A video of a person in mental health crisis goes viral, their most vulnerable moment viewed millions of times, commented on by strangers who diagnose, mock, and judge someone they will never know - the person in the video perhaps recovered but their crisis preserved forever, available for anyone to find. A teenager's suicide attempt becomes topic of social media discussion, her classmates sharing opinions about why it happened, speculation about her life spreading far beyond anyone who knew her, the aftermath of crisis becoming public spectacle. A police encounter with someone in psychiatric distress is recorded and shared, and the person in crisis - not the officers whose conduct might warrant scrutiny - becomes the focus of commentary, their illness on display for entertainment or outrage. A person googles their own name and finds their crisis documented in news articles, social media posts, and video clips, their worst moment the first thing anyone learns about them. A family requests privacy during a mental health emergency and finds that bystanders have already posted, that news outlets have already covered, that the crisis they are living through has become content for others' consumption. Social media has changed what happens to mental health crises - making visible what was once private, creating records that persist, enabling commentary by strangers who know nothing about what they are discussing.
The Case for Privacy Protection
Advocates for privacy argue that people in crisis deserve protection from public exposure, that social media sharing can cause lasting harm, and that norms and possibly laws should limit what can be shared.
Crisis is not entertainment. People in mental health crisis are at their most vulnerable. Sharing their crisis for views, engagement, or commentary treats human suffering as content. The people in these moments did not consent to being entertainment.
Digital records persist. What is shared online cannot be unshared. Crisis documented on social media follows people indefinitely - affecting employment, relationships, and recovery. The moment passes but the record remains.
Commentary causes harm. Strangers speculating about someone's mental health, diagnosing based on video clips, and sharing opinions about people they have never met is not harmless. People in crisis may see what is said about them. Commentary adds harm to crisis.
From this perspective, protection requires: social media platform policies against sharing mental health crisis content; legal protections similar to those for medical records; norms against recording and sharing people in crisis; and recognition that privacy rights do not disappear during crisis.
The Case for Documentation
Others argue that documentation serves important purposes, that bystander recording holds systems accountable, and that restricting sharing has its own dangers.
Documentation holds systems accountable. Video of how police handle mental health crises has exposed problems and prompted reform. Without bystander recording, misconduct during crisis encounters would go undocumented. Restricting recording protects misconduct.
Information sharing can help. Families searching for information about mental health find shared experiences valuable. Reducing stigma requires visibility. Hiding mental health crisis maintains stigma that visibility might reduce.
Censorship is problematic. Giving platforms or governments power to restrict sharing mental health content could be abused. Who decides what counts as harmful? Restrictions intended to protect could be used to suppress.
From this perspective, documentation should: be permitted for accountability purposes; be handled with sensitivity when shared; include context that humanizes rather than sensationalizes; and not be restricted in ways that enable misconduct.
The Platform Responsibility Question
What responsibility do social media platforms have?
From one view, platforms profit from engagement including engagement with crisis content. They have responsibility to limit harmful content, including content that exposes people in crisis. Platform policies should restrict sharing of mental health crisis without consent.
From another view, platforms cannot effectively moderate this content. Distinguishing accountability documentation from exploitative sharing is difficult. Automated systems cannot make these judgments. Expecting platforms to police mental health content may not be realistic.
How platform responsibility is understood shapes expectations and regulation.
The News Media Question
How should news media cover mental health crises?
From one perspective, news coverage of individual crises is rarely newsworthy and often harmful. Covering suicide, in particular, can trigger contagion. Media guidelines exist but are often ignored. News media should exercise restraint that they currently do not.
From another perspective, news media has role in informing public about mental health issues. Responsible coverage that follows guidelines can educate without harming. Blanket restrictions on coverage may not be appropriate.
How news media approaches crisis coverage shapes public understanding and individual harm.
The Consent Question
Can people in crisis consent to being recorded or shared?
From one view, people in mental health crisis cannot meaningfully consent. Their capacity is compromised. Recording and sharing without later consent violates their autonomy. Consent should be required after crisis, not assumed during it.
From another view, requiring consent gives individuals veto over documentation of public events. This could prevent legitimate journalism and accountability. Privacy interests must be balanced against other interests.
Whether crisis impairs consent shapes what protections are appropriate.
The Question
When someone's worst moment is shared for entertainment, what have we become? When crisis videos go viral, who benefits and who is harmed? If documentation holds systems accountable, how do we protect individuals while preserving accountability? When digital records make crisis permanent, what does recovery mean? What would social media norms that treated people in crisis with dignity look like? And when we consume crisis content, what are we actually consuming?