Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the Game-Over dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:39PM (4 children)

    by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:39PM (#554229)

    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?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:42PM (3 children)

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:42PM (#554231) Journal

    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)

      by Rivenaleem (3400) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:53PM (#554236)

      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)

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:05PM (#554239) Journal

        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.

        Not my intention. I misunderstood your original post. Nothing more.