> You would not tell a total offline stranger whom you
> meet at a bus stop everything, so you would not tell
> an online stranger to whom that you write everything.
> It is as simple as that.

I agree with you completely.. but do you mean all people you meet online are strangers? Because that's a point I'd have to argue.

--
Watch, watch me disappearing completely/In the dream of destruction and rebirth, this poem will be sung/In this fragmented sky, aaah, dozing, you had searched for the feeling that was wished for. Siva&Diva--アリス九號。

Exactly. Educate, don't frighten. What's interesting about this particular time on the Web - the user-driven Web, social Web, Web 2.0, whatever - is that fear is less and less effective as a means of motivating adults to protect their kids. Fear causes overreaction (as you pointed out Grammaof23), such as banning social networking or the Net use altogether. An overreacting, uncommunicating, authoritarian approach often causes kids to go underground. Which means they have even less protection (except their own good sense, which most of them have a good deal of) than before stuff is "shut down." What do I mean by their going underground? There are so many ways. There are hundreds of blogging and social-networking sites and services where accounts can be set up for free (and some kids just have multiple accounts on MySpace). If one or two specific sites are blocked by a home or school filter, there are hundreds of proxy sites and services for bypassing the filter, and a lot more kids know how to find them than adults do. There are more and more devices with which the Net can be accessed (besides a PC at home with filtering installed). There are a growing number of places where the Net can be accessed, wired, or wirelessly, with these devices - including friends' houses, the library, cybercafes, some schools, and more and more public places with free wi-fi hotspots.

I'm getting long-winded here, but my point is that, in this reality we're all dealing with, it's usually more effective to communicate with our kids about *how* they socialize online than to shut stuff down. I would love to hear from people here how they work with their kids to help them keep it safe on social sites.
--
Anne Collier
BlogSafety co-director

RaceFan313, I think you're talking about a risk that is affecting or will affect a lot more teen social networkers than what the news media have focused on so far. Their focus has been very narrow and very scary. Sexual predation is a risk, but I think focusing on it too much is misleading to parents who need to know more about what you're concerned about. Does that make sense? In other words, I suspect a great many more kids and teens will be affected by stuff teenagers themselves do on the social networks than by what adults such as predators do - though there has been no research done on this yet.

Were you able to talk to the parents of the girl who posted your daughter's info? Did they get it, or were they pretty unapproachable? Some how or another, parents of kids in peer groups are going to have to talk to each other more about this stuff, because we need to be engaged and support each other in promoting safe, smart use of the social Web. I don't think there are many other real safeguards for kids socializing on a Web that's increasingly accessible outside the home. Thanks for posting,
--
Anne Collier
BlogSafety co-director

Life was definitely a whole lot more relaxed and flexible when we were teenagers; I think there's plenty of evidence of that. And that is definitely a factor in their social lives, not just the current social tools. I think you'll find Sherry Turkle's comment on "tethering" interesting, among other reflections in her article. I'd been waiting for a long time to see her thinking on social networking and was glad to find that article, part of a huge takeout in New Scientist magazine (out of the UK, I think) on this subject. You're kind to ask - you can find the book at just about any bookstore, online or off; our site, with a direct link, is MySpaceUnraveled.com.
--
Anne Collier
BlogSafety co-director

I too think the news media have missed the bigger picture, including both the positives and the risks that will affect a whole lot more young people than sexual predation (peer harassment, negative self-exposure, and the wrong kind of validation, e.g., in communities that support cutting, eating disorders, substance abuse, etc.).

For example, some good thinking that's been done more on the positive side can be found behind these links - to Prof. Henry Jenkins at MIT, researcher David Huffaker at Northwestern, and researcher Danah Boyd at Berkeley; and MIT Prof. Sherry Turkle recently looked deeper into the impact of the social Web in a thought-provoking way.

Thank you for telling about your daughter's experience with moving and MySpace - great insights. Interesting, the idea of a breakdown of socio-economic barriers. That's one of the characteristics of "third places" described in a book that Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Fry recently wrote about in a look at online "hangouts." Like neighborhood ones in real life, virtual hangouts are generally "levelers" too, he writes, places where "rank and status don't matter" (except maybe when kids use MySpace as popularity contests, but they use it for a lot of other stuff too). I'm actually taking a look at that in NetFamilyNews this week.

What you said about the teen interaction you observed on the social sites being 90% wholesome is underreported too. Who knows what the real percentage is, but I agree that the bad stuff isn't nearly as plentiful as the good stuff.

A metaphor that occurred to me while co-writing our book, MySpace Unraveled is that of a giant train station like Penn Station in NY. Adults checking out MySpace for the first time are like tourists stepping into that giant, high-traffic, fast-paced space at rush hour - very intimidating, alien - they come in and just want to find the nearest exit. But commuters (teens) just walk in and head for their platform. No big deal; just a part of everyday life. They don't see what the tourist sees. They just go right to their profile, check out their friends', comment, and maybe spend a little time decorating, installing a bit of code, or changing their background tunes (tell me if I'm wrong, teens in this forum!). The problem is, the whole public discussion so far - including on Capitol Hill - has been dominated by the tourists. Maybe some commuters have participated, but I've seen no evidence. Academic researchers are semi-commuters - we need more of those in the discussion too, but it also needs commuters! We're not going to have an informed public discussion until some young social networkers are in it. And even before there's an informed public discussion (perhaps this is not unusual), laws are being written by "tourists," people who don't fully understand what they want to regulate, to whom it hasn't yet occurred that there is actually another view, that of the "commuter." Does this metaphor make sense, people?
Anne --
Anne Collier
BlogSafety co-director

> Absolutely NOT!! The media has mainly covered only
> the most extreme of the dangers, but there are
> hundreds more dangers that are equally dangerous to
> our children's souls that do not get the time of day
> because the media deems them to not be a
> problem--such as the insidious problem of porn in our
> children's lives...I was interviewed on a news show
> about the online dangers, and everything I said to
> the reporter about porn was edited out because the
> reporter told me that "Porn is not a problem" and he
> pooh-poohed the whole idea. (now we know why it's not
> being covered in the mainstream news media).
>
> Children posting porn (taking photos of themselves or
> their friends) is a huge problem, and it's time that
> parents woke up to this issue.

What do you mean? Those sorts of thing happen a lot, but the internet CAN INDEED! be used for good. I've met two of the most wonderful friends I could ask for online. And so have my friends, they've met people online too. People are good online and people are bad online. Just like the real world, people are good, and peopole are bad.

>"Porn is not a problem" and he
> pooh-poohed the whole idea.

You know why he said that? Because it is not. Porn is just.. porn. Material for masturbation. That's it, nothing more. Geeze. Most, if not all of my friends, no people in my school have seen porn, by seventh grade. And you know, it's no big deal. It's pornography, for crying out loud.

There are worse things online than pornography and sex. My goodness. Hey, there are worse things in life then pornography and sex! Would you believe that?


> Children posting porn (taking photos of themselves or
> their friends) is a huge problem

It is. On websites like youtube and myspace. Almost everyone online community looks down on people doing this, they get called 'attention whores.' on other sites. We laugh at people like that, so depserate for attention they'd do such a thing.

I think the media overreacts to social networking dangers. Completely and absolutely. These things happen in a small number, and are blown out of proportion. And people get on their worry boat and go block websites and install monitering software, checking on their children as if they were a dog. TEACH YOUR CHILD THE KNOWLEDGE TO KEEP THEMSELVES SAFE ONLINE. Best thing you can do.

--
Watch, watch me disappearing completely/In the dream of destruction and rebirth, this poem will be sung/In this fragmented sky, aaah, dozing, you had searched for the feeling that was wished for. Siva&Diva--アリス九號。

This question is awkwardly phrased; the answer is not simple as "yes" or "no." Dot Calm's reply argues that porn is a significant problem under reported by mainstream media. Minors having access to porn is indeed a problem, but I'm not really sure that media underreports it. Indeed, it seems to me that the media relishes in pointing out any and all seamy sides of the Net. This question deals with social networking (not porn) and I will address issues regarding porn in another post, not this one.

Mainstream media's coverage of social networking sites focuses on one issue and one issue alone: cyberpredators. Perhaps because of Dateline's complete overexposure of cyberpredators (pardon the pun), mainstream media has jumped on the ratings bandwagon and done everything it can to paint places like MySpace as complete hangouts for cyberpredators. With almost *90 million members* there is no doubt that cyberpredators do exist there, as they also exist on Yahoo Instant Messenger and a number of other sites. There is no doubt that some children have been lured into dangerous liasons through MySpace and other social networking sites.

What is *underreported* however is what percentage of nationwide child-rapes, abductions, runaways and murders start with social networking activities. My understanding is that most molestations occur with *a family member or friend*. However, these numbers don't add up to ratings for mainstream media. It is much more profitable to point out the seamy side of the Net than to say that kids are snagged off the streets "X number of times more" than they are off the Net.

Meantime, certain security risks on MySpace go completely *underreported or are not reported at all*. I have been spending time at MySpace (I wonder if reporters do at all) to find a number of glaring security risks that I discuss further on wwwedu listserv. Account phishing, automatic bulletin postings, profile redirect to offsites (and yes, pornsites are prevalent) are but a few of the hacks that are going on and are security risks in the extreme. However, they don't have the ratings appeal that anything involvinv sex have at MySpace.

All of this may lead one to think that I personally am against MySpace. Far from it. Indeed, the most glaring media coverage void lies in the area of *positive reporting regarding social networking sites in particular and the Net in general*. Please think about the last time you saw any reporting of anything positive of MySpace, perhaps some of the students who are using it to fight global poverty or genocide. Right... you haven't seen any. This is because negative sells. Think of the last time you saw any positive reporting of anything on the Net in general.

This is the most appalling thing, that network news won't cover the Net in a positive fashion. Have you ever seen a show on Takingitglobal, Nabuur or Tapped In? No? I didn't think so... and that's the biggest disappointment.