PDA

View Full Version : Online bullying and Internet security



Inclusa
2012-Oct-15, 03:51 AM
A few deaths have been attributed to Internet bullying, but a few common trends can be found:
1)While Facebook has many legitimate uses, it may subject to vicious abuses; unfortunately, many people are fairly ignorant about privacy settings.
2) Uses of real identity on the Internet is hazardous to the very least.
3) People can be tricked into illegal or indecent behaviours on the Internet and result into tragedies.

swampyankee
2012-Oct-15, 11:23 AM
The Internet quite effectively hides identity from casual users; many people will behave much worse when masked. This doesn't mean that anonymity is required; the people harassing Phoebe Prince were not anonymous.

In addition to monitoring children's Internet usage, parents (or trusted delegates) should teach their children how to set their privacy settings and to block people who are harassing them.

ShinAce
2012-Oct-15, 02:47 PM
I was 13 when ICQ and MSN messenger began. And I wasted entirely too much time talking to my own personal friends on ICQ that I would see at school the next day.

Nowadays, I don't even use facebook. Two of my friends also don't use facebook. We go out instead. That's the killer for me. How much psychological/social abuse is self inflicted by people dependent on social media? I fear that the most damage will be done by ourselves to ourselves, not by predators.

Although, predators get off too easy. Still, I rather enjoy the police stings they do to catch those soliciting our minors for sex. "Not so anonymous are you now, perv!"

Gillianren
2012-Oct-15, 05:04 PM
How much psychological/social abuse is self inflicted by people dependent on social media?

Two things. One, to me, this is social media. I'm not really here for the science. I'm here for the people. It may not be social media in the common sense, but I use it for similar purposes.

Two, I doubt any child is being bullied or harassed on Facebook who isn't being bullied or harassed at school, too. The added problem with Facebook is that it means that their problems follow them home in a way that didn't happen before. And, yes, if a child blocks the kids causing the problems, that probably helps. It won't make the problem go away, though.

Inclusa
2012-Oct-16, 03:46 AM
I was 13 when ICQ and MSN messenger began. And I wasted entirely too much time talking to my own personal friends on ICQ that I would see at school the next day.

Nowadays, I don't even use facebook. Two of my friends also don't use facebook. We go out instead. That's the killer for me. How much psychological/social abuse is self inflicted by people dependent on social media? I fear that the most damage will be done by ourselves to ourselves, not by predators.

Although, predators get off too easy. Still, I rather enjoy the police stings they do to catch those soliciting our minors for sex. "Not so anonymous are you now, perv!"

Are we too readily to blame others? I once wrote a quote saying "we are mostly our own victims". I used to assume anonymity on the Internet previously; after receiving vicious emails due to my actions, I review my viewpoint completely.


Two things. One, to me, this is social media. I'm not really here for the science. I'm here for the people. It may not be social media in the common sense, but I use it for similar purposes.

Two, I doubt any child is being bullied or harassed on Facebook who isn't being bullied or harassed at school, too. The added problem with Facebook is that it means that their problems follow them home in a way that didn't happen before. And, yes, if a child blocks the kids causing the problems, that probably helps. It won't make the problem go away, though.

Emails can be deleted and Facebook accounts can be discontinued for sure; still, staying offline doesn't necessarily prevent real life bullying.

novaderrik
2012-Oct-16, 12:19 PM
we're becoming too soft.. bullies have always existed, and bullies will always exist.. but kids aren't taught how to deal with them any more.

ok, flame away.. i'm a big boy, i can take it.

NEOWatcher
2012-Oct-16, 04:38 PM
we're becoming too soft.. bullies have always existed, and bullies will always exist.. but kids aren't taught how to deal with them any more.

ok, flame away.. i'm a big boy, i can take it.
I agree with that, but the technology has also changed things.

In the past, your problems were with the bully and a few others that know you. And, the bullying was usually confined to be "in person".
Now, the technology lets it spread like wildfire, keeps a record of it, and allows it to be done anonymously and not "in person".

By "in person", it's hard for me to describe what I'm thinking. But; on some level, personal interactions have changed with different situational settings.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-16, 05:07 PM
Emails can be deleted and Facebook accounts can be discontinued for sure; still, staying offline doesn't necessarily prevent real life bullying.

Yes, that's pretty much what I said.

As to "there has always been bullying," well, so what? There has also always been child abuse, too, and wouldn't we like to stop that? There are other, better ways of building character than letting children suffer.

starcanuck64
2012-Oct-16, 08:09 PM
As to "there has always been bullying," well, so what? There has also always been child abuse, too, and wouldn't we like to stop that? There are other, better ways of building character than letting children suffer.

I agree.

closetgeek
2012-Oct-17, 02:17 AM
we're becoming too soft.. bullies have always existed, and bullies will always exist.. but kids aren't taught how to deal with them any more.

ok, flame away.. i'm a big boy, i can take it.

I am not going to flame. Bullying is abusive; it is about power and control and not something I think the victim should learn how to deal with. Quite the contrary, I think the person doing the bullying is the one in need of some serious "dealing" lessons. In no other abusive situation, would anyone ever suggest that the victim needs to learn to deal; what makes bullying any different?

Paul Beardsley
2012-Oct-17, 03:25 AM
I am not going to flame. Bullying is abusive; it is about power and control and not something I think the victim should learn how to deal with. Quite the contrary, I think the person doing the bullying is the one in need of some serious "dealing" lessons. In no other abusive situation, would anyone ever suggest that the victim needs to learn to deal; what makes bullying any different?

I don't think it's an either/or. Bullies need to be dealt with, but you're never going to deal with 'em all, so victims and potential victims also need to be taught how to deal with them. Keep in mind that bullying doesn't stop just because you're not a kid any more.

And by "deal with" I mean "take action against". I really hate the restricted meaning being imposed when people say, "Deal with it!" That in itself is a kind of bullying.

Solfe
2012-Oct-17, 03:35 AM
we're becoming too soft.. bullies have always existed, and bullies will always exist.. but kids aren't taught how to deal with them any more.

ok, flame away.. i'm a big boy, i can take it.

No flames for you! But I disagree with the first part. More and more I see every conflict being cast as bullying and there is a huge difference. People tend to resort to the nuclear option instead of trying to figure out the root cause of the poor interaction. Every interaction must be bullying. The problem is not being soft, its granting people one and exactly one set of tools to deal with every situation.

<rant mode on>Facebook has no privacy settings, they have a "too much information" setting that protects your friends from you, not the other way around.</rant mode off>

In 2010, I had a up close and personal case of bullying on Facebook which was the most horrifying poor interaction I have ever had. The gist of this situation was a coworker commented on my wall with either an off color joke or actually twisted belief. When I questioned him on it, his belief morphed into something different but equally off color and crazy. After a few exchanges, he offended other people who could see my wall and attempted to engaged them in verbal combat. It didn't turn out so well for him and he deleted me. This took all of 15 minutes.

There were two uncomfortable weeks at work where this guy took run after run at me. He did not limit his actions to me, but to every person who wanted to look at the situation objectively or worse, wanted documentation for the complaint. Needless to say, after two days, I was on the periphery of this conflict until the day he was let go.

Facebook made this situation horrible, the guy in question merely deleted me and did not block me so all of his public and semiprivate posts - the stuff he posted which was then liked, shared or commented on by mutual friends was visible to me. And our mutual friends knew exactly what they were doing by commenting, sharing or liking, they gave me an opening for an attack or information for my purposes. To be honest, I slowly deleted (over a year) some of those people because I felt that they were fueling the fire.

Inclusa
2012-Oct-17, 03:38 AM
I don't think it's an either/or. Bullies need to be dealt with, but you're never going to deal with 'em all, so victims and potential victims also need to be taught how to deal with them. Keep in mind that bullying doesn't stop just because you're not a kid any more.

And by "deal with" I mean "take action against". I really hate the restricted meaning being imposed when people say, "Deal with it!" That in itself is a kind of bullying.

Bullying happens in workplaces, and hence the term "workplace politics"; occasionally, bullies were once victims as well, so the line isn't that well-cut.
"Fighting back" just means effective strategies that end or alleviate bullying; physical forces or authorities work at some occasions but are not omnipotent by any means.

starcanuck64
2012-Oct-17, 05:11 PM
In my experience some people can't tell the difference between abuse and normal interaction, they actually believe that they're behaving in an acceptable manner. I think as a society we've evolved some complex ways to take this into account, it's just taking time for some of the newer ways of interacting to catch up.

I don't have and don't plan to have a Facebook page because of some of the issues that Solfe talks about. Facebook grew out of a not-so-nice medium to "rank" people in a college setting, I don't think it's outgrown this aspect of it's origins.

Solfe
2012-Oct-17, 05:16 PM
I don't have and don't plan to have a Facebook page because of some of the issues that Solfe talks about. Facebook grew out of a not-so-nice medium to "rank" people in a college setting, I don't think it's outgrown this aspect of it's origins.

I am 90% of the way to deleting my account due to the goofy nature of the privacy setting. While there is no content search, it is a little strange to have people look at your account.

starcanuck64
2012-Oct-17, 05:24 PM
I am 90% of the way to deleting my account due to the goofy nature of the privacy setting. While there is no content search, it is a little strange to have people look at your account.

CBC has an interesting article on Facebook.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/09/25/f-facebook-privacy-list.html

For some reason Facebook keeps making "big mistakes" when it comes to privacy.

Solfe
2012-Oct-17, 05:33 PM
Opt in should be the only option in my opinion.

I like G+'s attitude towards privacy. While you do have the 800 lbs gorilla of Google on your back, you can restrict posts and images using any combination of parameters. Failure to select an option means at worst, using your last setting used or better yet, complete privacy.

starcanuck64
2012-Oct-17, 05:54 PM
I think it's important to be aware that these sites are in business to make a profit, and sometimes that means putting their users interests second, Facebook much more than Google it seems.

Solfe
2012-Oct-17, 06:02 PM
Facebook doesn't seem to have a plan. Google captures massive amounts of user information but see a business value in not revealing it, so as not to give competitors a leg up.

swampyankee
2012-Oct-17, 07:45 PM
Bullying happens in workplaces, and hence the term "workplace politics"; occasionally, bullies were once victims as well, so the line isn't that well-cut.
"Fighting back" just means effective strategies that end or alleviate bullying; physical forces or authorities work at some occasions but are not omnipotent by any means.

Workplace politics is not bullying; politics only happens between people who consider themselves to be near enough to equality for mutual bargaining to occur. Most workplaces are hierarchies, but there is a qualitative difference between management directives and bullying. While I don't think the social milieu of my youth was particularly edenic, I do think that some of the worst types of bullying seen today did not happen (there may have been others, equally bad, but I lived in a fairly homogenous town), mostly as people, especially children, tended to have broader and more diverse peer networks.

closetgeek
2012-Oct-18, 12:13 AM
I don't think it's an either/or. Bullies need to be dealt with, but you're never going to deal with 'em all, so victims and potential victims also need to be taught how to deal with them. Keep in mind that bullying doesn't stop just because you're not a kid any more.

And by "deal with" I mean "take action against". I really hate the restricted meaning being imposed when people say, "Deal with it!" That in itself is a kind of bullying.

I may have taken "deal with" in the entirely wrong context. When I use the phrase, "deal with it," I generally mean "get over it," or "just accept it." If you mean giving victims and potential victims, resources, support, or coping mechanisms, I think that is a good thing.

Gillianren
2012-Oct-18, 12:27 AM
I had a supervisor who was a bully. He took pleasure in denying permission to go to the bathroom and once told me that I had to wait; I could not have a panic attack just then. The company took great pride in the fact that all of us had started on the call floor, all the way up the chain of management. This guy was the first one hired from outside the company. It showed, too; he didn't know which rules were there to appease someone higher up the chain and were never actually enforced.