Diseased Sanctioned Suicide - "Kill yourself" but unironically with sodium nitrite. Higher death count than the Farms. Targeted by parents, legislators, and journalists looking to alter Section 230.

AnOminous said:
Why do you want to make someone who is already suffering enough to want to kill themselves suffer any more?

I don't like the sodium nitrite method.

Still, if you've ever felt the desire to end your existence, you'd understand why you'd want to know every way you could do it. After you realize how easy it is to do it, if you don't do it, you realize you actually lack the constitution for suicide.

Sites like this will attract assholes. They know that. That's why they ban the assholes who actually encourage and cajole people to commit suicide, as the idiot critics of the site have posted screenshots of people encouraging suicide and then getting immediately banned, as if that proves their case instead of proving the opposite.

Killing yourself is really easy, unless you're paralyzed or some shit. It's just opening the door in your head that is the hard part. You are hardwired not to want to do that.

No website is going to make you do it, and if you are even on such a website, you sought it out.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not going to powerlevel about it but I do think I have an understanding. I think its kind of obvious that the level of perceived pain associated with a method would make that method more or less attractive/able to find the constitution to utilize. Ultimately, it wouldn't really matter if the method actually was painful at all. Merely that the person thought it might be more painful than what they are already experiencing. If the calculus they do in their head regarding it is "yep, still want to do it" well shit my dude. Go ahead I guess.
 
Last edited:
iffywas said:
If you've seen any thread containing drama around FC, you know full well who the users are that are warned, harassed and banned. It happens every single time. Her white knights even make threads of their own to stir up the drama in the first place.

She's no mod yet she posts shit like this as if she is one, because she knows she is The One Who Must Be Protected At All Costs.

View attachment 4453044

Source, for context.

I'm not listing any users because it's bait. Anyone who takes the time to read through a drama thread knows, and if they have a brain they can also see it's FC and her sycophants that cause it all.
Click to expand...
I found some drama threads (two pro-FC threads her supporter made, the one by freedompass and a new year's thread), and they had people who disagreed with her without having been banned or having their posts removed, with positive likes to their posts.

I still don't buy that anyone simply criticizing or disagreeing with her will be banned until someone proves otherwise.
It's not against the rules to be autistic and imagine that the mods are on your side.

Most likely the people who were banned tried to create drama around her, like freedompass did, when there really isn't any, if only for the reason that only a couple of people care about her occasional rudeness. She simply isn't a problem to the vast majority of users.

Also literally the next post in the thread you posted is making fun of her.
 
afounder said:
You seem to be making lots of claims without proof. We never provided such information to anyone.

As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you seem to have no proof on these claims.

The 500 deaths thing is from the NYT article and that is something that was calculated by counting goodbye threads and that number hasn't been independently confirmed. It was just a "just trust me bro" number from the NYT.

Oh, and for those wondering, @porch_day is only here to a-log me so I will be mostly ignoring them for here on out. I'm pretty sure I know who it is as they have been the only one obsessively collecting information on me for a couple of years to "prove" that I did some heinous crime. Also, it's a he and I do know their identity (it's public) and they have multiple accounts on multiple platforms. I don't have much proof to show, as they continuously cover up their tracks and I haven't really cared much up to this point, but I just wanted to let you all know that they're just here to a-log me and almost everything they post is going to be for that purpose. He also has ties to FixThe26, which is an anti-SS group that have pretty much done the same.
Click to expand...
ngl, it would be kinda funny if they killed you. "Formerly suicidal suicide site guy gets killed by group against suicide site to stop suicides"

Meiwaku said:
Wow the one user on the forum who should unironically kill themselves lives to make 18k posts and is not stopping. 0/10 would not use.
Click to expand...

"Loser get's hit with suicide website. It's not very effective" -Nintendo Magazine

Sprate Header said:
This is a good thing to point out, but it's important to note that the only reason people here tend to be so against DIYHRT is because people like Bobposting and that Brazilian guy explicitly target children with their products, even publically bragging about how many minors they've "pinkpilled". If you go look back at threads that have covered DIYHRT stuff, you'll see a good handful of people saying they wouldn't give a shit if it was just adult troons shooting up bathtub estrogen, but it isn't just adults, so we give a shit.

If SS mods and users were making posts like "Just SN-pilled my first minor!" or posting their collections of cutting images they receive from children over Discord with no pushback or consequences, I can assure you the thread OP would be very different. But (as far as we can tell currently) they aren't doing that, so it isn't. I think it's also worth pointing out that when we were neck-deep in a-logging the DIYHRT shit, there was never this big push to needlessly and dangerously drag Section 230 into it. So while there are definitely parallels that can be drawn here, one "crusade" (for lack of a better term) is clearly more unhinged than the other.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I dont even recall people saying the site itself should necessarily be taken down. A lot of shitting on it for being gross but that's about it.

InFO Digger said:
I find @porch_day to be very suspicious. This is the first post from the account, to the Incels.is thread

Notice how he evades naming the owner, despite the name apparently being in the news and openly naming him earlier in thread here

He has been railing against Lamarcus in this thread, so why avoid naming him in another thread that was already public with more views? Was he specifically waiting for this thread? Whatever answer it is, I smell alogging here
Click to expand...

Could even just be another HotWheels case where its a former admin/mod with buyers remorse. Now he needs to crusade against it. Brennan sure did.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: muffin123, Humbert Humbert and Markass the Worst
palko said:
I still don't buy that anyone simply criticizing or disagreeing with her will be banned until someone proves otherwise.
Click to expand...
I said "warned, harassed and banned." Bans have been admittedly less frequent than warnings and harassments. The point still stands, it is made very clear that anyone who says they do not subscribe to the 'life is so shockingly terrible 100% 24/7, and existence should not be a thing, death is so beautiful' view gets jumped on. It's a very clear cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muffin123, Humbert Humbert and Markass the Worst
It seems that in wake of the thread discussing the questionable posts of members, R + S has rolled out a survey asking the community if people who share screenshots should be banned. [A]
508C7B41-5919-4EE4-B308-D1A449D2245C.png
How the hell would they enforce that rule?
A couple of replies (the rest are in the archive link), this one mentions FuneralCry getting “attacked” the most
82A5F409-CE99-4AB5-B28A-26FBE3EECBFA.jpeg
this one mentions us by name and fears the thread basically turning into an archive of the site
FA0896DA-2089-45F7-8813-A07AE55F6A05.jpeg
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: repentance, Aspiring Artist, Pineapple Fox and 13 others
iffywas said:
I said "warned, harassed and banned." Bans have been admittedly less frequent than warnings and harassments. The point still stands, it is made very clear that anyone who says they do not subscribe to the 'life is so shockingly terrible 100% 24/7, and existence should not be a thing, death is so beautiful' view gets jumped on. It's a very clear cycle.
Click to expand...
I really don't see that, even in threads FC is in, but assuming that's true, I think the reason is that while FC never tends to go first and call anyone specifically an idiot for their views (unless someone's posting about recovery in the suicide forum), the moment someone confronts her, it's one person being singled out as a target of criticism, which probably looks bad to a lot of people, and especially those who agree with FC.
Like I said, I don't think enough people care enough about her antics to get her banned.
She's like a crazy relative who people treat nicely and defend if some "outsider" tries to attack her. Most just ignore her like I do.
 
Humbert Humbert said:
It seems that in wake of the thread discussing the questionable posts of members, R + S has rolled out a survey asking the community if people who share screenshots should be banned. [A]
View attachment 4454980
How the hell would they enforce that rule?
Click to expand...

It's a retarded idea and unenforceable, in a literal sense. There are ways to get around every single method of seeing if someone is screenshoting something. Plus, the analog loophole will always exist. All someone has to do is take a picture of their screen. There is literally 0 ways to stop that. As much as some people will whine and complain about it, nothing can ever be done, so suck it up and learn to live with it.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aspiring Artist, thegooddoctor, Toolbox and 6 others
frap said:
Re: FuneralCry, someone (not sure if they want to be linked to this or not) sent me this:

View attachment 4455261
L / A

View attachment 4455265
L / A

Registered the month after registering on SS. Less intense posting by FC standards--a small sprinkling of 21 in under 2 months, then a final post 4 months later. Nothing since as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
The writing style is very different to the flowery verses she posts at SS, and she is actually sharing her situation much more on the tinnitus forum. Not gonna lie, I felt a pang of sympathy reading those. She's clearly gone very much downhill, it almost feels like two completely different people. Maybe if she portrayed herself as more human on SS as she did on the tinnitus forum, and stopped being such a drama creator, her critics would be more sympathetic. A huge part of the problem is that she just spews out the same thing 18000 times with no context.

Edit: I am not implying the posters are two different people. It's the same person in both forums, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aspiring Artist, thegooddoctor, Bittersweet and 9 others
Manul Otocolobus said:
It's a retarded idea and unenforceable, in a literal sense. There are ways to get around every single method of seeing if someone is screenshoting something. Plus, the analog loophole will always exist. All someone has to do is take a picture of their screen. There is literally 0 ways to stop that. As much as some people will whine and complain about it, nothing can ever be done, so suck it up and learn to live with it.
Click to expand...
They would have to go the autistic Eve Online meta of watermarking the forum, and banning based off that.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aspiring Artist, Toolbox, Kees H and 5 others
If FC really has tinnitus, then I do sympathize with their pain, and can understand to an extent a young person's tendency to wallow in their pain.

But FC is shutting down anyone else who offers any perspective on life other than "it's shit", and holding them up as a valued member will reinforce the impression that SS encourages suicide rather than provides a platform for discussion. Not to mention that coddling FC will just result in more insufferable posts about how horrible their life in particular is.

I hope FC is able to reach an audience that can truly appreciate their suffering:
Screenshot_20230206-204517~2.png
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: pictures of the moon, Aspiring Artist, thegooddoctor and 13 others
Dante Alighieri said:
They would have to go the autistic Eve Online meta of watermarking the forum, and banning based off that.
Click to expand...

There are all sorts of ways around that.

suspended animation said:
If FC really has tinnitus, then I do sympathize with their pain, and can understand to an extent a young person's tendency to wallow in their pain.

But FC is shutting down anyone else who offers any perspective on life other than "it's shit", and holding them up as a valued member will reinforce the impression that SS encourages suicide rather than provides a platform for discussion. Not to mention that coddling FC will just result in more insufferable posts about how horrible their life in particular is.

I hope FC is able to reach an audience that can truly appreciate their suffering:
View attachment 4456955
Click to expand...

Tinitus is treatable in many instances. In people where it isn't, and it makes them miserable they can cure it permanently, but it makes you deaf on that side, but it is considered a last resort.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Aspiring Artist, thegooddoctor, Raging Capybara and 6 others
iffywas said:
Some information here, here and here regarding the UK's answer to Section 230, the Online Safety Bill.

@Sjm411 and her group of crusaders were staunch campaigners for this. I wouldn't mind hearing their version of how it played out and what it means to them?
Click to expand...
I opened up the bill and skimmed through it, I don't have time to read all 262 pages so I read some criticisms online about the bill and cross referenced it with the bill itself.
Obvious disclaimer I'm just some dude and not an expert in law in any way shape or form so I will probably get something (or a lot) wrong. If you don't want to read everything I have I at least urge you to read the Section 8-9 and Section 150 spoilers as they are short and the most relevant.

General stuff, anyone in the UK who is a "creator of content" is an individual or organization that posts from the UK or incorporated under any law (see page 31). So my interpretation is individuals can also be affected by the bill. The main penalty the bill cites for failing to comply is a fine of up to 10% of a company's revenue and getting blocked.

If anyone else has read this document and you think my interpretation is wrong feel free to correct me as much as you can. This post started off as me citing one or two dumb things I found to seeing a lot of vaguely written subsections referencing each other across the document and when I pulled it apart I saw a lot of the vagueness and almost plain ignorance in some sections that they are trying to pass off as law.

For reference OFCOM refers to "The Office of Communications" - regulating broadcasting and Internet.
- A person commits an offence if, in response to an information notice, the person
a) provides information which is encrypted such that it is not possible for OFCOM to understand it, or produces a document which is encrypted such that it is not possible for OFCOM to understand the information it contains, and
(b) the person’s intention was to prevent OFCOM from understanding such information.
Click to expand...

An Information Notice is this according to Section 91 Subsection 1:
OFCOM may by notice under this subsection (an “information notice”) require a person within subsection (4) to provide them with any information that they require for the purpose of exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of their online safety functions.
Click to expand...
My interpretation of this is OFCOM can request whatever information from anything they choose from Whatsapp to a personal device and if you fail to provide because you encrypted something and can't/won't decrypt it then that's an offence. That's right, if you're unable to decrypt something OFCOM wants from you, you are now in trouble.

Looking at Section 12 "User Empowerment Duties"

(6) A duty to include in a service features which adult users may use or apply if they wish to filter out non-verified users.
(7) The features referred to in subsection (6) are those which, if used or applied by a user, result in the use by the service of systems or processes designed to—
(a) prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service, and
(b) reduce the likelihood of that user encountering content which nonverified users generate, upload or share on the service.
Click to expand...
Verification refers to age verification such as photo ID. This one doesn't sound too bad but other countries have attempted this same thing for the purpose of forcing "trolls" to sign up to Facebook, Twitter, etc with their real name so the big tech companies can dox them to the authorities. It sounds like a slippery slope but just remember what happened to Caroline Farrow. I will say in this bill at the moment it that this looks like it is opt in for the time being.
Subsection 2 describes what kind of content falls in this category:

(10) Content is within this subsection if it encourages, promotes or provides instructions for—
(a) suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury, or
(b) an eating disorder or behaviours associated with an eating disorder.
(11) Content is within this subsection if it is abusive and the abuse targets any of the following characteristics—
(a) race,
(b) religion,
(c) sex,
(d) sexual orientation,
(e) disability, or
(f) gender reassignment.
Click to expand...
There is more to this section but it basically just repeats itself. My interpretation of this it is just saying adults should be able to filter these types of content. But that does feel a bit strange since the UK wants to get rid of Sanctioned Suicide, why bother listing it as both illegal and abuse? If this stuff is enforceable I ask this, does the SRS Horrors thread fall under abuse? What about Tranny Sideshows or any post made by the user RACISM? The thing is we don't know as the bill never elaborates or defines "abuse" outside of that list. Also I won't cite it here but there are several sections such as 39 and 40 that suggest they can adjust requirements of the bill "for reasons of public policy" (whatever the fuck that means). So even if "abusive content" isn't all illegal to them now, it could be later.

What I think is more likely is what to Section 8 and 9 has to say. I won't quote it in full here but Section 8 refers to the process of making a risk assessment for illegal content and Section 9 describes action taken - primarily preventing people from seeing it and "minimizing the time the content is present".
In Schedule 7 (page 216) there is a list of content which are considered "priority offences" and seem to be what the bill is trying to target primarily:
  • Assisting suicide
  • Threats to kill
  • Fear/Provocation of violence
  • Harassment, alarm or distress
  • Putting people in fear of violence
The rest is just prohibiting firearms, drugs, knives, etc.
The distressed clause is extremely vague, and they don't even define what distress is. Yeah, I'm sure the troonsquad won't put in complaints of "harassment or feeling distressed".

By far probably the worst of them (especially for Kiwifarms) however is Section 150.

An eligible entity may make a complaint to OFCOM that any feature of one or more regulated services, or any conduct of one or more providers of such services, or any combination of such features and such conduct is, appears to be, or presents a material risk of—
(a) causing significant harm to users of the services or members of the public, or a particular group of such users or members of the public;
(b) significantly adversely affecting the right to freedom of expression within the law of users of the services or members of the public, or of a particular group of such users or members of the public; or
(c) otherwise having a significant adverse impact on users of the services or members of the public, or on a particular group of such users or members of the public.
Click to expand...
What does "harm" mean in the bill? Section 205 states "Harm means physical or psychological harm". So what about all those disgusting individuals that have been crusading against Caroline Farrow? Or an Elliot Liz-Fong Jones entity in the UK? Could they just file a super complaint and say that enough twansfolx are feeling bad because we posted their embarrassing pictures that they shared? The reason I think of it this way is the word "harm" could mean anything, and what is the line between significant or non-significant harm?

Sure, Null will just block the UK say fuck off because he doesn't have to play the same game a business processing money does, but not every website is in that position, my guess is a lot of companies will have to deal with a lot of bullshit vague regulation for many things that have nothing to do with Sanctioned Suicide.

TLDR: If you trust a retard like me then for a bill that is supposedly being pushed to stop children from killing themselves the bill allows the UK to take action against anything from hurt feelings, misinformation or "abuse". Seems like as always it's overreaching to be a lot larger in scope than just assisted suicide. Also as seems to be the norm with speech-hostile nations their speech regulations are always vague and lacking basic clarifications - I would imagine intentionally.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Aspiring Artist, thegooddoctor, Vecr and 10 others
@HRT Heisenberg
An eligible entity may make a complaint to OFCOM that any feature of one or more regulated services, or any conduct of one or more providers of such services, or any combination of such features and such conduct is, appears to be, or presents a material risk of—
(a) causing significant harm to users of the services or members of the public, or a particular group of such users or members of the public;
(b) significantly adversely affecting the right to freedom of expression within the law of users of the services or members of the public, or of a particular group of such users or members of the public; or
(c) otherwise having a significant adverse impact on users of the services or members of the public, or on a particular group of such users or members of the public.
Click to expand...
"An eligible entity may make a complaint to OFCOM that... any [feature and/or conduct] of [regulated services]... appears to be... causing significant [physical or psychological harm] to... members of the public..."

Now, I'm in the same boat of not being a lawyer (especially not a bong lawyer), but to me this reads like anyone can report a website to the government if they think it could maybe offend someone maybe. I would like to imagine this is just a misread on our part, but with Trash Island you never know :story:
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: Aspiring Artist, Vecr, iffywas and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back