Thursday, December 16, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Friday, November 6, 2009
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
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.
The Internet as a Global Village
Old paradigms for human interaction: Global vs. Local interaction
For local interaction within a tribal village, distance and time are more managable barriers. One may have to walk to the next room, or to a banquet structure across the village to interact with a person from the same tribe. Prolonged interactions and relationships with people locally in the same tribe were obviously more practical and maintainable than a relationship with someone in a tribe across the globe.
In the local interaction model, norms were homogeneous within the same tribe and local law enforceable. Tribe members were responsible for their own actions within the community or faced punishment through local law or exile. Village Elders guided the younger generation, and the village could protect the weak and innocent. Children raised within this local structure learned from and emulated others with like values.
By nature, tribes across the globe differ in norms. Battles over lower level Maslovian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs ) resources can more easily occur between tribes that can not communicate with each other due to physical or language barriers. Factors such as fear of the unknown and dehumanization of foreign tribes are more possible. During global interaction, a visitor from a different tribe is treated at first with suspicion. What does this person want? To threaten and take resources? To come in peace to trade for resources? Travel by plane and other faster means of bridging time and distance have only recently created tourist industries, where large numbers of villagers travel and visit other tribes frequently to enjoy other cultures. Tribal differences in norms in these cases created hostility or fostered traditions of hospitality.
In cases of hostility, interaction could become fierce and breed warring for purposes of survival or domination. In these cases, natural barriers such as mountain ranges or deserts provided pockets of isolation and protection of peaceful tribes from warrior tribes.
For these reasons, governing on a global scale has always been difficult and improbable. As long as other tribes have Maslovian needs that are physiological and safety based, competition for resources for survival will always be an issue.
Global Interaction Pyramid and the Maslovian Hierarchy of needs
Needs vs. Interaction: Inverting Maslow's pyramid
In order to define the Global Village space and discuss and examine new human interaction paradigms, let's take a closer look at Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
The first step is to invert the pyramid, while keeping the Hierarchy of Needs the same (we'll talk more about what the inversion means later). Maslow defines the lowest level, or most basic needs as Physiological. These are physical needs humans need to survive, such as food or water.
The next level, shown in light brown, is the human need for safety. Safety can encompass many issues, however, for our purposes we will address physical safety needs, such as the need for shelter and the need to feel physically safe from harm from others.
The yellow level is defined as the need for Belonging or Love. This level passes from the physical world to encompass non-physical needs, or needs of the heart, mind and spirit. Psychologists have long observed that, even though the need to survive with food, water and safety are strong; the need for Love and Belonging can often supersede these basic survival needs.
The green level is the Self Esteem and Esteem for Others level. Once an individual has fulfilled the first three levels, they are ready to trust themselves and come to respect others.
The blue level is the Self-Actualization level and the highest level, where the individual is separated from himself in heart, mind and spirit and begins to search for truths and intellectual pursuits; to live life without fear and strive for the common good.
The two lower levels, as we previously listed, are in the realm of the Physical, or Body.
The three highest levels, shown here in yellow, green and blue, are in the realm of the non-Physical, or mind, heart and spirit. Because these three highest levels are non-physical in nature, they naturally transcend boundaries of time and space. (You can project warm and loving thoughts to someone across the globe effortlessly just by thinking them, but it takes a lot more time and effort to send a ham sandwich or a bottle of water!)
Human beings instinctively know about interaction with others on the three highest levels, yet we sometimes can not quantify and may not specifically focus on analyzing intangible thoughts, feelings and emotions. This nowhere, everywhere quality of non-Physical human interconnection is the Global Village space.
Quantifying the human motivation to Interact
Maslow had defined the needs pyramid as large at the base to indicate a strong foundation, building up to the apex or ideal of Self-Actualization. We would like to use Maslow's pyramid as a sort of Needs vs. Interaction model, where humans are most willing to interact on the blue level, and least willing to interact on physical levels.
This flips the pyramid, making it wider at the top, indicating an increased willingness to interact, and small at the bottom, indicating a decreased willingness to interact.
As we listed in our first section examining old paradigms for human interaction, villages that are in need of food and water will tend to fight and struggle over resources. This causes tribes with ample resources to isolate themselves from outsiders and avoid interaction. Tribes that are peace-loving will put up physical barriers, or live in remote areas that are difficult to traverse or access, like high in the mountains, or isolated on islands in order to feel safe.
As the next illustration shows, villages that have only the first two levels of needs fulfilled have a low motivation to globally interact. This is consistent with the old paradigms of local and global interaction:
Physical Global Interaction -- illustrating a low willingness to interact.
New paradigms for Global and Local interaction: the Global Village
Once a village is able to address basic needs for its inhabitants, interaction on a global scale can transcend competition and enter into a space of unlimited interaction and collaboration. This is the Global Village space.
Maslow's three highest levels of needs are non-physical in nature and therefore encourage a high level of interaction. (There is nothing physical keeping me from sending good thoughts, feelings and emotions to someone else, and even all humans in general into this ideal space.).
However, even if tribe-to-tribe interaction is positive in nature, the factors of distance and time were still barriers to effective interaction. Using the old paradigm of global tribe-to-tribe interaction, tribe members would still have to physically travel in order to express these thoughts and feelings face-to-face.
New paradigms for global interaction
Enter telecommunications networks and eventually the use of these networks by the internet.
The internet bridges the time-distance gap and allows access to the Global Village. The Global Village is a virtual space where anyone with access can interact on a global level, regardless of locality. Types of portals into this space include computers with telecom access and cell phones with satellite communication access. Portal-to-portal interaction acts as a type of time travel where, regardless of location on the globe, time to interaction is as fast as walking to the next room or hut.
In the Global Village, global interaction follows the *same* paradigm as local interaction. Relationships between tribe members across the globe are now a practical reality and maintainable on a daily and long-term basis.
Beyond the ideals of sending good thoughts and feelings into this space; voice and visual interaction, communication through facial expression, and the spoken and written word, can be used to interact on all three Maslovian levels.
New paradigms for interaction in the Global Village are constantly emerging from the internet's inherent creative and collaboration dynamic.
One-to-one models include text chat, email, voice chat and video chat. One-to-many models include blogs and web pages. Many-to-many models include wikis, user groups, P2P applications and social networks like MySpace and YouTube.
We are interested, in particular, in how these new paradigms for interaction in the Global Village affect children and teens.
Once a tribe member accesses the Global Village, local physical methods of creating protection barriers to protect and guide younger members are no longer effective; because the engagement, although visual and audio in nature, is independent of the body’s physical location. For this reason, interactions are difficult to monitor and control. Norms and laws inherent to the local village no longer apply. Tribal elders no longer have the means of monitoring and controlling exposure to disparate norms and values, and enforcement of youth behavior consistent to local village norms is difficult.
If Net Neutrality succeeds and the Internet remains an open frontier with limitless connection, person-to-person interconnectedness will continue to transcend the boundaries of time and space. We assert that as Global Village Elders and members, we have a world responsibility to not only be aware of and participate in the Global Village culture, but specifically we must monitor and guide children and teens and all related interactions at the same level that we do in the real world.
(http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ptc/Example:_U.S._teen_networking._New_virtual_village_venues_where_elders_have_no_impact)
Retrieved from "http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ptc/The_Internet_as_a_Global_Village"
This page was last modified 20:06, 22 May 2007.
This page has been accessed 431 times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)