Microblogging

Sometimes we all have a story worthy of more acknowledgement than what Facebook or Twitter can provide. Microblogging websites are the leading medium of choice for sharing these stories with the world. You can discuss embarrassing moments, complain about misfortunes that have befallen you, and share funny experiences on these websites. After posting stories on these sites, viewers are free to comment on them. A few commonly-visited microblogs include FMyLife, MyLifeIsAverage, and Lamebook. The comments can have a significant impact on the self-esteem of the person who posted the story, and this medium of sharing experiences can lead to cyberbullying as well.

FMyLife, or FML, is a website that allows users to post embarrassing stories, most of which have extremely unfortunate outcomes, and each stories ends with “FML”. Viewers can vote “I agree, your life sucks” or “you totally deserved it” on each of these posts, as well as add comments. Here is an example of a post on FML:

“Today, I saw an elderly man fall in a crosswalk, so I jumped off my bike to help. As I helped him across, the light turned green. I then watched across a 6 lane street as someone stole my bike. FML.”

MyLifeIsAverage, or MLIA, is a website similar to FML, except it consists of posts about average experiences in a person’s daily life, all ending with MLIA. Some of the posts also parody ones found on FML. On MLIA, a reader can vote either “average” or “meh” on a post, as well as add comments. Here is an example of a post on MLIA:

“Today, I died from not passing on a chain mail. This is the 117th time this has happened. MLIA.”

Lamebook is a website that is similar to FML and MLIA in nature except that the person who posts the piece on Lamebook is not always the person involved in the story. Lamebook is a collection of typos, poorly planned photos, and embarrassing conversations found on Facebook. Most of the posts are hilarious, and viewers are always free to comment on them.

Now that we have a fairly good understanding of how microblogs work and what they stand for, I am going to discuss the implications they have for users, viewers, and society as a whole. One article on nowpublic.com refers to FML as a “crowd-generated psychiatrist” of sorts, which is an accurate assumption. Internet is the best outlet for bad events in your life. You always have an audience, and the comments allow for feedback from the readers or your post. The fact that anyone can just vent on a website and usually get support, acknowledgement, and understanding is very powerful. Additionally, readers usually find humor in these stories, as well as comfort in not having the same experience.

There are some detriments to this system of sharing experiences online. Comments posted on the stories aren’t always endearing and helpful. Some can be very harmful to a person’s self-esteem, and cyberbullying definitely begins to creep in as a result. I read a post on FML a few years ago where a guy posted about his parents walking in on him having sex with his boyfriend. He had not told of his homosexual tendencies until this happened. Many of the comments were very hurtful because of the guy’s sexual orientation, and the comment thread effectively became a battleground for the war on the rights of homosexuals.

A person doesn’t always have a desirable outcome when posting a story on a microblog, but when they do, the acceptance and understanding by the audience can be very rewarding. The humor provided to the reader on these websites is also a plus. Readers and users of microblogs must conduct themselves responsibly and respectfully if these websites are to ever have more positive atmospheres.

Photo Credit

Facebook Attacks Bullying

Social networking sites provide many positive communication aspects for users, but have also lead to the issue of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying has become an ever increasing issue that is demanding the involvement of government regulation. Children as young as fourth grade have begun bullying online. If this vicious cycle continues into our youth, bullying will become embedded in society as a social norm. Bullying is already socially acceptable, and it is not at all uncommon to hear of bullying in online environments. Finally Facebook stepped in to try and stop the problem just a few days ago.

The difference in severity between bullying on a playground and cyberbullying is that there aren't teachers, administrators, or even regulations to stop bullying online. Anonymity has given children, teenagers, and even adults the ability to terrorize individuals without repercussions or consequences. According to CNN, Facebook added two new security features to their social networking site this past week. The first provides users with the ability to report to a "support system" of friends, family, and safety experts if they believe they are being bullied. This feature will ultimately provide those being cyberbullied with an outlet so that they may discuss the issue with others who will be able to help them.

The second feature is called a Safety Center. This gives adults and teenagers a place on Facebook where they can watch educational videos, view statistics, and learn from tutorials regarding how to counsel victims of cyberbullying. The collaboration between the White House and Facebook officials aimed to provide an online support system for Facebook users in attempt to decrease online bullying. In addition to being able to report problems, victims of cyberbullying will be able to send evidence of bullying, such as status updates and pictures, to these experts. Seeing as online bullying and harassment continues to worsen with our increase in constant connectivity, hopefully these Facebook features will be able to contribute to solving the problem of cyberbullying.

Online Monitors

With so many online dangers for parents to be worried about such as online predators and cyberbullies, it makes sense that parents want a way to track their children’s online activities. According to the New York Times article "Now Parents Can Hire a Hall Monitor for the Web," new companies such as SafetyWeb, SocialShield, and MyChild now give parents the ability to monitor their children’s activities and even flags suspicious reportings. This provides busy parents and those that may not be computer savvy a way to understand their child and make sure that they are being safe online.

How do these tracking sites work? The companies charge $10 a month for subscriptions which begin with parents filling out a profile. The sites ask for the parents to fill in their child’s e-mail address and the family’s physical address. They then look through social networking sites to see if the child has any accounts. The sites will then monitor what the child writes and what others write about the child. The sites will then report back to the parent with a list of the child’s online activity, marking activities as safe, potentially dangerous, or red-flagged as dangerous. What exactly are they marking as hazardous? The sites look for key words suck as “kill” or “suicide” in postings. They also look for age differences between friends. However, these sites have a lot of loopholes and often mark things as hazardous that aren’t dangerous at all, such as being friends with an uncle or perhaps using language that the sites take out of context such as, “I could kill for a latte this morning.”

Are these sites crossing the line into children’s privacy? What if the parent was monitoring an adult child? What if someone used this site that was not a parent at all? I can see the potential for a lot of dangerous stalking occurring. I can understand the concern that parents have over the Internet and the worry that it draws not knowing how technology works well enough to monitor their children themselves. So in a sense, this could ease a lot of parent’s anxiety and even allow parents to trust their children more. But on the other hand, there are so many loopholes in the technology, that the parents may not be getting all of the information that they think they are paying for. What happens if the child uses another e-mail address to set up a social networking account? Chances are, these sites would never catch that activity and parents could be paying $10 a month to see their children’s “good” account. I for one do not think that these sites are worth what they are charging. I think that if parents are really concerned over their children’s Internet activities, they should learn how to use parental controls or do their own research on how to track their children’s online activity.

The other major concern of these sites is the invasion of privacy of the children. If the child is under 18 and it really is the child’s parents who are trying to use these sites, then I would say they are marginally okay. After all, the sites only inform parents of information that the child puts out online for anyone to see. If anything, this could be a lesson for the child of how what you put online can be accessed by anyone. But on the other hand, when things beyond Facebook statuses make it to reports, questions of privacy are brought up. While Facebook statuses are expected to be viewed publicly, things like e-mail exchanges are not. Concerned parents are not, I think that e-mail exchanges are private. If parents are really that concerned about their children’s Internet activity, then I think that they should be having a conversation with their child about what is and is not appropriate online activity.

Internet Vigilantes

A few weeks ago, one of my Unitrans coworkers posted a video on our Facebook group of a bus driver running over a snowman in the street. A few guys had built the snowman in the street as a joke and videotaped it. This bus driver’s employer saw the video and proceeded to fire him. As a result, a Facebook group was formed to protest this action and save the driver’s job. This sparked my interest in finding out what usually happens to an unsuspecting individual when a video of them committing a crime is posted, without their knowledge or consent, for the world to see.

It turns out, Internet vigilantism is often a result. These Internet vigilantes attack and put to shame any “culprit” in these videos of individuals performing unlawful or unethical acts. The vigilantes do so in an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice--similar to a citizen’s arrest. Although these vigilantes seek justice, they attempt to administer it by using two unjust methods. Firstly, they dig through every detail of the “culprit’s” life to discover their identity, which is effectively stalking. Secondly, the vigilantes follow up by turning these “culprits” in to the authorities, while also effectively labeling them as criminals for the world to judge.

One popular example of this is the South Korean woman deemed “dog poop girl,” who was attacked by Internet vigilantes and then felt so much shame that she left her university. She refused to clean up her dog’s mess after it defecated on a subway train, and a passenger recorded this on video and posted it online. Internet vigilantes worked fervently to glean information from the video and other Internet sources to learn of the woman’s identity. These Internet vigilantes blew a minor offense out of proportion, convinced that this woman’s actions necessitated her humiliation.

Another article showed that Internet vigilantes can actually lead to justice being served. Almost two years ago, someone posted a video of a 14-year-old boy abusing his cat. Again, online groups and Internet vigilantes analyzed the video with enough detail to determine the identity of the boy and where he lived. The local law enforcement charged the boy with animal abuse after they were prompted to investigate him. Even though the same process was used in both of these situations, in the case of the cat-abusing boy, the proper authorities were subsequently able to administer justice.

As a result of today’s online culture and our constant connectivity, Internet vigilantism is developing across the world. Internet vigilantes tear apart a “culprit’s” identity and put them to shame before finally turning them in to the authorities. These vigilantes assume that the “culprit” actually committed a crime. Although Internet vigilantism usually results in the administration of justice, the question of vigilantism as a whole arises, whether it takes place over the Internet or on the street. Do we have the right to incriminate someone online for doing something that society doesn’t agree with, even if they haven’t actually committed a crime? This anarchical administration of justice is actually a miscarriage of justice in many cases.

Photo credit

Trolling and the Evolution of Online Culture

In 2006, eighteen year old Nikki Catsouras crashed her father’s Porsche into a toll booth in Southern California. Authorities arrived at the scene to find Nikki’s dead body and what little remained of the car. Police officers took routine photos of the gruesome accident and closed the case; however, the photos were leaked onto the internet and Mr. Catsouras soon found them in his email inbox.

It was found that the leaked images began circulating on the internet shortly after the accident. An individual then found the photos and took deliberate actions to cause strife in the Catsouras family. Though this story is extremely unfortunate, it is not the only occurrence of an individual taking deliberate actions to evoke the emotions of another. This act, known on the internet as trolling, has become extremely common. Some websites, such as 4chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica, have even embraced the concept.

Trolling, according to the PC Magazine Encyclopedia, is the act of “posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.” These trolls will often insert controversial statements or commit such acts in an attempt to cause the victim to react. Sometimes, trolls will pretend to be genuinely concerned about another individual in order to allow the victim to open up to him or her. The troll will then use this vulnerability to lash out in the most harmful way possible, leaving the victim hurt and defensive.

Many consider trolling to be form of cyber bullying; however, it is a part of online culture and a standard mode of behavior for many internet users. Websites exist that teach individuals to troll and, often times, trolls are considered the “popular” people of internet videogames. Unfortunately, the internet culture of trolling has begun to cross the lines from the internet to real life. Such was the case with the Catsouras family.

I was inspired to write about trolling because, as an avid videogame player, I have noticed a drastic increase in troll behavior on many social videogames. Previously positive gaming environments have turned into cesspools of social degradation. Instead of having normal conversations, people would mention crude or controversial subjects just to begin arguments. I found that I could no longer find a friend as easily as I had in previous years, and that most individuals I encountered only wished to evoke a negative emotional response from me.

Perhaps trolling has become more common due society’s increased reliance on the internet. The more people use the internet, the easier it is for one to have an impact on its users. Perhaps individuals believe that it is easier to have a negative lasting impact on an individual than a positive one. Whatever the reason, trolling and internet abuse is a looming concern for millions of internet users. Perhaps if we take a stand against these internet abusers, we may make a difference in this social decline.

Online Identities: Opening the Door for Friends and Bullies

There was once a time when you played with who ever was on the playground. When the world extended only as far as the tan bark and you had to find self-validation in your fellow classmates. That time has been long forgotten as today’s youth now turns to a much higher power in their search for identity and acceptance. The power of the Internet has allowed people to find support for any aspect of their identity, and it has been a godsend for those who have recreated themselves via social networks. In the true spirit of postmodernism, many have begun to blur the borders of the self, abandoning the idea of a consistent self for online identities and profiles. These online avatars are worn and shed like clothes (Allison et al). However, the Internet has also given way to a new breed of bully that preys on the exposed and more sensitive parts of people’s identities.

The PBS documentary, Growing up Online (on reserve in Shields) shows teens who have used the Internet to find their niche and to locate others who support them. This affirmation can be beneficial as a depressed boy can receive much needed support or an adopted girl can find solace in others sharing her pain. On the other hand, some of the interviews in the documentary reveal darker forms of support. One girl found an online community of other anorexic teens that support her disorder, encouraging her to eat less and be skinnier. For better or worse, affirmation is now just a click away as individuals from across the world can band together.

The anonymity afforded by the Internet has acted as a stepping-stone for the shy or socially challenged. What you could not say on the playground you can say online. Jumping at the promise of affirmation, many have begun to express what they where afraid to, uploading parts of themselves onto the Internet. Psychologists have begun to utilize this in therapy for those with Asperger’s Syndrome. Although being constantly connected can help a shy individual break out of their shell, it also opens the door for bullies to get in and directly attack aspects of a person’s identity.

In his dissertation, William Woolley found that there is a statistically significant link between schoolyard bullies and cyberbullies. The Internet does not mutate a person into a bully, but acts as a force multiplier, giving new powers to an old bully. This new breed of bully is devastating, and unlike the schoolyard bully, it does not stop at the end of recess or even at the end of class.

The Internet can expose vulnerable aspects of individuals on an extremely public stage. What makes this worse is that many have voluntarily put parts of them selves up for everyone to see and attack. In his book, The Saturated Self, Kenneth J. Gergen argues that traditional ideas of a concrete identity have given way to the dissolution of the self in Postmodernism. We no longer cling to a constant identity but play different roles, breaking our selves up into online profiles. As Turkle, a 19-year-old mentioned in “The Development of the self in the Era of the internet and Role-Playing Fantasy Games” (Allison et al) put it: “you can have a sense of self without being one self.” By posting these parts of our identity online, one invites others in, and runs the risk of having ones secrets and self critiqued on a permanent and global stage.

The Postmodern dissolution of the self onto the Internet has proved a double-edged sword. Individuals can now seek affirmation for any aspect of their identity and have opened up in order to do this. However, cyberbullies can target these presented parts of people’s identities and do devastating psychological and social damage. This begs a few questions: Why are the assaults on our online identities so devastating if Internet avatars are seen as roles, personas we can don and shed? Why is cyber bullying seen as a more rampant and extreme problem if Woolley is correct that the Internet does not create a bully?

Anonymity in Cyberspace: Faceless Cage-Fighting from the Safety of Your Home?

Last week, 17-year-old Kayla, a girl from my theatre community in my hometown, stood up on stage and “came out” to her high school at an all-school assembly. She did not do this just to inform the world that she was gay; in a powerful and touching speech, she cracked open the taboos and barricades surrounding the acceptance of gay teens and gay marriage. Kayla’s speech was heartfelt and brave as she spoke about a personal subject that is very controversial. Kayla’s words were not confined to the time and space of the assembly, however; a video of her speech was posted on Youtube.

I was one of the very first people to watch the video on Youtube. I immediately posted the video onto my Facebook to share it with all of my online friends. By the end of the day, thirty of my friends had reposted the video. After three days, all of our friends and many friends of friends had seen the video. After six days, almost everyone in my hometown had seen or at least heard of Kayla’s speech. It was the talk of the town. It did not stop there; after a week, the video went beyond the boundaries of people who know Kayla: the video went viral.

Before the video went viral, the comment section was full of friend and family’s support, love, and admiration. As the video began to spread, complete strangers praised her words, her bravery, and her message. The upheaval of positive support was enormous. Yesterday, however, as the video reached 16,000 views since it was posted last Monday, some anonymous person wrote a short and hateful comment violently opposing not just the girl’s argument, but also the girl and everyone who supported her. There was an instant outcry against this comment, and things immediately got messy: the comment forum exploded into a battleground against this negative comment. It was like Pandora’s box had been cracked open: everyone began hashing out their opinions against the offender in a brusque manner. A few more rude and negative comments against Kayla’s argument appeared. These negative comments sparked angry and sometimes equally hurtful responses. Even the people who were against the comment were violent in the way the dealt with and answered the original offender. 

The conversations soon escalated into branched-out cyberspace fights, and soon a large majority of the conversation threads on the comment page no longer had anything to do with the actual video. Instead, every few seconds new comments would appear to bash apart a previous commentator. The majority of the people shooting angry comments back and forth did not even make an effort to censor what they were saying by trying to be polite and reasonable. Those that tried to do this initially quickly became incensed by the “ignorance” or unwillingness for the offender to see their point of view.

I was left wondering: what on Earth made it all right for people to brawl in such an undignified way on a public forum? Part of the answer, without a doubt, is the veil of anonymity cloaking a person to the point where they find themselves at liberty to say whatever they please, no matter how insensitive, hurtful or extreme. The comment section for Kayla’s video has turned into a bitter brawl as angry comments are flung back and forth between completely anonymous people. These people stopped arguing about the video and started openly insulting each other with profanities and accusations, most of which have nothing to do with any of the issues presented in Kayla's argument. 

What does this say about the power of anonymity in such a public forum? It allows people to say violent things that they would never say in person. Yet from the safety of their perch behind their computer screen, a person can say anything that they please and distance themselves emotionally from the repercussions their words might cause.

As of this afternoon, the video has jumped from the 16,000 views it had yesterday to a whopping 70,000 hits. Since this morning, over 600 comments have accumulated in the comment forum. Watching a video spread so rapidly and generate such a large response is an eye-opening vision of the strange functions of this modern world of cyberspace. It leaves me with these questions: is it OK to argue in this uncivilized, potentially hurtful way on a public forum? Or has the internet reduced human disagreements into faceless cage-fighting from the safety of your home?