The release of the Netflix’s show 13 Reasons Why caused significant public concern about the risk of suicide contagion among teenagers – particularly those who have suicidal thoughts. Practitioners and researchers expressed apprehension about the show for its apparent praise of suicide and for allegedly increasing suicide risk among vulnerable teenagers. However, there is a lack of clear evidence for the influence of fictional content on self-harm. Little is known about variations in media effects between news and fiction. The literature focuses mainly on non-fictional media reporting, without making any distinction between individual vulnerability and the type of media portrayal. The present article criticizes the assumption that risk of self-harm is reduced by sanitizing fictional content. The absence of definite scientific evidence is precisely why this article re-addresses the problem through an ethical perspective by focusing on the moral responsibility of Netflix. Censoring fiction may do more harm than good, but producers have the responsibility to evaluate in advance the potential impact that such content has on vulnerable people, and to support viewers as well as parents, educators, and practitioners through an adequate campaign of prevention.
<p><i>The release of the Netflix’s show </i>13 Reasons Why<i>caused significant public concern about the risk of suicide contagion among teenagers – particularly those who have suicidal thoughts. Practitioners and researchers expressed apprehension about the show for its apparent praise of suicide and for allegedly increasing suicide risk among vulnerable teenagers. However, there is a lack of clear evidence for the influence of fictional content on self-harm. Little is known about variations in media effects between news and fiction. The literature focuses mainly on non-fictional media reporting, without making any distinction between individual vulnerability and the type of media portrayal. The present article criticises the assumption that risk of self-harm is reduced by sanitising fictional content. The absence of scientific evidence is precisely why this article re-addresses the problem through an ethical perspective by focusing on the moral responsibility of Netflix in creating graphic content for young adults. Censoring fiction may do more harm than good, but producers have the moral obligation to evaluate in advance the potential impact that such content has on vulnerable people and support viewers as well as parents, educators, practitioners through an adequate campaign of prevention.</i></p>
<p>This study focuses on the contradiction between the alleged inclusivity and diversity that TikTok promotes and its apparent indifference for ethical standards. Specifically, the goal is to explore how post-Millennials (those born after 2000) perceive TikTok and how they adopt moral rationalizations to reconcile ethical and moral conflicts. Relatively little research has focused on young people’s moral reasoning in social media and no study to date has provided the opportunity to voice a user’s own experience with moral issues as they perceive them through their use of TikTok. A thematic analysis of 47 in-depth interviews is applied to explore how young users define the ‘good’ and what significance they attribute to moral principles. Two dimensions of moral reasoning are identified: one that should lead to a more group-oriented mindset, which should, in turn, lead to empathy, whereas the other dimension focuses on moral orientation from a narcissistic perspective.</p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.