Tantacrul here. Can verify myself by making a public comment on my video or something similar.
So, to start, the 'assessment' by the OP of this thread is laughable. It states that my video is bullshit even though the following statements are demonstrably true:
- The site contains statements of encouragement for anon users to kill themselves on a daily basis (breaking the supposed main rule of the site)
- The site contains multiple threads where people ask to be DM'd the email addresses of sellers from whom they can buy poisons to kill themselves on a daily basis. They are then given this information (I experienced this personally and I purchased a method myself by following this exact procedure. It was simple.)
- The site has instruction threads which were (until my vid came out) publicly available to anyone. They'll be made publicly available again when the hear dies down. This is also what they did when the NYT article came out.
- The site has an instruction thread for buying SN which leads to Exit International, which requires a subscription to join. This is undeniably true
- The site has a partners section which has been used by predators to target vulnerable young people (leading to a prosecution of one user in Glasgow, which I discuss in the video). The site has not removed the partners section in response. They think it's fine that it remains as is.
- The site verifiably coached a 17 year old to kill himself. This kid was not the first minor the site has helped to die.
- As mentioned by others in this thread, the main mascot of the site, who posts morbid nonsense about how everyone should die because life is a cruel mistake - is actively protected by the admin despite constant complaints from other users on the forum who rightly see these posts as toxic and dangerous, given the highly vulnerable nature of many of those on SS.
- The site is a 'free speech' site.... unless someone dares to challenge it too effectively. If you do that, you get banned.
Take those points together and you have the substance of my video. Pretty difficult to see how this can be picked apart, since most of the points are simple statements of fact.
Another few points in response to the OP's conclusions:
- I do not make a judgement about section 230 or whether or not free speech should be curtailed in my video. I simply point out that the debate exists. I have very nuanced feelings about this topic... but in general I am very uneasy with the idea of applying rules that limit free speech. I just felt that my own opinions were not massively relevant. I expected people to make up their own minds. The OP states that my aim is to kill section 230, which is a moronic reading.
- I do not at any point make a judgement about personal autonomy when it comes to ending one's life. Specifically, I do not make a judgement call about whether someone has the right to take matters into their own hands or not. This is actually not really a point I needed to discuss in the video (again, I have very nuanced views here). My video is about how SS encourages, misinforms, coaches minors, enables psychopaths and discourages seeking mental health treatment.
- There have been many statements to the effect: 'why are we talking about taking down the site, when the REAL problem is the wider world that drives people to feel suicidal in the first place?'. This is an irrelevant criticism. I am not discussing the causes of suicidal ideation. I'm discussing how badly SS misinforms people who are experiencing suicidal ideation. I do not need to discuss why suicidal people feel suicidal in order to make the case that SS is doing an incredibly bad job at providing support for them. This is not rocket science, guys.
To state that I am attacking any kind of personal freedom is nonsense. I am simply against SS because it is run by idiots who cause enormous harm to vulnerable people.