mental health community may be in a crises and so they choose to come here to post on a forum for mental health issues. If they thought it was helpful to tweet or facebook their mental health concerns, they would already be doing this. And we have all come here because, as we said, we do not think it is helpful to tweet or facebook our intimate thoughts, distress, or mental health discussions.
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:04:15
In reply to Re: sickening » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 29, 2009, at 21:47:41
I meant practicing psychiatrist, not psychiatrist...
"I'm not sure you or I or anyone who does not know Dr. Bob intimately, or isn't his doctor, therapist, etc., can accurately make that assessment."
You are right, 10der, and I was referring to how I perceive him to be only based upon his behavior on this forum, and after knowing 2 people in my life who do not have empathy. After my experience having conversations with people who have that trait, it's quite easy for me to identify the pattern. I was shocked to see his brief comment below in response to Dinah's leaving - Dinah who has been his loyal deputy for how long?? But yes, I do not know him outside of here to be able to know if this is true about him outside of what I see here...
Maybe it would be more appropriate to say that it doesn't seem like he has any understanding of our concerns? I mean, he still hasn't addressed some of the 'big' questions - examples:
If the purpose of this community is support, and most of us have stated his recent actions are unsupportive, then why is he still doing this?
Also, he has stated over and over he wants Babble to be a civil environment. However, Dinah was basically recently bullied off this board! He did not even address this (unless I missed it somewhere). The icons have created uncivilty. Dinah was so upset that people were either clicking the icons of her comments, or linking them to facebook accounts. She was CLEARLY bullied - yet he did nothing that I could see. Maybe it would be reasonable to say this is not fact; maybe it *just happened* to be her posts where people accidentally clicked or tested those icons. I am doubting that, though. It seemed the more she got upset about this, the more people-or a person-were clicking the icons under her posts. These icons have already created an uncivil environment.
I tend to see if a person's ACTIONS match their WORDS. You can tell alot more about people by comparing these 2 factors, rather than simply forming an opinion according to words said.
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:25:01
In reply to Re: sickening » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 29, 2009, at 21:47:41
And 10der, perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts. That way, people could not be bullied, etc.
Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"? Except to track the user....
Other sites use those logons, in part, so people can select their personal security and privacy options. Those logon ids also place one's comments under a security layer that allow what the member says on the forum to not be searchable by google, etc.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
In reply to Re: sickening » 10derHeart, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:25:01
> perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts.
>
> Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"?Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Thanks for proposing an alternative!
Bob
Posted by muffled on October 30, 2009, at 14:54:18
In reply to Re: sickening » 10derHeart, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:25:01
**This is redirected from psycholgy thread:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20091022/msgs/923496.html> > Somehow the Twittering/Facebooking thing just feels more voyeuristic or something. Before at least we knew people who found us had actually found us because they were searching for people with common issues.
> >
> > TherapyGirl
>
> Anxiety is a natural response to change, and I think the reaction here is in part a sign of cohesiveness and a desire to protect this community from disruption. Like you, however, Facebook and Twitter users are real people who can benefit from support and education. Sharing and tweeting might lead them to the many thoughtful and intelligent posts here, and then they might join Babble and contribute new perspectives and energy. I think good can come of this -- for current posters, for new posters, and for this community as a whole. I'd like to ask you to try to be open to that possibility.* I think TG makes a valid point(HI!!! TG!!!)
As to the rest, reasonable people can disagree...
We can help some people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
Quality vs quantity....
etc.
Bob, bigger is NOT always better.
We had a pretty tight group who we got to know and come to trust. We knew who each other was, there was sameness.
Having hordes descend into a group is NOT useful. Its TOO much. Would you consider having group therapy groups of a hundred people??? NO, the intimacy factor would be gone. There would not be enuf time to adress and include all the people. People would invariebly feel(legitimately) left out.
So if you have hordes of people, we can never get to know them all. This forum has lost what made it so extra special. Made it a COMMUNITY. Now its going to just be a busy marketplace. You are not going to get the same type of content. You are not going to get the depth that was here.> > So I am sorry I said things perhaps wrongly.
> > Still, after all this, I don't understand Bob, I just don't. Maybe I would rather I NOT understand him :( I'd rather not know...
> >
> > Muffled
>
> Muffled, thanks. And thanks, 10der, for showing her how she might interpret things more charitably.
>
> May I ask why you might not want to understand me?*becuase I always like to see the best in people....
*becuase in some part of my mind I have an idealized image of you that I would hate to lose. I don't want to taint my good memories of Babble. Though I don't know whether you can understand what I am getting at. But thats OK I guess, its who you are. We are oil and water, we do not mix.> I'm not sure our agendas are so different. I want this to be a supportive and educational site. And I welcome new perspectives and energy. Does anybody else?
*"I want this to be a supportive and educational site "....Bob, IT WAS?!?!?!('cept for blocking issues...)
> Are all of you opposed to new "customers"? (Reasonable people can disagree.)
* I said it above- there IS such a thing as too many....
I was always happy to welcome newbies that stumbled upon babble, and perhaps lurked awhile, then came and joined in. There was a natural ebb and flow, but slow and steady growth it seemed. I wanted to help, I could have helped you, but you are too inconsistant, you(Bob) are unhelpable....
> If our agendas aren't so different and we (more or less) agree on the goals of support, education, and new perspectives and energy, then the next question is how we get there.*I agree w/support and education....but I thot there were enuf perspectives already, and plenty enuf energy.
> I seem not to have gone about this very wisely. I didn't intend to cause anxiety, hurt, frustration, or anger, and I'm sorry I have.*this is my thots on this.... http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090813/msgs/923528.html
> It's always been possible to let others know about posts here. And I don't see how it can be prevented. With the link to the "do not share/tweet list", people can at least see what your wishes are. I guess in theory the buttons could automatically check the list themselves, but I have no control over how they work.
*You have made it too easy. I feel on display. I am not comfortable here. Who the heck is gonna read thru alla the do not tweets???????
> Any ideas on how we can move forward (more or less) together?
* I can't be here. What you want, and what I want, are too different.
Sorry.
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 16:32:48
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
I can only speak for myself, but I would guess having that option/setting installed - from the registration/update registration - to have or not have Twitter/Facebook linking icons at the bottom of one's posts would keep people here and allow one post more supportively, and possibly bring back those who left.
For new users - as far as opting out rather than in - that should work as long as it is CLEARLY stated (as opposed to being covertly imbedded into some jargon) their posts could be linked to Facebook/Twitter using the icons if they choose to not opt out. You should also tell them their initial post will be tweeted out by you to welcome them. Having the opt out feature may also enable you to sort via some kind of filter to aggregate those comments you cannot include in your research (if the research material was linked to their personal Facebook accounts, thereby identifying the research subject).
Even with that change, having thought about this situation in depth, I personally would still be reluctant to post any information concerning my mental health issues and would not be able to be as supportive with others, because the level of confidentiality/privacy and security is lower here than most mental health forums.
But that change may work for most people. It could have prevented Dinah from leaving. Since you track cookies, etc., I'd think there was some way to find out who was doing that to her, who kept clicking on the icons of her posts, so they could get a PBC from you. Unless that was a coincidence, that was bullying. And MUCH worse uncivilty than others who I've seen receive PBCs.
I still think that as a psychiatrist bound by ethics, you should provide reasonable precautions to preserve safety, confidentiality, and security at your forum - allowing people to edit/delete posts and a layer of security to prevent everyone's post from showing up on Google. Actually, as a medical professional, your precautions, imo, should be above average - but at present, they are below average.
I will continue to advocate for those features for mental health forums, especially this one. It should, imo, be a requirement for all health-related forums (I'm not going to state all the reasons-but clearly, employment is a huge factor). Mental health forums should be a priority due to reasons stated by the APA, obvious reasons.
You might still have some concerns about legal action, however, being that people with a certain level of mental health instability cannot actually 'consent' to some of your actions.
Thanks for being receptive to that idea.
> > perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts.
> >
> > Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"?
>
> Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Thanks for proposing an alternative!
>
> Bob
Posted by floatingbridge on October 30, 2009, at 19:08:46
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
Yes, this seems like an excellent solution. I really hope this option is put into place. I would be satisfied.
fb
>
> Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Thanks for proposing an alternative!
>
> Bob
Posted by cactus on October 30, 2009, at 19:27:29
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
This would be acceptable for me, as long as people who respond or click on the twittered posts can't see us and our replies at all, while accessing a post from twitter or facebook, if they join pbabble then fine. This is for people who have opted out, but I think it should be for everyone here.
1. Don't show our follow up posts on twittered/facebook links which then send our posts off this site.
2 Don't make us appear on the related thread once it's clicked on. Can you make us invisible to these threads or even stop the thread showing up ? I personally don't like aspect at all.
If so I would be happy with this.
Can you do this Dr. Bob?
Cactus
Posted by Toph on October 30, 2009, at 19:50:28
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Dr. Bob on October 29, 2009, at 12:13:56
For what it's worth, here is what an administrator of another mental health forum said about changes like those made recently here:
We wouldn't use your posts or community contributions here as a means of advertising or marketing the community through twitter or facebook. A website that encourages the use of such individual postings in this manner shows little respect for people or their personal life stories, in my opinion.
DocJohn
Posted by Phillipa on October 30, 2009, at 20:10:03
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Toph on October 30, 2009, at 19:50:28
That's psych central isn't it? Supposed to have a huge following from what others have read and the moderator seems to interact. I like that. Phillipa
Posted by BayLeaf on October 30, 2009, at 20:38:32
In reply to Yes! » Dr. Bob, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 16:32:48
This is imo like the roses offered after the black eye.
How many times have we seen this this behavior tolerated? Then he caves a bit, and those involved get all excited, egos inflated briefly, (he's good at that)....then the next time happens.
It's an old pattern. Seriously. It's the cycle of abuse at an MD/PhD level.
It took a threat to his livihood before he backed down at all. It wasn't empathy, or a moment of clarity.
bay
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 21:27:14
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Toph on October 30, 2009, at 19:50:28
I can relate to what DocJohn said. My concern extends way beyond this forum. Dr. Bob consults to many organizations and professionals, and teaches others about mental health and the internet. He writes papers to journals of online mental health, and helps create ethics governing the practices of online health care, and may even be advising policymakers.
While he is helping us through his research and career endeavors by providing us with this forum, the lack of safety/security and lack of respect for the privacy needs of people with mental health issues greatly concerns me considering his involvement and influence in this field.
It seems contradictory. I think someone with prominence in the sector of the field he is in should have the utmost concern for patients of the mental health community. This aspect seems omitted while he carries out his career endeavors.
Thanks for the example of another mental health professional's opinion. Maybe we should twitter ethics questions to Dr. Bob's twitter followers to hear responses from others in the mental health field?
Tweet: Is it ethical for a psychiatrist to take personal comments written by mental health patients from the forum he administers and tweet them? Without the writer knowing? With consent? Without consent?
Posted by 10derHeart on October 30, 2009, at 21:51:26
In reply to ethics » Toph, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 21:27:14
> Thanks for the example of another mental health professional's opinion. Maybe we should twitter ethics questions to Dr. Bob's twitter followers to hear responses from others in the mental health field?
>
> Tweet: Is it ethical for a psychiatrist to take personal comments written by mental health patients from the forum he administers and tweet them? Without the writer knowing? With consent? Without consent?How would you get followers of Dr. Bob's Twitter account to read that Tweet? Do you have your own account (of course you don't have to answer that!) and a way to get his followers to read it? Or know some other way to get a Tweet in front of your target audience?
I suppose....you could if you asked Dr. Bob to Tweet your post....but perhaps that would be counterproductive and feel hypocritical? And I don't know if he would agree anyway, of course.
In case this is coming out weird, (not an uncommon occurrence when I write things) I am not being sarcastic or anything. I am genuinely trying to think through the logistics of what you just said about asking his followers something. It would be interesting to see if any of Dr. Bob's followers who are MH professional might Tweet a response to such ethics questions. I somehow doubt it, but I have been known to be wrong. Often, actually.
Posted by floatingbridge on October 30, 2009, at 22:30:00
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options, posted by Toph on October 30, 2009, at 19:50:28
Toph, thanks for this info. I, like Phillipa would like to know if this is psych central. Never been there. Maybe I'll check it out.
fb
> For what it's worth, here is what an administrator of another mental health forum said about changes like those made recently here:
>
> We wouldn't use your posts or community contributions here as a means of advertising or marketing the community through twitter or facebook. A website that encourages the use of such individual postings in this manner shows little respect for people or their personal life stories, in my opinion.
>
> DocJohn
Posted by 10derHeart on October 30, 2009, at 23:14:33
In reply to Re: tweet / facebook options » Toph, posted by floatingbridge on October 30, 2009, at 22:30:00
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 23:49:58
In reply to Re: ethics » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 30, 2009, at 21:51:26
I was only half serious 10der. lol. But to answer your question seriously, I would change my user name, go to the newbie forum-where each newbie post is tweeted - and send the question out. That's how it would appear on Dr. Bob's page.
It wouldn't be hypocritical, as I've been saying all along, it's one thing if an individual wants to tweet their comments to Dr. Bob's followers - and another to have a doctor or another individual take your post and redistribute it - especially without your knowledge.
No, I don't have a twitter account, and I couldn't assure Dr. Bob's followers would read it either way. And it would be a very biased sample, as the questions would only be answered by those who use twitter regularly. It is a silly idea.
I'm not sure if I answered your questions. I have been writing here on Admin a lot because since those icons appeared and things started being tweeted, I stopped posting personal things about myself shortly after getting in a couple of medication questions; so, instead of posting comments that are personal, I starting using this board all the time. lol
It turns out it led me to think in terms of mental health ethics for a population rather than my own problems.
Posted by seldomseen on October 31, 2009, at 6:38:34
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
I think that would be a great alternative to have an "opt out" as part of our registration.
Would this opt out be applied to our older posts, or just the ones subsequent to the opt out?
Seldom.
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 10:13:53
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
Let me make sure I understand this.
Poster Y doesn't mind the social network thing and doesn't plan to opt out.
Poster N does mind and wishes to opt out. Poster N registers to indicate this.
When Poster N goes to Poster N's own posts, I'm assuming Poster N will not see icons. When Poster N goes to Poster Y's posts, will Poster N find functional icons?
When Poster Y goes to Poster Y's own posts, I'm assuming Poster Y will see the icons and be able to click on them. When Poster Y goes to Poster N's posts, will Poster Y find functional icons at the bottom of Poster N's posts?
Poster L isn't registered but reads the board. Will Poster L find functioning icons at the bottom of Poster N's posts?
In other words, is this option one that applies to the reader of the posts or the poster of the posts?
If it applies to the poster of the posts, it may be an adequate solution for me, although of course, any other post on the thread, including ones that quote the opting out poster, could be linked.
Or at least it would have been if you'd have responded when people first asked you for a compromise, or asked what we thought before you put in the icons.
At this point, I'm not sure. I'm feeling some pretty negative feelings about those who have been... well those who remind me of my middle school peers - using that term very loosely. I feel a bit Babble averse at the moment.
Plus... Dr. Bob, my first thought on seeing this, before even I thought it through was "Until next time...."
This happens over and over and over again. And worse, it *just* happened and over the same topic. It is hard for me to accept that you would do this again about this topic when the whole opt out compromise was so recently reached. That is part of what made this so shocking and disappointing for me. I can only imagine what those who had opted out felt about it. You basically made that list useless when doing this, which indicated to me a lot about how you felt about posters.
I know it's your board, and that you have ideas about what you want for it. But if it was *just* your board, all you would have would be a lot of server space and bandwidth. The board is yours by virtue of ownership. But the board is the posters' by virtue of their own contributions, their own investment. Like a partnership where one person contributes capital and service, and others contribute no financial capital but do contribute their time and their services and their talents.
I always say this is your board and I mean it. It's your board and you're the one who is associated with it, and it reflects your values. But I always meant that with regard to what content you will or will not allow. I didn't really mean it was yours with regard to the contributions of others. To me, there ought to be some consideration for the contributions of your not so silent "partners" in the creation and maintenance of Babble.
Right now there's this whole distressing dynamic going on. You have an idea. You see Babble as yours, and see no reason to consult with Babblers. You present the idea as a done deal. Babblers get upset and leave in droves. Babblers feel hurt and betrayed and angry. You may well feel resentful, because they are being obstructive to your purposes. Even after a compromise is reached, hurt lingers on each side. Like in a bad marriage. Or at least that's how it seems to me. I could be wrong.
Until this dynamic changes, this would just be yet another time this scenario plays out.
This shouldn't be a power struggle. I wish that I could wave a magic wand and have you and Babblers work together to reach everyone's goals. When you get excited about a new idea, or make a decision about what to do next, you could come to Admin and say "I'd like to try something out, and here's the goal I'd like to achieve. Here's my thoughts on how to achieve it. Do you guys have any ideas?" Babblers would respond in such a way that made clear their objections to what you have planned perhaps, but also try to brainstorm on other ways to meet your goal. A compromise would be made at *that* point.
For example if you'd have said "When I started Babble, it was at the forefront of internet exploration. I'd like to see Babble keep exploring new ways of reaching people who are in need of support and education on mental health topics. My idea is to put social networking icons at the bottom of each post, so that Babble could help others in the same way it helped you." After the first shock, Babblers could answer with your goals and hopes in mind and offer compromises that would allow this to be a win win, instead of the lose lose it appears to be at this point.
And of course you would recognize that while posters may indeed be afraid of, or reluctant to, change, not all their objections can be written off to this. Babblers have an investment in their community and in their own private thoughts expressed on this board. They in many cases may have a better idea how things will work, or not work, on board. And frankly, whether the anxieties of others are or are not accurate, I don't think they ought to be so cavalierly dismissed with a standard phrase. You could instead make the choice to explain further how you see this working, other cases where this has worked, etc.
I'm weary of the whole cycle. While I think this is a reasonable compromise (as long as it doesn't just apply to whether or not you *see* the icons), as long as your attitude towards Babblers remains the same, this will be just one in a long stream of these experiences.
You're a psychiatrist. Perhaps you have received some training in marriage therapy. What would you suggest to a couple who came in with this kind of relationship?
God knows, and I think you know too, how much I'd like to be able to accept this and return. But I fear it would just be until next time.
Everyone knows how I feel about linking and tweeting my posts contrary to my wishes. I suppose people will respond to that in keeping with their own character.
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 10:51:06
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
> > perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts.
> >
> > Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"?
>
> Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Thanks for proposing an alternative!
>
> Bob~ ~ YESSS Sounds very good.
So just to verify - would this mean that the 'default' would be 'no Facebook' & people would have to request somehow that the buttons be at the bottom of their posts?
Rather than wait for a reply & I haven't even read the rest of this thread Dr. Bob - but I am asking puleeeez would you change this as soon as is humanly possible?
I would feel SO much better.
So would this mean that the only posts with the buttons would be ones where people had requsted it? And would the buttons be removed from all other people's posts including Archives?
Anxiously awaiting your reply.
:-) Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:02:01
In reply to this is from thread over on psychology-Bob, posted by muffled on October 30, 2009, at 14:54:18
> **This is redirected from psycholgy thread:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20091022/msgs/923496.html
>
> > > Somehow the Twittering/Facebooking thing just feels more voyeuristic or something. Before at least we knew people who found us had actually found us because they were searching for people with common issues.
> > >
> > > TherapyGirl> * I think TG makes a valid point(HI!!! TG!!!)
> Quality vs quantity....
> etc.
> Bob, bigger is NOT always better.
> We had a pretty tight group who we got to know and come to trust. We knew who each other was, there was sameness.
> Having hordes descend into a group is NOT useful. Its TOO much. Would you consider having group therapy groups of a hundred people??? NO, the intimacy factor would be gone. There would not be enuf time to adress and include all the people. People would invariebly feel(legitimately) left out.
> So if you have hordes of people, we can never get to know them all. This forum has lost what made it so extra special. Made it a COMMUNITY. Now its going to just be a busy marketplace. You are not going to get the same type of content. You are not going to get the depth that was here.
> > > Muffled~ ~ I agree with all the above.
> And I welcome new perspectives and energy. Does anybody else?
~ ~ I do, and I also agree with the above in this. That people specifically looking for a site like this from a need rather than from curiosity after reading a Facebooked or Tweeted post - Those people are the new people who I'd be glad to see arrive here.
> > Are all of you opposed to new "customers"? (Reasonable people can disagree.)
~ ~ Nope - as per above. I think that a large influx of new members over a short period of time isn't ideal. Who knows if that's what would result from Facebooking/Twittering.
> I was always happy to welcome newbies that stumbled upon babble, and perhaps lurked awhile, then came and joined in. There was a natural ebb and flow, but slow and steady growth it seemed.
~ ~ Ditto
> *You have made it too easy. I feel on display. I am not comfortable here.~ ~ That's sort of how I've been feeling also.
Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:06:31
In reply to Re: another setting » Dr. Bob, posted by cactus on October 30, 2009, at 19:27:29
> This would be acceptable for me, as long as people who respond or click on the twittered posts can't see us and our replies at all, while accessing a post from twitter or facebook, if they join pbabble then fine. This is for people who have opted out, but I think it should be for everyone here.
>
> 1. Don't show our follow up posts on twittered/facebook links which then send our posts off this site.
>
> 2 Don't make us appear on the related thread once it's clicked on. Can you make us invisible to these threads or even stop the thread showing up ? I personally don't like aspect at all.
>
> If so I would be happy with this.
>
> Can you do this Dr. Bob?
>
> Cactus~ ~ I agree & to me, this is an extremely important aspect.
If people join they can see all.
If NOT - they can't - pretty simple & straightforward.Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:08:31
In reply to Re: Yes! » psych chat, posted by BayLeaf on October 30, 2009, at 20:38:32
> This is imo like the roses offered after the black eye.
>
> How many times have we seen this this behavior tolerated? Then he caves a bit, and those involved get all excited, egos inflated briefly, (he's good at that)....then the next time happens.
>
> It's an old pattern. Seriously. It's the cycle of abuse at an MD/PhD level.
>
> It took a threat to his livihood before he backed down at all. It wasn't empathy, or a moment of clarity.
>
> bay~ ~ But whatever it was or wasn't BayLeaf, I feel really relieved to think that this awful situation regarding our privacy looks like it's going to be changed.
:-) Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:09:50
In reply to ethics » Toph, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 21:27:14
~ ~ Good points below, I think. K
> I can relate to what DocJohn said. My concern extends way beyond this forum. Dr. Bob consults to many organizations and professionals, and teaches others about mental health and the internet. He writes papers to journals of online mental health, and helps create ethics governing the practices of online health care, and may even be advising policymakers.
>
> While he is helping us through his research and career endeavors by providing us with this forum, the lack of safety/security and lack of respect for the privacy needs of people with mental health issues greatly concerns me considering his involvement and influence in this field.
>
> It seems contradictory. I think someone with prominence in the sector of the field he is in should have the utmost concern for patients of the mental health community. This aspect seems omitted while he carries out his career endeavors.
>
> Thanks for the example of another mental health professional's opinion. Maybe we should twitter ethics questions to Dr. Bob's twitter followers to hear responses from others in the mental health field?
>
> Tweet: Is it ethical for a psychiatrist to take personal comments written by mental health patients from the forum he administers and tweet them? Without the writer knowing? With consent? Without consent?
>
>
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:12:47
In reply to Re: another setting » Dr. Bob, posted by seldomseen on October 31, 2009, at 6:38:34
> I think that would be a great alternative to have an "opt out" as part of our registration.
>
> Would this opt out be applied to our older posts, or just the ones subsequent to the opt out?
>
> Seldom.~ ~ What I like is that Opt Out would be the default setting & one would have to Opt In in order to have the buttons at the bottom of their posts.
Kath
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 11:24:07
In reply to I agree with Cactus - ) Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:06:31
IMHO, you said it well.
Thank you.
Its sort of awful to be standing back and seeing people respond as I once did.
Ever hopeful....
Your right, this is all just a repeat, yet again, of events in the past.
This is a PATTERN that has repeated itself, not only once or twice, but MANY times.
I am not talking about buttons. As Dinah said, I am more concerned with the well described behaviour of Bob.
I can't live w/it. I am certainly not willing to risk any more self disclosure with one who seems to have very little understanding of what we are saying re: privacy. YES the 'net is a crazy open place, but why make it worse?
I had never thot of the google thing B4...a board w/o that would be nice.
Anyhow I may respond to that on social.
I have to step back from this.
I still read babble, cuz at one time it meant so much to me.
But I know I can never post anything personal here.
I hope everyone is OK, and will take what Dinah has said into careful consideration....before you invest too much of yourself here.
I have nothing personally against Bob as a person, but I am afraid I am not at all happy w/him as a site administrator.
I was going to say g'head and tweet this post.....but then I thot.....:-( :-( then that gets my name potentially all over, and the neverending past archives hanging ovewr me :-( I do not regret my Babble friends, but I regret Babble :-(
I am going to try and be much more careful in future. Nothing is 100% safe, but there's goto be better than this over advertised place.
Take care,
Ones
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.