A good example of social dystopia would be a situation in a country where economic stress is driving depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation and the solution proferred is to install an app on your phone that sends you 'positive messages' and directs you to spend what little money you have on drugs that make you feel better. A good analysis of this situation is here:
> "That the status quo is once again benefiting the usual suspects is all too obvious in the booming market of venture-capital-backed mental health tech start-ups that promise to solve the crisis through a gig economy model for psychiatric care — a model that has been criticized for selling psychiatric medication irresponsibly, with little accountability..."
> "And yet when the plan addresses suicide, it focuses on crisis intervention — as if suicide were a kind of unfortunate natural occurrence, like lightning strikes, rather than an expression of the fact that growing numbers of people are becoming convinced that the current state of affairs gives them no reason to hope for a life they’d want to live..."
Honestly if I was having one of my bad depressive episodes, and someone told me to download a fucking app that's supposed to help me by pandering to me, or I'm supposed to do therapy with a fucking experimental language model. It might depress me so much I'd finally have the motivation to end it.
Because yeah, that's dystopian as hell, not to mention dehumanising.
To be fair, regular therapy is also slightly dehumanising and dystopian. Not too long ago we had cultural constructions to prevent the issues we are now solving with therapy. Do you lack social context, close relationships and meaningful interactions with other people? Wait until you go nuts and then pay 100 euros a session to a stranger to help you deal with it.
And I speak from experience after going to therapy for my anxiety. I guess it sort of helped, but also I could very easily imagine a world where the whole problem wouldn't have existed in the first place - it's just not the world that we live in.
Visited a psych ward once (because suicidal idealization was happening and I wanted/asked for help for the first time in my life).
Well if my experience in one of those facilities is not an uncommon one, then they are horrifyingly dehumanizing and actually cause harm to other people (this is what I observed).
A big problem in facilities is that the information they receive will determine more of what they will do/prescribe than what the patient is actually asking for.
I watched transgendered patients be purposely miss gendered by staff.
Countless other patients being otherwise ignored or treated like anything they have to say doesn't matter because of where they are or the diagnosis that they have.
For myself I was told I was schizophrenic and prescribe meds with terrible side effects because my parents told that to the admit facility. No treatment for depression and anxiety was really given (which is what I was saying I wanted), I was ignored by the therapist and social worker assigned to me, and the contact that I wished to hear from was conveniently removed from my file.
Therapists and support staff in the public sector outside of a mental hospital are grossly underpaid, thus only the inexperienced and inept (with a few people that care too much for their own good) are the ones likely to be working in Federally funded health centers.
Mental Healthcare is a abysmal joke in the United States. Suicide is very easily a valid and top choice here.
> Visited a psych ward once (because suicidal idealization was happening and I wanted/asked for help for the first time in my life).
> I watched transgendered patients be purposely miss gendered by staff. Countless other patients being otherwise ignored or treated like anything they have to say doesn't matter because of where they are or the diagnosis that they have.
> For myself I was told I was schizophrenic and prescribe meds with terrible side effects because my parents told that to the admit facility. No treatment for depression and anxiety was really given (which is what I was saying I wanted), I was ignored by the therapist and social worker assigned to me, and the contact that I wished to hear from was conveniently removed from my file.
If you had the capacity to self-direct your care, you wouldn't have needed to be in a mental hospital in the first place. You would have done the rational thing and sought help from somewhere other than a crisis intervention center. You were clearly also a minor at the time. Mental hospitals do suck for many reasons but your expectations are/were unrealistic.
As an adult, you'll have the same experience declaring bankruptcy and bemoaning why nobody will give you a credit card. "Helping" you means trusting someone else to pull you out of the pit and not letting you jump right back into it. Sometimes that means not letting you make phone calls with whoever on the outside contributed to your being there.
I don't disagree with your opinion that it's all a joke (especially for what it costs; just send your ass to summer camp) but the solution is not to literally let the lunatics run the asylum. Go to Discord for that.
It really depends why you're going to therapy. For myself, I went into it with very specific goals. I wanted to learn how to properly manage bipolar disorder. That's not something any of my friends could have helped with. None of them had heard of cognitive behavioral therapy before. (And I had done a half-assed job of reinventing the concept.)
For me, therapy was very similar to private tutoring sessions. I did almost all of the work. Took about a year to nail down all of the corners. Haven't had to go back since.
In an ideal world, therapists should be no different from personal trainers. No one really questions having someone help you learn how to exercise. Learning how to handle your mental hardware should be the same way.
Granted, we're living in a Sci-Fi dystopia. We're have a lot less problems if we didn't.
Therapy is a very poor replacement for having a good social support system. But for some things, it's a resource your usual support system is unlikely to have.
Bowling Alone came out in 2000 and it’s about trends that’s happened since the ‘50s. It’s arguable that said cultural constructions have been disappearing for a while.
I always see "this is nothing new" used as a sort of psychological defense against dismay.
Concerned about the latest reports on ocean warming? Well, climate change has been happening for a while!
Concerned about the AI-fuelled destruction of art and writing as middle-class careers? Don't worry, artists have been poor for quite a while!
It's possible (and, indeed, likely) that:
- Things have gotten progressively worse
- There is a tipping point, after which the system will undergo a phase change; i.e. the difference between making rent and not making rent
- We are now much closer to that point than we were
Expected response is, "oh fsck, that makes the current situation even worse, I should definitely care about it!" Response I see instead is, "well that's old news."
(So, call this the Old News Defense.)
What is fascinating to me is the frequency with which this defense is thrown up. I'm pretty sure that if we got hit by an asteroid, someone would be commenting, "don't worry, we've been getting hit with asteroids since Chicxulub, stop being alarmist"
> I always see "this is nothing new" used as a sort of psychological defense against dismay.
It's probably worth examining where this reflexive response comes from. The person you're replying to didn't defend anything. The comment was just that the trend predates the past couple of decades.
In context, I interpret GP as implying that things have been bad for a while -- a sort of deflationary position that is popular on HN when something Big is happening.
If that's not what's going on here, I apologize -- but yes, it's a strong HN tendency. It's a sort of machismo stance that derides alarm as alarmism, and it's quite popular here. Cf. HN comments on pretty much any article on AI from the past three months.
I think it's unfair you're being downvoted for sharing your experience.
Definitely agree that human therapists aren't perfect either. I never had much success with therapy personally. I've had to basically figure it all out myself. But I have occasionally had some really good therapy sessions.
But ok, at least with a therapist, another human being cares enough to want to help, and that can make a difference.
Tell a heavily depressed person to use a chat bot, and you're implicitly telling them they're so worthless that they're not even worth another human having a conversation with them. You might not mean that, but that is what the depressed mind will read into it.
> But ok, at least with a therapist, another human being cares enough to want to help, and that can make a difference.
That's sort of my point. They don't actually care, they help you because you pay them. I don't know if it's how I grew up or what, but this is somehow off-putting to me. I mean, I'm not against paying for services in general, but the sort of human interaction that therapy provides seems me like something that we should be able to get without money.
It would be great if therapy was provided under universal healthcare!
But I would argue against the "don't actually care" angle. They do, they would not have devoted years of their life to a quite miserable role if they didn't care about helping people. Their expertise matters, just like any other role in life, and it's what you're paying for.
> but the sort of human interaction that therapy provides seems me like something that we should be able to get without money
I do not expect therapy to be like friendship and friendships can not provide the kind of help therapy is supposed to provide. Friends can try and give you huge amount of contra productive advice or judge you, simply because they do not understand the kind of issues therapy deals with.
The socially superior periods had also much higher substance (including alcohol) abuse rates ... and non-triavial part of that was self-medication.
Of course, but just because you're getting paid doesn't mean you don't care. They might seem cold because they have to practice a certain level of detachment. But most therapists do care about their patients, that's why they became therapists in the first place.
Also, therapists usually have long referral lists, so they still have to decide that you're worth their time and that they believe they can help you.
Why can't an app be a certified medical device? I'm actually working on one and close to getting certification as a medical device, which will then be rolled out by hospitals etc.
Feedback from user testing has been great, patients loved it generally.
The idea we can treat mental health through yet an another skinner box is a horrifying unfunny joke. Mental health problems are literally caused by screen addiction and social atomization. The solution is to put the phone down!
This will start to happen in business. The company I work for has high levels of stress. We now have lots of HR people sending messages about mental health. Endless messages about mindfulness, yoga, a monthly happy thoughts diary etc. At no point does anyone acknowledge that maybe working conditions are part of the problem. Or that the business has any culpability for stress. It is just another growth vector for charlatans. A corporate branded wellbeing app is the next logical step.
Therapy is part of the problem. Often things that people think should be solved by talking to therapist should actually be solved by family, friends and mentors.
We try to profesionalize big parts of heathy communities and families so we don't have to deal with its downsides.
You realize a lot of the reason why people are in therapy is because of family, friends, and mentors? Like it's not a lack of initiative, or a lack of communicating; it's being shamed by your own family, being manipulated by friends, etc. So many of these problems stem because humans are fucking complicated (and sometimes cruel) as hell.
So no, therapy is not part of the problem. Just because in your hypothetical scenario therapy has now been spread across multiple roles instead of a dedicated one, doesn't mean it ceases to exist - you are now expecting your family, friends, mentors, etc. to act as your therapist at will.
Unless you assume people are in therapy just because they get annoyed at how their lover eats breakfast, or whatever superficial aspect that could easily be solved with some chat. I don't know many people paying the cost of therapy for superficial problems like that but hey maybe in your community they do!
No need to strawman. I think jiggywiggy is just pointing at the mental health issues demonstrably linked to atomization and loss of community in the modern world. As a starting point, consider the growing share of people who describe themselves as having zero friends, and the links between loneliness and mental health issues.
Some issues are caused by interpersonal conflict / abuse, but we're delicate social creatures and a lack of family & friends can also be extremely damaging. I doubt people are going to therapy because of how their lover eats breakfast (except maybe extreme misophonia), but there are plenty of people justifiably upset about their complete lack of emotionally intimate relationships with other people.
And, as mentioned above, many issues can be alleviated by support from friends and family. At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support. People lacking those outside relationships only exacerbates mental health issues caused in other relationships.
He is not strawmanning. He is pointing out to issue with argument.
> At least ideally, if your spouse hits you, you should be able to ask your family or community for support.
First, family and community usually do not know what to do in case of abuse. They are clueless.
Second, this is not how this issue was dealt with in the past. If you are in violent relationships, your chances are now massively better then in the past. In the past, you had no real support and you was pressured to give aggressor yet another chance again and again. You was told to be more obeissant and you was blamed for the way abuse harmed you. There are even less marital murders now, that is how much better it is. Violence against wife was frequently normalized and male victims were seen as not men enough.
What community all too often did was to support the abuser ... because abuser is stronger and more likely to retaliate. Plus victims were economically dependent (effectively by law) and supporting them would mean you need to financially help them too. Better for everyone to force victim back to abuser.
Yes, current anti-abuse law seems more likely to be able to physically intervene even when the abuser is popular and/or powerful. I do not think we should return to the past. However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished. As a prototypical example, think of small-town communities centered around a church, where members are able to reliably get both meaningful connection with others (social/emotional needs) and trust each other to help with things like childcare or a church group to go repair someone's house.
It's not that community is completely nonexistent in the modern world, or that we should give up the benefits of modern life to try to recapture it. Just that the average person in the recent past was more likely to have useful & meaningful connections with others that they could depend on in hardship than does (for example) the prototypical modern professional in an atomized big city.
I think that abuse is particularly bad example, because nowadays you have way more commute support for that too. You have less childcare support and stuff like that.
> However, after a negative event in a relationship (abuse, or your spouse dying, or your child getting sick), people in general were more likely to have more friends and a stronger communal relationship that resulted in mutual aid (emotional and/or material). This isn't gone today, just greatly diminished
I would really need to see citatio for that. Because by all I know about past attitudes, pretty much the opposite happened. A lot of abuse was normalized. You even see that in memoirs - pre was memoirs frequently mentioned violent partners and the only respite was his death. The attitudes now are much different.
Even today, in remote Amish or Mormon communities, victim gets blamed, told to be submissive a and that is that. I mean, I literally heard sermon from conservative priest about how men should hit table with fist and if he hits woman she should cook better soup to chill him out.
I never said therapy needs to stop to exist. There is a place for it. It's just severely limited in what it can do. Just look at the numbers, it's very bad at "curing" people.
There is no love, care, responsibility, advice, touch, inspiration, devotion in therapy.
I understand why and it's useful at times. But we are severely limiting our ability to help people if we do not use those aspect of the human psyche. Dangerous and tricky as they are, we've now simply blocked any possible idea of using those for mental problems treatments.
That's what I meant in the first place, there are lots of issues with communities and social relationships. To not have to deal with those we prefer a more individualistic lifestyle. Understandably, but not everyone has been able to get those human experiences naturally and it's definitely a part of the problem.
My wife is a psychotherapist, and I go to therapy, and so does she (on top of paid supervision and support).
It is the sad state of insurance and mental health coverage in the US that is driving users to these apps that have no/little proven benefit. Then the high cost of education has made it practically impossible to provide low/no cost mental health services.
My wife's internship was at a place where she had 8+ sessions per day, they had a dozen or so unpaid interns still in school (usually second year of masters program) providing mental health services for low-income medicaid patients. And that leads to very quick burn out, and doesn't compensate fairly (or at all, actually) while accruing massive amounts of student debt.
There are federal programs that if you make it 10 years in community mental health paying your student loans at a lower rate, your loans are discharged, but it takes a very special person to survive 40+ hours per week of sessions, taking in and holding other people's mental health, and then add another 10+ hours of notes/insurance/treatment plans.
They are on SSI and Medic[are|aid] (not sure which).
The nice thing about their insurance, is that it covers 100% of their mental health care needs.
I am not aware of any private insurance that even comes close. The most I've seen, is a limited run of social worker appointments. No inpatient, heavy co-pays, etc.
Mental health is not a priority, in the US. We spend a lot more effort and money, ensuring that mentally ill people have access to weapons, than to care.
> They are on SSI and Medic[are|aid] (not sure which).
The mnemonic I heard from Planet Money was "grey hair? Medicare. Underpaid? Medicaid." Although Medicare will also apply to people under 65 with some conditions.
If you look around in the world, you see all these little pockets of bullshit, where those in power and control see the system as a way to screw over and steal from the individual who's just trying to live their life.
It's the mentality that making as much money as possible is the sole reason we exist. Paying interns nothing because "they're in school, learning" is no different than saying you don't want to pay college athletes because "they're supposed to be in school". Nah, you just want free work from people who you've led to believe that the way to grow in their life is to give you that free work.
Pay your workers, whether they're students or not. Stop working for free.
After struggling for years, I finally found someone through Kaiser (my insurance company for those outside of west coast USA), and they were absolutely phenomenal.
By some sort of fortunate occurrence, I started talking to them about 3 weeks before the COVID lockdowns. I don't know how I would have survived if not for him.
Sadly, due to how Kaiser treats their mental health staff, they decided to move on (and leave practicing therapy). Since he was moving on, Kaiser booted me out of their services since I wasn't a case that necessitated emergency treatment (they are right, but I still needed to _talk to someone_).
It's led me down a rabbit hole of trying to find various therapists. Most in this area are at capacity (naturally, everyone needs a therapist right now) or won't accept the third party service Kaiser partners through.
I ended up doing Betterhelp for a bit and that was such a mixed experience. Therapists that are overbooked and just grinding (one told me they have 70 clients a week! Uh, what?!) and the support was just so sub-par.
Specifically due to privacy concerns (and I think it's only a matter of time before these services have some sort of data breach), I registered with a throw away email, truncated my name, and generally just tried to provide very little identifying info.
(I guess they have my credit card details. Oh, well)
1. Apps seem to be a useful tool. They help a lot of people who either won't use or are not helped by traditional therapy. Think of them like workbooks - they're an alternative that may be better for some.
2. There is no country as far as I'm aware that can meet the demand for mental health services, from the most socialized to the most open market. None. Therapists are always full, most people don't want to be therapists, and the demand for them is super high.
I have no idea how to solve this. A lot of therapists also tend to stop being therapists pretty early in their career or radically reduce how many patients they see. Basically it just sucks to be a therapist no matter how much we pay and we can't make it better.
So it's the state of mental health coverage in Germany too. It's bad. Although therapy is paid for by the mandatory health insurance, there are multiple issues:
Wait times of months up to three quarters of a year for a place in hospital, similar wait periods for outpatient care. A lot of therapists won't put you on a waitlist anymore. Federal insurance won't issue more permits for therapist so it's a constant fight for already exhausted patients to find someone (not counting in of they get along).
On top, there is more and more pressure to keep mental health costs down by limiting time for inpatient care, by limiting (or severely hinder any extension) the amount of hours and so on.
I would only use a mental health app where the provider is hipaa bound.
There’s a rash of “non-health” mental health apps and that’s just scary.
But even under hipaa providers, I expect they are deidentifying under safe harbor and reselling as much as possible. Imagine the training possibilities on all transcripts “scrubbed of pii.”
Nothing is safe sadly, HIPAA does almost nothing, in reality very few companies actually get the full fat $1000 per patient fine. Even the regulation itself is now hilariously outdated, "encrypted at rest and transit" is absolutely the lowest bar for security.
There are way too many fast and loose players in the mental health space, they do not care to actually have security. They do not have separate roles for security and engineering.
These startups only have to pretend to have security to appease their VCs. In Series B they MAY get a small security audit, but they already lie on their SOC2 or ISO27000... so whats some more lies?
The idea of having a rigorous process that ensures security is completely unacceptable if it adds any time to market.
This is why we see numerous hacks in the health tech space.
"I expect they are deidentifying under safe harbor and reselling as much as possible."
You've hit the nail on the head. A key excerpt from Jane.app's privacy policy highlights the potential risks:
"Suppliers and Service Providers. In order to operate our business and provide the Services to our Subscribers and their users, we may need to share a limited amount of personal information, including Patient Data, with our third-party suppliers and service providers." [1]
Currently, I'm attempting to remove my clinical data from Jane.app's servers, but I don't have high hopes for success. Many if not most of these smaller psychology and therapy groups rely on these platforms to store patient data. It is infuriating to me that the moment we disclose the most intimate details of our lives, they become permanent record.
"Removing Data from Jane. Practitioners offering health and medical services are under legal obligation to retain health or medical information that was collected during the course of treatment. It is their responsibility, in collaboration with the Jane Subscriber (clinic owner), to maintain these records, and in many cases, they are simply not allowed, under law, to delete certain records that they created, and they must retain records for a number of years, sometimes 10 years or more." [2]
I wonder when things will progress to the point where you could run a LLM that would do a good enough impression of a therapist on a 4090. I honestly think the only way I could trust something like this is if it was running on my own hardware, or a private cloud instance.
I continue to be frustrated that politicians and lawmakers are more focused on culture war stuff than they are focused on updating sensible laws to the modern technologies of the time. I hear more about random ousting of people and whatever said something stupid on social media than I do about serious pushes to protect vulnerable populations online…
Having built remote healthcare five years prior to Covid under HIPAA where you have an interdisciplinary team on the coach side and a chronically ill and vulnerable patient on the iPad side, who frequently have little to no mental model of what these "tin screens and string tubes" are doing to help them, the notion that "sensible laws" exist to govern any of this is beyond me. The chasm of disconnects between legal, politics, and tech has only gotten broader and deeper over the last 30 years while we realize that there was a reason that innovators were talking about the need for interdisciplinary work in the 50s before we deprecated the humanities. "Things that don't scale" is a mild understatement from costs to benefits. It makes, "another day at the office" look like the Khumbu Ice-fall.
> Betterhelp has a $7.8 million dollar judgment issue against them by the US regulatory agency the FTC for promising not to share sensitive mental health information for advertising and then turning around and doing just that.
I always wonder how things like this interact with sponsorship - I hear a lot of podcasts that have Betterhelp ads in them. I wonder whether, if they knew about such issues, that would affect their decision to take the sponsorship and promote them. Even if not in a binary "that's a non-starter" way, does it make people less inclined to take them on, and more open to other sponsors? Or do people not pay attention to their sponsors at all?
The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast dropped BetterHelp as an ad sponsor immediately after hearing about this mess. So there are some out there who care. It certainly increases my (already high) trust in their podcast operations.
Podcasts I listen to often feel pretty disconnected from the ads. Some do auto injection and may not know all (or any) of the ads that any given user hears. And folks cannot be experts in everything.
TWIT network does appear to try to vet their ads, even criticizing former sponsors for lax security once things come to light. Yet even they still promote Molecule and other pseudo-sci junk.
On the whole I think the best are listener supported shows. But I'm biased as I now work for a company that helps podcasters sell ad-free and premium access.
Beware of health care apps that masquerade as something else just to sidestep regulation. If it provides health care services or aims to perform some kind of medical function then by definition it is a health care service and it ought to be regulated as such. If it isn't that's usually for a good reason, for instance because the purveyors of the service do not expect that they will be able to pass compliance review.
Compliance review? Like HIPAA? Or are you referring to FDA approval?
As someone with a chronic medical condition, my experience is that software approved by the FDA are often prohibitively expensive (they are considered medical devices) and not covered by insurance.
The key indeed is that they can be considered medical devices, and medical devices are a regulated class of devices (depending on where you live these can have all kinds of compliance requirements imposed on them). Compliance is expensive, difficult and tends to constrain what you can do with your data. So companies that want to side-step compliance will work hard to avoid being labeled a medical device. Whether your insurance covers the costs or not is yet another aspect, typically if your insurance company isn't going to reimburse you for an app that is classed as a medical device they definitely aren't going to reimburse you for other kinds of apps that are not approved.
Note that not all software only applications in the medical domain are immediately considered medical devices, the line is a pretty fine one. If you plan on putting out an app that has medical implications you should research this properly to avoid running afoul of the regulators (which isn't a very good way to start your relationship).
> if your insurance company isn't going to reimburse you for an app that is classed as a medical device they definitely aren't going to reimburse you for other kinds of apps that are not approved.
Insurance companies are loathe to cover even FDA approved _physical_ devices. Insurance is enthusiastic to classify such things -- even treatments that are decades old -- as experimental. The only devices that are a shoe-in are things with widespread adoption like CPAP or pacemakers. If your condition is uncommon, you'll be paying out of pocket.
That wipes FDA approved apps off the map for most of us. Meanwhile, the app store is full of apps the claim to provide relief for various conditions for just $14.99/mo. Some of them are even actually effective.
I'm definitely not arguing that this state of affairs is a good thing, but it is pragmatic reality for those of us with chronic conditions. Unless we have truly fantastic insurance or loads of income (things that are often mutually exclusive with chronic conditions), we are priced out of the tools that are most trustworthy.
This is a failure of health care systems. The degree to which healthcare has been made into a differentiating factor between the haves and have nots is astounding (to me, at least). You'd think the first thing a developed country would do is to ensure that healthcare was universal and completely free, instead it is used as a source of income because health is 'priceless'. It bothers me tremendously but I don't see what I could realistically do about it.
Very true. Most people wouldn't use an app they downloaded to their device to help them manage health conditions related to cancer, heart disease, or infectious disease. They'd almost certainly want private confidential consultations with a real doctor (although quite a few doctors have served as little more than salespeople for the pharmaceutical opiate manufactures).
> Betterhelp has a $7.8 million dollar judgment issue against them by the US regulatory agency the FTC for promising not to share sensitive mental health information for advertising and then turning around and doing just that.
I think a better question is if mental health apps actually help mental health.
You are still giving them pretty private information. If they actually provide a benefit, that might be worth it. But I am not convinced they are actually helpful.
My guess is that exercise, especially outdoor exercise or getting together with friends has far more mental health benefit than these apps and also much less privacy downsides.
Which mental health apps? There's a massive difference between Calm, Better Stop Suicide and PTSD-related apps. Also it's not like people are making a choice between whether they meet friends or install Calm.
> Also it's not like people are making a choice between whether they meet friends or install Calm.
Neither meeting friends or using an app are binary events. The more you spend time on one, the less you spend time doing anything else — in the limit including the other. There's considerable evidence to suggest app and/or media usage encroaching on in-person time. It seems plausible that people who can band-aid their feelings in an app may be less inclined to take the leap and talk about personal matters with friends.
But these are complex things - there would need to be a study to know for sure.
I wasn't aware that mental health apps were a thing that existed, though I have seen quite a few that have the opposite effect. I always assumed I would be dead and gone before we got to the point where people cried into their electronics in exchange for positive affirmations and pills. I think I have finally done it. I have lived long enough to see the dystopia.
There are lots of apps which do not connect you to a doctor and therefore do not connect you to pills either. Is that what you meant? The apps I have in mind are based mostly on CBT and/or mindfulness.
What is CBT in this context because the CBT that comes to my mind - while fantastic if that's what you're into - would not typically be useful as a mental health treatment
> while fantastic if that's what you're into - would not typically be useful as a mental health treatment
hopefully you were thinking of cognitive behavioral therapy because you would be correct:
> Whenever one hears the claim that CBT is the more 'effective' treatment, we can confidently translate this to refer to its role as the most cost-effective form of psychological social control[1]
In 2023, mental health apps have significantly improved their privacy practices.Front end development has played a key role in creating user-friendly interfaces, implementing stronger authentication and encryption protocols, and allowing users to customize their privacy preferences. These efforts have resulted in apps that are better at protecting user privacy, building trust with their users, and providing valuable mental health support.
Is this a joke? How could you possibly believe in this delusion, when these apps have been shown over and over again to be gaslighting vulnerable people into divulging sensitive information about themselves to a VC-backed ad pipeline. Have you seen BetterHelp's ads on YouTube? Pure manipulation of people who are suffering.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/opinion/us-mental-health-...
> "That the status quo is once again benefiting the usual suspects is all too obvious in the booming market of venture-capital-backed mental health tech start-ups that promise to solve the crisis through a gig economy model for psychiatric care — a model that has been criticized for selling psychiatric medication irresponsibly, with little accountability..."
> "And yet when the plan addresses suicide, it focuses on crisis intervention — as if suicide were a kind of unfortunate natural occurrence, like lightning strikes, rather than an expression of the fact that growing numbers of people are becoming convinced that the current state of affairs gives them no reason to hope for a life they’d want to live..."
P.S. Another good read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_...
Historical societal failures in the Soviet Union have many interesting similarities to current societal failures in the United States.