Week 3 summer hum 140 - hanging out and messing aroundPresentation Transcript
Hanging OutHanging Out1. Getting Together and Being Together – socializingon line and off for identity construction – it is oftenonline first to set up getting together.a) Sharing, Posting, Linking, and Forwardingb) Music first, then videos – youtube watched offline together2. Hanging out through back channels – text,Facebook, Myspace, blogs..under no specialcontrol from home or school.
““Messing Around”Messing Around”• Experimental play – photo-tools, mediacreation, techie monitoring (e.g. free ringtonecreation)• Messing around involves a more open-endedgenre of participation
““Geeking Out”Geeking Out”• Intense commitment or engagement with media or technology, often oneparticular media property, genre, or a type of technology• involves learning to navigate esoteric domains of knowledge and practice andbeing able to participate in communities that traffic in these forms of expertise.Blogs, remizes, games, podscasts• Participate in closed IRC groups or specialized forums rather than general fandiscussion forums, which they see as catering to less knowledgeable fans. –SecondLife• Rewriting the rules - code hacking, creating and exploiting cheats, and makingderivative works such as machinima (real time animated movie techniques – usinggame engines) and game modifications – Limewire – avoiding copyright rules
Why Does it Matter?Why Does it Matter?understanding the new digitalgenerationThe following video and slides are my edited remix of Michael Wesch’spresentation done on Slideshare.com and YouTube. Dr. Wesch is a pioneer insocial media education and was recently named Professor of the Year
“What we are encountering is apanicky, an almost hysterical,attempt to escape from thedeadly anonymity of modernlife ... and the prime cause isnot vanity ... but the craving ofpeople who feel theirpersonality sinking lower andlower into the whirl ofindistinguishable atoms to belost in a mass civilization."
“What we are encountering is apanicky, an almost hysterical,attempt to escape from thedeadly anonymity of modernlife ... and the prime cause isnot vanity ... but the craving ofpeople who feel theirpersonality sinking lower andlower into the whirl ofindistinguishable atoms to belost in a mass civilization."- Henry Seidel Canby 1926
Its a one-wayIts a one-wayconversationconversation
You have to be on TVYou have to be on TVto have a voiceto have a voice
You have to be on TVYou have to be on TVto be significantto be significant
The MTV Generation•Short attention spans•Materialistic•Narcissistic•Not easily impressed
“in the midst of a fabulous array ofhistorically unprecedented andutterly mind-boggling stimuli ...
the search for identity and recognitionthe search for identity and recognition
the search for the authentic selfthe search for the authentic self
the search for the authentic selfthe search for the authentic selfCharles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
Two Slides:Two Slides:Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
Two Slides:Two Slides: towards ...towards ...Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
Two Slides:Two Slides: towards ...towards ...1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
Two Slides:Two Slides: towards ...towards ...1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”2. “negation of all horizons of2. “negation of all horizons ofsignificance”significance”Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
Two Slides:Two Slides: towards ...towards ...1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”disengagementdisengagement2. “negation of all horizons of2. “negation of all horizons ofsignificance”significance”Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
Two Slides:Two Slides: towards ...towards ...1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”disengagementdisengagement2. “negation of all horizons of2. “negation of all horizons ofsignificance”significance”fragmentationfragmentationCharles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
Two Slides:Two Slides: towards ...towards ...1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”1. “self-centered modes of self-fulfilment”disengagementdisengagement2. “negation of all horizons of2. “negation of all horizons ofsignificance”significance”fragmentationfragmentationspecial interest sound bite politicsspecial interest sound bite politicsCharles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)Charles Taylors “Ethics of Authenticity” (1991)
If the conversations of our cultureIf the conversations of our culturenow happen here ...now happen here ...
Why this matters ...Why this matters ...not controlled by the fewnot controlled by the fewnot one-waynot one-waycreated by, for, and around networks, not massescreated by, for, and around networks, not massestransform individual pursuits into collective actiontransform individual pursuits into collective actionmakes “group” formation “ridiculously easy”makes “group” formation “ridiculously easy”(Paquet/Shirky)(Paquet/Shirky)
Why this mightWhy this might deeplydeeply matter ...matter ...We know ourselvesWe know ourselvesthrough our relations with others.through our relations with others.New media create new ways of relating to others.New media create new ways of relating to others.New media create new ways of knowingNew media create new ways of knowingourselves.ourselves.
Over 1,000x faster than you can watch
493,714 videos/day(just on YouTube)
1,000,000+ online videos per day
over 99.9% irrelevant to you(estimated)
Who is on YouTube(percentage of videos featuring people of different ages)
viewed by less than 1% of Americansviewed by less than 1% of Americans
What are the Components ofWhat are the Components ofDigital CitizenshipDigital Citizenship1. Digital Etiquette: rules and policy2. Digital Communication: electronic exchange of information3. Digital Literacy: process of learning about technology and the use of technology4. Digital Access: full electronic participation in society. 5. Digital Commerce: electronic buying and selling of goods. 6. Digital Law & Ethics: electronic responsibility for actions and deeds7. Digital Rights & Responsibilities: those freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world.8. Digital Health & Wellness: physical and psychological well-being in a digital world.9. Digital Security (self-protection): electronic precautions to guarantee safety.
Society & Citizenship- Twitter http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-2-2009/twitter-frenzyhttp://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/06/18/dcl.barnett.iran.social.networks.cnn?iref=videosearch
Can 140 Characters Make a Difference?Can 140 Characters Make a Difference?http://www.splashmedia.com/resources/blog/changing-the-world-in-140-characters-or-less/
““Hanging Out”Hanging Out”digital health and safetydigital health and safety
Social media and information overloadSocial media and information overload Americans now consume three times the information they did in 1960.
The Societal ConsequencesThe Societal ConsequencesProtecting Your Digital HealthProtecting Your Digital Health• Critical thinking• Career and reputation• Emotional & physical health• Personal safety
Critical ThinkingCritical ThinkingDeveloping Healthy Internet SkepticismDeveloping Healthy Internet SkepticismBaloney Detection KitBaloney Detection Kithttp://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/11/baloney-detection/
In December of 2009, Microsoft released statistics from a survey that they commissioned which drastically topped those numbers, stating that 79% of hiring managers and job recruiters in the United States reviewed online information about job applicants, while 70% of those surveyed said that they’ve rejected applicants based on their findings.Your Image MattersYour Image Matters
How Social Media ‘Mistakes’How Social Media ‘Mistakes’Impact Getting Hired or FiredImpact Getting Hired or FiredMany employers use social networking sites along with personal blogs to look forwhat they call “digital dirt” We wondered what types of online content wouldactually affect an employer’s decision on either hiring or firing an employee.Here’s a breakdown of what Microsoft found in the same aforementioned study:1. Concerns about the candidate’s lifestyle 58%2. Inappropriate comments and text written by the candidate 56%3. Unsuitable photos, videos and information 55%4. Inappropriate comments or text written by friends and relatives 43%5. Comments criticizing previous employers, coworkers or clients 40%6. Inappropriate comments or text written by colleagues or work acquaintances 40%7. Membership in certain groups and networks 35%8. Discovered that information the candidate shared was false 30%9. Poor communication skills displayed online 27%10. Concern about the candidate’s financial background 16%SOURCE:http://www.safetyweb.com/online-reputation-guide-for-college-students#mistakes
Personal SafetyPersonal SafetyVisit these sites at your own risk!Visit these sites at your own risk!
A Gateway for Dangerous Behavior?A Gateway for Dangerous Behavior?
Chat RouletteChat Roulette
Get around it with Snap Chat?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oD0lrp_bBE
Cyber Bullying and Social IsolationCyber Bullying and Social Isolation
A Father’s Emotional Plea
How Social Media Is HelpingHow Social Media Is HelpingDefeat Cyber BullyingDefeat Cyber Bullying With MTV launching Draw Your Line, a visualization tool that encourages young people to take action against digital abuse and share these actions and tips with others. The tool is part of A Thin Line, an organization dedicated to decreasing digital abuse and bullying, and protecting children and young adults from the dangers of an increasingly online world.Visit: http://www.athinline.org/drawyourline
“Its important to note that blaming technology for horrendous, violent displays of homophobia orracism or simple meanness lets adults like parents and teachers absolve themselves of theresponsibility to raise kids free from these evils. “ ~ Anil Dash“There is a statistically significant weak positive relationship between home access to a computeror time spent online and whether or not students tease others.”Barbara Lacey, “Social aggression: A study of Internet harassment”“The authorsfail to adequately summarize and analyze the data from the various studies, many ofwhich appear on Internet web sites rather thanin peer-reviewed journals. The few tables of dataare uninformativeand presented without statistical analysis.”The American Journal of Psychiatry Book Review of: Cyber Bullying: Bullying in the Digital Age“The results show that almost 54% of the students were victims of traditional bullying and over aquarter of them had been cyber-bullied. Almost one in three students had bullied others in thetraditional form, and almost 15% had bullied others using electronic communication tools. ”Qing L i, “New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools”Does Social Media Cause Bullying?Does Social Media Cause Bullying?
Can Anonymity Breed IrresponsibilityCan Anonymity Breed IrresponsibilityThe problem, say Formsprings critics, is the site offers a perfect haven for cyberbulllying. The recent suicide of 15-year-old Pheobe Prince has drawn attention to the problem of bullying in cyberspace because victims often have no idea who is tormenting them. A Boycott Formspring Group on Facebook claims almost 7,300 members. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/do-you-know-who-your-children-are-online-formsprings-raunchy-f/19452194/?a_dgi=aolshare_email http://www.twloha.com/blog/some-thoughts-boycotting-formspring-in-1/
A Thoughtful ResponseA Thoughtful Response http://www.facebook.com/notes/to-write-love-on-her-arms/some-thoughts-on-boycotting-formspring-in-response-to-the-suicide-of-alexis-pilk/373781774657
CyberbullyingWhat the research is telling us…Amanda LenhartYouth Online Safety Working GroupMay 6, 2010Washington, DC
May 2010 80Teen internet use basics• 93% of teens 12-17 go online• 63% of online teens go online daily• 89% of online teens go online from home, andmost of them go online from home most often• 77% of teen go online at school• 71% go online from friends or relatives house• 60% go online from a library• 27% go online on their mobile phone• 76% of households with teens go online viabroadband, 10% via dial up, and 12% do not haveaccess at home.
May 2010 81What are teens doing online?• 94% go online to do research for school assignments; 48% do so ona typical day.• 81% go to websites about movies, TV shows, music groups, or sportsstars• 64% of online teens have created some kind of content online• 62% go online to get news• 57% have watched a video on a video-sharing site like YouTube orGoogleVideo• 55% go online to get information about a college, university or otherschool that they are thinking about attending.• 48% have bought something online like books, clothes or music• 31% have looked online for health, dieting or physical fitnessinformation; 17% have looked online for sensitive healthinformation
May 2010 82How else are teens connecting?• 75% of teens have a cell phone– No gender or race/ethnic differences in ownership– 50% of teens with phones talk to friends daily– 54% of teens send text messages daily– 27% use their phone to go online• 73% of teens use an online social network site– 37% of SNS users send messages through social networks daily• 80% of teens have a game console• 51% of teens have a portable gaming device– Teens connect and interact with others online through games
May 2010 83Concerns in Online Safety Sphere• Inappropriate contact– Strangers– Bullies• Inappropriate content– Accidental Exposure– Deliberate Exposure
May 2010 84BullyingOlweus (1993)“A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, tonegative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she hasdifficulty defending himself or herself."This definition includes three important components:1. Bullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions.2. Bullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time3. Bullying involves an imbalance of power or strength.”Bullying– Physical– Relational/Verbal-Internet
May 2010 85Online Harassment &Cyberbullying• Online harassment: aggressivebehavior, “harm doing,” insults,denigration, impersonation, exclusion,outing, activities associated withhacking – stealing information, breakinginto accounts, damaging websites,profiles etc. (Willard, 2006)• Cyberbullying: online harassment that is– repeated over time
May 2010 86What makes online harassment &bullying different?• Technology is vehicle• Persistence of content– Editable, alterable• Distributability of content– Speed– Breadth• Dis-inhibition over computer-mediated communication• Invasive
May 2010 87Pew Internet: Online Harassment• 32% of online teens have experienced one of thefollowing forms of online harassment:– 15% of teens reported having private material (IM,txt, email) forwarded without permission– 13% had received threatening messages– 13% said someone had spread a rumor about themonline– 6% had someone post an embarrassing picture ofthem online without permission(Lenhart,2007)• 26% of teens have been harassed via their cell phoneseither by voice or text(Lenhart,
May 2010 89Cyberbullying• Other research shows prevalence of cyberbullying or online harassmentbetween 9% and 33% of youth ages 10-18. (Wolak et al, 2007, Ybarra etal, 2007)• Much of the difference is definitional and depends on how the questionwas asked. Specific activities often yield higher levels of response thanblanket definitions.• Mid-teens (ages 14-17) is the age of greatest prevalence of onlineharassment & bullying (Pew, 2007, Hinduja & Patchin, 2008)• Perpetrators of online bullying (similar to offline bullying) are generallythe same age as their victim. (Wolak, 2007)
May 2010 90Frequency of bullying victimization among 11-16 yearolds62%27%5%3% 3%NeverLess often than monthlyOnce or twice a monthOnce or twice a weekEveryday(n=1,193)(Ybarra, 2009)
May 2010 91Online Harassment (2)• Girls, particularly older girls, report more onlineharassment; 38% of all online girls reportedexperiencing some type of harassment (Pew, 2007)• Social network users are also more likely to reportonline harassment – 39% of SNS users haveexperience it. (Pew, 2007)• But most teens (67%) think bullying & harassmenthappens more OFFLINE. (Pew, 2007)
May 2010 92Frequency of bullying victimization among 11-16 year olds by environment(n=1,193)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%School Internet Cell phone textmessagingTo and from school Some other placeEverydayOnce or twice a weekOnce or twice a monthLess often than monthlyNever(Ybarra, 2009)
May 2010 93Online (or not) Harassment• School is by far the most common place youth report beingbullied (31%) versus elsewhere (e.g., 13% online)• The prevalence rate of Internet harassment (both perpetrationand victimization) appears to be stable (2006-2008).• The majority (59%) of Internet harassment comes from otherminors• Youth who report being harassed online report a myriad ofconcurrent psychosocial problems offline, tooSource: Michele Ybarra & colleagues workon the 2005 Youth Internet SafetySurvey fielded by UNH CCRC & 2007-2008 Growing up with Media research
May 2010 94Why should we worry?• Bullying is broadly associated with:– School violence– Delinquency– Suicidal ideation• Bullied teens (and often bulliesthemselves) have higher levels of:– Depression and other psychologicalproblems
May 2010 95Why should we worry (2)?• Some research suggests that significant portions ofteens aren’t bothered by online harassment orbullying• Research suggests that 1/3 of teens (34%) aredistressed by online harassment. (Wolak et al, 2007)– Distressed = “Extremely or very upset or afraid”• Teens who are high internet users are more likely tobe distressed (Wolak, 2007)
May 2010 96Overlap of cyberbullying & internetvictimization(Ybarra, 2010)
May 2010 97Differences between cyberbullying& internet harassmentCyberbullying is not more common than Internetharassment• On average (between 2007-2008): 37% were harassed,14% were bullied online in the past yearCyberbullying is not more damaging than Internetharassment• Among those cyberbullied, 15% report being very /extremely upset• Among those harassed, between 17-34% report beingvery / extremely upset
May 2010 98Cell phone-based harassment• 75% of teens have cell phones• 54% of all teens text message daily• 26% have been harassed through their cell phone by voicecalls or text messages• 47% have sent a text message they regretted sending• And then there’s sexting – which isgenerally not a form of harassmentitself, but when the images are shared,can lead to harassment and bullying.
May 2010 100Sending Sexts• No difference by gender• Oldest teens most likely to have sent– 8% of 17 year olds– 4% of 12 year olds• 17% who pay for all the costs of the phone sendsexts vs. 3% of others
May 2010 101Receiving Sexts• Again, no gender differences and increases by age– 4% of 12 year olds– 20% of 16 year olds– 30% of 17 year olds
May 2010 102Sexting Scenarios1. Between two romantic partners, as a part of,instead of, or as a prelude to sex – neverleaves couple2. Between two romantic partners – but sharedwith others3. Between two people where at least one wouldlike to be in a relationship – shows interest
May 2010 103Element of coercion for some sexting“When I was about 14-15 years old, I received/sent these typesof pictures. Boys usually ask for them or start that type ofconversation. My boyfriend, or someone I really liked askedfor them. And I felt like if I didn’t do it, they wouldn’t continueto talk to me. At the time, it was no big deal. But now lookingback it was definitely inappropriate and over the line.”17 year old girl