SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A teenager died from multiple injuries just days after being dropped off at an Internet addiction treatment center:
A Chinese teenager has died days after he was sent to an internet addiction treatment centre, reigniting criticism of these controversial institutions. The 18-year-old had allegedly sustained multiple injuries, and the centre's director and staff members have been held by police, according to reports.
The incident took place earlier this month in eastern Anhui province. China has seen a proliferation in so-called "boot camps" aimed at treating internet and gaming addictions. Some are known for their military-style discipline and have been criticised for overly harsh practices.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Chinese Teen Dies as a Result of Internet Addiction Camp
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Confess your sins to the Lord and you will be forgiven;
confess them to man and you will be laughed at.
-- Josh Billings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:07AM (10 children)
It is entirely possibly that the kid was engaging in a fun activity like Zip-lining, and fell from quite a height. This could very easily happen within 48 hours of attending the camp. I am more concerned by the scars, though I wonder if this is poor translation. You do not develop scars in 48 hours, and this might be a sign of abuse at home.
Until they perform an investigation we can only speculate and it is so easy to jump on the bandwagon of bashing internet addiction camps. Is it too hard to ask people to wait for facts before making a judgement?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:24AM (3 children)
Maybe millions of jews just stumbled by accident to the gas bunkers and somehow the air sealed door got locked maybe because they were playing a fun game and they sorta asphyxiated and the nice Nazis just cremated their bodies to prevent bad smell.
Let's not be hasty in condemning these good folk!
Apologists never stop amazing me. You know,
Once is happenstance,
Twice is coincidence,
Three times is enemy action.
-- Auric Goldfinger
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:33AM
Friend, why so sarcastic? The benefit of the doubt must always go to the authorities. That is how we will achieve perfect order and harmony forever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:36PM (1 child)
Except we have well documented evidence to the contrary for the Holocaust. For this particular death, no investigation has yet been made, so we really know nothing. We condemn salacious attention grabbing headlines all the time around here. So why not now? Just because we don't like internet addiction camps we don't give them the benefit of due process?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:01PM
How many times do you need to get the evidence? Please stop playing stupid games, it's intellectually dishonest. E.g. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/19/china.internet/ [cnn.com]
What you propose certainly is possible, just very very unlikely.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:59AM (5 children)
Camp does not necessarily imply outdoors and tents. Camp can be anything really.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:39PM (4 children)
Yes, it also doesn't imply guaranteed torture and beatings either. My objection is that the article jumps to the conclusion that the kid was killed by a deliberate act, instead of the possibility that they died through any other means. Are we all okay with a biased media suddenly?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:42PM (3 children)
What are you talking about? I merely pointed out that camp doesn't have to involve or be outdoors. Nothing more, nothing less.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:53PM (2 children)
My original post was about "his death could have simply been an accident" and I use the example of zip-lines as how a person can die engaging in some fun activity that has a small element of risk.
Pointing out that it could have been indoors has nothing to add to the discussion, so I took it as a counter argument, why else would it matter whether it was an indoor or outdoor activity? He could have died falling down a stairs while on camp and someone would post an article stating "child goes to internet addiction camp and dies".
The title on the summary states "Chinese Teen Dies as a Result of Internet Addiction Camp". It implies causation where none has been proven. Sure it may be proven in the days to come that the kid was killed by someone at the camp, but until then coverage of the event should be neutral.
I don't get why someone would make the comment that camps could be indoors or outdoors except to derail the point of the topic.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:05PM (1 child)
Not my intention. I misunderstood your original post. Nothing more.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:07PM
Glad we cleared that up then. FWWWIENDS???