The first things you need to know about cyberbullying are that it’s not an epidemic and it’s not killing our children. Yes, it’s probably one of the more widespread youth risks on the Internet and yes there are some well publicized cases of cyberbullying victims who have committed suicide, but let’s look at this in context.

Bullying has always been a problem among adolescents and, sadly, so has suicide. In the few known cases of suicide after cyberbullying, there are other contributing factors. That’s not to diminish the tragedy or suggest that the cyberbullying didn’t play a role but–as with all online youth risk, we need to look at what else was going on in the child’s life. Even when a suicide or other tragic event doesn’t occur, cyberbullying is often accompanied by a pattern of offline bullying and sometimes there are other issues including long-term depression, problems at home, and self-esteem issues. And the most famous case of “cyberbullying”–the tragic suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier–was far from typical. Cyberbullying is almost always peer to peer, but this was a case of an adult (the mom of one of Megan’s peers) being accused of seeking revenge on a child who had allegedly bullied her own child.

And, as per “epidemic,” it depends on how you define cyberbullying.

The most commonly recognized definition of bullying includes repeated, unwanted aggressive behavior over a period of time with an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim. In theory, that also covers cyberbullying, but some have taken a broader approach to cyberbullying to also include single or occasional episodes of a person insulting another person online. Indeed, because of the possibility of it being forwarded, a single episode of online harassment can have long-term consequences. “‘Power’ and ‘repetition’ may be manifested a bit differently online than in traditional bullying, Susan Limber, professor of psychology at Clemson University, said in an interview that appeared in a publication of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. She added, “a student willing to abuse technology can easily wield great power over his or her target just by having the ability to reach a large audience, and often by hiding his or her identity.”

Manifestations of cyberbullying include name calling, sending embarrassing pictures, sharing personal information or secrets without permission, and spreading rumors. It can also include trickery, exclusion, and impersonation.

Fuzzy numbers

Partly because there is no single accepted definition of cyberbullying, the extent of the problem is all over the map. I’ve seen some reports claim that up to 80 percent of online youth have experienced cyberbullying, while two national studies have put the percentage closer to one-third. A UCLA study conducted in 2008 found that 41 percent of teens surveyed reported between one and three online bullying incidents over the course of a year.

A recent study by Cox Communications came up with lower numbers, finding that approximately 19 percent of teens say they’ve been cyberbullied online or via text message and 10 percent say they’ve cyberbullied someone else.

One thing we know about cyberbullying is that it’s often associated with real-world bullying. The UCLA study found that 85 percent of those bullied online were also bullied at school.

Signs of cyberbullying

It’s not always obvious if a child is a victim of cyberbullying, but some possible signs include: suddenly being reluctant to go online or use a cell phone; avoiding a discussion about what they’re doing online; depression, mood swings, change in eating habits; and aloofness or a general disinterest in school and activities. A child closing the browser or turning off the cell phone when a parent walks in the room can be a sign of cyberbullying, though it can also be a sign of other issues including an inappropriate relationship or just insistence on privacy.

Preventing and stopping cyberbullying

After struggling with a school-wide bullying problem, Aaron Hansen, principal of White Pine Middle School in Ely, Nev., told Fox News that he asked the kids to fill out a survey indicating when the bullying took place and who the bullies were. He then invited the alleged offenders into his office to tell them “your peers feel that like you’re not very nice to people at times and they feel like sometimes you’re a bully.” Based on working with those kids and working with their needs–including problems at home–the school was able to reduce the problem.

Not every situation will resolve itself quite so easily, but identifying the reasons kids are acting as bullies can go a long way toward preventing it as can educational programs that stress ethics and cyber citizenship (”netiquette”). It also helps kids to know what to do if they are victims of bullying. At ConnectSafely.org (a site I help operate) we came up with a number of tips including: don’t respond, don’t retaliate; talk to a trusted adult; and save the evidence. We also advise young people to be civil toward others and not to be bullies themselves. Finally, “be a friend, not a bystander.” Don’t forward mean messages and let bullies know that their actions are not cool.

If your child is a victim of cyberbullying, don’t start by taking away his or her Internet privileges. That’s one reason kids often don’t talk about Net-related problems with parents. Instead, try to get your child to calmly explain what has happened. If possible, talk with the parents of the other kids involved and, if necessary, involve school authorities. If the impact of the bullying spills over to school (as it usually does), the school has a right to intervene.

Be careful what we legislate

There are lots of state laws that focus on cyberbullying, some requiring schools to provide educational resources. While I’m all for education, I think we need to be careful about any legislation that outlaws cyberbullying. U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) has proposed H.R. 1966, well meaning legislation that could imprison for up to two years, “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” On the surface, it seems fine but as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has pointed out, it could also be used to punish political and other forms of speech. “I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone),” he writes, “I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Professor Volokh said that if the law is passed, he expects it to be “struck down as facially overbroad.”

The Internet and the way young people use technology are constantly evolving, but the safety messages change very slowly, if at all.

Like technology itself, Internet safety has to evolve. Back in 1994, when I wrote the first widely disseminated Internet safety publication, I advised parents not to let kids put personal information or photos online and — because of what turned out to be an exaggerated fear of predators — I urged them to avoid online conversations with strangers. Back then, along with trying to keep kids away from porn, Internet safety was mostly about protecting children from dangerous adults.

But starting around 2005, a new phase of the Web — often referred to as “Web 2.0″ — prompted some Internet safety advocates to focus on ways kids could get in trouble for what they post on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. It was in that year that Anne Collier and I founded BlogSafety.org (later renamed ConnnectSafely.org) so we could provide a forum for discussing safety issues on the Web. It was also around that time that politicians and the media, especially the TV show “To Catch a Predator,” started whipping up fears of predators trolling the Web for vulnerable children.

But after carefully reviewing available research, statistics show that the likelihood of a young person being harmed by an online stranger is quite rare, and sexual solicitations and harassment are most often from peers. And to the extent it has occurred, it affects teens, not young children. Based on studies by the Crimes Against Children Research Center, the overwhelming majority of crimes against youths continue to take place in the “real world,” mostly by adults known to the child.

But that doesn’t mean that the Internet is a risk-free zone. It’s just that young people are far more likely to be harmed by other youth or the consequences of their own online behavior than by adult criminals.

Their interactions are largely with people they know from the real world. As danah boyd (she prefers a lower case d & b) observed in her doctoral dissertation, Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics (PDF), “teen participation in social network sites is driven by their desire to socialize with peers. Their participation online is rarely divorced from offline peer culture; teens craft digital self-expressions for known audiences and they socialize almost exclusively with people they know.”

This understanding of youth risk led to a whole new phase of Internet safety education focusing on such things as cyberbullying and urging youth to avoid posting material that could be embarrassing or get them into trouble with authorities and potential future employers. Recently, the focus has turned to the emotional and legal consequences of “sexting,” — kids sending nude pictures of themselves via cell phones or the Web. But Anne Collier observed in NetFamilyNews.org, we run the risk of “technopanics” over sexting and bullying.

What we’ve learned from observing how kids use the Net, mobile phones, gaming devices and other interactive technology is that there is really no distinction between online and offline behaviors. Technology is woven into their lives. They don’t go online, they ARE online. So it’s really about youth safety — not Internet safety.

It’s about helping young people make wise choices not just in how they use technology but in how they live their lives. Internet safety is more than just the absence of danger. It also includes finding ways to use technology for learning, collaboration, community building, political activism, self-help and reaching out to others.

These are not just philosophical arguments. They’re pragmatic because preaching about safety or trying lock down the Internet doesn’t protect kid. Trying to instill fear — especially based on myths — actually increases danger because it causes kids to tune out good advice.

Sure, there are technologies that can keep kids from using social networking services or visiting inappropriate Web sites. But, like fences around swimming pools, the use of filters at home and school can’t protect them forever. That’s why we teach kids to swim. Not only does knowing how to swim help prevent drowning, it empowers them to thrive in the water instead of fearing it. The same is true with technology. As kids mature into teens, we must pull back on the technological controls in favor of self-control.

In an email interview,  Dr. Larry Rosen, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Dominguez Hills and author of Me, MySpace and I: Parenting the Net Generation observed, “sadly, too many parents think that using technology to track their children’s keystrokes or restrict access to certain websites is sufficient parenting.  It is not.  Parents must be involved with their children’s virtual lifestyles developing trust, being aware of any potential problems, learning about the technologies they use, and communicating often.”

by Larry Magid

I’ve been an Internet safety advocate since 1993 and right now I’m discouraged and angry about what’s going on in this field.

I’m angry because people who ought to know better are trying to mislead the public with false information about online risks, which is diverting attention away from real risks. And I’m not alone.

Many respected online safety organizations and leading youth-risk researchers are trying to shift the discussion away from mostly predator danger to youth behavior risk. Thanks to some politicians, it’s an uphill battle.

Online safety groups and public officials should be spending our time educating families on how to avoid real risks that affect most kids – like bullying, harassment and unwanted exposure to inappropriate material. We also need to do a better job of identifying and reaching the small minority of “at risk” kids who are putting themselves at greater risk by the way they behave online. › Continue reading…

Reposted from San Jose Mercury News
December 8, 2008

by Larry Magid

What Lori Drew allegedly did to Megan Meier was despicable, but it doesn’t justify her conviction late last month for violating federal laws designed to keep hackers from invading computer networks.
Two years ago, Megan, a 13-year-old Missouri girl, hanged herself after her online friend “Josh Evans,” who had befriended her on MySpace, reportedly told her that he didn’t want to be friends with her and that the world would be better off without her. But Josh was in fact Drew, a 49-year-old mother of one of Megan’s former friends.

According to published reports, Megan had been mean to Drew’s daughter and Josh’s fake online relationship with Megan was a way for Drew to retaliate. › Continue reading…

LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH ARE TESTED BY WEB SITE’S HURTFUL, HATEFUL POSTS

By Larry Magid

San Jose Mercury News

The online gossip site JuicyCampus.com carries this slogan: “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy.”I’m a strong advocate of free speech, and I recognize that there are legitimate reasons to protect people’s ability to be anonymous on the Internet. But JuicyCampus.com is exercising these rights in ways that are hurtful and possibly dangerous. I also understand the interest in gossip. But there’s a difference between gossip among friends, or published gossip about celebrities, and spreading nasty rumors about private citizens.

The site, which was reportedly founded by a 1995 Duke graduate, encourages students at selected colleges ranging from the Air Force Academy to Yale to anonymously post “juicy” comments about other students. And some of these comments can be downright vicious.

All of this is under the veil of anonymity. In support of its slogan “Always Anonymous . . . Always Juicy,” the site’s privacy and tracking policy states that “it is not possible for anyone to use this website to find out who you are or where you are located.” It further warns people who want to be “extra-cautious” that “servers do, as a matter of course, keep logs” that can include geographic information and IP addresses, the string of numbers that identify a computer on the Internet. It goes on to recommend ways to find free services that shield IP addresses.

A quick look at the site revealed a number of posts that use derogatory terms to out people as homosexuals, whether true or not. There were also posts suggesting that specific women students are sluts, often giving details about their supposed sexual activities. In some cases, these posts contain a phone number or even a dorm address, encouraging others to seek contact with the person. Other comments are sexist, racist, hateful and downright mean. Many mention names of what appear to be real students. Some postings might be best described as virtual terrorism. One posting implied a certain named female student was available for sex with strangers and included her cell phone number and dorm information. If not terrorism, this is at the very least cyberbullying. Posting false information about people, impersonating others or simply being mean are all classic examples of cyberbullying.

There is nothing new about Web pages that contain rumors or lies about people. ConnectSafely.org, a Web forum I help run, receives regular reports about such postings on legitimate social Web sites.

In some cases there is nothing that can be done – free speech does give people the right to say what they think. But if the postings are libelous, defamatory, hateful or otherwise contrary to the site’s terms of service, we are typically able to get them taken down. The same is true if there is evidence that the posting or profile is impersonating someone else.

Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender.com said the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects the owner of the site against prosecution or civil action for user postings but doesn’t protect individual users. In other words, if you post something libelous or defamatory, you can be sued by the victim.

Trouble is, says Fertik, it’s a “right without a remedy” as there is often no practical way to find out who did the posting. It might be possible to find someone from their IP address, but that doesn’t always work. Besides, as JuicyCampus points out, there are ways to hide your IP.

Ironically, said Fertik, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides victims of copyright infringement greater protection than the Communications Decency Act gives victims of libel or defamation. A record company has a better chance of getting a judgment against a college student sharing music than a college student has against someone jeopardizing his or her reputation, privacy or even safety.

It’s tempting to argue there ought to be a law against sites like this. But before reacting too quickly, we need to think about the unintended consequences of going after this type of site.

I don’t think we want to outlaw all forms of gossip, nor do I think it’s a smart to require authentication before anyone can post anything online. That could have negative consequences on political dissidents, whistle-blowers and others for whom anonymity can be vital. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. As a parent, I would discourage my kids from using a site like this, and I think it’s reasonable for college campuses to at least discuss what they ought to do about sites that encourage hateful comments.

About the only good thing I can say about JuicyCampus is that on the two days I tested it last week, access was extremely slow. Perhaps it was overwhelmed because of all the press coverage. Whatever the reason, it’s the first time I’ve ever been happy about a site being hard to reach.