Home » Cyber Bullying
Category Archives: Cyber Bullying
Ain’t Nobody Never Muted No Gadget BEFORE No Class!
The cyber-lure and lull in class.
The solutions are simple, though the problem is grand and manifests in many micro ways; it’s so common that it’s difficult to see. Digital distraction looms over classrooms like a heavy fog.
You see them ensnared by invisible threads, blocking hallways and doorways, halted as they stand, transfixed and feverishly glued to their phones. Many arrive with restless fingers tapping away on these small screens. Others make a beeline for the nearest socket upon entering the classroom, clutching chargers and cables like lifelines. Some arrive engrossed in video calls – often on speakers – their faces illuminated by the glow of their screens. Still, others refuse to dislodge and stash their earbuds; perhaps they are simply unaware or incapable? Few arrive untethered from the grasp of cyberspace, their connection to reality tenuous at best. Throughout the session, the anxious behaviours rarely subside, as I witness them struggling to break free from the digital embrace clearly holding them captive.
Upon arrival, most students sit and place their phone right on the desk in front of them, ready to escape into cyberspace at a moment’s notice. Then, come the laptops and tablets. Most have two gadgets or more – including smartwatches – anything to shield them from being here, and anchor them there in cyberspace. A larger part of the educator’s role now is to reach: S T R E T C H into cyberspace and teach students how to anchor themselves here IRL.
Ain’t nobody never muted no gadget BEFORE no class!
Arriving in class, they are poised and prepped by social media for distraction, and entertainingly so. Through hours of rehearsal, they get to pay attention to whatever they want with a mere swipe. This applies to messaging, social media and news, dating family and group chats, spam emails and university announcements. The F2F classroom environment is competing with all this lure of the cyberworld. In spite of this daily evidence, folks still feel we’re in charge of the focus of our own attention, according to psychologist Prof Sherry Turkle. Worse, all this constant craving and distraction is diminishing our capacity for empathy.
Once distracted, UNESCO reports that “it can take students up to 20 minutes to refocus on what they were learning” according to one study. Subsequent studies have confirmed the attention lull, as have bans on phones in schools. A 2018 study found “More frequent use of digital media may be associated with development of ADHD symptoms.” When students arrive at university classrooms, it’s a blur.
Despite our initial hopes, the pull of the wholistic virtual environment has ultimately pushed away F2F dialogue. What’s more, the passive attention paid to social media creates a deficit in our conversation skills. We easily get caught up in the loop of reporting and responding to ‘what google said.’ In Teaching Critical Thinking, bell hooks says smashingly: “we are living in a culture in which many people lack the basic skills of communication because they spend most of their time being passive consumers of information” (44). Like a group of friends out for a night using google reviews to dictate every step, too often conversation in the classroom is reduced to trading ‘what google said’. Little attention is given to who said what and, why. Or, less so, what one thinks.
A low tech class.
While there are endless Apps, and gadgets to get students involved in learning, the few hours spent in any face-to-face session can be a respite from such hyper-cyber-immersion.
Share this:
Behind the Filter: Navigating the Fine Line Between Genuine Parenting and Child Exploitation in the World of Influencers
As the world of social media influencers continues to expand, certain high-profile cases have brought the issue of mum influencers exploiting their children into the spotlight. These cases serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the potential dangers and ethical pitfalls that come with blurring the lines between personal family life and commercial partnerships. It is important to note that while the spotlight has indeed centred on ‘mum’ influencers this discussion cannot go forward without acknowledging, that we should be shaping the discussion on the way PARENTS create content online.
Mum influencers have become a powerful force in the influencer landscape. They provide a glimpse into the daily lives of mothers, discussing topics such as parenting tips, family dynamics, and the challenges of balancing work and family life. Initially, many followers were drawn to these influencers for their relatability and authenticity. This has created an opportunity for dads to also partake in the ‘business’ of family influencing as many people yearn for the whole family picture, which brings a non-traditional demographic of followers and thus an expansion of interest and growth of followers, and thus bringing the allure of financial opportunities.
As followers increase, family influencers often receive offers from brands seeking to collaborate. This is where the ethical dilemma arises – how far is too far when it comes to integrating children into sponsored content? While some collaborations may involve innocent and genuine family moments, others might push the boundaries, putting children in situations that prioritize profit over their well-being. It is essential to differentiate between content that genuinely celebrates parenthood/ family and content that exploits it. Sharing heartfelt stories, documenting milestones, and discussing the challenges of parenthood and family dynamics can be informative and supportive for other parents. However, the line blurs when children are consistently used to endorse products and/ or services in a way that feels forced or invasive.
Children of influencers often have their lives documented from birth, which raises concerns about their privacy. As they grow older, they might not consent to having their childhood experiences permanently etched into the online realm. The potential impact on their mental and emotional well-being as they come to grips with their digital footprint is a significant consideration. We all have that embarrassing childhood picture that parents have on the wall or in a photo album, however that is in the confines of their home and whose eyes view them can be monitored. The tricky nature of the internet removes that possibility. With visibility comes risk. Publicly showcasing one’s life includes exposure to not only praise but also criticism and negativity. Children that have an online presence in the capacity of being influencers can become targets of online trolls or even predators, who might misuse their images or information. Protecting children from these potential dangers should be a priority for any parent, online or offline.
My previous point made on children of influencers being documented from birth begs reflection on the concept of consent. This can be viewed in many ways; however, the notion of consent becomes murky when children are too young to understand the implications of their online presence. While some influencers argue that their children enjoy being part of the content creation process, it is challenging to gauge how much choice a young child truly has. Blurring the lines between what is a personal family moment and what is a scripted advertisement can complicate this matter further.
As family influencers grapple with this dilemma, there’s an increasing call for responsible content creation, and thus drawing clear boundaries between what is acceptable and what crosses the line into exploitation. Making conscious decisions about the type and frequency of content involving children and avoiding situations that compromise their well-being for the sake of likes, shares, and sponsorship should be paramount, but in many ways, this does not always seem to be considered. There are many examples that come to mind, but for this blog entry I will use a particularly shocking case. In 2020 YouTubers Myka and James Stauffer faced backlash after publicly announcing the decision to “rehome” their adopted son with autism. The Stauffer family, known for their parenting content, had initially garnered support for their adoption journey. The family seemed like any other online family that people aspired to be like. They had four biological children and presented their happy loving family for all to see. However, the revelation that they had monetized the adoption process through sponsored content and merchandise raised concerns about the child’s well-being and whether he was being exploited for financial gain. The backlash following their announcement saw them lose thousands of followers. While there were numerous followers and news outlets that spoke out against the Stauffer’s actions, there was little commentary that focused on the impact that the ‘rehoming’ of their adopted son had on him or their other children. The children should have been at the centre of this story but instead they were pushed to the side.
This blog entry servers as poignant reminders of the potential pitfalls in the world of family influencers and their children. While some cases may involve genuine oversight, it’s essential for influencers and brands to exercise caution and ethical responsibility when involving children in their content.
As influencers strive to maintain authenticity while navigating commercial opportunities, it is crucial that they strike a balance between sharing genuine family moments and protecting the well-being, privacy, and dignity of their children. In a landscape where the line between public and private blurs, parent influencers must remember that their children’s well-being is paramount. Instead of exploiting their children for financial gain, fame and clout.
Share this:
Don’t I know you from somewhere? Online trolls and other fairytales
Recently there has been a discussion if the owner of one of the social media platforms will be changing its logo. The “iconic” image is to be replaced with something new; undoubtedly this will also change in due course for as long as the medium is still relevant. Whilst people feel strong about brand representation that is something peripheral to what social media represent in recent years. Social media for a long time have been accused of harboring the worst of human interaction, tolerating intolerable actions from hate speech to incitement to violence. Is this however a fair representation of social media?
We build/cultivate and imagine in social media. They are the key to our online identity and in some ways will explain our conduct with others. Some link different media together, so that you can check Facebook to get an idea of who they are, can check their LinkedIn on education and work experience, you can read their tweets/retweets, you can follow their conversations on yammer, you can get updates of their lives on Snapchat, check their Instagram to see their photos and for the more active ones TikTok where communication is encapsulated within small video fragments. If you were to combine these social media together you can get a very good idea about a person without ever knowing them in person. Social media have ushered the era of virtual representation and people becoming clearer of how this representation works. Clearly there are those who thrive in these and others who struggle.
The ones who manage to use social media effectively can develop a personal brand and even become “social influencers”. A person that has influence over others to promote goods and services…to do so they have to build a reputation and social media works towards establishing just that. Connecting different parts of social media works to their advantage as their profile works towards their credibility of being a “real” person. The people who make it become the protagonists assuming the role of a hero, a modern-day prince/princess with a back story that is endearing. Whilst they drip feed their story of adversity with personal details of some private aspects of their lives, they also provide their followers with the commodities that they promote. I lost someone important to me, had a terrible experience at school, faced health problems but look at my stylish hat. These are the cargo trousers I left an abusive relationship in, and my cropped t-shirt is a strong statement to being environmentally
sensitive. Obviously, I deliberately exaggerate the statements here and in fairness no one will be (at least I hope) so deliberate in their product placement. What is very clear is that our social media influencers spend a significant amount of time building content and by devoting more time to that they need the necessary financial support. The top influencers have millions of people following them, a reach that
very few people have ever had before. Never before, a young person offering make-up tips, a reality star or a dancer had so many people interested in their lives. The very top of them have more than 500 million followers and we are close to the point that some of them will be reaching over a billion! What started as a personal (cottage) industry of one topic issue, has evolved into an all-consuming enterprise. The more the followers, the greater the demand for additional information. The more information, the more exposed the influencer becomes. Then marketing follows as the reward. The heroes of social media have to find ways to make an income and endorsing products seems to be the main way to do so.
The kingdom of social media doesn’t only contain heroes; there are also villains in the story. The people whose profile is not personal, doesn’t include any private details and who seem to have as their main focus to attack others. The term troll appeared in the early 90s when online identities seemed to be separate from our social ones. It was expected in a new domain that people will assume roles and whilst some went for the hero of the community others took a different turn. The early trolls under the protection of cyber identities hid their frustrations and brought to the community something we have in the real world, bullying. The evolution of social media that requires a different presence and the rules the internet community tried to deal with them meant that some of the original forms of trolling started disappearing, but were never extinguished. In fact, they became an equally useful commodity, almost equal to the influencers. Our heroes play the part of the product promoter; they look good and provide us with goodwill stories; on occasion when the appeal of the hero wanes, and people try to use social media to mobilise on social issues or promote alternative stories that’s when the trolls come in!
Out of their caves they come, trying to shut down conversations, mislead people and even intimidate people into silencing them.
This brings me to the main point of this blog; originally the internet seemed to be a worldwide phenomenon that was all inclusive and slightly anarchical. People found on the internet a companion, an ally, an adversary. It became a foundation for a virtual ecumenical community. Well, that was until big business moved in and brought in their usual tactics. The cyber world became more like our physical world and the cyber identities were quickly replaced by professional ones. At this point the internet is much more regulated and monitored than ever before. Which begs the question; how come there are so many accusations of misinformation, and intimidation now? How come such a regulated medium allows bullying and intimidation to continue? I am astounded even now to see on social media reactions on social medial about stories that do not simply lack social sensitivity they are intentionally inflammatory to coax reactions and offend people. I am still astounded to see the political alliances of the troll army and their reactions to open conversations. Therefore, it is not surprising that several minority groups have accused social media of doing very little to protect them from attacks and the use of pejorative language that has its place in a history of shame. Maybe because social media provides a fairytale with princesses and trolls, they do not have the space for those who do not promote a marketed lifestyle. Life is surprisingly diverse, and marketing is only one side of it. Ignoring some of the bigger social issues, using
trolls to shut down the conversations our global community needs, will not do. In academia the sign of a good debate lies in the ability to bring in evidence and support all claims with accurate and relevant information. Some of our colleagues are trying to take some of their knowledge outside the classroom into social media; I salute them, as we have been trying to engage as much as we can, but I also worry that the actual model that social media is built upon also at fault. Maybe it needs some rethink; there is no question that we are all equal, but we do not all have the same knowledge.
Thoughts from the criminology team 