The Dangerous Simplicity of Saying, “You Drove Me to Suicide”

There is an increasingly common form of accusation in online arguments: “You drove me to suicide,” or “You said that to make me kill myself.”

It is a profoundly serious allegation. But precisely because it is so serious, we should be careful about how casually such claims are made.

Consider the following comment, attributed to someone using the name “John Williams” online:

“so yes matt you are 100% mentally ill, accusing me of being what turned out to be a dead child grapist in an attempt to make me un alive myself.”

There are several different claims contained within that sentence. There is an assertion about another person's mental health, an allegation about what that person accused the speaker of being, and, most seriously, an allegation that the accusation was made with the intention of causing the speaker to take their own life.

Those are not minor allegations. They should not be treated as though they are simply another piece of ammunition in a YouTube argument.

Feeling distressed is not the same as proving causation.

Someone can genuinely become extremely distressed by something another person has said or published. Online abuse, humiliation, threats, relentless criticism and public accusations can have profound effects on someone's wellbeing.

But there is an important distinction between saying:

“What you said made me extremely distressed.”

and saying:

“You attempted to make me kill myself.”

The first describes a person's experience and feelings. The second attributes an intention and potentially a causal responsibility to somebody else.

Those things require evidence.

Human beings are complicated. People's emotional states are influenced by relationships, employment, finances, family circumstances, previous experiences, mental health, physical health, isolation and countless other factors. It is therefore extraordinarily difficult to reduce someone's suicidal thoughts to one YouTube video, one comment, one argument or one individual.

That does not mean online behaviour cannot contribute to somebody's distress. It plainly can.

It means that contribution, causation and deliberate intent are three different propositions.

Everyone's threshold is different.

One uncomfortable reality is that everybody has a different psychological threshold.

What one person regards as an outrageous insult might barely register with another. One person may shrug off a hostile YouTube comment. Another might spend the entire night thinking about it.

That difference is precisely why people should be cautious about making sweeping statements about what another person must have felt or what another person intended.

Likewise, someone who finds themselves becoming suicidal because of material they are consuming online should recognise that YouTube and social media are not compulsory parts of life.

If watching a particular channel, reading particular comments or participating in a particular online dispute is causing somebody serious psychological distress, stepping away is a sensible protective measure.

• Close the browser.

• Put down the phone.

• Block the account.

• Leave the livestream.

• Take a break from social media.

• Talk to somebody away from the internet.

• Seek professional help if suicidal thoughts are present.

There is absolutely no shame in doing any of those things.

YouTube is not real life.

One of the great dangers of internet conflict is that people can become trapped inside an artificial world in which every comment feels enormously important.

A YouTube argument can feel like the centre of the universe when you are sitting in front of the screen at midnight reading hundreds of comments about yourself.

But it isn't the universe. It is a website.

The people arguing with you are strangers, acquaintances or online personalities. Their opinions do not determine your worth. A nasty comment does not define who you are.

And if the online environment has become so toxic that you genuinely believe another person's video or comment is pushing you towards suicide, that is surely the point at which continuing to participate in the argument becomes counterproductive.

You don't have to win the argument. You can leave it.

The phrase “you made me do it” requires particular caution.

There is also a broader social problem when suicide is presented as something another individual made somebody do.

Such language can turn an extremely complex personal crisis into a simplistic story involving a villain and a victim.

Sometimes there genuinely is a direct and serious connection between abusive behaviour and suicidal behaviour. Bullying, coercion, threats and sustained abuse can have devastating consequences.

But an accusation of deliberate responsibility should not become an internet weapon.

Saying “You made me suicidal” during an argument can itself become a form of emotional pressure. It can place an enormous psychological burden upon the person being accused and potentially shut down legitimate discussion.

That is why claims of this nature should be treated seriously rather than casually.

If someone genuinely feels suicidal, the appropriate response should not be another round of YouTube warfare.

It should be getting away from the conflict and getting real-world support.

There is a difference between criticism and responsibility

People on the internet will inevitably say things that others dislike.

• Some comments will be stupid.

• Some will be cruel.

• Some will be defamatory.

• Some will be offensive.

• Some will be satire.

• Some will be deliberately provocative.

• And some will cross legal or moral boundaries.

Those questions can and should be examined individually.

But none of that means that every person who says something hurtful becomes responsible for every subsequent action taken by the person who heard it.

The internet cannot function on the principle that every participant must anticipate the most extreme possible reaction to every sentence they write.

At the same time, people should understand that words have consequences. Responsible online communication matters.

The sensible position lies somewhere between those two extremes.

Take suicidal statements seriously — but don't turn them into weapons

There is an important distinction between challenging the use of the accusation and dismissing the underlying distress.

If somebody says they are thinking about suicide, the appropriate response should always be to take that statement seriously.

It should not be:

“You're only saying that for attention.”

Nor should it be:

“That's your problem.”

A person expressing suicidal thoughts needs support, regardless of whatever online argument preceded the statement. But supporting somebody in crisis is not the same thing as automatically accepting their interpretation of who caused it, why it happened or what another person's intentions were.

Those are separate questions.

Ultimately, step away from the screen.

The internet gives people an extraordinary ability to expose themselves to an endless stream of criticism.

• You can read the same insult fifty times.

• You can replay the same video.

• You can search your own name.

• You can read comments from people you dislike.

• You can watch people discussing you for hours.

• And then you can become increasingly angry, frightened or distressed.

• At some point, the most rational response is not another video.

It is switching the computer off.

If YouTube is making somebody feel that life is no longer worth living, YouTube is not something they need to keep using. No argument, subscriber count, livestream, comment section or online feud is worth somebody's life.

And if someone genuinely believes another person has pushed them towards suicide, the answer should be to leave the toxic online environment, seek help and allow the situation to be dealt with appropriately — rather than continuing the cycle of accusation and retaliation.

A YouTube argument can be restarted tomorrow. A human life cannot.