Professor Garfield

Professor Garfield Cyber Bullying: For iPad and iPhone OS 3.2 or later

Garfield and Friends go to work educating the 4 and up crowd on cyber bullying with a story that puts the very cute Nermal in the victim’s seat. The whole thing is rather adorable and grants a certain gravity to the lesson it imparts without ever aiming at scary. Most importantly, it looks to teach kids early on not only how to best deal with a bully, but how to avoid becoming one.

STOP Cyber Bullying: A website created by the Wired Safety Group, a non-profit internet safety organization out of Washington, D.C.

Stop Cyber Bullying is more of an informational resource than an interactive means of dealing with cyber bullies. Nevertheless, this site presents some solid strategies. One of its best features is that it breaks down its audience: the homepage asks a viewer to identify as 7–10, 11–13, 14–17, parent, teacher, or law enforcement. From there kids can take a quiz that places them along a continuum of cyber saint to cyber bully based on answers about their online behavior and adults can find some fairly staid advice on how to prevent and/or deal with bullies.

National Crime Prevention Council: Public awareness campaign online and on TV

I am not sure that McGruff is a particularly hip spokesperson (you remember, the dog in the trench coat), but the National Crime Prevention Council does a good job of raising awareness about cyber bullying by reaching out to kids. I’m a fan of the PSAs that are part of the Delete Cyber Bullying Campaign. My favorite thing about McGruff’s Shrink the Cyber Bully game? In the simulated IM conversation “Don’t respond” is an answer (spoiler,the right one) to some of the would-be bully’s more heinous remarks.

Over the Line?: Website, App for Facebook and iPhone

There are a couple of things I like about this system. For one, it works in degrees rather than black and white. As much as cyber bullying is a serious problem, it is important register a difference between just sort of rude and truly offensive. Additionally, the site places teens in a community of their peers, so they might be more eager to share their experiences than on a site with even the impression of authority. That said, I spent some time on this site and while there are posts that have to do with cyber bullying or concerns of online privacy, they are surprisingly rare. For the most part teens come here to seek answers to complicated social situations that could not possibly be adequately addressed with the sites “under,” “over,” and “on” the line rating system. While it is good for teens to have a place to vent, there is a whole aspect to this idea that, I admit, I don’t understand. The site opens with the question, “Ever typed something you wouldn’t say in person?” suggesting that you use this forum to in effect check yourself before, well, you know. To me it sounds like asking for second opinions is a little redundant to logging on. If you need to seek out others to know if something you want to share online is too mean, it probably is.

On the other hand, if someone has done something to you online that hurt your feelings, no amount of voting is required to legitimize those feelings. Clearly this campaign has its heart in the right place and I would be happy to be proven wrong if it helps teens “define the line between innocent and inappropriate.” I have some concern, however, that this particular game-like strategy ultimately encourages them to walk that line and could just as easily be put to use as a sort of digital yo-mama meter, providing bragging rights to those who cross it.

I should disclose my own bias on the matter. Over The Line? is an MTV campaign. It’s hard not to be critical of the efforts toward social consciousness sponsored by the people who bring us Jersey Shore, Laguna Beach, The Hills, and The Real World—shows that feed on the rumor-filled, high-drama antics of teen (or slightly post-teen) life. Contributing to a culture that glamorizes ‘cat fights’ and finds excitement in the emotional confusion of young people is pretty much the MO of MTV. So, no, I am not particularly interested in hearing how the network is helping some young people cope with the same brand of heartache that turns other teens into stars.

***

What happened to Tyler Clementi was indeed online and malicious, but it was first and foremost a gross, and illegal, invasion of privacy. Nevertheless, his tragedy reminds us that the web is not a world removed. The way we behave online resonates in real life. More than viruses, identity theft, or any of the threats perpetrated by the few that we face online, the term cyber bullying defines those negative aspects of digital life that we do unto one another. Hopefully, our present state of increased awareness can be extended into a more permanent culture of online responsibility. In the meantime, any resource that aims at prevention through education or helps people find solace without becoming bullies themselves is okay by me.

–Sarah Brown

It is unfortunate for the producers of PBS Frontline‘s “Digital Nation” that the Kaiser Family Foundation’s landmark survey results were released last week. I say this largely because “Digital Nation,” a 90-minute documentary on digital media use in the United States which premiered last night, did not provide much in the way of new information. My main takeaway was that young people use a lot of media, but this is something I already knew (and I would venture a guess the typical PBS viewer knew it too). The KFF results support much of what I and many others have believed for a long time, but perform the additional service of indicating through metrics just how wide the digital divide can be, and how much that divide has grown within the last five years. As “Digital Nation” presented interviews with MIT students, scholars and die-hard World of Warcraft and Second Life players talking about heavy media use, I couldn’t help thinking that this was all redundant. I get it; people are wired all the time. But what does it mean?

When I learned that that PBS Frontline was making ”Digital Nation,” I expected to see something covering the nation. Instead, we mostly saw New York City, Cambridge, parts of California and South Korea. I understand that South Korea was held up as a foil to media use in the US, perhaps even as a cautionary tale of where we could be heading: Internet Rescue Camps and classrooms of second-graders chanting songs about netiquette. However, there are so many more regions in the US which deserved treatment; I would rather have gotten a look at, for example, the ways that digital media is impacting rural areas rather than spend time on Korea. Other American communities I wish were covered include those which are impoverished, undereducated, underemployed or multinational.

As for what was covered in “Digital Nation,” the film was divided into halves. It began with education and learning, which included the segment on South Korea and also spent time speaking with people studying the cognitive effects of new media on the brain. This is where we learned that young people use an awful lot of media, and in some ways it distracts them from their studies, but in other ways using media may make students more focused. The second half covered gaming, and looked at the online and offline communities created in multiplayer games like World of Warcraft, and also how Second Life can be used to fulfill both personal fantasies and business meeting needs. Following this was a look at gaming and the military, and covered the use of video games as treatment for soldiers with PTSD, but also at the use of predator drones in war zones, a practice which is eerily reminiscent of playing video games.

None of these topics should be left out of an examination of our digital nation, but to cover essentially only learning and gaming leaves out a lot. Working in media literacy, as I do, I was disappointed to not hear media literacy mentioned once. There was also no discussion of how digital media influence our democracy, consumer habits, economy, physical health or interpersonal relationships. Right now, major decisions are being made about broadband access, net neutrality and the limits of free speech on the Internet, but none of that was included either. In all fairness, this is a tall order for a 90-minute documentary, and I do think that “Digital Nation” might have been better served as a series. I admire the work of Rachel Dretzin and Douglas Rushkoff, and I am positive that they could have provided valuable insight on the complexities of a digital culture if they had more time. I agree with Cathy Davidson of HASTAC that this is a transitional documentary, and I wish it were more than that. Still, could have/should have/would have does very little good, so as it is, “Digital Nation” is valuable as a snapshot summary of a thin slice of living in a digital world. You will probably see some things in “Digital Nation” that look familiar, but you will not get a comprehensive look at our digital nation.

–Emily Long

It is clear that there were some things we didn’t know about the product when we first wrote about it–Ms. Merritt mentions a council of scholars and parents who assisted in its development, as well as troves of research; she also responds to our critique that the product is essentially “spy-ware” or “stealth” by noting that an icon is always visible so kids are aware they are being watched. It is not our intent to spread misinformation. We did not see these details on the site; the ‘About’ tab for the program lists only minimal system requirements for its installation. Of course, we’re happy to hear about both of these things, and we’re also happy to hear from Ms. Merritt that “during the initial setup we encourage parents to discuss the purpose of the service and the House Rules with their children.”

Encouraging parents to talk to their kids about the Internet should always be the first step in cyber wellness. But, we also think it should have been a step for Symantec in developing their product. Of all the parents, researchers, doctors, etc., when were young people consulted about how they would react to having this program on their computers? If children and parents are meant to benefit from the product, why not talk to the children as well? Many young people respond defensively when they feel they are being over-monitored, mistrusted or preemptively punished, and start finding ways to work around a set of rules that they don’t understand or didn’t help construct. When kids want to spend more time on the computer than what they are allotted, they’ll go to a friend’s house or use computers at the library. As the adage goes, rules are made to be broken. Youth insight might have been helpful to develop something that helps parents be involved and aware, but also allows a respectful degree of privacy.

We also still have questions and concerns about why the product is being offered, for now, as free. Ms. Merritt states that Symantec takes seriously the privacy of their customers, and that all personal information is kept separate from monitoring and reporting functionalities of OnlineFamily.Norton. Isn’t monitoring and reporting the purpose of the product? Is absolutely none of the information about what sites kids visit, or how long they stay there, used in marketing research for Symantec? It is absolutely brilliant if Symantec gets all this invaluable data about where kids go online (and if they are privy to the kinds of conversations and “house rules” in many homes) so that they can sell, sell, sell more stuff to parents and kids.

Finally, part of our issue with the product is larger than Symantec, and has to do with using fear as a marketing tool. As the website says, “Like most parents, you’re concerned about what your kids are doing on the Internet.” Think about what’s really being said: “Aren’t you concerned? You’re not? Well, you should be, since most parents are. And with this product, you don’t have to worry.” The real product being sold is a sense of security, and selling the need for it is an inherent part of the marketing.

Let us be clear by adding that all of us at The LAMP recognize that bad things can happen online. We don’t labor under the assumption that the Internet is a magical land filled with unicorns and gumdrops, where no harm can be done. We just don’t think a program like the one created by Symantec is the answer. We have yet to hear of programs for “News Safety” or “Television Safety” although both of those media are becoming increasingly interactive and filled with user-generated content (which are two of the things that make most people nervous about the Internet). No, instead we have news literacy and television literacy, which use education and critical thinking rather than program settings to help people make smart decisions about media.

To illustrate this point, I’d like to point you over to Google’s 10th birthday celebration. By typing in “Colorado Avalanche”, the first entry that comes up is the hockey team’s official website. What Google is allowing you to do is see what it looked like back in 2001 (the farthest their most complete index of the Internet goes). By clicking on the View old version on the Internet Archive, it takes you to the webpage as it looked in 2001 at this time of year. And look! The Avalanche are the Stanley Cup Champions again, just like that!

In all seriousness, what this means is that there are hundreds and thousands of copies made of the Internet (aka indexes) by Google and many other organizations and people. So the next time you think to speak poorly online about the finest run hockey club around, you should remember, it’s nearly impossible to take it back.

All of this is a bandage over the real problem, which is a lack of media literacy and plain old responsibility. Everyone, not just athletes, needs to understand the possible consequences of material that is posted online, and it needs to be taught beginning at a young age. Right now, few if any of the average college-age students have received any formal media literacy training, and one could argue that they make these mistakes because they weren’t carefully taught. Of course, knowing that a certain action could be hurtful doesn’t necessarily keep people from doing bad things–but at least they go into the situation with awareness, and they have no excuse but to take full responsibility for their actions.

When I was in high school, the athletic code was breached all the time but rarely enforced, even in the case where a student was found drunk by her father, who happened to be the coach of her gymnastics team. If that were to happen today, her father would have to stand up to the entire athletic department and explain why she should be exempt from punishment, even as a video of her drinking is playing on their computer screens. Accountability is always a positive thing, and it is a tough lesson that we must each take responsibility for what we do every day of our lives. People are people, and by definition we all make mistakes, but the Internet can completely change the lessons we learn from them.  Perhaps our mistake lies in not teaching students about the power of media, but the lesson–which some have not yet learned–should be that quick fix-it measures, like banning social networking or the signing of an Internet ethics policy, are not enough.

Anyone who really wants to find what you’ve put up can do so, and they can do so decades later.  A mistake made on the Internet can last forever.  Even if you take down an item or encrypt it, there’s no knowing if someone else somewhere copied it or wrote about it online. Emily Gould discovered all of this the hard way, and throughout the article one wonders if she’s really been able to forgive herself for some of the damage she did both to herself and those she cared about.

We’re not here to tell you that you shouldn’t blog, or that you shouldn’t share pictures and videos online.  Obviously, we write a blog, and we post pictures here.  Our hope is that the millions of other people who put themselves on the Web every day take the time to consider how what they post can affect their loved ones, their own personal lives, and their futures.

The term itself is misleading. It limits the discussion to just the ways we are supposed to safeguard our homes from predators and criminals looking to use your highspeed or dial-up connection as an entry into your homes. What really parents and educators are looking to find out, once you get past the common sense practices one should employ to allow for safe web experiences, are why do our youth want to spend so much time online creating virtual avatars of themselves just to navigate in and out of digital worlds.

We’ve held numerous discussions, put on demonstrations and will even be hosting a public forum on the June 4th about the subject. It’s a topic that resonates with everyone who has a young person in their list of responsibilities, and i would like to hear from those of you out there who feel they too would benefit from an active dialogue on the topic.

-How worried are you about your children’s use of the Internet? How relaxed are you about it?

-How curious are you about what draws them so passionately towards this medium? Are you curious about how it may be interacting with or altering the way they see and relate to the world?

Let us know if you’d like us to come to your school/community center/church/etcetera to carry on this conversation with you.

When you are creating an online profile or posting a piece of your writing, it is of the utmost importance to remember that the content is out there forever. It is not like graffiti that can be painted over or washed off. I think that for the most part, people are fairly responsible and hold themselves to some degree of accountability, but the opportunity is there for anyone to post a nasty anonymous comment and have it published permanently, which happens too often. This aligns with the spirit of free speech–whether something is hateful, subversive or innovative, you can say it–but I question whether Internet users are catching up to the level of responsibility they need to have when publishing comments and content.

I agree with Bob Garfield when he says there is a difference between commentary and vandalism, and we need to teach people that difference. The advent of the Honesty Box on Facebook is used by some to declare a secret crush on a user, by others as a conduit for cyberbullying. It is up to the user to do the right thing.

Safe and responsible use of the Internet is everyone’s responsibility. The ability to publish original content is not going anywhere soon, at least in the United States, and so it’s up to us to talk to each other about accountability and standards of decency. It has been suggested that perhaps comments sections need to be regulated, but to me, this seems to be the equivalent of confiscating someone’s illegal handgun when there’s a knife shop down the block. There is always going to be a way to be mean, cowardly and irresponsible, and we didn’t need the Internet to teach us how to act that way. The Internet is nothing if not open and free, and I do believe the positives of a free Internet outweigh the negatives. The best solution is to hold ourselves and each other to the golden rule of do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

-Emily Long

While it’s difficult not to watch a train wreck in progress, I have to wonder about this story as news. What?  The champion-of-morality New York state governor gets caught participating in a prostitution ring, ending his political career, and that’s not news?  Certainly it is dramatic and timely.  It even has high consequence because the people of the state are experiencing the loss of this once-promising leader.  These news values–drama, timeliness and consequence–are touted by journalists as reason enough for an event to be considered news.  But while everyone’s busy chewing on this juicy bit, it’s helpful to consider another, less tantalizing perspective.

This is ratings stuff, it’s high circulation stuff, it’s titillating and it makes money, but it’s not really that important.  We’re not paying close enough attention to the news that really matters to us.  What happened to the history-making Democratic primary?  What about the economy, and specifically Bush’s economic stimulus package and it’s consequences for the economy?  And how did the economy get to where it is today? Oh, and what about the war in Iraq?

Anyone?

Back in 1985 media scholar Neil Postman published a cross-over (from scholarly to mainstream) bestseller, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” which explained, elegantly and simply, how television had changed the cultural conversation from the age of print because of its strengths as a visual, high-stimulation medium and its weakness in discouraging logical thought, the kind of thinking encouraged by reading and writing.  Postman spent a good deal of that book and others decrying what the introduction of electronic media meant for news and for the health of the Democracy.

While not everyone agrees completely with Postman’s dire observation–that we are, literally, amusing ourselves to death–I have to agree with him that when the major forum of cultural conversation turned from print to television, we saw a dramatic shift in news.  News has become that which makes good pictures.  It has become increasingly about entertainment.   As a news historian I’m well aware that news has always contained elements of the sensational, from print to the Internet, and there was NEVER a time when news was objective.  But in the age of electronic media we’re more easily swayed by bright lights and the drama of the moment (which happens to change moment by moment in this age of 24 hour news) than we were when we only had print sources to rely on for news and information.

Today we have little time for information that isn’t sexy at all, but happens to be extremely relevant.  In short, the switch from one dominant mode of communication to another brings with it enormous changes that have political, social and cultural consequences.  The Internet is quickly becoming the new mode of conversation.  I wonder at how the news is being shaped differently now as the Internet supplants television.

Politicians have always paid hookers for sex.  It’s not a good thing for anyone involved, but it’s always happened.  Wars, the economy, and broad-based social problems have always been there for citizens to work on.  Which of these are we encouraged to spend our time considering?  The news media aren’t just presenting us with what’s out there.  They’re making decisions based on a number of factors, including money and medium.  It’s good to be literate in all of the factors involved in shaping our news, and in shaping us.  And it’s good to start early.

Katherine Fry

Education Director