@dwenius @cmuratori And, if this argument were true (that exposing ppl to more negative posts risks increasing suicide), then aren't people
-
-
Replying to @nothings
@dwenius@cmuratori who are POSTING negative things going to cause this sort of thing even more often? Are they culpable too?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@nothings@dwenius It's equivalent to researchers can inject people with poison as long as they inject and equivalent number with medicine.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@nothings@dwenius Research is not about ensuring "zero sum". It is about doing no harm _to individuals_, not in aggregate.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@dwenius That's not true at all, you can test a drug that might harm someone. That's why the focus is on informed consent.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@cmuratori@dwenius Like I said, this thing's terrible (I posted negatively about it before you). But the angle you're taking is ineffective1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@dwenius The need for informed consent applies whether anyone is at risk of suicide or not. Arguments re: suicide a distraction.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@nothings@dwenius You cannot simply say "well we think it was wrong to do." The judge is going to be like, "uh, what?"0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.