> We are not talking about a mere feeling down here.
Down where? Go to the apps website and find the term "clinical depression", then come back and tell me what we're talking about down here. It most certainly not back there... which is my whole point. Whats the world coming to if someone cannot create an app to help ease negative emotions without being harassed by gatekeepers and rent seekers?
You parsed the sentence wrong, I am talking about "feeling down", not "down here".
The title of the advertising blog post is literally "I built an app to fix my depression" and goes on to the details of their situation. Certainly we don't have enough data to assess the severity of their n=1 depression but having gone to professionals and used SSRI medication by definition makes them a part of the clinical population.
If they were to say "this app helped me with the negative emotions that came with depression", that would be OK, but they go on to claim that app has fixed their previously SSRI requiring depression, an app they sell a public subscription for. That association is definitely not OK.
> Whats the world coming to if someone cannot create an app to help ease negative emotions without being harassed by gatekeepers and rent seekers?
It is the same world where people have induced harm abusing people's illnesses or desperation in the name of a quick buck. I am not saying this is the intention of the app maker, but the gate-keeping is there for a reason.
Look at this way, anything claiming to be potent enough to fix something can also be potent enough to hurt you. We can't have it both ways with wishful thinking. That is why we need discrete labels, concrete processes and well evidenced claims when we go about what is an antibiotic or what is a cure for depression.
> The title of the advertising blog post is literally
He has every moral and legal right to share his story of what inspired him to create his app. He also has every right, to share his story about his struggles with depression, and what did and did not work for him. You too, have every right to be cynical about his intentions and healing. If he makes money out of his work, good for him. If you read some of the comments here, many have already found it beneficial. Good for them too. And your twitter friend just gave him even more publicity and marketing. so you keep living in your world of fear and cynicism. I'll live in mine of love and courage.
> You too, have every right to be cynical about his intentions and healing.
On the contrary, I don't doubt much about their intentions or healing. But that alone isn't sufficient to absolve them from responsibility or scrutiny while talking about a paid product for a holy grail medical problem like depression.
> He also has every right, to share his story about his struggles with depression, and what did and did not work for him.
But that is not the only thing they are doing now, is it? They are linking their paid app to that story, and that puts it in the realm of false advertising. FTC and FDA regulates the real world, independent of our being full of love or fear, and if that app was big enough it would likely be in trouble.
> so you keep living in your world of fear and cynicism. I'll live in mine of love and courage.
Down where? Go to the apps website and find the term "clinical depression", then come back and tell me what we're talking about down here. It most certainly not back there... which is my whole point. Whats the world coming to if someone cannot create an app to help ease negative emotions without being harassed by gatekeepers and rent seekers?