Online Safety 3.0Empowering and Protecting

Youth

Anne CollierFall 2010

Executive Director,Net Family News, Inc.

Co-directorConnectSafely.org

Net safety as we know it

is obsolete• One-size-fits-all; fear-based• 1.0 focused largely on crime & adult content• 2.0 added peer-related harm• Both: Youth only as potential victims• Technology focus: both problem & solution• Social media highly suspect• 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, realtime

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

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

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

Students’ perspective

‘Joe’s Non-Netbook’Science Leadership Academy

Philadelphia

A living Internet• Content is behavioral and...• Updated in real time by users• Internet everywhere• Net mirrors real life • Net embedded in “real life”• Risk spectrum same as offline’s

What is Online Safety 3.0?

• Research-based, not fear-based, so relevant• Flexible, layered – not one-size-fits-all• Respectful of youth agency – stakeholders in

positive experience, not just potential victims• Positive, empowering: Not just safety from (bad

outcomes) but safety for...

• Full, constructive engagement in participatory society (context!)

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

Online socializing reflects ‘real life’

• 82% of teens 14-17 use social sites now, 55% of 12-to-13-year-olds–Pew, 9/09

• 91% use social sites to stay in touch with friends they see frequently (usually school-related)–Pew, 9/07.

• 82% to socialize with friends they rarely see in person (friends & relatives out of state).

• 72% to make plans with friends.• 49% to make new friends.• 17% to flirt.

Source: Pew Internet & American Life survey9/09 & 1/07

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 use their media; more “professional”

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

Virtual worlds too• Global VW population: over 1 billion and

half are under 16 – Kzero/10

• 10-15-year-olds the biggest sector (468m)

• 15-25-year-olds are No. 2 (288m)

• 12/09 FTC report: Little explicit content in child VWs, moderate-to-heavy in teen & adult worlds

Worlds for ages 10-15

Cellphones are mobile computers with...

• Mobile social networking • Photo- & video-sharing• Web browsing• 24/7 texting• Even less adult supervision• 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• Texting: 54% of all teens text daily

• Social networking: 26% daily

• 87% use texting in gen’l (72% of adults)

• 1/2 send 50+ texts/day (1,500/mo.)

• 1/3 send 100+/day (3,000/mo.)

• Most prolific: Girls 14-17 (100/day)

• Least prolific: Youngest teen boys (20/day)

In other words...

© 2010 Columbus Dispatch

The best filter ever• Comes universally pre-installed, free of charge• Has no socio-economic barriers to "adoption”• Works at operating-system level• Supports and enhances all other "applications”• Is automatically customized to owner’s needs

in micro detail in realtime• Improves with use• Completely portable – goes wherever kid goes

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

OS 3.0: A layered approach

Primary: 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.

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

Broader expertise needed

Young people Parents Educators School counselors,

administrators, tech experts

Psychologists Pediatricians

Social-service workers

Bullying specialists

NGOs Law

enforcement Policymakers

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 by making rude or

nasty comments or frequently embarrassing others are more than twice as likely to report online interpersonal victimization."

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 MySpace 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, March ’09

Question

Has the growth in young people’s use of the Internet

correlated with a rise in sexual abuse against children?

Rate

per

10,

000

Child

ren

(<18

)

Source: NCANDS / Finkelhor & Jones, 2006

51% Decline (during the period of the Web’s existence)

Answer: No

Confirmed cases of child sexual abuse

Source: FBI & CACRC, 2009 & ‘10

The trend continues• “Substantiated cases of child sexual abuse declined 58% from 1992-2008.”

• Latest data: Child sexual abuse in 2008 was down 6% from the previous year.

• The 2008 figures “add to an already substantial positive long-term trend, especially for sexual and physical abuse.”

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

Toward defining cyberbullying

1. Willful repeated aggression2. Associated with real life3. Power imbalance (sometimes

anonymity)4. Not just harassment, conflict, or drama5. Bully & target often switch roles

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

More cyberbullying facts

• Studies all over the map: from 5.9% of teens cyberbullied to 72% (most 15%-35%)

• Only 10% report to adults• Developmental more than technological• Fluid, fast, hard to ditch• 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 vs. 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

The ultimate in social normingIn 2006, two Nova Scotia boys started

what became a movement: Wearing Pink

‘Sexting’

‘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

How common is sexting?

Earliest study reported that 20% of US teens had sent a sexting message. The latest study found 4% had.

Received:15-17%

Forwarded: 3%

Sources: Harris Interactive/Cox/NCMEC 5/09; AP/MTV 12/09; Pew 12/09

Sent:4-10%

Possible non-legal consequences

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

forwarded to anyone• Potentially searchable on the

Web, possibly forever

Why do some kids ‘sext’?• Teen “romance” – expression of shared

intimacy with partner• Flirting or relationship currency• “Truth or Dare” (normative game gone very

wrong)• Peer pressure• Revenge (“revenge porn”)• Bullying or intimidation (“pranks”)• Blackmail

2% – “Photo was forwarded to an authority figure and I got in trouble.”

1% – “Photo was posted online where many people could see it.”

4% – “The person I sent the photo to threatened to send it to someone else.”

2% – “I accidentally sent the photo to the wrong person.”

2% – “The person I sent the photo to made fun of me.”

2% – “The photo was forwarded to someone I didn't want to see it”

Did bad things happen after sexting messages

were sent?

Source: Cox Communications Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey, 2009

“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...

The pillars of

citizenshiplearning

Photo by Julian Turner

• Infrastructure

• Practice

• Guidance

• 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

Digital citizenship

The rights and responsibilities of full, constructive engagement in participatory media

• Rights –freedoms discussed above• Responsibilities...

– Active critical thinking & ethical choices about– The content and impact of – Our media use on– Ourselves, others, and our community.

“ 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’

A V3.0 school board...

• Supports and promotes pre-K-12 instruction in citizenship and media literacy, online & offline

• Encourages social media learning in the classroom so students can practice digital citizenship

• Fosters a whole-school-community approach to anti-social behavior online and offline

• Supports the preparation of students for full, constructive engagement in participatory media, culture, democracy.

Thank you!

Anne Collieranne@netfamilynews.organne@connectsafely.org

http://os3.connectsafely.org