Cyber Bullying at it's Worst

I’m very grateful to declare that I have never been the victim of cyber bulling.

When I was at school the biggest threat the Internet posed to me, as my mum so tiresomely reminded me every time I dialled online, were those pesky “creeps” lurking in chat rooms. Never once did we broach the issue of cyber bulling. I was blissfully spared from the non-stop online harassment of cyber bulling.

I find it alarming to consider that approximately 35% of people had experienced cyber bulling (Mishna, Saini & Solomon 2009). But what concerns me more is the knowledge that even more instances would no doubt go unreported.

The greatest difference between the “traditional” bullying my school friends are I endured and today’s cyber bullying epidemic is that the harassment, threats, embarrassment and exclusion don’t stop with the school bell at the end of the day (Mishna, Saini & Solomon 2009). No, cyber bullying follows its victim home. The one place where children should experience a sense of sanctity and relief, the bullies now have access to. Cyber bulling means that the harassment continues in the victim’s own home in a more invasive manner, persistent manner than ever before.

At the end of last year I read a magazine article about 12 year old Rebecca Sedwick, who was driven to suicide after suffering perpetual cyber bulling by her 12 and 14 year old classmates (Almasy, Segal & Couwels 2013). The article sickened me. I couldn’t believe that a girl so young would result in ending her own life due to the fact that she was unable to escape from her aggressors. What alarmed me even more is that on searching the issue online, a multitude of similar news stories were listed. Rebecca Segwick’s bullies were ultimately charged as minors with aggravated stalking, as bullying itself is not yet against the law.

Without such serious legal consequences for cyber bullies, it’s hard to imagine that the prevalence will not continue to grow at a rapid rate. I believe that Rheingold would feel deeply disturbed by the dark side of social media, as it has completely contradicted his romantic ideals of a virtual community as a space for people to hold “public discussions… with sufficient human feeling to form webs of personal relationships” (Rheingold 1993). It’s unlikely that the Internet will ever revert to a safe place for victims of bullying, however I am passionate in the belief that action needs to be taken by parents, teachers and students alike to work together to combat the frequency and persistence of cyber bullying.

References:

Almasy, Segal & Couwels 2013, ‘Sheriff: Taunting post leads to arrests in Rebecca Sedwick bullying death’, CNN, 16 Otober 2013, viewed 3 February 2014, <http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/justice/rebecca-sedwick-bullying-death-arrests/>.

Mishna, F, Saini, M & Solomon, S 2009, 'Ongoing and online: children and youth's perceptions of cyber bullying', Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 31, issue 12, pp. 1222-1228, <http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0190740909001200>.

Rheingold, H, 1993, The Virtual Community, MIT Press, Massachusetts.

I Wouldn't Call Myself a Prosuder…

The prevalence of digital social platforms such as Blogs, Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and so forth has allowed people to be not only consumers but producers of content (Steward 2012). The simultaneous ability to use and produce content in the digital age can be defined as ‘produsage’ (Bruns 2007). While I can easily admit that I am an avid consumer of  ‘prodused’ material such as Wikipedia and blogs on a daily basis, I don’t think I could define myself as a ‘produser’ as such. This is due to the fact that produsage requires constant open participation from all people, and produsage projects are continually evolving. Although I am a consumer of the end (or current) content, I’ve never had the courage to jump in and act as a contributor, or more accurately, a producer as I do not have the required desire for status or credibility in the digital sphere (Bruns 2007).

One of the challenges I find with the consumption of material that has been prodused is a level of uncertainty as to whether what I’m consuming is actually legit or merely someone’s opinion. The fact that produsers have the ability to contribute to projects based on their own personal skills, interests and knowledge regardless of their qualifications (Bruns 2007) is definitely a key strength of the produsage process in one regard, however it often makes me question whether the resulting content can be trusted. At the end of the day, I wouldn’t get very far in my further studies if I only relied on Wikipedia as a reference point!

I’m sure that both Bruns and Jenkins would agree that produsage is the ultimate example of participatory culture, due to the gradual evolution from simply acting only as a consumer of content, to taking on a role as consumer, contributor, and producer all in one. According to Jenkins “produsage and its technologies advance processes of convergence, and are involved in a range of crucial conflicts over the shape and balance of our future technological, industrial, economic, cultural and social environments. These conflicts determine the character of our emerging human knowledge space itself” (Fashionable New Media 2014). For more insight into Jenkins’ views of participatory culture, convergence, mass participation and produsage, I highly recommend watching the following interview.

References:

Bruns, A 2007, Produsage: Necessary Preconditions, Produsage.org, viewed 15 January 2014, <http://produsage.org/node/12>.

peter zak 2009, Henry Jenkins Interview short, YouTube, viewed 20 January 2014,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGVfJVde164>.

Stewart 2012, What produsage is and why it matters, The Theory Blog, 13 July 2012, viewed 15 January 2014, <http://theory.cribchronicles.com/2012/07/03/what-produsage-is-and-why-it-matters/>.

WikiLeaks and Social Media vs Government Corruption

“Wikileaks is a global, not-for-proft organisation which publishes secret information, classified media and news leaks from anonymous sources” (The Bear Essential 2013).

WikiLeaks might be defined as a secret spilling website, but at the end of the day the information that they’re sharing is the truth. When I was little, my mum used to tell me the old Chinese proverb “if you don’t want anyone to know, don’t do it”. Perhaps the corrupt government and corporations could take heed of my mum’s advice and either fess up to their actions or stop doing what they don’t want the world to find out altogether.

Surely back in the day such confidential government information was shared between colleagues over knock off drinks, or with wives over the dinner table long before the creation of WikiLeaks. Anyone could have spilled the confidential information, but it’s likely that the traditional media would have opted against publishing content challenging the government or large organisations. The difference now is that the Internet has provided a platform for the rapid dissemination of the secret information, and the act of dropping the monkey off your back is now deemed as illegal whistleblowing, terrorism or ‘hacktivism’. 

The government and corporations can no longer hide behind the bullet proof vest of traditional media, and it’s time for them to face up to the skeletons in their closets. Although the information shared by WikiLeaks is illegally obtained, I find it hard to view Julian Assange and his colleagues as anything other than a team of passionate ‘hacktivists’. Ultimately I’m of the belief that they’re using their technological skills to bring to light and combat the issues of both government and corporate corruption.

I think it’s fair to assume that what we read in the media owned by large corporations is not always the whole truth, and can often portray a biased viewpoint of news and events (The Bear Essential 2013). With this in mind, the knowledge that exact, unbiased, transparent information is available through a source such as WikiLeaks is quite refreshing. Additionally, social media is the fastest spreading news source on the planet (The Bear Essential 2013), and provides a platform for honest accounts of exactly what happened, without the usual corporate spin. The news information available at our fingertips through both WikiLeaks and social media platforms is opening the world up to a far more honest, un-corrupted account of breaking events.

WikiLeaks is a prime example of Jenkins’ participatory culture, as the team behind the dissemination and publishing of sensitive material are using technology to act as ‘prosumers’ – people who both produce, contribute and consume online content (The Bear Essential 2013). I would be interested to discover what Jenkins truly thought of WikiLeaks however, as I cant imagine he would be in full favour of the illegal activity.

Reference:

The Bear Essential 2013, ‘WikiLeaks and Social Media – A Tool for Anti-Corruption’, The Bear Essential, 23 April 2013, viewed 18 January 2014, <http://thebearessential.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/wikileaks-and-social-media-a-tool-for-anti-corruption/>.

#politics

I’m embarrassed to admit that I honestly don’t know the first thing about politics.

Nothing.

Nada.

And I bet that many of my Gen-Y peers are much the same too.

I’m of the opinion that the younger generation doesn’t value the importance of politics. Perhaps it’s too convoluted for our short attention spans to grasp.

Based on this generalisation, I’m not surprised to see political campaigns and messages shifting towards social media platforms based on a number of reasons. First, political speeches and debates are often lengthy, full of political jargon and challenging to comprehend for people with little political understanding. Summing up a campaign message in 140 characters on Twitter is a sure-fire strategy to communicate a clear, succinct message to the masses. Second, in Australia there are over 12 million Facebook users, over 2 million Twitterers, over 1 million Instagram users, and YouTube receives more than 11 million unique visits each month (Godfrey 2013). Australians are all over social media. We know how to use it, it’s easy and it’s fun. So, given learning about politics is the exact opposite – complex and boring (in my opinion) – social media seems like a much more stomach-able approach for us Gen-Yers.

It’s clear that Obama’s successful campaign for office perfected the convergence of old and new media, with the inclusion of user-generated content, social media, game-based ads and the overall use of digital media (Jenkins 2014). Jenkins questioned whether the social media presence would come to an end after the election (Jenkins 2014), but it’s pretty apparent that Obama isn’t going anywhere. He is the 4^th most followed person on Twitter after all.

Source: Brunker 2013

After the election, it seems as though social media is a great platform to keep the political conversation flowing with what Jenkins would deem as participatory culture. Social media would easily provide an open forum for the leaders of tomorrow to conduct national discussions about the main issues faced by the country (Jenkins 2014). Encouraging Gen-Yers to join the conversation, hold a political opinion and become actively involved with politics through social media platforms is imperative, as we need to know what is happening in our country, and social media makes it easier to learn.

That said… It makes me wonder where politicians will draw the line though, and to what extent the use of social media is actually appropriate. Politicians are people chasing our respect, support and trust at the end of the day, therefore a social media no-no could lead to all sorts of implications.

I wonder if Kevin Rudd’s cringe-worthy Tweet could have had anything to do with the loss of the 2013 election… 

Source: Leys 2013

References:

Brunker 2013, “Yew we can!”, Sunday World.com, 18 December 2013, viewed 7 January 2014, <http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/columnists/amanda-brunker/yew-we-can>

Godfrey 2013, “Facebook checked by 9 million Australians every day”, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 August 2013, viewed 7 January 2014, <http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/facebook-checked-by-9-million-australians-every-day-20130820-2s7wo.html>

Jenkins 2014, ‘Obama the candidate for all platforms, November 13 2008, viewed 7 January 2014, <http://henryjenkins.org/2008/11/whew_i_am_still_trying.html>

Leys 2013, “Kevin Rudd – selfie-obsessed PM misses the mark”, The Australian, 10 August 2013, viewed 7 January 2014, <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/kevin-rudd-selfie-obsessed-pm-misses-the-mark/story-e6frg996-1226694575617#>

Rip & Roll - My Experience with Digital Activism

In 2011, I was unlucky enough to get caught up in a digital activism nightmare.

You see, I work for an out-of-home media company called Adshel. If you’ve never heard of it before, we are the company responsible for the advertisements on bus and tram stops across Australia.

At the time, we were running a campaign for the Queensland Association for Healthy Communities called Rip & Roll, a safe sex advertisement for gay men that featured on Brisbane bus stops. 

During the first week the campaign was active, we received over 30 complaints from the general public.

Unbeknownst to Adshel at the time, these complaints were strategically orchestrated by the Australian Christian Lobby, who coordinated to have the campaign removed.

As part of Adshel’s Commercial agreements with the councils in Brisbane, upon receiving such a large quantity of complaints a campaign must be pulled down from the street. While Adshel was following standard business protocol, the news broke that we had caved as a company to the ‘homophobic pressure’ of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Cue public outrage…

Almost instantly, the Facebook page  ‘Homophobia – NOT HERE – Adshel Caves to Homophobic Pressure’ was created. Overnight, they received 500 followers. This proceeded to grow to over 40,000 followers by 5.30pm the following day. The campaign continued to spread like wild fire, with the Facebook page receiving over 90,000 followers to date.

As a result, Adshel came under intense pressure from the public. The phones rang off the hook with a barrage of abuse, criticism and public outrage. Over 750 email complaints were received in just a few days. And the creator of the Facebook successfully organised a group of demonstrators to rally outside our Brisbane office. 

As a loyal member of the Adshel team, it was awful to witness my friends (and even a couple of ignorant family members) follow the group. I knew the company I worked for was most certainly not homophobic. The actions had been taken as a result of our internal protocol. Yet all we could do was sit back, watch the drama unfold, and wait for the storm to pass.

As soon as the Australian Christian Lobby’s Queensland Directory Wendy Francis took responsibility for the original complaints against the Rip & Roll campaign, and the fact that more people wanted the campaign up than the people who wanted it pulled down, Adshel immediately reinstated the ads.

The decision Adshel made to re-instate the campaign was a glowing example of the power of the people – and more importantly, the power of digital activism. 

Twitter? No Thank You.

As I’m sure you would have picked up on by now, I have some rather passionate viewpoints and opinions when it comes to all things social media/ technology related. Don’t even get me started on Twitter!

Once again, I’ll start off this post by telling you I don’t use Twitter. I never have, and I don’t intend to. Reason being, I just don’t quite have the interest to join. According to the How to Twitter infographic on Edudemic, Twitter was created to answer the question “what are you doing?” And it seems that the majority of people who decided to respond were celebrities. To be honest, I’m not sure if I really care!

My friends have told me the reason they use Twitter is to gain access to what The Conversation.com describes as ‘real time information, reaction and public opinion during breaking news stories’. Now, I’m all for a good news update. I love being in the know, and I find it extremely valuable to maintain a top line understanding of news and current affairs across the world. And yes, as your stereotypical member of Gen-Y, I’ll always opt for the simple version too. I like all news in brief, up to the minute updates. Theoretically, I should LOVE Twitter!

So, why don’t I?

Well, my main problem with Twitter is the fact that it’s become completely overrun by celebrities. It baffles me that celebrities such as Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and Katy Perry make up the top 3, 2 and 1 most followed respectively. Particularly when CNN Breaking News doesn’t even crack the top 35! I agree with my friends that Twitter can be a great platform for the ever transforming newsroom, which is why I find it disappointing that such an advantageous form of communication is predominantly being used to spread celebrity gossip and endorsements. 

So long as Twitter remains as a forum for celebrities to air their dirty laundry, and share embarrassing and inane personal quips, I’ll be getting my up-to-date news fix from TheAge.com.au! 

Mobile Madness - How Connected is TOO Connected?

I have an iPhone, an iPad and a MacBook. At work, I have another iPhone, another iPad and a laptop. Six mobile devices in total – and I’m naive enough to consider myself reasonably ‘disconnected’.

A recent post on health and well-being blog MindBodyGreen stated that the first thing many people do when they wake up in the morning after switching off the alarm on their smartphone is check text messages, emails and Facebook. Upon first reading this statement, I was completely alarmed and appalled – seriously, how obsessed are we? After a moment of reflection, I realized most embarrassingly that I do this too! Similarly, I read an article in The Age Business Day about a small business owner so obsessed with staying connected she couldn't help checking her work emails on her wedding day AND her honeymoon. Once again, I was mortified by the degree of our inability to disconnect, and once again I could very easily recall memories of a multitude of holidays where I found it next to impossible to disconnect.

Personally, I think that one of the greatest implications mobile devices will continue to have as we become increasingly connected is the deterioration of traditional face-to-face human communication. For example, one of my girlfriends is perpetually using her mobile phone to text, Facebook, email, Instagram and SnapChat. During the four years we've been friends, she’s never once called me. Not once. Every form of communication we have when we’re not hanging out together is via text, email or through social media. Furthermore, when we do catch up in person, she spends the entire time on her mobile contacting all of her other friends! It’s very easy for me to conclude that my friend has an anxiety of disconnection as Professor Sherry Turkle discussed in her interview with Frontline. The technology has become a physical extension of her identity, and to disconnect for as little as half an hour is simply impossible.

My biggest concern though is the impact constant mobile connectivity will have on the next generation. My colleagues constantly tell me stories of how their genius two or three year old child knows exactly how to watch the latest episode of Pepper Pig on their iPad. How their six year old needs a compulsory iPad for prep. And how their twelve year old has a greater mobile phone bill than their own. It’s impossible to predict exactly what the future will look like, however I can imagine that when each of these children are my age, their interpersonal skills and communication methods will greatly differ from those of my own. 

To further prove my point, I leave you with this clip of a baby who thinks a magazine is a broken iPad...