Teen Networking

New virtual village venues where elders have no impact 

Let's take a look into how U.S. teen social networks fit into the Global Village paradigm:  
Originally published online through Harvard's Berkman Center Internet and Society PTC
Spring 2007 05/27/2007 06:30PM

(Note:  This post assumes you have read the previous post, "The Internet as a Global Village"

Prior to European influence, global interaction between native american tribes across the country required the old methods of travelling from one village to another in order to interact. The younger generation could be raised with local tribal norms and protected with physical barriers to impose isolation and establish law and control. (Note: in order to examine human interaction issues and advocate solutions that forward child/teen protection and education, we will use three filters: 1) the Global Village model; 2) the Interaction vs. Needs inverted Maslow pyramid; and a third, 3) Lessig's four regulation behavior modalities of Norms, Law, Architecture and Markets (http://www.socialtext.net/codev2/index.cgi?free_speech) .) 

After hundreds of years of immigration, interaction and assimilation, U.S. cities took their current forms. Cultural differences such as language gave U.S. citizens a tendency to form distinct cultural areas. Especially in immigrant influx states, cultural 'villages' like "Chinatown" and "Little Italy" were common. Children within particular cultural areas tended to be raised with those local values. 

Even though there was a tendency for adults to attempt to keep children inside a particular cultural area, assimilation occurred through melting pot factors like public schooling, a common language (English), and media like radio, television and movies. Radio, television and movieswere originally seen as threats to many local values, as much of the United States at the time of visual media growth was rooted in Christian tradition. Objections were raised by parents to exposure of sexually explicit or violent content. Regulation took the form of censorship in part, and parents controlled media exposure through lobbying for ratings systems and enforcing physical control of radio and television viewing in the home. However, although listening and viewing content were concerns for youth exposure, these forms of media were unidirectional in nature and did not break the boundary of real-time human-to-human interaction. 

The telephone began to break down barriers by linking people through voice interaction. U.S. teens were some of the first to embrace this technology as a social tool. Given curfews and parental control over physical travel to be with friends, teens could spend hours socializing on the phone. Cell phones with wireless capability made teen interconnection even more viable by attaching the device to the person rather than a dedicated hardline with a permanent and specific location. However, toll charges and minute-plans limited the amount of interaction viable with these tools. Length of time was limited, as was outreach to multiple locales. International rates were prohibitively expensive and long-distance teen-to-teen networking was unlikely. 

The internet broke down barriers further because of one main factor: $$$. Because of the lack of toll charges for internet connectivity, constant interconnection between teens is now viable. With the onset of Skype phones, teens can remain connected through computers or through VOIP phones 24-hours a day for an indefinite period of time if they wish. 

Because large portions of the United States have successfully fulfilled physiological and safety needs, and portals like computers and cell phones are easily accessible in these areas, teens with Global Village access seem to be fulfilling some sort of Gibsonian prophecy. Technology and markets hurtle the net-native generation toward a cyber future, complete with constantly connected cell phone implants, throat-activated bone phones, integrated RFID data, and headgear for heads-up display while internet surfing. Teens who grew up with console and online gaming, cell phones and the internet, and the power to create and express and publish within the Global Village are eager proponents of these and all new technologies. 

Avatar digital representation and teen interaction

New Teen Norms and Interaction in an Unmonitored World 

Our teens are not only tech-savvy and net-native – they are now pushing traditional boundaries of sexuality, age-appropriateness and norms. Information that was previously relegated to red-light districts, the pages of adult magazines or the Playboy channel is now readily available for hormonally-induced consumption. 

In addition to the compendium of content available for viewing, there are a number of new components that were not available to previous generations (including but not limited to the following): 

1) Interactivity in the Global Village; and 2) Avatar net-presence 

Interactivity in the Global Village was quickly embraced by U.S. teens, from the rapid proliferation of AOL chat rooms and instant messaging to online relationships and subsequent marriages nurtured by the new dating paradigm. Friendship and intimacy, both intellectual and romantic in nature, are easily fostered in a low-stress environment where anonymity and boldness are the rules of the day. Because many parents did not understand or participate in Global Village culture, U.S. teens found a new space where they could interact without parental knowledge or interference. 

Anonymity and boldness are new norms in the Global Village, but what happens when you have a clean slate and can now create your visual image or Global Village presence into anything you want or can imagine? This crosses into a new and multi- faceted realm: the Avatar. 

Avatars can be role-players in games, a visual representation or icon for chat room identification, and yes, even a 'physical' representation of one’s sexual self in a virtual world such as in Second Life (1). As the open market always proves, sex sells, and the new twist (or kink) of having a visual representation or avatar who can meet and relate to another avatar adds another layer to the chat room dynamic and to interactivity. Some players make their avatars in their own likeness and feel a connectedness to their own real-life senses. Some players enhance themselves by trying on longer legs, different hairstyles and eye colors, or promiscuous or wild clothing. Some try on other personages, trying out different skin colors or genders, or even different body parts. And still others push limits by creating avatars that are part animal, or avatars that are openly crude or sexually explicit. Once fringe and clandestine communities like S&M and “Furries” are now easily open and available to “try on” and explore. 

What are some of the direct manifestations of this new sexual freedom? Check out MySpace.com to view a proliferation of avatar-like photos. Personal pages now freely exhibit tattooed and pierced young girls in provocative poses, linked to dozens of friends of like persuasion. Each individual can now not only chat and have relationships with other individuals, but with multiple people simultaneously of different genders and sexual persuasions. Same-sex prom dates and "multiamorous" relationships can be part of your teenager’s sexual palate if so desired. 

Freedom and healthy erotism? Within the norms of most U.S. tribes and cities, yes, these two things are a natural component of human expression. But the converse is also a dark and frightening reality. Wherever youth and sexuality proliferate, so does the danger of exploitation, abuse and sexual crime. 

The Anonymity Mask vs. Unmasked Identity paradox

Anonymity can be likened to the user wearing a mask. When you go to a masquerade party, the anonymity gives freedom of expression, and certain rules and norms apply to what behavior is and is not accepted at such a locale and event. Some groups use this type of anonymity for sexual exploration, as in the previous examples. The mask can also be likened to a church confessional or suicide call centers, where your identity is hidden and you can speak freely to another person while being able to speak about something you normally could not express. 

A conscientious parent would never allow an adult with a mask to interact with their child in any location or circumstance that is not under adequate supervision. Locations and events where children interact with others without direct parental supervision include school, playgrounds, libraries, the mall. At school, officials monitor activity and do not allow unknown persons to interact with students. At playgrounds, only appropriate age groups mix and children are usually monitored by other parents. At the libarary and mall, staff members ensure that behavior falls within socially accepted norms. The internet removes these methods of monitoring and control. On the internet equivalents of educational sites, online gaming and teen networks, and online shopping, who is monitoring for anonymous people and suspicious activity? Who is ensuring that teens behave within socially acceptable norms? How can a parent ensure that they approve of the interaction with their child? 

Paradoxically, provision of identifiers can be an invasion of a child’s privacy, and exposes the individual to potential internet dangers like net predation. 

Online vendors like MySpace and YouTube provide limited forms of monitoring, but the anonymity paradox prevents effective vigilance and breaks traditional visual models of monitoring for age-appropriate behavior.

Anonymity and freedom to collaborate also provides a unique opportunity to make positive gains that are only possible in the Global Village because of the lack of real world constraints and barriers. Net neutrality fosters collective collaboration to harness the minds of many rather than be limited by the efforts of a few; and human rights and communication can reach new heights with outreach and connectedness. Along with an unprecedented opportunity and platform for freedom, exploration and self-expression, the Global Village also presents a unique opportunity for global collaboration and cultural tolerance and celebration. 

Until architecture (like built-in parental control tools in browsers, or bio or some sort of enforceable identification) presents net neutral yet enforceable methods, responsibility for interaction between the child/teen and the Global Village falls under the parents' responsibility in the home, and educators' responsibility at schools. How do we as a world community and Global Village Elders enforce norms and laws, both local and global? 

There are currently many efforts to promote onine safely and education and to provide software and hardware monitoring and control tools for parents -- however, without promotion, these tools and this community remain unused and unexplored. Current resources and efforts include NetSmartz.org, Net Family News, and danah boyd (2). How can we combine all of these efforts?  How can we as a Global Community be more unified in the "it takes a village to raise a child" dynamic, especially when norms and laws differ so greatly across the globe? In the last chapter, the Global Village Van, we propose new tools and mechanisms for Global Village Elders to bridge the regulation gap and address these real world concerns. 

The Challenge of the Universal Norm 

Even though on one hand it can be said that there are no universal truths and therefore no universal norms, the Global Village promotes the human spiritual instinct that there truly are universal norms that are simply difficult to quantify. These include motherhood/fatherhood and love for one's offspring, and the human instinct that killing another human being is wrong.  Language and cultural norms currently provide natural communication barriers that will tend to stratify people into smaller tribes, and national efforts to maintain traditional control over media and therefore squelch access to the Global Village are a very real factor. However, for those societies who are allowed access and who embrace net neutrality, the Global Village is a tangible virtual space in which each individual can join the universal conversation. Because images and musical sound are an integral part of connectivity, and translations and translation tools are more widely available on the net, language need not necessarily be a barrier to participation, and melding a universal conversation of Global Village cultural groups of disparate 

languages is a distinct future possibility.

Market factors 

Currently available parental tools are largely unknown because they are marketed on the internet, and many parents are not internet-savvy. We don't yet see these tools ubiquitously advertised on television or in newspapers and magazines. The market also works against protecting the privacy of children. Marketers want the profiling data available because it is a more accurate reflection of teen trends and buying habits than surveys and already provides a wealth of data mining material. Games exploit curiosity and youth angst by marketing shock value and going to extreme parody to gain viral-video-type attention. The market wants teens and parents to purchase; it is profit-driven and as a default not focused on ethics. Marketing even goes so far as to separate these types of concerns and place them into an "educational" or "spiritual" vertical. Parents need to be educated on management of their family’s online identities and need to participate in the Global Village conversation. 

Anonymity and Teen Avatars, continued 

Continuing on the Anonymity Mask vs. Unmasked Identity paradox, the mechanisms used by teens for networking in the Global Village are a mystery to most parents. In order to understand possible dangers to children and teens that cross from the Global Village construct into the real world, we first defined the Global Village and modes of human interaction. Next, we are examining specifically teen interactions and issues, and lastly we advocate parent/educator interaction as Global Village Elders and propose mechanisms that promote Global Village universal norms. 

Conversations can be carried in the Global Village using two types of online identities or Digital Personae: DRRPs and DRAPs.  (Note: the acronyms "DRRP" and "DRAP" were conceived and defined in conjunction with Internet and Society group partner, Bob Casale):

DRAP = Digitally Represented Avatar Persona 

DRRP = Digitally Represented Real Persona 

The most commonly used teen avatars in 3D worlds like games and Second Life are DRAPs, which are inherently masked and anonymous. 

The most commonly used teen avatars in social networking sites like YouTube and MySpace are DRRPs, which are inherently unmasked and identifiable as unique real life individuals. 

DRAP avatars, if successfully kept anonymous, generally do not pose issues of privacy violation. DRAP avatars can simply be representations of the self within the Global Village, and can vary in manifestation as much as human imagination allows. However, DRAP participation can pose questions of age-appropriateness and exposure to violence and other explicit or sexual content. For these reasons, parents must monitor their child/teen's DRAP participation in the Global Village and ensure that interaction and behavior fall within family-defined norms. 

Anonymity and masks are the domain of the DRAP. As soon as real world identifying factors or content are added to a DRAP, one passes into the world of the DRRP, or Digitally Represented Real Persona. Once identifiable, a child/teen's mask has effectively been removed and interaction follows a completely different set of rules. DRRP exposure brings up a host of issues and potential dangers of which parents must be aware, including privacy issues, net predation, cyberbullying and management of reputation and online identity. 

For these reasons parents must also be aware of potential issues of family reputation and online identity; monitor exposure of their child/teen's DRRP content and DRRP/DRAP particpation in the Global Village; and monitor interaction to ensure that and behavior fall within family-defined norms. Furthermore, monitoring and guidance of children and teens in the Global Village is the responsibility of the Global Village community as a whole. This requires vigilance by educators, 3rd parties who create virtual venues or networks for Global Village youth, and teens themselves. Because architecture and laws are fairly limited, and regulation will be an open question for some time; guidance and protection is largely norms-based and up to each individual in the Global Village community to enforce. Parents and educators must participate in order to interject family and local norms; the Global Village and creators within the space must participate to provide and enforce universal norms. 

This norms-based method sounds crude and vague, yet it is the best alternative for regulation.

Interesting characteristics of DRRPs and DRAPs: 

DRAP: free, flexible in identity, untouchable, disconnected.

DRRP: physically defined by tether to the real world, unchangable identity, responsibile for actions, interconnected. 

References 

(1) SecondLife.com (http://www.SecondLife.com) 

(2) NetSmartz.org (http://www.NetSmartz.org) , Net Family News (http://netfamilynews.org) , dana boyd 

(http://www.danah.org) . (For additional links to more net safety resources and tools, click here. 

(http://toprotecttheinnocent.org/) ) 

Retrieved from 

"http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ptc/Example:_U.S._teen_networking._New_virtual_village_venues_where_elders_have_no_impact" 

This page was last modified 21:06, 22 May 2007. 

This page has been accessed 347 times.