Pointing the finger at Facebook and MySpace – are the platforms of these sites to blame?

26/04/2010 HeidiN 37 comments

Introduction:

Social networking has rapidly grown to be one of the most widely used Internet social interaction and communication tools online. Although online communities and public social interactions have been around for quite some time now, the rate at which social networks have developed in the last few years is phenomenal. Today, a large number of online communities participate in some form of social networking.

Whether it is Facebook, MySpace or Twitter, social networking has proved a popular method of online interaction and communication with participation from a wide group of individuals.

This discussion topic fits in to the “Social Network” stream as the cases examined relate to the two major social network sites, Facebook and MySpace. Social Networks in my view, namely Facebook and MySpace have dominated the way we socially interact online in comparison to the earlier days of Internet communications, such as via e-mails and the former less developed and less popular social networking sites. Social networks are used by individuals and groups for a variety of reasons, which range from the positives; legitimate social, educational, supportive and companionship, along with the damaging and unfavourable reasons; sinister, fraudulent and wrong doing. Whatever the reasons, the use of social networks can be defined by individuals or groups in variety of ways.

dana m boyd (sic) and Nicole B. Ellison provide a good definition of social networks-

“-We define social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.-” (boyd; Ellison, 2007)

In this conference paper, I will explore the platforms of Facebook and MySpace and discuss how they relate to the negative impacts caused. I will specifically discuss a controversial Facebook hate group called “Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country!” (Oboler, 2008) and a MySpace cyber-bullying case.

For those not familiar with the way Facebook and MySpace work or are non users; Facebook’s main functionality allows users to interact with each other via an account where users create a profile and share information such as photos, images, videos, social updates, personal messages and leave public notes on either a group or individual’s wall. Additionally, users can join networks on Facebook which can be categorised in groups like employment, schools, hobbies, cities or just to keep in touch with long lost contacts. Third party-applications such as games and files can also be used on the Facebook platform.

MySpace is set up in a very similar fashion to Facebook, whereby you have friends and contacts, upload pictures or videos, share information about yourself and add music. The site has been known to help launch music careers of upcoming and new artists looking for a break. Alice Marwick describes MySpace as “secondarily a media community, the largest segment is the music section, which hosts profiles for more than eight million bands. In the last few years, MySpace has become a key part of music industry promotion.” (Marwick; Owyang, 2008)

Marwick mentions “MySpace also contains sections for comedy, books, films, comic books and games; these are primarily populated with content from third parties.” (Marwick, 2008)

Facebook

Facebook has gained much success and popularity since the founder and chief executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg launched Facebook in February 2004. Facebook was initially started with the intention for students of Ivy League university as a social networking tool, however demonstrated success and a well-liked response for Facebook saw one half of Harvard students join within a short space of two weeks. As a result of this recognition and rapid increase of members, May 2004 saw a further increase of students joining from Stanford and Yale universities. In “September 2005, the site was released to include high school students. The accomplishment of the site in terms of members joining at this rate saw an inclusion of business networks in June 2006 and has been increasing ever since. This rapid expansion occurred within the span of three years.” (Shariff, pg 34, 2008)

Today, Facebook and MySpace are the two most popular and well used sites in the social networking world. As mentioned recently in a Rueters online news article, by a Facebook spokeswoman, “Facebook has more than 400 million users worldwide,” (Whitcomb, 2010) followed by MySpace. The number of MySpace accounts, reached “110 million users as of January 2008.” (Stelter, 2008)

Oboler states Mark Zuckenberg’s mission for Facebook was “to develop the technology and push the boundaries.” Oboler writes that he believes in an “intense focus on openness, sharing information, as both an ideal and a practical strategy to get things done.” Oboler opines “the things that get done could however be for better or for worse” (Oboler, 2008).

Furthermore, and in relation to the previously mentioned Facebook hate group, when

“ -asked if Facebook would take proactive measures to fight against anti–semitism, Zuckerberg stated that Facebook does not need to be proactive about it and that Facebook users should use the platform to generate more worldly perspectives- “ (Oboler; O’Neill, 2008).

If we take a close analysis of the characteristics of cyber bullying, together with the platform features available from such social networking sites, we can perhaps understand how effortlessly a site such as Facebook and MySpace can prove to be attractive to online predators and bullies, allowing them to cause detrimental results to their victims.

Shaheen Shariff pin-points the “characteristics of cyber-bullying as an extension of traditional bullying.” (Shariff, 2008) The Internet allows a cyber-bully the use of an online medium such as Facebook to harass the victim thus allowing them to “hide behind screen names and be somewhat unidentifiable.” (Shariff, 2008)

Shariff notes “power imbalance and exclusion as characteristics of cyber-bullying.” (Shariff, 2008)

A bully may cause their victim to feel “isolated and dehumanized, this might be a justification for them to do harm and be persistent and relentless” (Shariff, 2008) to a victim. Shariff states that the “availability to an infinite audience” (Shariff, 2008) is also a characteristic of cyber-bullying. With the vast number of members currently active online with Facebook and MySpace together with their “friends” or contacts that are linked to other contacts and so on, it is evident that the sheer audience that would be witnessed for example to a bullying or humiliating event, results would prove detrimental.

The main attractive feature of Facebook is the “photo sharing” aspect of the site which a perpetrator can easily upload embarrassing images of the victim to add derogatory comments. As recently mentioned in a Reuters online news article, there was a case where “Facebook pages were set up in tribute to two children murdered in February, 8-year-old Trinity Bates and 12-year-old Elliott Fletcher, were quickly covered with obscenities and pornography, prompting calls for the social network to be more accountable for its content.” (Whitcomb, 2010)

Should Facebook be held responsible for these types of incidents? Should Facebook have monitored or been set up better so that perhaps incidents like this not occur? It is evident with the above story that Facebook’s platform and or lack of monitoring make provision for a perpetrator to manipulate the terms of use and cause harm. Facebook’s lack of platform diligence in terms of taking the care or attention to fulfill user’s protection is clearly deficient.

Should we point the finger at the inappropriate participants of Facebook and MySpace and make them accountable for cyber-bullying? According to Andre Oboler, Facebook users “have also been pushing the boundaries” which “includes the boundaries of acceptable content” on these sites. Facebook rules are “governed” and shaped by Facebook as per the “terms of use”, however Oboler mentions although the Facebook “terms of use” and “code of conduct” state that particular types of speech are not welcome on Facebook, including content that is “derogatory, demeaning, malicious, abusive, hateful, offensive and defamatory, Facebook has in some cases, failed to act.” (Oboler, 2008)

An example of where “Facebook has failed to act” is evident in the previously mentioned Facebook hate group which formed in approximately “January 2007 and consisted over 48,000 members, over 120,850 posts, over 150 videos and over 100 photographs.” (Oboler, 2008)

Oboler notes “the majority was decidedly anti–Israel and often anti–semitic” in this hate group Facebook site.

Oboler states his argument as:

“-The earliest press report about the group appeared in the Toronto Star on 3 May 2007 (Zerbisias, 2007). The author, Antonia Zerbisias, notes a proliferation of groups and counter–groups noting that “not unlike college campuses in the real world, when it comes to Israel, it’s an all–out war … of words.” Zerbisias also contacted Matt Hicks, senior manager of corporate communications at Facebook, who had until then been unaware of the problem. This newspaper story establishes that Facebook knew about the group for over a year before the takeover, and for over year Facebook decided to do nothing. If Zerbisias’ analysis of this as a college campus–style war of words remained accurate the group would not have grown as large as it did, or would it have attracted the attention it received.-” (Oboler, 2008).

Hate groups such as these are one of the many that have existed online on sites like Facebook with little or no action taken place to prevent them. The intention of this group in particular as Oboler describes “was to promote online hate, and specifically online anti–semitism. As a result it drew significant attention in early 2008” and I add, spread like an uncontrollable disease. (Oboler, 2008).

Further-more, Oboler states “Facebook’s current hands–off approach is legitimising online hate and allowing it to spread.” Oboler points out how the “senior management team” of Facebook needs a more effective method put into practice with regards to their “terms of use” along with a vigilant consideration to “what counts as legitimate discussion and what counts as the promotion of hate.” (Oboler, 2008). Oboler opines a resolution to the issue “can only really be solved by Facebook, either voluntarily or if left alone, through external pressure and even legislation.” He (sic) notes the technology, lack of deliberation and most importantly, “the Facebook platform is too powerful and widespread to be manipulated by those promoting hate. The only question is who realises this first — Facebook, the public, or legislators.” (Oboler, 2008)

MySpace

MySpace social networking site has been a topic of debate with regards to “online predators.” Marwick discusses the platform of the MySpace site and its “multiple personalisation options” allowing the user to customise their sites, displaying images which range from tasteful to objectionable. Marwick states, “MySpace may be disturbing to non–users. It is usual to see scantily clad self–portraits of teenagers displayed on profile pages; both genders engage in explicit, candid discussions on MySpace that often include drug or sexual references ” (Marwick, 2008). MySpace has a high number of members active in the community and the media aspect of the site attracts many users from a youthful age group, which in turn unfortunately, is appealing to “online predators.”

A bully on MySpace can use a fake identity to sign up to an account with the intention for harassment and or criminal activity. In the case of the Megan Meier suicide, “a suburban mother accused of driving a love-torn 13 year old girl to take her own life in 2006 by tormenting her with a fake MySpace persona.” (Whitcomb, 2010)

The suicide of Megan Meier has sparked debate and controversy over whether MySpace cyber-bullying was to blame for her death. Megan was like any normal teenager using MySpace as a way to communicate with her friends and contacts online, which unfortunately contributed to her death. The platforms on sites like MySpace make it effortless for anyone wanting to cause trouble as it has very little restrictions. Steve Pokin notes: “MySpace has rules. A lot of them. There are nine pages of terms and conditions. The long list of prohibited content includes sexual material. And users must be at least 14”; however the Meier case proved MySpace to be deficient with its restrictions as “Megan wasn’t 14 when she opened her account”. It is noted that there is a section where you state your age but these are not being “checked” and the accounts are “free” for anyone to join. (Pokin, 2007)

As noted in the Reuters online news article, “calls for prosecution of cyber-bullying first reached a peak” after the Meier cyber-bully case. (Whitcomb, 2010)

Conclusion:

So, how do social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace contribute to cyber bullying or online hate groups you might ask? How are predators and bullies attracted to these sites? With the availability of wireless technology and with many of us living in a tech savvy society, social networking has become the latest craze in social communication today. Access to sites like Facebook and MySpace are readily available wherever an Internet connection is present if the participant willingly or reluctantly chooses. A consumer can have his or her mobile phone connected to access Facebook or MySpace and keep in touch with friends while on the move or more specifically, in this discussion, torment and bully another group or individual. Consumers can access these sites easily on a laptop or hand held PC in major cities. Time is also not an issue as with the Internet, a bully or predator can log on and off these sites anytime. For those with children, parents may not be wary of what their child may be doing on the Internet and are not available twenty four hours a day to monitor, if we look at it from a supervisory perspective.

Although the intention may not have been to take her own life, the Megan Meier case or any other individual for that matter, it is obviously a devastating ending and to fall victim to cyber-bullying by the use of MySpace as a tool for an unwanted cyber-bully attack, should not have occurred. Some may argue that traditional bullying in general will or can happen regardless of any social networking website. However, it is “cyber-bullies”, “hate groups” and “online predators” that use these sites as tools, easily manipulating the platforms and utilising the deficiency of monitoring or victim protection to cause damage. The demonstrated substantiation previously mentioned in this discussion clearly observes the platforms of sites Facebook and MySpace to have a fair contribution to the negative and devastating consequences of these incidents. (Harding, 2008)

While a suggestion such as eliminating the use of these sites altogether is not a feasible resolution, perhaps a more stringent and careful approach to how these sites are monitored in terms of their platforms and terms or conditions should be reviewed as a matter of urgency and magnitude. This suggestion is by no means an answer, but perhaps it may be a start.

References and Bibliography:

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Harding, L. (2008, April 12). They were ganging up on her and calling her fat and a wh***: the cyber-bullying that got out of hand. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-558901/They-ganging-calling-fat-wh—cyber-bullying-got-hand.html

Marwick, A. (2008, June 2). To catch a predator? The MySpace moral panic. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from First Monday; Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2152/1966

MySpace; Quick Tour. (2010, March 25). Retrieved March 25, 2010, from MySpace.com: http://www.myspace.com/

Oboler, A. (2008). The rise and fall of a Facebook hate group. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from First Monday:Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2254/2048

O’Neill, N. (2008, March 11). My Interview With Mark Zuckerberg. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from All Facebook: interview With Mark Zuckerberg,” All Facebook (11 March), at http://www.allfacebook.com/2008/03/my-interview-with-mark-zuckerberg/,

Owyang, J. (2008, January 9). Social network stats:Facebook, MySpace, Reunion. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from Web Strategy by Jeremiah: http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/01/09/social-network-stats-facebook-myspace-reunion-jan-2008/

Shariff, S. (2008). Cyber-Bullying: issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home, page 34. Routlege; Taylor & Francis Group . New York, NY, USA. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from Google Books: : http://books.google.com.au/books?id=vEm5LMC-2RcC&pg=PA34&dq=cyber-bullying+%2B+facebook&cd=1#v=onepage&q=cyber-bullying%20%2B%20facebook&f=false

Shariff, S. (2008, June). Cyber-Bullying:Public Policy, Justice and Legal Issues. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from Google; Facebook+Cyber-bullying: http://www.innovationlaw.org/Assets/events/conference+2008/shariff.pdf

Stelter, B. (2008, January 21). From MySpace to YourSpace. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/technology/21myspace.html

Whitcomb, D. (2010, March 9). Cyber-bullying cases put heat on Google, Facebook. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from Rueters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275UG20100309

Wikipedia:Suicide of Megan Meier. (2010). Retrieved March 26, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier

This conference paper by Heidi Nguyen is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia Licence.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/au/

Social Networks Facebook and MySpace

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by Magdalena Widen about 2 months ago. Reply

Thank you for your help!
Written by qyrtvbtjbnws about 2 months ago. Reply

1. Women’s Bailey Button Triplet1873You most likely be clad north face jackets sale on layers regarding warm garmets (not actually bulky ones because it could hinder involved in the fishing activity).
Usually the life span of an the north face sale approximately five in helping seven many.
Don’t Opt for Loan Supplement Based Specifically On Curiosity Rate, http://www.bootuggs-canada.com/ Appreciated home home mortgage refinance loan may not come with the lowest annual percentage rate. You have to be mindful of the various features along with services just as well.

References:

d0a26a8ca90fbe994ea44c7234e483f6
Written by red wing 866 about 2 months ago. Reply

ThanksThank youThanks forThank a personanybody forThank a personanybody of thesedue to theseof individuals recommendationsthe subsequentgoing afternext advicethe subsequent tips. factorSomethingAnother thingAnother elementproblem I would furthermorein additionadditionally believe frequentlyis usually which bank cards acquiringobtainingreceiving ahaving awith the PercentPercentPer-cent attention frequentlyfrequentlyusuallytypically attractlure customersclientspurchasersconsumers with one anotherwith each othercollectively withalong withwithin completelycertainly noreally absolutely noreally zero costfeecharge connected withregardingincluding interestinterestrates of great interest, immediateimmediatequick approvalrecognitionendorsement and straightforward on-line stability movechange campaigns, howevernonetheless be carefulbe consciousbe mindful foravoidavoid the most effectiveadvantageous element thatcomponent thatfactor that could avoidavoiduseless your individual PercentPercentPer-cent simpleeasystraightforward roadsstreetsroadspavement aprrate connected withregardingincluding interestrate furthermorein additionadditionallyfurthermore totogether withas nicelycorrectlyeffectively because throw you out of troubleenable you to get beganyou connected withregardingincluding troubleenable you to certainlysomeone tothat you simply obtain beganyou into the insufficientbadweak house fastfastrapid.
Written by Zada Okimoto about 2 months ago. Reply

Hmm is anyone else acquiring conditions while using the pictures on this web site loading? I am aiming to determine out if its a condition on my end or if it is really the website. Any responses is substantially appreciated.
Written by Kole Cilibrasi about 2 months ago. Reply

I am typically to blogging and i genuinely appreciate your site content The content has really peaks my interest My goal is to bookmark your internet
Written by waisitham about 2 years ago. Reply

This is an very interesting paper, as your paper is slightly similar to the topic that i have chosen in my paper. You have given valuable points to understand the topic more in-depth though.

There is a link of your paper to my paper because there is an association between cyber stalking and cyber bullying. Also, you have touched a small amount of stalking issue.
As stalkers will create a fake identity on social networking sites with the intention for running any criminal activity such as stalking people in real-life after obtaining sufficient personal information of the target victims.

However, cyber bullying is another popular negative behavior on SNSs. The bad consequences of cyber bullying can lead a person to commit suicide. For instance, cyber bullies drove 15-year-old Megan Gillian to kill herself by consuming a fatal overdose of painkiller after she has been targeted as the victim of cyberbullies who teased on SNSs Bebo (Moore, 2009).

People utilise online social media in the wrong way could lead to tragedy take place. As in my point of view, both parties have the responsibility to bear with. Social networking sites should put stop of making available of the friendly stalking options of privacy setting, such as profiles can be viewed by selecting the ‘public’ or ‘friends of friends’ options. Regarding about the SNSs users should increase the awareness of cyber stalking and cyber bullying and not to publicise oneself intimate information to prevent being stalked or bullied in online social medium.

It is very important to utilise SNSs in an appropriate way in order to allow everyone to enjoy the freely available social media to communicate with everyone in all around the world.

Reference:
Rees, G. (n.d.). My internet ‘friend’ become a virtual stalker. Daily Mail, Retrieved 25 April, 2010, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Written by SheilaM about 2 years ago. Reply

Hello Heidi,

First of all I must say I enjoyed reading your paper, it was easy to read, straight forward and raised some important points.

In my paper, I wrote about a positive side to internet communities – how blogs, online support groups and social networking sites can be used to support those with chronic health conditions (http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/web-2-0-platforms-and-health-care-how-online-support-groups-blogs-and-social-networking-sites-are-facilitating-online-%E2%80%98communities-of-care%E2%80%99/). It found it interesting to read your paper as it highlighted a negative aspect of internet communities.

Quite a few years ago, I was a victim of cyber bullying. It was on an AOL chat site (pre MySpace and Facebook) and it was not pleasant. At the time I was upset, but I did not blame AOL, I blamed the person instigating the abuse. I reported the individual to AOL and they dealt with the matter by prefenting him from using that particular site for a period of time.

After reading your paper, I reflected on ‘traditional’ bullying, such as the bullying that occurs daily in workplaces and school yards all over this country. While we can’t really point our finger at the school or workplace for causing the bullying (well not usually anyway), the school or workplace is still facilitating the bullying. You would expect, as an employee or student, that the workplace/school would have an anti-bullying policy in place, and that the perpetrator would be dealt with accordingly. So in this regard, it should not be any different for MySpace or Facebook – if their platforms are facilitating cyber-bullying, then they should have policies that are enforced once cyber bullying, or other site violations, are reported.

Radek, one of your other commentators here, noted that 175 million people log on to Facebook every day, and asked how it could be possible to control this amount of people. I suppose its not a matter of controlling that many people, but that people in the community should be held accountable for their actions.

I thought you summed up your conclusion well. As you say “this suggestion is by no means an answer, but perhaps it may be a start”; ignoring this growing social problem is certainly not going to make it go away.

Sheila
Written by VickyK about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Heidi

Really good paper well done. I also haven’t ever given much thought to cyber bullying, but it
definitely provoked a strong reaction after reading your paper, and as Mandy stated earlier imagining what life must be like for kids at school these days, when the bullying continues long after they leave the school gates. Facebook and Myspace allow for a greater degree of public humiliation for the victims too, as more and more of their peers are privy to and ‘witnessing’ what is going on. It really must compound the pain and isolation they already feel.

As Michael also touched on, the words on a computer screen are just as harmful as face to face, and much much more than ‘just words’, especially when thought of in terms of the audience who can see them as well as the unfortunate recipient. These ‘words’ can also be read and re-read by the victims countless times fuelling their negative perceptions of themselves.

Facebook and Myspace do have a part to play, but how they should go about it, taking in to account the pro’s and cons of ‘restricting’ and ‘controlling’ information is most definitely food for thought. Do we indeed point the finger at them because society (parents, peers, teachers etc) are either unable to deal with it, incapable or simply dont want to be held accountable?

Thanks for writing on this subject, very poignant yet essential its discussed and debated.

Cheers,
Vicky
- Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Vicky,
  Thanks for your post With the rise of SNSs and mobile devices to assist, cyber-bullying really is becoming a concern. This is particularly concerning for the number of young users of SNSs. Society has steered us in the direction of social pressure from day to day life issues such as work, family and relationships. As noted in my paper, cyber-bullying can really get out of hand and results prove detrimental to the victims.
  This debate certainly has swayed both ways and I agree to say there is no black or white answer, but a huge grey area to be addressed. The ultimate question will always be who, or perhaps what is responsible?
  Thanks for taking the time to read my paper.
  HeidiN
Written by JasonK about 2 years ago. Reply

A good paper with an interesting topic that is becoming more important to understand what legal obligations SNS’s like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace etc, have towards its users in cases like defamation, cyberstalking, identity theft etc.

In the case of Facebook, it says that it tries to keep the site safe but requires the help of users to abide by its guidelines. Essentially, Facebook is passing the ball back to users to maintain a clean site (Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, 2010).

Its really quite interesting, Zuckerberg’s stance on antisemitism by passing the responsibility back to users because, Zuckerberg is Jewish himself (Mark Zuckerberg, 2010). One would have thought that being a Jew, he would be taking a much more pro-active approach to the subject, but it appears not. I suppose in a way he can’t show any favoritism to protect freedom of speech and banning some sites and not others would be an infringement of this.

Letting users themselves dictate what is acceptable content on Facebook is actually pretty clever as it ensures Facebook is not able to be sued for inappropriate content.

On one hand you have people who want freedom of speech, to say whatever they want about whatever they want, yet paradoxically, the same people cry foul when content is created that conflicts with their sense of right and wrong. These users need to be told that you can’t have it both ways. Either you allow all forms of content including hate groups, antisemitism, KKK, love groups, pro abortion, anti abortion etc, or, you limit freedom of speech and have only certain content online.

From a business point of view, to limit what content can be placed online will also mean that customers (users) will be limited, and this in turn will affect the bottom line i.e. profit. The less people are on Facebook, the less incentive advertisers will have to use it is an advertising tool and hence, less money will come into Facebooks pockets (Johnson 2009). Simple really, that the decision is ultimately driven by money.

So who is to blame? People, for not understanding the terms and conditions of the service they are using. Education is the key to dispel ignorance.

Great paper Heidi.

Johnson, B (2009). How exactly is Facebook making money?. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/16/facebook-money

Mark Zuckerberg, (2010). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf
- Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Jason
  Thanks for your comments. It is interesting you note Zuckerberg’s stance on anti-Semitism and him being Jewish. This is something I didn’t pick up
  It just goes to show, even the creator himself (and as you noted from a business perspective) brushes this under the mat to bring in the cash. Sad but true and as the saying goes, money talks!
  I agree, education is definitely a significant aspect to “dispel ignorance”
  HeidiN
  - Written by JasonK about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Yes, what people do at the end of the day in order to make sure that the $$$ keeps coming in is a wonder sometimes. I am of course not certain this is what is happening, but it is a very plausible explanation as to why he would allow these things to happen.
    
    Businesses need to protect themselves from liability and regardless of what Zuckerberg himself thinks about these antisemitic pages, he has allowed Facebook to take a certain stance on these topics and has to now follow that path.
    
    I agree with you though that users need to educate themselves but therein lies the problem, because 80% of the users surveyed for a study regarding Facebook in the paper I wrote had not read the Facebook Privacy Policy (Govani & Pashley, 2005). It would not be too much to say that this also goes for the terms of Service.
    
    If user’s don’t care to read the fine print then there is little that can be done, except perhaps to ensure that education is moved into the schools to educate the young about SNS’s.
    
    Govani, T. & Pashley, H. (2005). Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications When Using Facebook. Retrieved from http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf
Written by MilanaK about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Heidi

A very well written paper I have to say and very easy to read.

I think a lot of people provoke these offenders themselves. Not excusing offenders in any way, of course, but I’ve seen a lot of girls post very explicit and inappropriate pictures of themselves and their friends online. There are sick people out there and everyone knows that. However, saying that, no one’s got a right to take advantage of these young girls who are probably blinded by the media and expectations of what they should look like, so they post their half naked photos on Facebook so people can see that they can look like some model or actress (who has probably been photoshopped past recognition) as well.

Going back to your context, I don’t think Facebook or Myspace should be held responsible for the activities that go on on there. It is people who participate not Facebook moderators. However, it should be Facebook’s responsibility to monitor the content and remove anything that could offend or hurt someone eg. like hate groups that you’ve mentioned. They should also monitor any kind of bullying and stop it on time to prevent accidents like Megan Meiers. Facebook admins should have more control over what is going on and perhaps restricts accounts to over 18yrs.

Milana
Written by Radek_Valenta about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Heidi
Do you think that SNSs should be held responsible for things like cyberbullying?
I don’t think they should be, because SNSs are only misused tools, for instance phone can also be used for cyberbullying and I don’t think that anybody will blame telcos.
- Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  As noted in my previous posts, I think SNSs should hold some accountability for the content on their sites. I don’t think that certain SNSs like Facebook would want a reputation as being a site used by bullies to hurt others or an easy playground for predators. Ultimately, it’s the user’s wrong doing thing that counts most, however I believe the owners have a duty of care to not allow certain types of content to be displayed by the level of restrictions.
  You noted: “..phone can also be used for cyberbullying and I don’t think that anybody will blame telcos” I tend to disagree with this comment as I think it is a diluted comparison. Both SNSs and Telcos provide a service, however Telcos provide a service whereby there is service connection to a phone line or internet on a mobile device and are not the “owners” or creators of the SNSs. Another example would be an application on a phone. The Telco is responsible for the connection of the line but if there was an issue with the application on the phone it would be the “creators” responsibility.
  Cheers
  HeidiN
Written by jhiroberts about 2 years ago. Reply

Your commentHi Heidi,

A great paper.

Very well researched and presented.

I totally agree with your conclusion, that social networking sites, do have a large part to play to stop such bullying and racism.

I also think that more attention needs to be paid to education on social networking as stated in your paper it has become the way to communicate for the next generation.

Cheers

Jhi
- Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Jhi,
  Thanks for your comment
  Education and awareness should play a major role to help reduce and eliminate such incidents. Social networks certainly have increased in popularity over the last few years and with the next generation who have not experienced life pre-Internet, it is so much more significant to address.
  HeidiN
- Written by Radek_Valenta about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Jhi,
  I totally agree that adduction in the social networking is the way how to reduce negative aspects of those services. I thing that Internet ethic should be part of the school curriculum in every country, but unfortunately it wont be easy to achieve.
Written by Mandy Burke about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi Heidi,

I had never really thought too much about cyber bullying, as I have never been exposed to it. But I have often thought about how going to school must be so different now, the whole aspect of bullying has changed. When I was at school when you left school, you could return to your safe home and be happy for the evening. Kids now return home and continue being bullied in their home environment and that must be difficult to endure. Never being able to fully switch off from the bullying would be very difficult. As your paper suggests, for some it would be so difficult that they might commit suicide and that is quite sad.

The issue you discuss of the incriminating photos being published directly onto your social network, reminded me of when I first joined Facebook and you would have to ‘accept’ every tagged photo of yourself. At the time I thought it was so laborious and annoying to have to do. But now whenever I receive those emails alerts saying “You have been tagged in [ ] photos”, my heart starts racing. I need to get to my Facebook page straight away to ensure that those photos don’t need to be ‘untagged’. I feel like it is an invasion of my rights or privacy (I am not sure exactly which one) that people are able to just post whatever photo of me for the world to see. This could also be a horrific act for a bully to carry out to its victim, knowingly posting and tagging photos of a person that is incriminating to them in some way.

You might find my paper interesting, I discuss how Facebook’s aggregated newsfeed has changed the way people communicate. http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/facebooks-aggregated-news-feed-has-changed-the-way-people-communicate/

Great paper!

Thanks
Mandy
- Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Mandy,
  Thanks for taking the time to read my paper and for your post. I will definitely have a peek at yours
  It really is quite sad how cyber- bullying has affected people and is very moving when it results in someone taking their own life. I no longer use Facebook but when I first joined, I was surprised at how easy it was to find people on there and getting links to their contacts and so on through friends of friends. Without getting into too much detail, it got to a point where things were becoming a problem for me with unwanted posts and comments, posting of old photos and invading my privacy. There has been an upgrade since then but needless to say, I believe more work needs to be done. It’s too easy to be bullied on a SNS and Facebook is one of them.
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply

I like the logical arguement you have made. I wonder if the creators of MySpace and Facebook took into account human nature when setting up these sites? I do agree technology is neutral but I do think there is a lack of education of consequence of online interactions. Your paper suggests some extreme examples but how does one respond to such things? Blaming the poster rather than the technology seems to be the logical conclusion. I think perhaps it is also the choice to interact with the postings, if you do not like it and say so you become part of the arguement. When it is emotive issues like children or politics strong views are expected.

You also highlight a common issue I have strong views about; these postings are not just words on the screen. Text and images can have an effect on anyone of any age. The just ignore it it is just words attitudes do not always work, cyberbulling is insideous and whilst it might be good to toughen up, your examples show not everyone is capable of doing so.

Good paper with good examples.
- Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Michael,
  Thanks for your comment.
  I’m glad that my paper has provoked some debate. There appears to be valid argument against the idea that platforms are to blame. I feel Mark Zuckerberg has taken into account human nature when creating the platforms for Facebook.
  As stated in my paper, Zuckerberg mentioned “Facebook users should use the platform to generate more worldly perspectives” (Oboler; O’Neill, 2008). From my understanding, Zuckerberg had a fair idea of the controversy it would create by designing the platform as it would allow users to explore and create whilst pushing boundaries. This is my opinion anyway
  And I agree that cyber-bullying is insidious. The Megan Meier incident proves how dangerous it can be and we should try to do something to stop it. Perhaps restricting platforms is a start?
  HeidiN
  - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Agree Heidi, though prohibition rarely works and there will be something to come along to use that will be new but have the same effect. Cyberbullying is a pet hate of mine, I do admit that, but it is in the dismissal of it where I have the issue. People create fake profiles because they are mad at someone and want revenge. Now the revenge might only have a limited audience, but if that audience is important, such as peer groups, someone may take their own life to avoid humilation. It is very important to point out how to manage flaming on any virtual platform yet bitter experience is often that teacher.
Written by ebony_wheeldon about 2 years ago. Reply

“Shaheen Shariff pin-points the “characteristics of cyber-bullying as an extension of traditional bullying.” (Shariff, 2008) The Internet allows a cyber-bully the use of an online medium such as Facebook to harass the victim thus allowing them to “hide behind screen names and be somewhat unidentifiable.” (Shariff, 2008)”

This best sums up the occurrence of anti-social behavior online (especially in social networking sites)—that, as an extension to offline bullying, it is possible there is already some inherent form of this behavior and that these sites are merely a platform; but also, these sites make it easier to act in such a way due to their anonymity.

I agree that these sites are merely platforms for any kind of behavior but that due to the social aspect of them, they allow a conglomeration of beliefs and behavior by allowing those with similar ideas to interact on a wider level. These ideas are generally pre-existing and may not necessarily be harmful or negative towards others. For instance, people may promote their belief in the existence of unicorns as easily as they might endorse anti-semitic ideas. Sites such as Facebook simply facilitate communication and interaction between people with similar or contrasting ideas and principles.

It would be interesting to see how often cases of cyber-bullying continue in ‘real life.’ Social networking sites do have privacy measures in place to deter interaction with people displaying anti-social behavior. Cannot a person simply “block” those causing them grief online? As far as I can see, ignoring this behavior online is just as easy as exhibiting these kinds of anti-social activities. If the situation were to continue on a physical level (by which I mean being bullied outside the ‘online world’), as well as virtually then a person would likely find it more difficult to escape. Perhaps, also, social networking sites are partially to blame in failing to tighter control the behavior and uses of their members and in certain cases they have perhaps failed to act when they should have. However, from their stance, social networking sites should be about freedom, of being able to communicate thoughts and beliefs without being inhibited. The beauty of these sites is the liberty they offer; their “freedom of speech” and, without this ability, would people want to use them so much? It is very likely that the answer would be no.
- Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi Ebony,
  Thanks for your post. There are privacy measures in place to deter “anti-social behaviour” as you note, however how controlled or restricted are these measures? Why are these incidents still occurring? Why aren’t the measures preventing a horrible incident such as the Trinity Bates and Elliott Fletcher (as mentioned in my paper) before it hit the news headline? Surely SNS can block/monitor such inappropriate content like pornography or obscenities.
  It is definitely a grey area when we talk about restrictions and what can or should be controlled on a SNS as it provokes controversy relating to freedom of speech as you mentioned.
  
  I disagree with what you stated; “ignoring this behaviour online is just as easy as exhibiting these kinds of anti-social activities” For a cyber-bully victim, a SNS may be an important part of his/her social life, whereby they communicate with their friends so logging off or avoiding the site may not be a preferable choice. A factor such as a bully using a fake identity like the Megan Meier case, also contributes to the bully incident. Simply ignoring a rude or derogatory comment won’t make the bully go away. Regardless of one’s thick skin, words do hurt and psychological problems can be created from the constant harassment leading to something more serious.
  If anything, the examples I have noted in my paper show it is “easier said than done” when trying to stop a bully incident. I think education, awareness, prevention (by platform restrictions) is the way to go.
  
  HeidiN
Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply

Keith,
I acknowledge what you are saying in regards to censorship, however there is always going to be a grey area when political opinion is involved and where free speech can be affected. It is never straight forward and black or white. As you stated, “Your idea of a hate group may not be my idea of a hate group” and examples like this will be challenging to define or keep regulated. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to put something in place to prevent negative incidents. Nonetheless, I realise there are laws in place to contain these types of incidents, but the majority of us know right from wrong and what the laws stipulate for example, material containing racial, sexual or religious discrimination.
What I am saying is that the owners of such sites like Facebook should be held responsible for the content in line with those stipulated by law, on their site through platform regulation, just as for example, a public billboard showing a derogatory image or content allowed to be displayed by the local council. The local council should have to answer as to why this has been allowed and possibly penalised.
In reply to your question, am I “advocating censorship”, my reply contains two parts. Censorship of social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace: yes. This will make it safer for the majority of young Facebook and MySpace users. Censorship of the Internet: No, as it is unfair for all the users doing the right thing and will affect our social equality. Also, your idea of a Facebook censorship panel run by Stephen Conroy is a great idea and should be extended to include all social networking sites. I think the Government should be more involved in regulating platforms of particular categories of sites, rather than concentrating on a filter for the whole Internet.
Thanks for your comment.
Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply

Hi All,
Thanks for your comments
In reply to directorcia: I think human interaction is a significant player in this argument, however if the platforms allow the user the access to abuse then it is more likely to occur. As noted by Oboler in my paper, Facebook did very little to stop the hate group that formed on the site. (Oboler, 2008) My question is; if the platform didn’t allow this or was set up differently, would this group have been able to form?
It is human nature to explore and push boundaries, we are inquisitive beings. I believe that Facebook’s popularity has become somewhat a cash cow for capitalism. My opinion is that Facebook should take more responsibility for the content or things that occur on the site and be more stringent with their so called restrictions.
- Written by Keith Law about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Heidi
  
  You are advocating censorship? Your idea of a hate group may not be my idea of a hate group. Who will decide what is acceptable and what is not? Will there be a face book censorship panel run by Steven Conroy?
  
  There are laws that exist to suppress extremes and these should be enforced. The difficulty is in the definitions. Israel can be criticised without it being illegal or even anti-Semitic just as Palestine and other causes can be criticised. We can not restrict political opinion. I do not know what was the content on these Facebook groups so I can’t express an opinion as to whether or not they breached the law ( which countries laws?) but I’m opposed to censorship.
- Written by RadekV about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Hi
  I don’t think that Facebook or any other SNS should take more responsibility, simply its a question if it is possible or not. According to (techcrunch.com, 2010) 175 million people log in to the Facebook everyday so how it can be possible to control such a mass of people.
  - Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Hi Radek,
    Thanks for your comment and opinion. I don’t think that it’s impossible; however it would be challenging to restrict the platforms of SNS. It’s not the volume of people logging on to Facebook that I think should be controlled; it’s actually the way it is set up. For example, to reduce the number of false accounts or people signing up under age on a SNS, Facebook could have a compulsory field whereby a driver’s licence number or social security number is recorded so that this information can be traced should a user do the wrong thing or try to use a false age.
    I know this example sounds extreme and probably will put off a lot of users but it’s an idea of what can be done to reduce these types of negative incidents.
    HeidiN
    - Written by Radek_Valenta about 2 years ago. Reply
      
      Hi Heidi
      
      I don’t think that is possible to verify most of the user details, take the under age users for example, how many people will want to join internet service that require scanned copy of driver’s license. How can you be sure that the informations will not end up in bad hands, also every country in the world use different form of IDs, in Australia its typically driver’s license and every state has got its own, in the Europe each country has its own too etc., its thousands of different ID card, and now imagine the work force required to verify it.
      - Written by HeidiN about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        Hi Radek,
        Thanks again for your post. You have raised a valid point with regards to verifying user information to set up accounts on SNSs for different countries. My suggestion was to have driver’s licence “number” recorded not a scanned copy of the driver’s licence as you noted.
        Perhaps something more universal for each continent can be set up, such as when you sign up, you select what country you are from and then you will need to provide particular ID information to be validated before an account will be opened. The ID will be specific to the region or country to which you are applying for. Another suggestion would be finger printing ID which would be universal but may create other identity issues and be difficult to incorporate the technology into the platforms. This suggestion, you may think is farfetched but with the way technology is advancing, I think anything is possible!
        HeidiN
        
        Written by Radek_Valenta about 2 years ago. Reply
        
        Hi Heidi
        You are right that its technologically possible, but probable not legally. To make such a system work SNSs must be able to verify the information entered by users and to do so they need access to the government databases, in case of Australia it will probably be RTA. I do not think that they will be willing to grant so confident informations to the SNSs.
Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply

I don’t believe the platforms are to blame as technology is neutral. It is the old arguement I believe that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. Isn’t the real issue here human interactions? Sure, they can transpire faster and over greater distances with the technologies of social networking but at its heart aren’t the issues simply those which we have been experiencign a human beings for centuries?
- Written by ChrisK about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  In reply to directorcia :Maybe the human beings experienced it for centuries because many good things are transferred in the Web 2.0 as well as some bad things. That is one point looking on the Web 2.0 more as a place for human beings were the normal life gets mediated in an disembodied form.
  - Written by directorcia about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    Yes but aren’t you agreeing with my point that the issue is independent of technology and more ground in human relations?
    - Written by RosannaCandler about 2 years ago. Reply
      
      You make a really interesting point directoria. I have often read the phrase “technology is neutral” and have nodded along, believing myself to be a totally modern thinker and that the idea fits neatly in with my interest in and passion for internet studies. But I never fully considered its accuracy until I more intensely considered your equivalence ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’.
      
      I find myself torn. I believe that it is the flaw of human nature to pull the trigger of a gun, and at the same time I am resolutely behind stronger gun laws (to the point where Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine’ made me physically sick). And then- on top of all that- I believe in freedom of the individual and the rights to do what they want, even own a gun…which conflicts directly with everything mentioned before. So I suppose I follow this jumbled and confused logic with the internet issue: It is a human flaw that we are belittling social interactions (by employing the platforms of Myspace and Facebook), and so I believe we need stronger education and awareness of the way we use the internet in our lives and whether this is ultimately a good or bad thing. Even though we should all have the right to personal freedom.