Online Safety Reality Check

Anne CollierCo-Director

ConnectSafely.orgExecutive Director

Net Family News, Inc.

Net safety as we know itis obsolete

• One-size-fits-all; fear-based

• 1.0 focused largely on crime & adult content

• 2.0 added peer-related harm

• Both present youth only as potential victims

• Both present tech as both problem & solution

• Not relevant to its “beneficiaries”

Web 1.0…

On Web 2.0...

--Michael Kinsley, Slate.com, 11/27/06

“...everybody knows you’re a dog.”

A triple media revolution Media shifts of past 500 years:

• Printing press => 1 to many, 1 direction

• Telegraph/phone => 1 to 1, 2-way, real time

• Recorded media (photos/sound/film) => 1 to many, 1 direction, asynchronous

• Recorded thru the air (radio/TV) => 1 to many, 1 direction, asynchronous then real time

• Internet => 1 to 1, 1 to many, many to many (all directions); real time; pipeline for all other media; user-produced; social

Net in its ‘toddler phase’

A living Internet

HuffingtonPost.com

Embedded in ‘real life’

Very individual

Ben Heine

Students’ perspective

‘Joe’s Non-Netbook’Science Leadership Academy

Philadelphia

What we now know from...

What are they doing in there?

Good or normative… Hanging out “Social producing” Learning social rules Designing profiles (self-

expression) Exploring identity

Writing software code Sharing/producing music Producing & editing videos Discussing interests Social/political activism Keeping in touch with

friends long-term Risk assessment

What else are they doing in there?

Neutral or negative…Seeking validationCompeting in a

popularity contestVenting Showing offEmbarrassing self

Damaging reputation

Pulling pranksGetting evenThreateningHarassingBullying

Largely a positive experience• “People in social network sites are generally kind” –

Amanda Lenhart of Pew/Internet• 95% of Americans 12-17 are online, 80% of them use

social sites • 69% say their peers are mostly kind to each other in

SNS, 20% say peers are mostly unkind, 11% that “it depends.”

• 78% of SN teens report at least one good outcome and 41% report at least one negative outcome

• 88% have witnessed others being mean or cruel

The under-age question• 7.5 million U13s in Facebook

• FB removes upon detection, but can’t keep up

• Parents not only not worried, they help

• Facebook not designed for U13s…

• But also not dangerous for U13s

• Unintended consequences

Source: Pew Internet & American Life; Consumer Reports

2 types of social networking

• Friendship-driven (84% of 15-25 YOs in a

qualitative study at Harvard School of Education) • Interest-driven (80% involved in “at least

one such online community”)

Source:Digital Youth Project, November 2008

...on all devices, fixed and mobile:

Social networking’s progression

• Hanging out – casual socializing• Messing around – collaborative

tinkering with info, ideas, media• Geeking out – using media the

way artists do, in a focused, professional way

Interest-driven communities“We're growing a bunch of [young] people who see

what they do as social and collaborative and as part of joining communities...

“They function quite naturally in ‘teams,’ where everybody is an expert in something but they know how to integrate their expertise with everybody else’s; they know how to understand the other person’s expertise so they can pull off an action together in a complicated world.” – author and professor James Paul Gee

Source:Digital Youth Project, November 2008

Cellphones are mobile computers with...

• Mobile social networking • Photo- & video-sharing• Web browsing• Texting• Gaming• GPS & social mapping

Mobile phones will be the “world’s primary tool for connecting to the Net” by 2020–Pew.

Mobile social tools

Teens prefer texting• 87% of teens text (80% use SNS)

• 54% of all teens text daily (compared to

26% who use SNS daily)

• 1/2 send 50+ texts/day (1,500/mo.)

• 1/3 send 100+/day (3,000/mo.)

• Teens exchange an avg of 3,417 texts/mo.

(7 per waking hour)

In other words...

© 2010 Columbus Dispatch

Videogameshuge too

• 87

They’re intuitively, intelligentlyseeking happiness

• “Our happiness is completely and utterly intertwined with other people…. Happiness is not a noun or verb. It’s a conjunction. Connective tissue.”

– Author Eric Weiner• Greatest form of happiness: “intense, optimistic

engagement” with the world and people around us … when we are “completely activated as human beings.”

– Author & scholar Jane McGonigal

The importance of play Neoteny – “what makes young creatures stretch

beyond their capacity ... just to see if they can. That

stretching, that enlarging of ability and confidence,

is the underlying motivation of all true play.”

– Author & sociologist Martha Beck

Safety – the polar bear & the huskie, “a marvelous example of how a differential in power can be overridden” by play

– Psychiatrist Stuart Brown

So play…Engages, causes learning, aids mental health & protects

Kranzberg’s 1st law

“Technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral.”

(He’s talking about context.)

What we now know

...from youth-risk research:Harassment & cyberbullying =

most common riskNot all youth are equally at risk A child’s psychosocial makeup & environment

are better predictors of online risk than the technology he or she uses

No single technological development can solve youth online risk

Types of online safety • Physical safety – freedom from physical harm• Psychological safety – freedom from cruelty,

harassment, and exposure to potentially disturbing material

• Reputational and legal safety – freedom from unwanted social, academic, professional, and legal consequences that could affect you for a lifetime

• Identity, property, and community safety – freedom from theft of identity & property

OS 3.0: A layered approachPrimary: new media literacy & citizenship – all students, grade

levels, appropriate subjects

Secondary: more focused preventione.g., bullying, sexting; taught by experts as needed (situational) & developmentally appropriate

Tertiary: prevention and interventionfor youth already at risk; done by social workers, mental health professionals, etc.

The ‘Net effect’ How the Internet changes the equation...

• Persistence & searchability: Net as permanent searchable archive

• Replicability: ability to copy and paste from anywhere, to anywhere

• Scalability: high potential visibility• Invisible audiences: you never know who’s watching• Blurring of public and private: boundaries not clear

AND• Disinhibition: Lack of visual cues reduces empathy

Source: danah boyd: Taken out of Context, 2008

What else we know …from youth-risk research:

“Youth who engage in online aggressive behavior … are more than twice as likely to report online interpersonal victimization.” – Archives of Pediatrics, 2007

3.4X

“Posting personal information does not by itself increase risk.” --Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2/07

Teens’ response to strangers

"For all Internet problems, the vast majority of [SN] teens either had appropriate reactions or ignored the behavior.”

– Prof. Larry Rosen• 92% responded appropriately to sexual

solicitation• 90% to harassment • 94% to unwanted exposure to sexual materials

As for predators in social network sites...

“There is no evidence predators are stalking or abducting unsuspecting victims based on information they posted in social sites.” – Crimes Against Children Research Center, 3/09

Rate

per

10,

000

Child

ren

(<18

)

Source: NCANDS / Finkelhor & Jones

Clear downward trend

Confirmed cases of child sexual abuse

60% Decline (during the period of the Web’s existence)

As for other risk factors...

“Youth violence is way down, as is teen pregnancy, smoking, alcohol and drug use, suicides, and high school drop-out rates – whereas civic engagement has improved along with youth taking more AP classes in high school. Standardized educational achievement scores have either remained steady or improved slightly.  Aside from obesity, perhaps, most trends in youth behavior are moving in a positive direction.”

– Prof. Christopher Ferguson, Texas A&M

Cyberbullying

Daniel NichollsMelbourne 2004

Understanding ‘cyberbullying’

1. Willful repeated aggression2. Embedded in ‘real life’3. Power imbalance (sometimes

anonymity)4. Not arguments, angry posts, or drama5. Bully & target often switch roles

Sources: UNH CACRC, ‘07; Agatston, Kowalski, Limber, ‘09; Burgess-Proctor, Hinduja, Patchin, ‘09

More cyberbullying facts• About 20% of US teens have ever experienced

cyberbullying• Only 10% of cases get reported• Behavioral more than technological• Fluid, fast, hard to escape• Focus on environment: school, not technology• “Cyberbullying” is an adult term

Sources: UNH CACRC, ‘07; Agatston, Kowalski, Limber, ‘09; Burgess-Proctor, Hinduja, Patchin, ‘09

Whole school approach needed

“Because a bully’s success depends heavily on context, attempts to prevent bullying should concentrate primarily on changing the context rather than directly addressing the victim’s or the bully’s behavior.” This involves “the entire school community.”

– Yale psychology Prof. Alan Yazdin and Carlo Rotella at Boston College

Most kids don’t cyberbully

Source: Cox Communications Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey

Perception => reality:The power of ‘social norming’

Source: Craig & Perkins, Hobart and William Smith Colleges 2008

Reinforcing social norms

Source: Assessing Bullying in New Jersey Secondary Schools: Applying the Social Norms Model to Adolescent Violence: Craig, Perkins 2008

‘Sexting’ defined• Nude or sexually explicit photo-sharing or text messages• Usually via cellphones, but possible via other devices and Web• Illegal when involving minors• Overzealous prosecutors have charged teens with production, possession, distribution of child pornography–felonies

Sexting is actually rare• Teens engaging in sexting a lot less than previously

thought• 1% of teens surveyed had created or appeared in

sexually explicit pictures• 21% of that 1% reported feeling very or extremely

upset, embarrassed, or afraid as a result• 7% have received “nude or nearly nude” photos• 25% of that 7% reported having those negative

feelings• Arrest is not typical in youth sexting cases• Researchers’ conclusion: “Appearing in, creating,

or receiving sexual images is far from a normative behavior for youth.”

Possible non-legal consequences

• Emotional or reputational damage• School discipline• Invisible viewership – can be

forwarded to anyone• Potentially searchable on the

Web, possibly forever

“Promote digital citizenship and new media literacy in pre-K-12 education as a national priority.”

– Youth Safety on a Living Internet:Report of the Online Safety & Technology Working Group

Our report to Congress, June 2010...

Get the pool into school!

The pillars of citizenship

learning

Photo by Julian Turner

• Infrastructure

• Practice

• Guidance

• Agency

• It’s protective

• Fosters critical thinking

• Promotes agency, self-actualization

• It turns users into stakeholders – citizens

• Supports community well-being & goals

• Citizenship is a verb!

Why citizenship?

The most basic definition

“The central task of citizenship

is learning how to be good to one another.”

– A.J. Patrick Liszkiewicz

Expanded definition (draft)Citizenship: the rights & responsibilities of full,

positive engagement in a participatory world

• Rights: access & participation, free speech, privacy, physical & psychological safety, safety of material and intellectual property

• Responsibilities: respect & civility => self & others; protecting own/others’ rights & property; respectful participation; learning and benefitting from the literacies of a networked world

• Safety and support• Power – as agents for social good (online & offline)• Success in social media and life• Opportunities to collaborate with fellow change agents• Opportunities to co-create the social norms of social media• Professional training & leadership opportunities online and offline.

What’s in it for students?

“ As a society, we have spent too much time focused on what media are doing to young people and not enough time asking what young people are doing with media. Rather, we need to embrace an approach based on media ethics, one that empowers young people to take greater responsibility for their own actions and holds them accountable for the choices they make as media producers and members of online communities.

– Prof. Henry Jenkins, USC

‘With great power comes great responsibility’

So Online Safety 3.0 is…• Research-based, not fear-based, so relevant• Flexible, layered – not one-size-fits-all• Respectful of youth agency – stakeholders in

making it good, not just potential victims• Positive, empowering: Not just safety from (bad

outcomes) but safety for...

• Full, constructive engagement in participatory media & society

Thank you!Anne Collier

anne@netfamilynews.organne@connectsafely.org

http://os3.connectsafely.org