# Can We Stamp Out Thinspiration on Twitter? Torri Singer Thinks We Can



## David Baxter PhD (Apr 30, 2013)

*Can We Stamp Out Thinspiration on Twitter? Torri Singer Thinks We Can* 
by John M. Grohol, PsyD, _PsychCentral_
April 30, 2013

Pro-anorexia (or ?pro-ana?) groups have been around online for over a decade, and we first discussed them here five years ago.  More recently, with the rise of social networks such as Facebook,  Twitter, and Pinterest, these groups have found a new life. Often  associated with the label ?thinspiration,? these groups elevate the idea  of being thin to a virtual religion. 

 People who are all about thinspiration engage in disordered eating in  order to be as thin as possible ? a common symptom of anorexia. But  they don?t see it as a disorder or a problem, making this an insidious  problem.

 Nonetheless, such eating and self-image problems can result in health problems, even putting the individual?s life at risk. 

 Some people have sought to get common words or terms that people  engaged in thinspiration use banned from social networking websites. One  such woman is Torri Singer, a broadcast journalism major who has  recently begun a petition to get such terms banned from Twitter.

  Many social networks have already climbed aboard the bandwagon,  including Tumblr, Instagram, Facebook and Pinterest. And while such  policies have been implemented, thinspiration content is still easily  found on many of these networks. I suspect that?s one of the challenges  of implementing a policy like this ? it?s extremely difficult to police,  especially if people can just slightly alter the terms they use to talk  about these issues. 

 But that hasn?t stopped Torri from putting Twitter on notice. 

 ?[I want] to raise awareness about the harm of destructive  thinspiration messages, and to prompt Twitter to make real change in  order to stop the spread of this preventable growing trend,? Singer  recently told me. Her inspiration for this campaign came from family:

_My sister suffered on and off with eating disorders in her early adult  life, so preventing other intelligent, strong, and beautiful girls from  forming or elongating their disorders has always held a place of  importance in my life. I know how difficult it is to be a girl and have  constant exposure to beauty ideals, I don?t think we need any more  pressure from self-generated pro-eating disordered ?lifestyle? hashtags._ 
​
But when a website or social network changes its Terms of Use to  remove such discussion from their networks, can it be an effective  deterrent? ?There is no doubt that other media sites such as Facebook,  Instagram, Pinterest, and Tumblr have a long way to go before they are  really safe and free of thinspiration triggers,? replied Singer.  

 ?But they have made the first steps toward taking action and being responsible for the safety of their users.?

 She also addressed people trying to change the spelling of terms they  were using to get around the service?s policing efforts: ?Instagram?s  initial attempt to limit thinspiration led users to create new spellings  (such as thynspo). Instead of giving up on the effort, Instagram  revised the policy, stating it will disable ?any account or hashtag  found to be encouraging eating disorders.? 

 ?The first step is ensuring that these messages are not readily  available, and that is where policy change comes into play and really  matters.?

 Of course, trying to stamp out discussion of a topic on the Internet  is impossible, given the hundreds of millions of websites, social  networks, forums, and online communities. ?By reducing the number of  mainstream venues where these pro eating disorder messages are  displayed,? Singer says, ?we are reducing the exposure, and therefore  the dangerous behavior that results (or continues) because of these  online interactions.?

 I agree ? efforts such as Singer?s can make a perceivable impact on  the popular, mainstream sites, reducing the likelihood of exposing this  ideology to a new, naive audience. Especially when that site is a social  network as large as Twitter.

 ?Banning thinspiration terminology means less accessibility to  damaging phrases, encouragement, and images that propel disorders,?  notes Singer. ?It will prevent susceptible people from forming eating  disorders, and people recovering/struggling with eating disorders from  exposure to triggers.?

 ?In my mind, just getting people to have this conversation means that  it has been some degree of successful. It is really amazing to see  people who sign generating comments about their personal stories and  their struggles. Many have said that thinspiration has been a big  trigger in their lives and that they support any effort to ban it from  impacting others like them.?

 Efforts such as Singer?s are a good attempt at bringing attention to  the problem and helping people understand that use of these kinds of  keywords and hashtags only reinforce the disordered behavior ? on a  scale that wasn?t readily possible just five years ago. We applaud and  support Singer?s petition and efforts to help reduce thinspiration  messaging on mainstream social networks.

 We encourage you to sign the petition: 
*Twitter: Restrict use of thinspiration language and hashtags*


----------



## Jack_Mordino (May 1, 2013)

David Baxter said:


> *Can We Stamp Out Thinspiration on Twitter? Torri Singer Thinks We Can*
> by John M. Grohol, PsyD, _PsychCentral_
> April 30, 2013
> 
> ...



I strongly disagree with the notion of banning specialised communicative language because it violates basic human rights and compromises the fundamental nature of free communication through the Internet. As goodwilled as it is, it is still censorship and violating the rights for communication and association. Thinspiration isn't the only problem in the world that can be aggravated because of the use of social networks and/or fora ("forums"). Nazis use them, child abusers use them, terrorists use them, school bullies use them... you name something we don't like, there's something to ban on social networks. So ban everything - but where is this going to lead us? Banning is a panic reaction and all it does is to degrade the quality and usefuleness of the media used. 

Instead of that why not do something else: Issue "smart" networks: When specialised language is detected then show special intelligent and targeted messages. It might do the trick without compromising the free nature of the Internet.


----------



## eva (May 9, 2013)

There is the issue of freedom of speech here for sure, and even under laws that "filter" certain types of speech (hate speech, harassment, etc.), this sort of language doesn't technically apply.

The idea of "thinspiration" has always made me uncomfortable because I was rather young when it was first being perpetuated around the internet and online social networking. Eating disorders are a serious illness, not a religion or a fashion accessory. And saying that people "should be allowed" to run blogs or website on the subject matter because they have an ED is like saying someone with lung cancer should be allowed to have a cigarette - technically it's within their rights, but it's still a rather terrifying thing to enable.

I think the question here is: where do you draw the line between freedom of speech, and needing to intervene because people are willingly putting themselves and others in genuine danger? I'm not clever or experienced enough to answer that question, I just think it's something to consider when making choices about the relationship between illnesses and social media.


----------



## David Baxter PhD (May 9, 2013)

We draw that line all the time for very good reasons, protecting the especially vulnerable being at the top.

We prohibit child pornography sites because they victimizes the young and vulnerable.

Should we not also prohibit thinspiration sites, pro-ana sites, pro-suicide sites, and the like for the same reason?  Do they not also prey on vulnerable and fragile people?

If someone were to start a pro-domestic abuse site, would that receive approval? What about a pro-animal abuse site?

What about pro-bullying? 

What people find offensive online vs. what they find intolerable is surprising. Facebook and Youtube have recently stated that videos depicting humans being beheaded are no longer acceptable. No longer? Why were they ever acceptable? And why did it take them years to make that decision?


----------



## eva (May 10, 2013)

A bit off-topic but I was in a music history class this past year at school and one of the things we talked about a lot towards end of term was how fickle YouTube is about censorship - music videos get pulled down all the time only to be re-uploaded again later within a day or so. Really, the internet on the whole is a crapshoot in terms of censorship and filtering. It often just comes down to how loud certain voices are and whether censoring certain things or not suits their agenda. Didn't David Bowie's new music video get pulled from Youtube over "religious controversy" only to be uploaded again a day later?

Having said that, I don't think that the pro-ED content that goes around social networking sites and blogging communities is really about censorship, or even motivated by the desire to silence others for the sake of power - it's about health and safety first. It's content that directly triggers people and puts them at risk. While it's a different issue than things like bullying or child pornography, they share the trait of people being put into harmful, dangerous or exploitative situations and having it be justified by claiming freedom of speech. It's kind of a flimsy justification when people are being put in harm's way, though. 

I cannot really think of any socio-political power that would benefit from the "censorship" of Pro-Ana content, whereas there are countless people that would be harmed by it being perpetuated in public spaces. I don't think freedom of speech/expression gives people the right to agitate and trigger the illnesses of others. Even if posting that kind of content is done under the pretense of merely self-expression, it's also done knowing that other people of the same "mindset" or illness will see it and have their disorders further enabled whether they like it or not.

I have seen the arguments made before that "censoring" pro-ana content is body-shaming, and that pro-ana can be a form of ED support network, both which I disagree with. Body shame and shaming is a CAUSE of some eating disorders in the first place. While I can understand people suffering from EDs and trying to recover not wanting to be ridiculed, the idea that you're somehow ridiculing people by separating them from problematic images and material doesn't really make sense. Glorifying the effects of something that is fundamentally an illness doesn't sound like a healthy foundation for a support network, either. Treating sickness like a fetish will not foster recovery.

I vastly prefer 'fitspiration' because it's less focused on body image and more on the overall health of the individual.


----------



## Cat Dancer (May 12, 2013)

Tumblr has taken away a lot of eating disorder trigger search words. I think it's good. I am one to look for that type of stuff as well even though I'm old. I think it's almost criminal to promote thinspiration anyway.


----------

