The internet has allowed both the best and worst of human nature to be amplified. One of the latest examples raising concern is a deeply disturbing video series titled “MDPOPE” (Most Disturbed Person on Planet Earth), which contains prolonged scenes of horrific cruelty and violence. As the availability of such graphic content increases, what are the ethical implications we must confront as a society?
The Disturbing Content of MDPOPE
Unlike many viral shock videos, the content of MDPOPE is prolonged, not brief glimpses. Viewers describe abhorrent scenes of torture, rape, mutilation, necrophilia and murder. This includes the killing of animals and footage of assaults on pregnant women. One scene involves a man clinically cutting off parts of his own genitalia while making jokes, finishing the act by severing it completely with scissors.
The psychological impact is immense. Viewers report feeling haunted, with lasting trauma and a sense of hopelessness in humanity after exposure. We must consider the very real harm being inflicted through the spread of such media.
Past Media Controversies Around Violence
The debate around MDPOPE bears parallels to past disputes on violence in entertainment. When Mortal Kombat hit arcades in 1992, its graphic gore sparked public outrage. Hearings in Congress led to the creation of the ESRB game rating system [1]. Horror movies like “Cannibal Holocaust” faced bans across the globe for gruesome animal cruelty and were only allowed distribution with scenes removed [2].
The key difference today is the accessibility and shareability of content outside traditional gatekeepers. Whereas films like “Cannibal Holocaust” were banned from many theaters and retail chains, online media can spread across borders unchecked. Impressionable children can stumble upon graphics once confined to shadowy corners of niche interest.
The Psychological Effects of Violent Media
An abundance of research has demonstrated that prolonged exposure to violent media can encourage aggression, desensitization, and other harmful mental effects in both minors and adults [3]. One major analysis of 130+ studies found clear links between exposure and increased aggression. It also found desensitization effects that reduced empathy and emotional disturbance when witnessing violence in real life [4].
We cannot ignore the very real psychological footprint left by media like MDPOPE. Clinicians already report a sharp recent increase in patients seeking treatment for trauma related to easily finding extreme content online [5]. Our minds did not evolve to process such vivid acts of cruelty as casual entertainment. There are consequences.
The Complex History of Censorship vs. Free Speech
Yet restricting media also raises concerns around censorship. It evokes histories of moral panic, from Reagan-era fears around Satanic lyrics in metal to religious condemnation of Harry Potter. Lines restricting speech become easily weaponized by those in power to target marginalized groups.
But we have also seen democracies elect to curb certain speech deemed beyond the pale of ethical society even in free countries. Most European nations ban the distribution of Nazi and fascist propaganda rooted in calls for genocide [6]. We similarly prohibit fictional content directly inciting imminent lawless action, such as videos attempting to train terrorists.
These laws emerged gradually from an understanding that some speech undermines human rights and dignity regardless of historical context. They chose to balance unrestrained liberty of speech with ethics and consequences. But finding equilibrium between the two extremes remains an imperfect and continual process of debate.
Perspectives from Experts: Psychology & Free Speech Advocacy
In navigating content controversies, we would be wise to consult mental health science as well as civil liberty experts. Doing so leads to more holistic perspectives beyond reactionary takes.
Psychology Professor Emeritus Joanne Cantor, an expert on children’s media violence research, sees the proliferation of graphic content online as a serious societal problem needing attention. “The kind of graphic imagery now available to people on the internet can produce psychological damage,” says Cantor [7]. “I have tremendous concern about children and adolescents having access to this kind of horror and violence.”
Yet even Cantor acknowledges the complexity of solutions, given civil liberties issues around censorship. “I’m very torn about restraints on freedom of speech, but at some point society may need to get involved if it’s harming large numbers of people.”
Veteran free speech lawyer Marc Randazza has represented controversial figures like Alex Jones in disputes over online content takedowns. He sees restricting access as a cure worse than the disease.
“I‘ve seen ‘MDPOPE’ and found it disturbing. But we can‘t ban disturbing speech without putting truly valuable speech at risk,” says Randazza [8]. “The worst things you’ve seen online will never hold a candle to the horrors enabled by censorship run amok historically. We must fight restriction attempts now so the next generation can push progress.”
Yet Randazza agrees speech has never been absolute, even in the U.S. “We‘ve created narrow exceptions allowing censorship when speech creates immediate lawless actions. But disturbing content alone shouldn‘t enable governmental action restricting speech.”
Content Moderation & Section 230 Debate
Governments banning media leads down a precarious path, yet doing nothing also enables harm. What responsibility then lies with web platforms? Sites like YouTube host exponentially growing volumes of graphic content, while reaping billions in ad revenue [9].
In the U.S. currently, sites avoid liability for user-generated content under Section 230 laws formed in 1996 when the internet was still in infancy [10]. Lawmakers now fiercely debate proposed Section 230 reforms and whether rules suited to 1996 still serve our values in 2023. But easy solutions remain elusive.
Ultimately companies must decide where they stand. In 2018, sites like YouTube and Reddit banned communities like r/Gore and r/WatchPeopleDie hosting viral death footage, aiming to curb accessibility and harmful impacts [11]. They focused less on murky questions of legality and more on mitigating suffering. Their choice suggests our societal tipping point emerges not from laws, but shifts in cultural consciousness around harm.
My Perspective as a Developer
As developers building the infrastructure enabling global communications, we have an ethical duty to ask how our code impacts human rights and dignity. We shape the very architecture driving the prevalence of content like MDPOPE.
I cannot claim to definitively answer complex questions on censorship. But contrasting past restrictions of speech deemed dangerous with the very real psychological harm of violent media, I feel we must thoughtfully re-examine old assumptions. Content policy should consider ethics not just legality.
Troubling Statistics on Violent Media
In guiding ethical policy, we must also examine disturbing consumption trends that suggest normalizing shifts around violent content.
One report found a 950% increase in websites hosting graphic violence from 2016 to 2021 alone. The study notes over half of these sites are easily accessed by children [12].
Research also suggests rising desensitization to violence enabled by early exposure. 63% of parents with under-18 children report their kids having seen extremely violent videos online. Over a 3rd of those parents admit their reaction is just “boys will be boys” [13].
If we simply shrug at graphic media as “no big deal”, we numb our natural aversion towards cruelty needed for a humane society. We must thoughtfully investigate why demand exists for media celebrating human suffering as normal amusement. Our cultural environment shapes behavior.
Our Collective Responsibility
Harms spreading virally online do not observe borders or jurisdictional boundaries. Ethics centered on wellbeing rather than laws must guide content policy. Restricting access reduces suffering, but we must be judicious given censorship’s history.
Developers play a key role in this discourse by designing systems that discourage harmful behavior. Through thoughtful debate and openness to solutions worldwide, we can enhance human dignity. But it begins with each of us reflecting on how our actions normalize harm against others.
The issues raised by MDPOPE offer not just cause for outrage, but an opportunity to thoughtfully confront our ethical blind spots. Our shared humanity depends on that discernment. There are no easy fixes to complex questions of cruelty and speech, but courageous compassion lighting the way ahead.