Behind The Screen: The Hidden Life Of Youth Online

WWW.IPPR.ORG

BehindtheScreen Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline byKayWitherswithRuthSheldon April2008 ©ippr2008

InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch Challengingideas– Changingpolicy

2

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Foreword Thegenerationaldividebetweenchildrenandyoungpeopleandtheirparentsisperhapsmostwidely seenintheirviewsandapproachestotheinternetandmedialiteracy.Withthisinmind,howdowe ensurethatchildrenandyoungpeoplearesafeguardedfromharminwaythatisnotoverthetopin principleanddraconianinstyle,whileatthesametimemaintainingtheinternetasaplacefor freedom,expression,creativityandsocialisation? Whatthisreporthasrecognisedisthatonlythroughtheparticipationofchildrenandyoungpeoplein anypolicycreationandimplementationcanwehopetoachievebestoutcomesforthosewhoare deemedtobethemostvulnerableinternetcommunity. Initsrecommendations,thisreportcallsforcollaborationandsupportfrompeers,youthservices, teachersandparents,ratherthantop-downrestrictionsandrulesdictatedfromcentralgovernment. Theroleofmedialiteracymustbefullyexploredthroughinformalandformaleducationalstructures involvingbothyoungpeopleandtheoldergenerationstoenableuseoftheinternettobeasafeand enjoyableprocessforall. Onlythroughworkingtogetherwiththeactiveinvolvementofchildrenandyoungpeopleasan integralpartoftheprocesscanwebestensurethatthosewhoneeditareprotectedfromthedangers oftheonlinecommunity,andthattheirexplorationofselfidentity,theirplaceincommunityandtheir roleinsocietyarefullysupported.

AlexFarrow(19) TheNationalYouthAgency

3

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Contents Aboutippr ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Abouttheauthors.............................................................................................................................. 4 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ 4 Executivesummary ............................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 9 1.Fromconsumptiontoengagement:livinglifeonline................................................................... 14 2.Managingrisk:publicprivatelives................................................................................................. 23 3.Thelimitsofrulesandregulations................................................................................................ 42 4.Learningbydoing:empoweringyoungpeoplethroughmediapractice ..................................... 52 5.Conclusionandrecommendations................................................................................................ 61 References......................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix1:Researchmethodology–deliberativeworkshops........................................................ 73 Appendix2:Groupprofiles ............................................................................................................... 75 Appendix3:Definitionofsocialclasses ........................................................................................... 76

4

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Aboutippr TheInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(ippr)istheUK’sleadingprogressivethinktank,producing cutting-edgeresearchandinnovativepolicyideasforajust,democraticandsustainableworld. Since1988,wehavebeenattheforefrontofprogressivedebateandpolicymakingintheUK.Through ourindependentresearchandanalysiswedefinenewagendasforchangeandprovidepractical solutionstochallengesacrossthefullrangeofpublicpolicyissues. WithofficesinbothLondonandNewcastle,weensureouroutlookisasbroad-basedaspossible, whileourinternationalandmigrationteamsandclimatechangeprogrammeextendourpartnerships andinfluencebeyondtheUK,givingusatrulyworld-classreputationforhighqualityresearch. ippr,30-32SouthamptonStreet,LondonWC2E7RA.Tel:+44(0)2074706100E:[email protected] www.ippr.org.RegisteredCharityNo.800065 ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinApril2008.©ippr2008

Abouttheauthors KayWithers isaresearchfellowinthedirectors’researchteamatippr.Beforethatsheworkedasa researchertoBrianWhiteMP,andwaspolicyadvisertotheInternetServicesProvidersAssociation. Herpreviouspublicationsincludethe ChangingNatureofSocietyandtheRoleofTelevision (for Channel42008), PublicInnovation:Intellectualpropertyinadigitalage(ippr,withWilliamDavies 2006)and IntellectualPropertyandtheKnowledgeEconomy(ippr,2006). RuthSheldon isaresearchassistantinthepeopleandpolicyteamatippr,whereshehasdesigned andcarriedoutqualitativeresearchprojectsusingarangeofmethodologies.Shehasconducted researchwithrefugees,peoplewhoareoutofwork,youngpeopleandresidentslivinginsocial housing.Priortojoiningippr,Ruthworkedasaresearcherforapublicpolicycommunications company,theBBCandwithtwoacademicsociologists.Shehasalsoworkedasavolunteerfora communityhistorycharityandforacharityworkingwithyoungpeopleinTowerHamlets.

Acknowledgements Theauthorsandipprwouldliketothankpeoplewhocontributedtothisprojectandparticularlythose whocommentedondrafts:JamieCowling,TriciaJessiman,CandicePiresandfromippr,Naomi Newman,JuliaMargoandJamesCrabtree.Wewouldliketothankthefundersoftheprojectfortheir generoussupportofthiswork:theNationalYouthAgency,andtheDepartmentofCulture,Mediaand SportandOfcom,whofundedthequalitativeresearch. Finally,wewouldlikeextendthankstotheyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinthequalitativeresearch whoprovidedvaluableinsightsandideas.Withoutthemthisresearchwouldtrulynothavebeen possible. Theviewsexpressedinthisreportremainsolelythoseofthereportauthors.

5

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Executivesummary Moreandmore,policymakersneedtoaddresstheopportunitiesthatnewtechnologiespresentfor youngpeopletoengagewitheachotherthroughmedia,ratherthanissuessimplyrelatingtohowthe internetandthecontentithostsimpactsonyoungpeople.Thisisanewareaforgovernment–and onethatwillrequireanewapproach,andnewevidence,toenableittobesuccessfullynegotiated. Whilewehavearangeofstatisticalinformationrelatingtoaccesstoandownershipofnewmedia devices,therehavebeenfewattemptstodelvedeeperthantop-linefiguresandstatisticstoreally drawoutthewaysinwhichyoungpeopleengagewithcontent,andwitheachother,online. Withoutasoundevidencebaseandunderstanding,policywaversprecariouslybetweenoverregulationandnoregulationatall,withneitherapproachlikelytosatisfy. Thisreport,drawingonlandmarkqualitativeresearchwithyoungpeopleandoriginalempirical analysis,aimstodevelopapolicyagendathatwouldallowgovernment,parents,corporatesand internetproviderstoaddressgrowingconcernsaboutchildsafetyonlinewhileensuringthatthe opportunitiestheinternetofferstoyoungpeoplearenotrestricted.

Arapidlychangingmediaexperience Youngpeopleinhabitavastlydifferentworldtothatexperiencedbytheirparentsandthecurrentcrop ofpolicymakersintheiryouth.Injustover25years,wehavemovedfromamediaworldofjustthree terrestrialtelevisionchannelstoonethatoffersanabundanceofcontent,availableonachoiceof platforms.Foryoungpeople,theinternetandtheopportunitiesitoffersarenotnoveltiesbutarepart ofeverydaylife.Itisdifficultforadults,parentsandpolicymakerstofullycomprehendthis:theycan likelyrememberlifebeforeconstantconnectivity,beforebroadbandaccessineveryofficeandbefore mobilephoneswereconsideredaneverydayessential. Youngpeoplenowhaveaccesstoasophisticatedrangeofnewmediatoolsatincreasinglyyoung ages,withfourinfive5-to15-year-oldshavingaccesstotheinternetathome.Youngpeoplereport usingtheinternetforseveralhoursanight,primarilytosocialisewithfriendsusingInstantMessenger andsocialnetworkingsitessuchasMySpace,FacebookandBebo. Accessistypicallyunsupervised.Whilethecomputermaybeplacedinacommunalroomofthe house,youngpeopletendtoaccesstheinternetalone.Thishasimplicationsfortheextenttowhich theyareabletoengageinsocialandcommercialactivityunsupervisedinwaysthatcouldnothave beenimagined20yearsago. Thesetrends,thechangingnatureofaccess,andthegenerationaldividebetweenparentsand policymakersandyoungpeople,raisehugequestionsastohowcapableparentsaretomakeinformed decisionsabouttheirchildren’sinternetuse–forinstance,consideringtheshort-termimpactofthis interactionontheirimmediatewell-being,anditslongertermaffectsontheirpsychosocial development.

Understandinghowyoungpeoplenegotiateonlinerisk Inordertomakesureanypolicydevelopediseffectiveandappropriate,itiscrucialthatwegainan understandingofhowyoungpeopleusetheinternet,andtheirattitudestowardsonlineactivity.The pointsbelowsummariseippr’snewfindingsinthisarea:

• Youngpeoplehavecontradictoryattitudestowardstheinternet Youngpeopledescribe manyaspectsofinternetuseasbothpositiveandnegative.Forinstance,whiletheydescribethe increasedopportunitytosocialisewithfriendsasabenefit,theyalsoexpressconcernatthe ‘addictive’natureoftheinternet.Thesumoftimespentonline,andtheimportanceplacedon ‘constantconnectivity’hasimplicationsforyoungpeople’swell-beingandpsychosocial development,theoriesofwhichemphasisetheneedtospendtimealone.

• Attitudestoprivacyandsafetyareextremelycontradictory

Youngpeopleexperiencea tensionbetweenastrongdislikeofstrangerslookingattheirsocialnetworkingprofiles,anda

6

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

sensethatamajorbenefitofhavingasocialnetworkingsite(SNS)profileistheopportunityto self-advertise.Youngpeopleemphasisetheneedtoaddphotosanddetailontheironlineprofiles inorderthatpeoplewillwanttobecometheirfriends.Thisprocessisregularlyreferredtoas‘selfadvertising’.Theyalsorejectthenotionofmakingtheirprofileprivate,asthiswouldstopitbeing viewedwidely.

• Attitudestomeetingnewpeoplearecontradictory Forexample,youngpeoplearewell awareof‘strangerdanger’,andtendtousetheinternettosocialisewithpeopletheyalready know.Therearealsostrongnormsagainstusingtheinternettomeetnewpeople.Nonetheless, youngpeopledousetheinternettocommunicatewith‘friendsoffriends’–peoplewithwhom theyhavesomeconnection,nomatterhowtenuous–forexample,someonewhowaslinked throughasocialnetworkingsiteorcopiedintothesamechainemail. Whenyoungpeopledomeetupwith‘friendsoffriends’theyhavemetonline,theyhavea numberofmechanismstheyemployinordertoensuretheirsafety.Forinstance,theyplacemore trustinawebcamthanaphotoinestablishingidentity,asthereisrecognitionthatphotoscanbe fake.Theyalsotendtomeetpeoplewithagroupoffriendsratherthanalone.

• Cyberbullyingisnotarecognisedconcept

Youngpeopledonottendtousetheterm ‘cyberbullying’,andtherearestrongnormstowards‘seeingthejoke’whereonlinebehaviouris concerned.Thecontextofofflinerelationshipsiscrucialindecidingwhethercertainactionsonline areacceptableornot–forinstance,posting‘joke’orembarrassingphotosorvideosoffriendsor acquaintancesonline.Theparticularimplicationsofonlineexposurearenotsignificantforyoung people.Theyoftendonotdistinguishbetweendoingsomethingembarrassingorharmfulto someoneandputtinganimageofthisonline.

Ultimately,theattitudesandbehavioursofyoungpeopleonlineleadustotwoclearconclusions. First,youngpeopleconceptualiseriskintermsofimmediate,quantifiableconsequencesofbehaviour. Youngpeople’sconceptsofriskarelargelyformedthroughthestoriesinthenewsmediaandwere negotiatedintermsofthelikelihoodofanegativeconsequence,includingbeingcaught.So,for example,whereactivitiessuchasplagiarism,activitiesequatingtoadultdefinitionsof‘cyberbullying’ andlaxattitudestoprivacyareconcerned,youngpeoplefeelrelativelyfreefromconsequence,and thereforedonotconsidersuchactivitiestobe‘risky’. Second,youngpeopledonotreflectontheironlinebehaviour.Thisextendstoyoungpeople’slackof awarenessoftheimplicationsofonlineexposureofthemselvesandothers,alimitedconceptofthe audiencewhomaybeviewingtheiractivitiesonline,andtheextenttowhichtheyarewillingtotake informationaccessedonlineatfacevalue. Overall,thesefindingssuggestthatyoungpeople’stechnicalexpertisecanoftenexceedtheir understanding.Thisisthegapwhichpolicymustbridgetoensurethatyoungpeoplearenot needlesslyputtingthemselvesatriskonlineandinsteadcangetthemostoutofwhattheinternethas tooffer.

Howcanpublicpolicyrespond? Inordertotrulyprotectyoungpeopleonline,publicpolicymustbegintoaddressthemorecomplex problemsofhowyoungpeopleusemediatechnologiestoengagewitheachother,ratherthansimply focusingonthenegativeimpactthatcontentmayhaveonchildrenandyoungpeople.Thismeans understandingandtakingaccountoftheactiverolethatyoungpeoplethemselvesplayinformulating theirownexperiences. Ultimately,wemustaimtoachieveacollaborativeapproachthatengagesarangeoforganisations andindividuals,includingparents,educators,governmentandindustry,butthatalsoincludesusers themselves.Itisimportanttorecognisethatthereisalimittowhatpublicpolicyalonecanachieve: theinternetisneverlikelytobeanentirelyrisk-freeenvironment,andtheactionsofusersthemselves willbejustasimportantasregulationintheyearstocome.Nonetheless,publicpolicycanestablisha frameworktoallowustoreactinasensible,appropriateandtimelyfashiontochangestomediausers’

7

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

attitudesandbehaviours.Withoutthisinplace,wewillcontinuallybeinreactivemodeandnegligent inadutytoprotectandprepareyoungpeoplesufficientlyforthedigitalworldtheyareleftto navigate.

Recommendations 1.ChargeOfcomwithproducinganannualreportdetailingtheeffectivenessofexisting self-andco-regulatoryregimes Ofcomcurrentlyhasadutytopromoteself-andco-regulatoryschemes.Inordertomakesureaction whereinternetcontentanduseisconcernediscoordinatedandcomprehensive,Ofcomshould produceadedicatedannualreportdetailingtheeffectivenessofschemesandidentifyingwherethere aregapsinprovision.Governmentcanthentakeaviewofwhereindustryshouldtakefurtheraction. Ifthisisnotforthcoming,governmentshouldconsideralternativeregulatoryapproaches. 2.GiveresponsibilityformedialiteracytotheDepartmentforChildren,Schoolsand Families(DCSF) TheGovernment’scurrentmedia-literacyagendaisunambitiousandunder-performing.Ithassuffered fromlackofengagementfromDCSF,despitethefactthatthisdepartmentistheonethatlargelyhas todealwiththeconsequencesofalackofmedialiteracyofyoungpeopleandadults.DCSFshouldbe givenleadresponsibilityinthisareainordertodriveacomprehensivemedia-literacyprogramme forward,engagingrelevantdeliveragentssuchasschools,youthservicesandothers. 3.Driveforwardconsultationontheextentofcorporatesocialresponsibilitytoyouthin thenewmediaworld TheDCSFshouldleadtheagendaintermsofunderstandingtheroleofcorporatesocialresponsibility whereraisingyouthisconcerned.Thismeansconsideringtherolesnotonlyofinternetservice providers,mobileoperatorsandotherstowhomweregularlyattachtheterm‘industry’,butalsoofa widerrangeofcommercialinterestswhoseektoengagewithyoungpeopleinsocialspacesthatare largelyunmediatedbyadults.TheDCSFshouldseektodriveforwardpolicyinthisarea,in consultationwiththecorporatesector,consumerorganisationsandrepresentatives,parentsand– mostimportantly–youngpeoplethemselves,andshouldtaskthecorporatesectorwithdrawingupa definitionofcorporatesocialresponsibilitythatcanbeappliedtoengagementwithyoungpeoplein thedigitalmediaspace. 4.Ensurethatage-restrictionmechanismsbecomemorerobustandusedmorewidely Industryshouldcontinuetoworkonimprovingthesafetyoftheirofferingstoyoungpeopleand,in particular,shouldlookatstrengtheningage-restrictionmechanismswheretheseareemployed. Industryplayersshouldalsoensuretheyarefullyengagedwithcurrentsafetyinitiatives,suchasthe InternetWatchFoundation,andsupporttheirwork. Theindustry–includingserviceproviders,socialnetworkingsitesandcommercialentitiesengaging withyouthonline–shouldcooperatewithgovernmentindevelopingnewcodesofrightsand responsibilitiesandensuringgreatercodecomplianceinordertoenhancegoodbehaviourandthe positiveexperiencesofyoungpeopleonline. 5.Revitalisethemedia-literacyagendaanddeliveritthroughtheExtendedSchools programme Recentadvancesingovernmentpolicy–particularlytheExtendedSchoolsprogramme–presentsa hugeopportunitytointroducemedia-literacyteachinginamoreinnovativeandexcitingwaythan everbefore.Ratherthantreatingmedialiteracyasaninformationandcommunicationtechnology (ICT)skillset,tobetaughtinatraditionallessonformat,youngpeopleshouldbeencouragedto createmediatexts–anactivitythatislikelytoprovepopularandbebeneficialintermsofother outcomessuchasschoolachievement.Creatingtheirownmediawillenableyoungpeopletobuild greatercriticalskillstowardsinformationtheyaccessandcreateandlearnmoreaboutthe consequencesoftheiractionsonline. Suchaprogrammeofworkcouldbedeliveredbylinkingtheactivitycurrentlyongoinginthe

8

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

communitymediasectorwiththatofschools,utilisingtheknowledgeandskillsofmediapractitioners. 6.Makeinformationandlearningopportunitiesavailabletoparents,throughexisting initiativessuchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsprogramme. Reachingparentsremainsadifficultchallenge.However,theGovernment’sagendaforsupporting parentsoutlinedintheChildren’sPlanprovidesanopportunitytoensurethatinformationisavailable forparentswhenandwheretheywantit.Media-literacyinitiativesaimedatencouragingparentsto engageinsupportiveonlineactivitieswithyoungpeopleshouldbedeliveredthroughexisting initiativessuchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsprogramme.

9

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

1.Introduction Allchange:thebravenewmediaworld Themediahasconsistentlyplayedanimportantroleincivilisedsociety.Fromtheinventionofthe printingpressinthe17thcenturytotheadventoftelevisionandradioandfinally,theemergenceof theinternet,themediahasservedtocommunicateideasandinformation,toprovidespaceforpublic discourse,andtoentertainandeducatecitizensaroundtheglobe. Werelyheavilyonthemedia–forinformation,forentertainmentandforaccesstothepublicsphere –andithasthereforelongbeenthoughtofasapowerfulforce,capableofinfluencingtheattitudes andbehavioursofitsconsumers.Theroleofthemediainpropagandacampaigns–particularlyduring thefirstandsecondworldwars–showshowrealandpowerfulthatinfluencecanbe(Hermanand Chomsky1988,MacKenzie1984).

Isthereaproblem? Alongtheway,manyhavevoicedfearsofthepotentialfornegativeinfluencebymediamessages– particularlyonchildrenandyoungpeople.Thepresumedpowerofthemediajuxtaposedwiththe vulnerabilityofyoungpeople,hasledtopublicpanicwheneveranewmediaformisintroduced.In the1950s,therewerewidespreadconcernsabouttheimpactofviolentimagesincomics(Nyberg 1988).The1960sbroughtfearsthatpopularmusicwouldencourageyoungpeopletoshedtraditional valuesandbehavebadlyasaresult(Savage1988).Inmorerecentdecadestherehavebeensimilar concernsabouttheimpactofviolenceinfilmsandvideogames,andthesecontinuetothisday. Innovationsindigitaltechnologieshaveresultedinanabundanceofcontentandchoice,asuserscan accessamind-bogglinglywiderangeofmaterialatanytime,dayornight,throughvastlyincreased accesstomediadevices.This,combinedwiththefactthatinternetcontentisnotsubjecttothesame standardsthatweapplytotraditionalbroadcastcontent,meansthatparentsandguardiansare increasinglyworriedabouthowtostopyoungpeoplecomingintocontactwithcontentdeemed unsuitable–forexample,contentdepictingextremeviolenceorofagraphicsexualnature. Thesefearsdrawonalongtrendofanalyticalworkthatseekstoassesstheimpactofindividuals engagingwithmediabyaccessingcontentthroughvariousdevicestoretrieveinformationorfor entertainment.Forexample,doesviewingviolentcontentencourageviolentbehaviour?Does increasedconsumptionofsexualcontentencouragepromiscuity,ordoesitcauseviewerstoform certainattitudestowardswomen(ormen)? Thesequestionsremainrelevant,andplayanimportantroleinourunderstandingoftheinternet.But convergenceofnewmediatechnologiessuchastheinternetwithtraditionalmediaformssuchas televisionandradiobegsanewquestion:forhowlongcantheregulatorydistinctionbetween broadcast(whichisincreasinglytakingonthecharacteristicsofon-demand,multimediacontent)and internetcontent(whichisincreasinglytakingonthecharacteristicsofbroadcastmaterial),remain salientintermsofstandardsofcontent?

Possiblesolutions Asthedivergencebetweentheconcernsofparentsandpublicpolicymakersandthecurrentmedia regulatoryframeworkbecomesmorestriking,wearefacedwithaproblem.Andasthenewsstories reportinginternetscandalsbecomemorefrequent,thereisastrongandgrowingsensethat somethingmustbedone. Butwhat?WhiletheUKhasastronghistoryofstateinterventioninmediaprovision,aswehave movedawayfromananalogueagemeansthattheprinciplesandpolicyleversweoncereliedupon arethreatened.Inthepast,governmentshavebeenabletoimposepublicobligationsonbroadcasters todelivermaterialthatmeetscertainsocialobjectivesinreturnforaccesstospectrum–ascarce commodity–tobroadcasttelevision.Becauseofbottlenecksindistributionofbroadcastcontent,it hasbeenpossibletoimposestrongeditorialcontrolonanythingthatisdeliveredtoaudiences throughtelevision.However,theinternetremovesthesetechnicallimitationsandthusreducethe

10

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

bargainingtoolsavailabletoregulatorstocontinueregulating. Thenewformsofmediameanthereisanewissue:foryoungpeopletoday,engagingwiththemedia isatwo-wayprocess.Asopposedtobeingpassiverecipientsofmediamessages,todayyoungpeople playanactiveroleincontributingtotheverymediathattheyconsume.Foryoungpeople,themost importantfeaturesofdigitalmediatechnologies,andtheonestheyhaveembracedmost enthusiastically,arethosethatallowincreasedsocialisationwiththeirpeers–forexample,social networkingsites(SNSs),instantmessaging(IM)servicesandtextmessaging(ManteandPiris2002). Thisraisesadifferentsetofissues.Perhapsmostprominenthasbeenthethreattoyoungpeople fromadultsexualpredatorsonline.Parentsarenownotjustconcernedaboutinappropriatecontent butalsoinappropriateapproaches.Thisfearwasperhapsatitshighestwhentheuseofchatrooms reacheditspeakduringthelate1990sandintotheearlymillennium,butithasemergedagainmore recentlywiththeriseofsocialnetworkingsites. Thethreatposedbyadultpredators,thepotentialharmcausedbyviewinginappropriatecontent,and thetypicalpolicyresponsestothesethreats,whichcentreonprotection,forinstancebylimiting accesstotheinternet,suggestthatyoungpeoplearestillbeingseenasessentiallyreactive– respondingtothemediatheyconsume.However,intheemergingdigitalage,thisisfarfromthe truth.Wherecontentconsumptionisconcerned,youngpeoplecannolongerbeseenasapassive audiencereadytoreceivewhatevercontentbroadcastersputout.Increasingly,theyarebuildingtheir ownentertainmentexperiencebyselectingcontenttoviewonlineusingvideo-sharingwebsitessuch asYouTube,orbydownloadingcontentviacommercialservicessuchasiTunesorofferingsfrom traditionalbroadcasterssuchastheBBC’siPlayer,orChannel4’s4ODservice. Butperhapsthestarkestchangeiswhereonlinesocialisationisconcerned.Youngpeopleareusingthe internettosocialiseandexploretheiridentitiesinwaysthatcouldnothavebeenimagined20years ago.Theinternetisincreasinglybecomingaplatformonwhichemergingsocialtrendsareplayedout: increasedlevelsofunmediatedsocialisationofyoungpeoplewithpeers,increasedautonomyfrom parents,andanearliertransitionfromchildhoodtoadulthood–particularlywheresexualand commercialactivityisconcerned.WhiletheGovernmentgrappleswithhowtobegintoconsiderthe problemoftheregulationofinternetcontent,themorecomplexproblemofhowtoregulatetheway peopleengagewithitloomslargeinthebackground.

Aimsofthisreport Thisreportcombinesthefindingsofourownqualitativeresearchwithareviewofexistingevidence andliterature,toexplorehowregulationshouldrespondtothechangingmedialandscapeandthe behaviourofusers. Inthefaceofgrowingconcernsfrompoliticiansandparentsalike,theoptionofsimply‘doing nothing’inresponsetotheinterdependentissuesdescribedaboveisunlikelytobepolitically palatable.Butthereisanequallystrongmessagecomingfromyoungpeoplethemselves:thatthey shouldbeabletocontroltheirownexperiences.Wheregovernmentdoesmakeamove,itrunsthe riskofalienatingyoungergenerationsbyappearingoutdated,imposingtop-downregulationsand actinglikeaparent. Commonsensewouldsuggestthattheadultworldisduty-boundtojudgehowsafeandresilient youngergenerationsactuallyare,incomparisonwithhowtheyperceivethemselvestobe.However,if wearetodevelopappropriatepolicyresponses,thenitisessentialthatwegainanuanced understandingofwheretheinternetfitsintoyoungpeople’severydaylives,andtheirattitudes, behavioursandexpectationsinrelationtothecontentandopportunitiesitoffers.Whilewehavea rangeofstatisticalinformationrelatingtoaccesstoandownershipofnewmediadevices,therehave beenfewattemptstodelvedeeperthantop-linefiguresandstatisticstoreallydrawoutthewaysin whichyoungpeopleengagewithcontent,andwitheachother,online. Withoutasoundevidencebaseandunderstanding,policywaversprecariouslybetweenoverregulationandnoregulationatall,withneitherapproachlikelytosatisfy.

11

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Thisipprreportaimstoaddressthisgap,maintainingthataregulatoryregimefitforfuturemedia citizensmustcomefromastartingpointoffirstunderstandingthepractices,behavioursand expectationsofyoungergenerations.Itaimstodevelopaprogressiveapproachtomediaregulationin whichweseektounderstandtheinterplaybetweenyoungpeople’suseofmedia,socialchangeand socialbehavioursinorderthatwecaneffectivelyidentifytheroleforpublicpolicy. Ourrecommendationsareaimedatkeepingyoungpeoplesafeinthecontextofrapidlyshifting boundariesandchangingopportunitiesandbehaviours.Butitisimportanttorecognisethattherole forpolicyisminorinrelationtotherolesofyoungpeoplethemselves,parentsandsocietyasawhole, asweincreasinglyunderstandthemoredeeplyrootedconsequencesofnewmedia. Thedebateoverhowtoapproachprotectingyoungpeopleonlineisdividedandoftenveersfromone extremetoanother.Thereisapolicyvacuum,whichgovernmentmusttakestepstofillsoonerrather thanlater.Ourrecommendations,takenacrossthepiece,presentaprogressiveaccountastohowwe moveforwardonacollective,society-widebasis,tofulfilboththeexpectationsofparentsand guardiansandthedesiresofyoungpeople. Thisisnottosuggestthatregulationshouldseeksolelytoadapttoyoungusersasconsumers,nor thatregulationinthisenvironmentshouldbelimitedtomerelyfacilitatingconsumerchoiceina communicationsmarketplace.Themediacontinuestoplayanimportantroleinearlysocialisationand inmovingtowardsactivecitizenshipand,despitetheshiftfromanaloguetodigital,itisclearthat continuedinterventioninyoungpeople’smediaexperiencecontinuestobenecessary.So,whilewe aimtolistentoyoungpeopleandlearnfromtheirexperiences,wealsoseektoinfluencetheirchoices andcurtailthemwherenecessary.

Researchmethods Inordertogainaperspectiveonyoungpeople’suseoftheinternet,wesoughttoconsultwithyoung peopleasmuchaspossible.Weheldthreedeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopleandalso conducteddiaryresearch.Throughthesemethods,wesoughttoexplorethefollowingkeyissues:

• Whatdoyoungpeopleusetheinternetfor,andhowdotheyuseit–particularlyinrelationto socialnetworkingsites?

• Whatareyoungpeople’sattitudestowardsprivacyandsafety? • Whatareyoungpeople’sattitudestowards,andexperienceof,so-calledcyberbullying? • Howdoyoungpeopleusetheinternettofindoutinformation? Participantswererecruitedfromarangeofsocio-economicbackgrounds.Allhadbroadbandaccess andmobilephones.Thiswaspartlytoensurethatnoparticipantfeltexcluded,butalsobecausethe focusofthisresearchhasbeenonuseoftheinternetratherthanaccesstoit.Wedeliberatelyusedan approachwithyoungpeopleatitscentreinordertoavoidimposingadultconceptsofriskand vulnerability.Instead,thepurposewastounderstandhowyoungpeopleexperiencednew technologies,andthepositiveandnegativeaspectsofthesetechnologiesasperceivedbyyoung peoplethemselves. Theresearchlargelyfocusedontheuseofsocialnetworkingsites,instantmessengerandvideosharingwebsitesasyoungpeoplethemselvesidentifiedtheseasbeingthemostpopularsites.A summaryisavailableinthebox‘Youngpeople’sfavouritesitesandservices’,nextpage. AfulloutlineoftheresearchmethodologyiscontainedinAppendix1,withabreakdownofgroup participantsavailableinAppendix2.

Structureofthereport Theremainderofthisreportisdividedintofivechapters:

• Chapter1 givesabroadoverviewofthechangestothemedialandscapethathavetakenplace recently,andidentifiesthedriversofthesechanges.Itoutlineshowyoungpeoplehave respondedintermsofthetimespentwithmedia,andhighlightschangingpatternsofaccess, includingincreasinglevelsofunsupervisedaccess.

12

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

• Chapter2 looksatthechallengespresentedbythechangessetoutinChapter1,outliningthe resultsofourqualitativeresearchinareasincludingsafety,privacyandcyberbullying.Itthen considersothercurrentareasofconcern,includingaccesstoharmfulcontentandexposureto advertising.

• Chapter3 outlinesthecurrentregulatoryframeworkandexploresthedifficultiesinvolvedin extendingformalregulationtotheinternetenvironment.Italsolooksatthedifferentrolesof self-andco-regulation.

• Chapter4 emphasisesthatwecannotexpectregulationtodoeverything,andthattherealityof theinternetissuchthatapartnershipapproachisnotonlywelcomedbutnecessary.Itargues thatparents,educatorsandusersthemselvesmusttakestepstobuildtheircapacitytomanage theirownexperience.Itthenexploresthecurrentmedia-literacyframework,andprovides recommendationsforpushingthisforward.

• Chapter5 setsouttherecommendationsandconclusionstothisreport. Youngpeople’sfavouritesitesandservices Socialnetworkingsites Therearehugenumbersofsocialnetworkingsites(SNSs),andtheyarepopularamonginternet users.ForinstanceFacebook(www.facebook.com)hasover66millionactiveusers(source: Facebookpressroom,accessed3/3/08)whileMySpace(www.myspace.com)hostswellover 100millionaccounts(Register2006).IntheUK,almostthreequarters(72percent)ofchildren havevisitedanSNS,andoverhalfofthesehavesetuptheirownprofile(Ward2008). Onlinecommunitieshavealwaysbeenastrongfeatureoftheinternet,andSNSsareanatural progressionfromthese.Butwhereaspreviousexamplessoughttolinkpeoplearoundashared interest,SNSsallowpeopletoconnectthroughexistingsocialrelationships. WhileeachSNSdiffersfromthenext,theyshareanumberofcommonfeatures.First,theuser buildsapersonalprofile.Theyareaskedtosupplycertaininformationaboutthemselvesin ordertogeneratea‘profile’:essentially,thepublicfaceoftheirexistenceinthecommunity. Theyadddetailssuchastheirname,age,dateofbirthandhometown,aswellasfavourite music,televisionprogrammes,booksandfilms,alongsidephotos,tocreateanindividual account. Havingcreatedtheprofile,theusercanstarttobuildtheirnetworkbyinvitingothersonthe sitetobetheir‘friend’,andbyrespondingtofriendrequestsreceivedbyexistingmembers. Usersperusethenetwork,lookingatfriends’profilesandfriendsoffriends’profilesandsoon. OnSNSs,interactionbetweenmembersmostobviouslytakesplaceintheformofcomments andtestimonialswrittenby‘friends’andaddedtotheusers’page.Therearealsofacilitiesfor postingitemsofinterest,promotingforthcomingeventsandadvertisingitemssuchasspare rooms. OnMySpace,theseitemsareaddedtobulletinboards,whicharevisibletoeachindividual withintheposter’snetwork.Theyarethenoftencopiedbyotherindividualswithinthat network,re-postedtothebulletinboardinordertoreachmembersofthesecondaryposters’ networks,andsoon.Usingthisfacility,socialnetworkingsiteshavebeenheraldedasan effectivewayofmobilisingpeoplearoundanissue.IntheUS,forexample,schoolchildren organisedawide-scaleprotestagainstnewdevelopmentsinimmigrationlawthroughMySpace. SNSsalsooffercommunicationtoolssuchasemailandinstantmessaging,sothatmemberscan holdprivateconversationswithothermembers,althoughSNSsarelargelypublicspacesin whichthemajorityofactivityisvisibletoallmembers. ThemajorityofSNSs–andcertainlythosethataremostpopularwithyoungpeople–arefree

13

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

touse.However,althoughincomeisnotgenerateddirectlyfromusers,theyhaveaveryhigh commercialvalue.MySpacewassoldtoNewsCorpfornearlyUS$600millionin2006,whilein 2007Microsoftboughta1.6percentstakeinFaceBookforUS$240million.Suchfiguresare representativeofthevalueofpaid-foradvertisingonthesite,whichisseenasakeygrowth area. Instantmessagingtools Instantmessaging(IM)isoneofthemostpopularwaysforyoungpeopletocommunicate.Itis usedfarmoreoftenthanemail,forexample–partlybecauseitcanmorecloselyresemblea conversation,offeringreal-timecommunicationincontrasttothe‘letter’formatofemail,which isconsideredmuchmoreformal.Itcanfacilitate‘conversations’betweenseveralpartiesatonce, andtheyoungpeopleinterviewedinourresearchstatedthattheysometimesparticipatedin conversationsfeaturingasmanyas20people. LargenumberofyounginternetusersuseIMtochattofriends.Arecentsurveyshowedthat 82percentofIMpartnerswerefriendsfromschool,incomparisonto48percentwhohadmet online(Greenfieldetal 2006).ThereisalsoevidencethatthecloserateenagelivestoanIM partner,themorefrequentlytheywillcommunicatewiththemoverIM(Bonevaetal 2003). TouseIM,theusermusthaveaworkinginternetconnection.Theysimplydownloadafree programfromanIMproviderandselectanIMname–whichcanbetheirrealnameora nickname.Userscommunicatebytypingshortsentencesintotheapplication.Thesearesent andreceivedalmostinstantaneouslybytherespondent.ThemostpopularIMapplication,AIM, hasover100millionregisteredusersand53millionactiveusersacrosstheglobe. ItispossibletolimitthelevelsofcommunicationonIM–forinstancebymarkinginyour settingsthatyouare‘offline’andthereforeunabletocommunicate.Aswithemail,usersare alsoabletoblockotherusersfromcontactingthem. Video-sharingwebsites Video-sharingwebsitesgiveyoungpeopletheopportunitytobothwatchanduploadvideos, andalsotoshareelementsofotherSNSs–forexample,allowinguserstocommentonvideos, buildtheirownprofilesandlinkupwithotherusers. Themostpopularvideo-sharingwebsite,YouTube,waslaunchedin2005,andin2006was acquiredbyGoogleforUS$1.65billion,indicatingthelevelofexpectedfuturecommercial revenuethatwillbegeneratedfromthesite’susers. Onedoesnothavetobearegistereduserofthesitetowatchvideos,butsomelevelofpersonal detailmustbesuppliedinordertouploadcontent.Userswhocontributecontent‘tag’their videoswithrelevantphrases,makingiteasiertosearchformaterial.Dependingonwhichvideo youarewatching,linkstorelatedcontentappearonthescreen.Thesearedeterminedbythe tagsappliedbythepersonwhouploadedthecontent. YouTubehasplayedanincreasinglyactiveroleinpubliclife,withdebatesforthe2008US presidentialracepostedonthesite,andtheUKForeignOfficerecentlyannouncingitwould developitsownYouTubechannel.However,despitetheobviousbenefitsthatthesitecan provide,ithasneverbeenveryfarfromcontroversyandoutrage.Thesitehasbeenthecentre ofconcernsaroundissuessuchasso-called‘happyslapping’(inwhichphysicalattacksare filmedonamobilephonethensharedonline),violenceamongyoungpeople,andcyberbullying bothofpupilsandteachers.Thesitehasbeenblockedinseveralcountries,includingThailand, UnitedArabEmiratesandIran,duetoanti-governmentmessagesorthepresenceofadult contentdeemedunsuitable. Sinceitsinception,YouTubehasprovedphenomenallypopular,andanestimated65,000videos areuploadeddaily(Chaetal 2007).Thesitehasalsoresultedinthecreationofanumberof ‘YouTubecelebrities’–forinstance‘LonelyGirl15’,whichwaspresentedasavideoblogofa normal15-year-oldgirlbutwaslaterdiscoveredtobethecreationofaNewZealandactressand filmproducers.

14

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

1.Fromconsumptiontoengagement:livinglifeonline Themedialandscapehasrecentlyundergoneadrasticchangeasweshiftfromanaloguetodigital. Just25yearsago,Britishtelevisionviewershadachoiceofthreechannels–BBC1,BBC2andITV.In thequartercenturysincetheintroductionofChannel4,thenumberofchannelshasmultipliedto morethan400(Ofcom2007b). Itisworthrememberingthisinordertoemphasisehowvastlyadolescentexperiencesofmediahave changed–particularlywhenwecontrasttheexperiencesoftoday’sgenerationofadults(and policymakers)againsttheexperiencesofyouthtoday.Aswellasincreasedcontentandchoice,digital technologiesofferopportunitiesforamoreinteractiveexperience,intermsofengagingbothwith contentandwithotherusers.Thedistinctionbetweenconsumerandproducerisrapidlyblurring,as aredistinctionsbetweenpublicandprivate,asconversationsandsocialisationincreasinglytakeplace onlineandencompasscontentofanaudio-visualnature. Foryoungpeopletoday,theinternet(andtheopportunitiesitoffers)isnotanoveltybutpartof everydaylife.Itisdifficultforadults,parentsandpolicymakerstofullycomprehend.Itislikelythey canstillrememberatimebeforebroadbandaccesswasnearuniversal,andbeforethemobilephone wasseenasanessentialpartofeverydaylife.Assuch,thereisatendencyforadultstoreactto children’sexperienceoftechnologyinoneoftwoways(Buckingham2005a). Thefirstoftheseistoromanticiseorover-emphasiseyoungpeople’stechnologicalexpertise,giving themlabelssuchas‘theMySpaceGeneration’or‘digitalmillennials’andpresumingthatyoungpeople show‘natural’adaptabilitytonewtechnologicaldevelopments.Indeed,thisisacommonfeatureof politicians’speeches.Forexample,speakingin1999,TonyBlairadmittedthathischildrenwerefar moreproficientinusingtheinternetthanhewasandthatheoftenfeltasenseof‘mild,sometimes notsomild,humiliation’watchingthemsurftheweb(Blair1999). Thesecondtendencyistodepictyoungpeopleasbeingmademorevulnerablebydigital technologies,underincreasedthreatfrompredatorsandthereforeinneedofmuchgreaterprotection. Arecentparliamentarydebatesuggestedtheinternetshouldoffer‘twochoicesofcontent,onefor adultsandoneforchildren’byblacklistingcertainsitestobeupdatedhourlybyan‘internetstandards authority’(Hansard2008).Often,thesetwocontradictoryattitudesareheldsimultaneously. Often,adultsfearforyoungpeople’ssafetypreciselybecausetheirexpertisemeanstheyareableto manipulatetechnologiesinwaysthatfewadultscomprehend.Thisgenerationaldivideraiseshuge questionsastohowcapableparentsaretomakeinformeddecisionsaboutthepotentialimpactofthis interactionintheshortterm–forinstance,inconsideringtheimpactonyoungpeople’simmediate well-beingandlonger-termpsychosocialdevelopment.Asaresult,wemustconsiderwhetherand wherepublicpolicyshouldfillthisgapintheinterim.Butfromalonger-termperspective,weshould alsoquestiontheextenttowhichsuchinterventionwillcontinuetobenecessary.Oncethecurrent generationofyouthmovesintoparenthood,thepresentgenerationgapmaybecomelessstark,and theroleforpolicymaywellbedifferent. Nonetheless,atpresentitisimportantthatpublicpolicyisformedwithoutrelyingonthebasiseither ofromanticnotionsofyoungpeople’scompetenceoronfearoftheunknown–inthiscase,young people’sactivitiesonline.Toavoidthesetraps,wemustseektounderstandwhen,whereandhow oftenyoungpeopleaccesstheinternet,theenvironmentalandsocialcircumstancesinwhichtheydo so,andhowthisactivitychangesovertimeasyoungpeopleenterdifferentlifestages.Thiswillenable ustojudgewhereyoungpeoplearelikelytoencounterthegreatestrisk,andwhererisksareminimal.

Youngpeopleandthemedia Therelationshipbetweenyoungpeopleandthemediahasexperiencedtwosignificantchangesover thepastfewdecadesthatrelatetoconcernsregardingchildrenandyoungpeople’svulnerabilityand well-being.Theserelateto:

• Increasedaccesstomediadevices

15

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

• Increasedtime–andincreasedunsupervisedtime–spentaccessingmedia. Wewillnowlookateachoftheseinturn. Accesstomediadevices Youngpeoplenowhaveaccesstoasophisticatedrangeofnewmediatoolsatincreasinglyyoung ages.Mobilephonesareparticularlypervasiveamongyoungpeople.Itisestimatedthatjustoverhalf often-year-oldsand70percentof11-year-oldsownamobilephone(YouGov2006).Meanwhile,80 percentof12-to15-year-oldshaveone(Ofcom2006a).Ofcourse,accesstoamobilephonenow affordsmorethanjusttheabilitytocallorsendtextmessages.Phonesnowcomewithdigitalcameras orvideocamerasattached.Manycanalsoprovideaccesstoradio,TVandtheinternet. Fourinfive5-to15-year-oldshaveaccesstotheinternetathome(DCSF2007).Homebroadband connectionshavenowovertakendial-upconnectionsintheUK,enablingfasteraccesstomore sophisticatedaudio-visualcontent(Ofcom2007b).However,thehomecomputerisnottheonlyplace throughwhichtheinternetcanbeaccessed:schools,librariesandinternetcafésprovideplacesof accesswhiletheinternetisbecomingincreasinglymobile,withwirelessaccess,doingawaywiththe needforconnectionsfixedtoaparticularplace.Neitheristhecomputertheonlydevicethrough whichtheinternetcanbeaccessed:thisisnowpossibleviadigitalTV,mobilephoneandvideogame consoles. Box1.1illustratestheextentofyoungpeople’spotentialaccess. Timespentaccessingmedia Officialfiguresstatethatyoungpeoplespendonaverageof25.5hoursaweekconsumingaudiovisualmedia(includingtelevision,DVDs,radio,internetcontentorusinggamesconsoles).The majorityofthistimeisspentwatchingtelevision,whileyoungpeoplereporttheyspendanaverageof 6.2hoursaweekontheinternet(Ofcom2006a). Itisworthnotingthatthisfigureisbothself-reported,andwascalculatedpriortothesocial networkingrevolutionthathasrecentlytakenoffinboththeUSandUK.Sincethen,youngpeople havereportedthattheyvisitsocialnetworkingsitesanduseInstantMessengerservicesatleastonce aday,andspendanaverageofonehoureachnightusinginstantmessagingtechnology(Lenhardtet al 2007).Infact,ourresearchindicatesthatyoungpeoplespendbetweenthreeandfourhoursa nightonlineusingtheseservices. Youngpeoplealsohaveincreasingopportunitytoaccessmediaunsupervised,whichhasraised concernsabouttheirabilitytoaccessage-inappropriatematerial.Thisreflectswidertrendsin socialisation,withyoungpeopleintheUKspendinglesstimeinvolvedin‘family’activitiesthan previously(Margoetal 2006).

Box1.1:Youngpeople’saccesstomediadevices Accesstomediadevices(ages8-15) 80%haveaccesstotheinternetathome 72%havedigitalTVathome 65%havetheirownmobilephone(49%of8-11sand82%of12-15s) 50%ownagamesconsole,afurtherthird(34%)onebelongingtothehousehold.(Sources:DCSF2007,Ofcom2006) Accessoutsidethehome(ages9-19) 99%ofUKschoolshaveaninternetconnection 92%haveusedtheinternetatschool 64%ofchildrenhaveaccessedtheinternetoutsidehomeorschool.Ofthese,17%haveaccessedthenetviamobile, 6%viagameconsoleand4%viadigitalTV. Source:Ofcom2006

16

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Ofcom’smedia-literacyresearchreportsthat73percentof8-to11-year-oldshaveatelevisionin theirbedroom.Acrossallchildrenaged8-15,almostonequarter(23percent)saytheymostlywatch televisionontheirown.Thisfigureishigherfor11-15yearolds(Ofcom2006a).Viewingisnot restrictedtopre-watershedtimes,evenamongyoungeragegroups:28percentof6-to8-year-olds and49percentof9-to11-year-oldsclaimtowatchTVintheirroomsafter9pm(Livingstone2002). Arecentsurveyclaimedthatoneinfourteenagersfallasleepwhilewatchingtelevisionlateatnightin theirbedrooms(SleepCouncil2007). Incomparison,only13percentof12-to15-year-oldsandjust3percentof8-to11-year-oldshave internetaccessintheirbedroom(Ofcom2006a).Instead,thehomecomputertendstobeplacedina communalarea,suchasthelivingroom.Nonetheless,twoinfive(40percent)of8-11sandover two-thirds(71percent)of12-15ssaytheymostlyusetheinternetontheirownathome. Whileaccessisunsupervised,thisdoesnotmeanitiswithoutrestrictions.Threequarters(73percent) ofparentsof8-15yearoldssaytheyhaverulesabouttheirchild’sTV,videoandDVDviewing. Perhapsunsurprisingly,thefigureismuchhigherfortheinternet:95percentofparentsof8-11year oldsand78percentofparentsof12-15yearoldssaytheyhaverulesinplaceregardingtheirchild’s access.Thesemostlyrelatetowhatcontenttheycanaccess(Ofcom2006a). Buttheseresultsdirectlycontradictwithevidenceprovidedbyyoungpeoplethemselves.Inippr’sown research,themajorityofyoungpeoplereportednoparentalrestrictionsontheiruseoftheinternet whatsoever,andmanyclaimedthattheirparentsdidnotunderstandtheironlineactivities: ‘Somethingstheydon’tunderstandandtheyaskmetoexplainittothembuttheystill don’tunderstand.’(Girl,13,ABC11) ‘Mymumwillasksometimes“Isitsafe?”,butshedoesn’treallyknow.’(Girl,16,ABC1) Theonlyrestrictionsrecognisedwerelimitstotheamountoftimeyoungpeoplewereabletospend online,becauseofcompetingclaimsfromothermembersofthefamilywantingtousethecomputer. Asimilarpictureemergeswhenweconsideraccessatschool.Despitethepresenceoffiltersandother safetymechanismstorestrictaccesstoselectedinternetcontent,youngpeoplereportedsidesteppingtheserestrictionswithrelativeease.Schoolrestrictionswerelargelyseenaschallengesto overcome,ratherthanbeingintheinterestsofyoungpeoplethemselves: ‘Wehaverestrictionsatschoolbutwecanjustgetanadministrator’saccountandtake themoff.’(Boy,14,C2DE) ‘Restrictionsstopyougoingonbadsites,likegamessitesandstuff.Ifyoutakethem offyoucangoonanything.’(Boy,14,C2DE) Thedisappearanceofanysemblanceofa‘watchwithMother’culturehas,ofcourse,raisedconcerns. Despitethefactthattelevisioncontentisheavilyregulated,protectionofyoungpeoplehasalways reliedtosomeextentonparentalsupervision,andonrulesaboutappropriateconsumptionbeing appliedinthefamilyhome.‘Bedroomculture’andtheindividualnatureofinternetaccessmeansthat thispartofthesystemisbreakingdowninmanyhomes,withparentsfeelingconcernedbutfinding themselvesunabletoidentifyanappropriateresponse. Driversofcurrenttrends Anumberoffactorshavedriventhecurrenttrendsinyoungpeople’suseofmedia.Theseinclude perceptionsoftheeducationalbenefitsofnewtechnology,useoftechnologytoincreaseyoung people’ssafety,andeconomicfactors. Educationalbenefits Whilesocietymaybebemoaningthedominanceofmediainyoungpeople’slives,itisworth rememberingthatthesefigureshavebeendrivenbyfactorsotherthansimplyyoungpeople’sdesire

1.SeeAppendix3fordefinitionsofsocialgroupabbreviations

17

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

fornewtechnologies.TheGovernmenthaspromotedtheeducationalbenefitofinformationand communicationtechnology(ICT),surroundingthisclaimwith‘knowledgeeconomy’rhetoric(Selwyn 2003)andafinancialcommitmenttothetuneof£6billiontoensurethatallschoolshavebroadband connectionstoescapethe‘technologicaldarkages’. ICTispresumedtoimprovelearningintwoways:first,byequippinglearnerswithskillsthatare becomingincreasinglynecessaryforemployment(Sutherlandetal 1999)andsecond,byenabling themtoaccesstheinternetandthustoarepositoryofinformationandawidevarietyoflearning resources.Indiscussionsabouttheeducationalbenefitsoftheinternet,avisionoftheinternetasa ‘library’ofresourcesisdominant(Sandvig2006)andunderlinesmuchoftherationalebehindpublic provision–forexample,inlibrariesthemselvesaswellasUKOnlineCentressituatedacrossthe country,whichencourageuserstofindinformationabouttheirlocalpublicservices. Theactualeducationalbenefitoftheinternetisthesubjectofmuchdebate.Therearefears,butlittle evidence,thatextendedusecancauseattentiondeficitdisorder(Prensky2007),whileresearchisjust beginningtoconsiderthelong-termimpactofinternetuseonourwaysoflearning(Dealand Sharples2007).Withinformationreadilyavailableattheclickofamouse,theneedtocommitcertain factstomemoryiswaning.Forexample,someyoungpeoplearenowdisbelievingofanageinwhich peopleactivelyrecalledphonenumbersratherthanquicklyaccessingthemonone’smobilephone SIMcard(Prensky2007). Meanwhile,informationisbeginningtobedeliveredincreasinglythroughvisualmeans.Sofar,there hasbeennosubsequentdropinliteracyrates,butthereisevidencethatenjoymentofreadingis declining(NationalLiteracyTrust2006).Information,deliveredmorequicklyandconciselythanever before,isnowaccessedfromapatchworkofsitesandsources,oftenwithoutthecontextual frameworkthatlongertextscanprovide(Hansard2006).Thishasraisedconcernsnotonlyabout youngpeople’stendencytoacceptinformationatfacevalue(Faceretal 2003)butalsoaboutits potentialimpactontheircapacitytodevelopresourcessuchascriticalskillsandproblem-solving abilities(Moncke1998). However,thenotionofICTasatoolthatprovidesyoungpeoplewithessentialeducationalbenefitsis onethatisstronglyrecognisedbyparents,themajorityofwhombelieveaccesstoacomputerwill helptheirchildachievebettereducationalresults(LivingstoneandBober2005).Indeed,parentsoften citeeducationasthecentralbenefitoftheinternet(Buckingham2002),andthisextendstochildren undersixyearsold:72percentofparentsofinfantsandtoddlerssaidthattheythinkthatthe computerhelpswiththeirchildren’slearning(Rideoutetal 2003). Safety Asecondimportantdriverofthetake-upoftechnologicaldevicesamongyoungpeopleistheview thattheycanincreasesafety.Forexample,whilethemajorityofyoungpeopleownamobilephone, theydonot,byandlarge,paythebill(Ofcom2006a).Forthemostpart,mobilephonesare introducedintoyoungpeople’slivesbyparentsandguardians,forsafetyreasons.Ownershipof mobilephonesincreasesdramaticallyatthetimewhenyoungpeoplebeginsecondaryeducation–a stageatwhichtheyarelikelytotraveltoandfromschoolwithoutparentalsupervisionandaregiven increasingfreedomtostayoutlaterandlonger(ibid). Themobilephoneisnowseenasakeymonitoringandsupervisiontoolinparenting,withparents feelingthatyoungpeoplearesignificantlysaferwithonethanwithoutone(DevittandRoker2007). Thisisdespiteconcernsrelatingtomobilephonetheft,happyslappingandtext-bullyingandthe impactofmobilephonesonindividuals’health. Theroleofthemediaandcommunicationdevicesinkeepingyoungpeoplesafeisnotlimitedto mobilephones.ThepredominanceofTVinyoungpeople’slivesisoftenseenasadirectresultofa movetowardsamorerisk-aversesociety.Parentsreportthattheybelievethesafetyoftheirchild’s environmenthaschangedsignificantlysincetheythemselveswereyoung,andthatasaresultthey havecurtailedthefreedomtheygivetheirchildren(DCSF2007).Today,childrenhavefewer opportunitiestoplayoutside,andtheTVisincreasinglyusedasatime-consumingsubstituteor‘baby

18

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

sitter’thatkeepschildrenoccupiedandsafefromharmwhilerequiringminimaladultsupervision (Livingstone2002). Inrelationtotheinternet,thesafetydebatehasbeenacontroversialone.Onitsfirstintroduction, therewassomediscussionoftherolethatnewtechnologycouldplayin‘bringingtheoutsidein’–for example,providing‘virtualreality’accessenablingyoungpeopletoexperiencesituationswithinan environmentofrelativesafety,andsubjecttoparentalsupervision.However,astheinternetmoved towardsstrongeruseasasocialtool,concernsbegantomountregardingchildren’svulnerabilitywhen theyaccessedonlinespaces. Economictrends Finally,economictrendshavedrivenafurtherfundamentalchangeinchildren’smediaexperiences,and withinhouseholdpractices.Mediagoodsandaccesstotheinternethavebecomemoreaffordable.For instance,thepriceofabroadbandconnectionfellby57percentbetween2003and2005(Ofcom 2006b).Competitioninthemarketislikelytodrivepriceslowerstilloverthecomingyears. Computershavebeensubjecttoasimilardeclineinprice,whilethesaturationofthemobilephone markethasledmobilephoneoperatorstodevelopcheaperconsumerofferingsthaneverbefore.Prepayandcontractoptionsnowregularlyincludeincentivessuchasfreeeveningandweekendcalls,and freetextmessaging.

Impactonsocialcapitalandwell-being Policymakershavebegantorealisetheimportanceofsecuringemotionalwell-beingamongyoung peopleaboveandbeyonddeliveringoutcomescommonlyconsideredasbeingwithintheresponsibility ofthestate(forexample,goodhealth,educationandsafety)(DCSF2007,MargoandSodha2007). Thedebatearoundtherelationshipbetweenmediaandyoungpeople’swell-beinghastendedto focusonthepossibilityofcontentcausingharmordistress.Withtheinternetanddigitalmedia,this continuestobeaconcern.However,increasinglevelsofmediausehaveraisedadditionalconcerns thattheamountoftimespentusingmediacanitselfhaveanegativeeffect–bothdirectly,interms ofconsequencessuchaschildhoodobesity,andindirectly–ontheassumptionthattimespent consumingmediatakesplaceattheexpenseofotheractivities,particularlyface-to-faceinteraction (Krautetal 1998,Nieetal 2002).Thisissometimescalled‘thedisplacementhypothesis’. However,acontrastingtheorysuggeststhatinternetusecanactuallybebeneficialforyoungpeople’s well-being–forinstance,byhelpingtoconsolidateandcementsocialrelationships,andbyproviding opportunitiestoexpandknowledgeandconfidenceaboutparticularissuesoractivities(forexample, sexualityordisability).Thistheoryhasgainedprominenceduringrecentyearsasinternetusehas becomemoreandmoredirectedtowardssocialisation–particularlyforyoungergenerations,andis sometimesknownas‘thestimulationhypothesis’. Below,weexaminethemeritsofboththedisplacementhypothesisandthestimulationhypothesis,in ordertoconsiderhowdifferentaspectsofinternetuseaffectrelationshipswithfriendsandpeersand, ultimately,impactonyoungpeople’swell-being.Wethentakealonger-termperspective,toconsider theimpactsofsustainedinternetuseandconstantconnectivityonthepsychosocialdevelopmentof youngpeopleandthetransitionfromchildhoodtoadulthood. Thedisplacementhypothesis Thedisplacementhypothesisstatesthattimespentwithmediatakesplaceattheexpenseofother socialorcommunityactivities,thereforeincreasingisolationandhavinganegativeimpactonsocial capitalandwell-being. Televisionhasbeenviewedasthechiefculpritinthecontextofdecliningsocialcapital(Putnam 2000),andindeedtherearestrongassociationsbetweentimespentinfrontofthetelevisionand levelsofisolationanddisengagementfromciviclife(ibid).Ithasalsobeenblamedmorewidelyfora retreatfromthepublictowardsthedomesticsphere,furthercontributingtoadeclinein‘public culture’(Sennett1977).

19

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Wheretelevisionisconcerned,theseargumentshavebeenhotlycontested(forexample,Norris2001, Dahlgren1996).Nonetheless,earlyresearchsawsimilarthinkingtransferredtotheinternet:itwas arguedthattheindividualisednatureofinternetaccess,alongwiththeabilitytocontactpeoplefrom acrosstheworld,wouldencouragetheformationofnew,weaktiesattheexpenseofexisting, strongerones(Granovetter1973).Theimplicationisthatthiswouldhaveanegativeimpacton communityandwell-being,becauseweaktiesarepresumedtoprovidelesssocialsupport(Krackhardt 1992,Wellmanetal 2001). Thesefearswerefrequentlyaddressedbyearlyliteratureonthesubject,withKrautetal (1998) identifyingtheso-called‘internetparadox’:theironythatatechnologydesignedtomakeusmore connectedthaneverbeforeactuallyincreasesourisolation. Thereissomeevidencethatlevelsofusethatcouldequatetocompulsiveinternetusemayhavethis effect.AccordingtoresearchonadolescentMySpaceusers(Rosen2006),theaverageteenageuser spendsabouttwohoursadayonthesite,fivedaysaweek.Internetuseofthisintensityhasbeen showntocorrelatewithlowself-esteemandhigherlevelsofdepression(Koetal 2007).Several researchexerciseshavefoundyoungpeopledescribingtheaddictivequalitiesoftheinternetand thesesitesinparticular(Chouetal 2000,Young2004,Johanssonetal 2004).Thisisbackedupby ourownresearch,wheregroupparticipantscommented: ‘It’sgoodandit’sbad,likethere’sgoodaspectsaboutitbutitcangetannoyingafter awhile,likeitcanjustgetreallyaddictive.’(Boy,18,C2DE) ‘Iwanttospendlesstime’coswhatIdoonitisjustreallypointless–likeMySpaceis justreallyaddictive.’(Girl,17,C2DE) Thereisalsoevidencethatinternetuseisnegativelyrelatedtoadolescentperceptionsaboutquality offamilyrelationships(Krautetal 1998).However,furtherstudieshaveeitherfoundnodirectlink betweeninternetuseandwell-being(Grossetal 2002)orhavecontradictedthedisplacement hypothesisaltogether(ValkenburgandPeter2007). Amajorreasonfordifferingoutcomesisthatearlierstudiesoftentreatedtheinternetasaonedimensionalvariableandneglectedtoconsiderthevarietyofusestowhichtheplatformcouldbeput. Whatismore,themostprominentlyusedfunctionsoftheinternethavechangedovertime,from primarilyentertainmentinthe1990s(ValkenburgandSoeters2001)tothedominanceof interpersonalcommunicationstoday(Gross2004,Lenhardtetal 2007). Thus,whileMesch(2003)findsalinkbetweeninternetsurfing–thatis,justlookingatsitesrather thanactivelyengagingthroughchattingandcommenting–andnegativewell-being,thesamestudy alsoidentifiesapositivelinkbetweenwell-beingandusingIM. Thestimulationhypothesis Thestimulationhypothesisarguesthattheinternetcanbebeneficialtowell-beingbyhelpingto consolidateorpromoterelationships.Followingthedominanceofthedisplacementhypothesis,later researchledtotheadoptionofasecondtheory.Thestimulationhypothesisarguedthatinternetuse– particularlyifthisinvolvesinterpersonalcommunications–canhaveapositiveimpactonwell-being, andcanalsoservetoheightenthewell-beingofpeoplewhoarefeelinglonely,byallowingthemto sociallycompensatethroughuseofonlineconnections(ValkenburgandPeter2007). Thestimulationhypothesisandthedisplacementtheoryarebasedonargumentsthatareessentially thesameasoneanother.Bothstatethatonlinecommunicationaffectsadolescentwell-beingby affectingthetimespentwithexistingfriends(fordisplacementtheoriststhistimeisthoughtto decrease,whileforstimulationtheorists,itisthoughttoincrease)andthequalityofthesefriendships. Animportantdimensionofwell-beinginyoungpeopleisthequalityandstrengthofrelationships withfamilyandpeers(UNICEF2007)andthequalityofone’ssocialnetworkhasbeenshowntobe oneofthemostimportantstatisticalpredicatorsofwell-being(PinquartandSorenson2000). Adolescentswithhighqualityfriendshipsaremoresociallycompetent,self-confidentandhappier thanadolescentswithoutsuchfriendships(HartupandStevens1997).

20

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Thereissomeevidencethatinternetusemaybenegativelyrelatedtoadolescentperceptionsabout qualityoffamilyrelationships(Krautetal 1998).However,morerecentresearchshowsthattime spentonlinecannegativelyimpacttimespentwithfamiliesbutdoesnotnegativelyimpactfamily communication(LeeandChae2007).Thereisalsoextensiveevidencethatcommunicationtoolssuch asIMandsocialnetworkingsiteslargelyservetoconsolidatelocal,existingrelationships(Livingstone 2004)andareusedprimarilytokeepupwithclosefriendsandfamilymembers(Grossetal 2002). UseofIMdominatestimespentonline:ippr’sownresearchhasindicatedthatyoungpeopleare spendingatleastacoupleofhoursontheinterneteveryevening,usingsocialnetworkingsitesorIM inordertomaintaincontactwithfriends–boththoselivinglocallyandotherssomedistanceaway. However,internetusealsoincreasesthelikelihoodofcommunicatingwithstrangersonline:inasurvey ofadolescentIMusers,58percentreportedthattheyatleastsometimescommunicatedwithpeople theyonlyknewontheinternet,and45percentreportedthattheyatleastsometimestalkedwith peopleontheinternetwhotheydidnotknowatall(Grossetal 2002).Thisbehaviourwastypically carriedoutby‘lonelier’individuals,andwasrelatedtonegativewell-being. So,whileenablingclosefriendstostayclose,theideathattheinternetcanenablelonelyindividuals tosociallycompensateforlifeofflineisflawed.Whilelonelinesscanpromptcommunicationwith strangers(Grossetal 2002),andpeoplewhofeellessvaluedinface-to-facecommunicationaremore stronglymotivatedtocommunicateonline(PapacharissiandRubin2000),theseactivitiesdonot deliverresultsintermsoflife-satisfactionandwell-being. Foradolescents,thisisaparticularlyimportantfactor.Adolescencehasbeencharacterisedasatimeof increasedloneliness,duringwhichlevelsofself-esteemandwell-beingareextremelyvolatileandmost likelytobeaffectedbyenvironmentalinfluences(Valkerburgetal 2006).Itisalsoaparticularly difficulttimeforadolescentsintheUK:accordingtorecentresearch,UKchildrenhaveworsewellbeingthantheirpeersin20otherindustrialisedcountriesinthedevelopedworld(UNICEF2007). Significantly,theUKscoreslowestwhenitcomestochildrenfindingtheirpeers‘kindandhelpful’: justover40percentdoso,placingtheUKfirmlyatthebottomofthetable(ibid).Thisfactoralone couldraisetheimportanceandindividualvaluethatyoungpeopleplaceoninternetcommunications –inturnraisingfearsabouttheirgrowinginfluence,butalsoprovidingopportunitiestooffera popularroutetotrustedinformation,counsellingandsupportwheretherightservicesareoffered. Long-termeffectsofconstantconnectivity Erikson’smodelofpsychosocialdevelopment(Erikson1950)identifieseightphasesofpsychosocial development(outlinedinTable1.1,nextpage).Eachphaseischaracterisedina‘psychosocialcrisis’, whichmustberesolvedbeforethechildcanmoveontothenextdevelopmentphase. AscanbeseenfromTable1.1,duringadolescence,the‘psychosocialcrisis’takestheformofidentity versusroleconfusion–atimewhenyoungadultsarebeginningtoderiveanindependentidentity, developingasenseofself,independenceandcontrolwhilesimultaneouslybeingveryconcerned abouthowtheyappeartoothersandpreoccupiedwith‘fittingin’. Themediaandcommunicationtoolsplayanimportantroleinmeetingboththeseneeds:first,by underlyingyoungpeople’stransitiontowardsgainingautonomyfromtheirparentsandenabling formulationofindependentrelationshipswithpeers(ManteandPiris2002),andsecond,byenabling youngpeopletoparticipateinandidentifywithagroupofpeers.IMisaveryimportanttoolinthis respect:alargepartofitsappealisthesensethatitcreatesofbeingpartofalargecommunityof friends.ResearchsuggeststhatitisthequantityofrelationshipsformedonIM,ratherthantheir quality,thatteenagersvaluemost. Butidentityformationispresumedtorequiresomedegreeof‘alonetime’(Csikszentmihalyietal 1993),andspendingtimealoneisalsoadevelopmentalnecessityandakeyfeatureofprogressionto thenextstageinpsychosocialdevelopment:youngadulthood(Erikson1950,BuchholzandChinlund 1994).Alonenessandsolitudecanhavepositiveeffectsonotherareasoflifetoo.Csikszenmihalyiet al (1993:90)postulated,‘talentedstudentsaremoreabletotoleratesolitudeandarethereforealone

21

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Table1.1:Erikson’seightstagesofpsychosocialdevelopment Stage Ages Basicconflict Importantevent

Summary

1.Oralsensory

Birthto12-18 Trustvs.mistrust months

Feeding

Theinfantmustformaloving,trusting relationshipwiththecaregiver,orrisks developingasenseofmistrustandinsecurity.

2.Muscularanal

18months to3years

Autonomyvs. shame/doubt

Toilettraining

Thechild’senergiesaredirectedtowardthe developmentofphysicalskills,includingwalking, grasping.Ifnotencouragedandsupported,the childrisksexperiencingshameanddoubt.

3.Locomotor 3-6years

Initiativevs. guilt

Independence

Thechildcontinuestobecomemoreassertive andtotakemoreinitiative,butmaybetoo forceful,whichneedstobehandledsensitively.

4.Latency

Industryvs. inferiority

School

Thechildmustbehelpedtomeetdemandsto learnnewskillsorriskasenseofinferiority, failureandincompetence.

5.Adolescence 12-18years

Identityvs. roleconfusion

Peerrelationships

Theteenagermustachieveasenseofidentityin occupation,sexroles,politics,andreligion.

6.Young adulthood

19-40years

Intimacyvs. isolation

Loverelationships

Theyoungadultmustdevelopintimate relationshipsorsufferfeelingsofisolation.

7.Middle adulthood

40-65years

Generativityvs. stagnation

Parenting

Eachadultmustfindsomewaytosatisfyand supportthenextgeneration.

8.Maturity

65todeath

Egointegrity vs.despair

Reflectiononand acceptanceof one’slife

Theculminationisastrongsenseofagencyand fulfilment.

6-12years

Source:AdaptedfromErikson1950,1958,1964,1968,citedinMargoetal 2006 moreoften.Itisalsolikelythatthemotivationtodeveloptalent-relatedskillsrequiresthattheybe alone’.Withoutsolitude,learning,thinkingandinnovationmaysuffer(Moustakas1989,Storr1988). However,foryoungpeople,thereisoftenafinedividinglinebetween‘aloneness’and‘loneliness’, andadolescentsarethoughttofeellonelinessmorekeenlythanpeopleinotheragegroups(Goswick andJones1982).Individualswhoareneithercapableofmaintainingasocialnetworknorspending timealoneareparticularlylikelytofeellonely(Bucholzetal 1999). Whilethereissparseevidencetosuggestthatinternetuse(particularlycommunicativeinternetuse) causesloneliness,thereareearlyindicationsthattheinternet–alongwithothercommunicationtools –canimpactonyoungpeople’sabilitytospendtimealone.Forexample,youngpeopleinour deliberativeworkshopsreportedhighlevelsofusewhichtheysometimesrecognisedaspointlessor uninteresting,butnonethelessmaintainedbecauseofwhattheydescribedastheaddictivenatureof constantconnectivity.Othersadmittedtoleavingtheirmobilephonesonovernightincasethey receivedatextmessageduringthisperiod.Thisraisesconcernsnotonlybecauseitemphasisesthe extenttowhichyoungpeoplewishtoremainconnectedatalltimesoftheday,butalsobecauseit caninterruptsleep,animportantsourceofrestorativesolitude(Storr1988). Theimpactofconstantconnectivityonfuturepsychosocialdevelopmentisdifficulttoassess, primarilybecausenoneofthelongitudinalstudiescarriedouttodatehavestretchedbeyondsix months(Meerkerk2007).Evidencefrom2003doessuggestthatwhileadolescentsarebyfarthe highestusersofIM,levelofusedeclinesrapidlywithage(Bonevaetal 2003).However,wecannot concludethattoday’sdemandforconstantconnectivitywillnecessarilydeclineinthesameway. Internettoolshavechangedsorapidlyduringthefiveyearsprecedingthisresearchthatitisunclear whetherthesameeffectwillcontinuetooccur. Andthingswillcontinuetochange.Forexample,atpresent,adolescentsremainthegroupdisplaying highestlevelsofinternetuse.Butevidencesuggeststhat,intheUSatleast,the2-5-year-oldage groupisthefastest-growinggroupofusers(CorporationforPublicBroadcasting2003).AUSsurvey

22

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

foundthat48percentofchildrenaged0-6haveusedacomputer,and30percenthaveused computergames(Rideoutetal 2003).Withconstantconnectivityreachingever-youngeragegroups, itsimpactmaybemoredramaticinthefuture–particularlyintermsofforcingchildrentowardslater stagesofpsychosocialdevelopmentatever-earlierages.

Summary Fromwhatweknownow,wecanonlyconcludethatinternetusecanhavegoodandbadeffects–on self-esteem,lonelinessandlife-satisfaction–andthatdespiteearlytechno-utopianismordoommongering,itisfairtosaythat‘theinternetbyitselfisnotamaineffectorcauseofanything’ (McKennaandBargh2000).Intheshortterm,itisneitherapanaceaforsocialisolationnoradirect sourceofproblems.Instead,itislikelythatthecostsandbenefitswillbemitigatedonanindividual basisandwilldependonthepersonalitiesofindividualusers,andthetypeofinternetuse. Alongsidetechnologicalchanges,therehasundoubtedlybeenaculturalshiftunderpinnedbytherise insocialnetworkingsitesaimedatallsectorsofsociety,whichsuggeststhatconnectednessisgood, whilesolitude,orlackofconnectivityisnot.Inthelongterm,theseculturalshifts(causedbythe increasedintegrationofinternetandconstantconnectivityintoourlives)arelikelytocontinueapace. Butequally,weshouldnotactasifthisisnotsomethingwe,asasociety,areincapableofmanaging inordertomitigatenegativeeffects. Theopportunitiesforyoungpeopletosocialiseonlinearehuge,andthiscanhavebothgoodandbad impacts.Butviewingusageintermsofpositiveandnegativeeffectsismisleading:theinternetisan interactive,socialentitywithinwhichmanydifferentexperiencestakeplace–learning,interacting, meeting,consolidatingviewsandexploringfeelingsandideas.Itistimetomovebeyondtherather tireddebateaboutwhethertheinternetisgoodorbad.Itisboth,anditisverymuchpartoflife.We nowneedtoconsiderhowwecanprotect,enableanddevelopyoungpeopleusingit. Thisleadsustoournextkeyconcern.Forthemostpart,socialactivitiesareunmediatedbytheadult world.Socialisingisanimportantpartofpsychosocialdevelopmentthatenablesyoungpeopleto begintogainautonomyandformanidentityindependentfromtheirparents.Nonetheless,inthe contextoftheinternet,unmediatedsocialcontactdoesraiseconcerns.Justaswewouldnotbe happyaboutyoungpeopleengaginginunsuitableactivitiesoffline,beingexposedtoupsetting scenesorideaswithoutanadultpresenttohelpthemnavigatetheissueandunderstandtheir emotionalresponse,thesameistrueonline.Weneedtothinkagainabouthowtobringparents– particularlyparentsofthecurrentgeneration,whomaybeuniquely‘lockedout’ofthisrealmofsocial activity–intoapositionofmeasuredauthority. Althoughsupervisionofonlineactivitiesshouldnotbecomparedwholesaletothesupervisionof offlineactivities,parentsdohavearoleparticularlyinunderstandingtheimpactofsustained,heavy internetuseandinprovidinglimitstoensureahealthyrelationshipwithtechnology.Atpresentthere isclearlyahugegapinparents’understandingofthetypeofactivitiesinwhichyoungpeopleare engagingonline.Whiletherearesensitivitiesinherentinanyattemptbygovernmenttodefinegood parenting,parentsmaywellgratefullyreceiveadviceinthisarea–particularlygivenlevelsofparental concerncoupledwiththeirlackofawarenessofwhatconstitutesgoodandbadinteractiononline. WheretheGovernmentcanmostusefullyalteritsownbehaviourisinrefrainingfromsupporting messagesthatsuggestthattechnologyisunquestionably‘good’–particularlyinaneducational context.Theimpactsoftheinternetarediverse,anditismisleadingtosuggesttoparentsthat internetaccessaloneisaprerequisiteforacademicsuccess. Ultimately,weneedtotakeamoresubtleviewofthewaysinwhichtheinternetcanimpactonthe well-beingofyoungpeople.Whilecontent(addressedinChapter2)remainsasalientconcern,the extentofinteractionitselfraisesquestionsastohowpublicpolicyshouldrespond.Today’syouthare tomorrow’sparents,andregulatoryinterventionmaybecomelessnecessaryastimegoesby.However, thecurrentgapbetweenthelevelofunderstandingofyoungpeopleandthatoftheirparentsdoes suggesttheneedforentitiesoutsideofthefamilytoplayaroleinraisingyouthinanonlineworld. Thechallengeofencouragingsuchentitiestoengagepositivelywithyoungpeopleonlineisonethat governmentshouldseektotackle.

23

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

2.Managingrisk:publicprivatelives Thepreviouschapterfocusedonwhatrecentchanges,intermsofincreasedopportunitytousemedia forawidearrayoftasks,andtodosounsupervised,havemeantintermsoftheimpactonyoung people’swell-beingandpsychosocialdevelopment.Thischapterseekstoexplorethisfurtherinterms ofunderstandingtheopportunitiesforyoungpeopletoaccessharmfulorinappropriatecontentor engaginginharmfulorinappropriatebehaviour,andtheimpactofdoingso. Theissueofaccessingharmfulmaterialhascapturedextensivepublicandmediaattention,and followsalonghistoryofconcernabouttheeffectandinfluenceofmediaonchildren.Webriefly considerthisissue–particularlybecauseitprovidesinsightsastohowviewingcontentisthoughtto influencebehaviour.Thisremainsasalientissuewhenwecometoconsideryoungpeoplethemselves engaginginharmfulbehaviours.Thisisespeciallythecasewhentakingintoaccounttheroleofpeer influences,whichcannowbeplayedoutinaudiovisualform–forexample,throughvideospostedon tovideo-sharingwebsites,orthroughinformationsharingwithininternetgroups. Thisissueisincrediblypertinentnow,astragediessuchasthesuicidestakingplaceinBridgend, Wales,duringthepast12monthshaveheightenedpublicsensitivitiestothepossibilityofnegative peerinfluencesinonlineenvironments(Mesure2008). Butwhiletheremaybeusefulconclusionsthatwecandrawfromboththeeffectsofthetraditional mediaandtheeffectsofnewwaysofengagingwithandthroughthemedia,itisnonetheless importantthatwecontinuetodrawadistinctionbetweenthetwo.Weshouldnotexpecttodealwith thenumberofissuespresentedbyyoungpeople’suseoftheinternetsimplybymonitoringand removingorblockingcontent:thechangingdynamicbetweenconsumerandproducerdemandsa moresophisticatedapproach. Drawingonevidencefromourdeliberativeworkshops,wetakesomeofthemostprominent challengesfacedbysocietyinthiscontext.Weoutlinewhyconcernsexist,reviewevidencesuggesting theextenttowhichtheycouldnegativelyimpactyoungpeopleand,finally,setoutthescaleofthe problemintheUK.Here,wereferbothtoexistingresearchanddataandourownqualitativeresearch. Finally,weprovideevidence,whereavailable,ofyoungpeople’sownattitudesandperceptions,their senseofrisk,andhoweffectivetheyseemtobeindealingwiththeproblem.

Theinfluenceofmediacontent,consumptionanduse:changingconcerns Theinternethasfrequentlybeencharacterisedasakindof‘WildWest’ornewfrontier:adangerous, unpredictableandlawlessplace(Leyden2007).Insuchanenvironment,thereisagreatdealof concernaboutthecontentyoungpeoplemayaccessandtheimpactofthisontheiremotionalwellbeingandbehaviour. Wespendlargepartsofourdaysconsumingmediaofoneformoranother.Whetherthemorning newspaper,theradioonthewaytowork,contentaccessedontheinternetthroughoutthedayorthe televisionintheevening,mediacontentsurroundsusasanearconstant.Itisnowonder,then,that concernshavebeenraisedformanydecadesaboutitspotentialnegativeinfluence. Initialtheoriesofmediainfluenceassumedthemediatohaveastronganddirecteffect,andfocused ontheabilityofmediatextsto‘inject’particularmessagesdirectlyintotheconsciousnessofaudience members.This‘hypodermicneedle’theorywasformedinresponsetothepropagandacampaignsof WorldWarII,butwasalsowitnessedinpopularformwhentheinitialradiobroadcastofOrsonWelles’s ‘WaroftheWorlds’causedseverallistenerstopreparefortheforthcomingalieninvasion,treatingthe playasfactratherthanfiction(KatzandLazarsfeld1955). Thetheorywasquicklydiscounted,andwascriticisedforaffordingtoomuchinfluencetothemedia andneglectingotherfactorsthatcontributetotheformationofattitudesandbeliefs–forinstance family,peersandotherformsofinterpersonalcommunications(Lazarsfeldetal 1968).Italsotended totreattheaudienceasoneamorphousmasswithnoindividualcharacteristicswhatsoever,each individualbeingexpectedtoreacttocontentinexactlythesameway(Wright1964).

24

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Amoresophisticatedaccountofmediainfluencehascentredonthewayinwhichcomplexmedia messagescanframeissuesanddiscoursesandhaveasignificantimpactonsettingsocialagendas (IyengarandMcGrady2005).Forexample,evidenceshowsthatthereisacloserelationshipbetween theamountofattentionthemediadevotestoissuesandtheimportancethatpeopleattributeto theseissues(Funkhouser1973).Thuswhilewehavemovedawayfroma‘strongeffects’modelthat arguesthatthemediatellsuswhattothink,‘minimaleffects’theoriescontinuetoassertthatthe mediacantelluswhattothinkabout(Dahlgren1996). Thenegativeimpactsofthisareexploredincultivationtheory,whichlooksatthewaysinwhichlongtermconsumptionofmediacancauseviewerstocultivatecertainattitudesorviewsoftheworld (Gerberetal 1980).Thistheoryhasbeenexploredheavilyinrelationtocrime,andithasbeenshown thattheprevalenceoftelevisiondetectiveprogrammes,andcrimeinthemediagenerally,cancausea persontocultivateaviewoftheworldasathreateningandviolentplace(Gerbneretal 1980). Thesetheoriesweredevelopedinthetimeofmassmedia,andoftenfocusedparticularlyontelevision asapowerfulvisualmedium.Withdigitalmedia,manyofthesefearsbecomelesssalient.Infact, thereareconcernsaboutthelossofthepositiveagenda-settingfunctionthatmassmediaoffered– forinstance,inestablishingasenseofcommunityandcommonidentity.Thisisthoughttobe disappearingasaudiencesbecomefragmentedduetoincreasedchoice. Nonetheless,therearestillconcernsthatyoungusersoftheinternetwillcopyeithercontentor actionsthattheyseeonline,orthatprolongedexposuretocertaintypesofcontentwillhavea negativeimpactontheirattitudesandbeliefs.Sociallearningtheoryarguesthatbehaviourislearned throughobservingand,ultimately,mimickingthebehaviourofothers.AsBandura(1977:22)states, ‘learningwouldbeexceedinglylaborious,nottomentionhazardous,ifpeoplehadtorelysolelyon theeffectsoftheirownactionstoinformthemwhattodo.Fortunately,mosthumanbehaviouris learnedobservationallythroughmodelling:fromobservingothersoneformsanideaofhownew behavioursareperformed,andonlateroccasionsthiscodedinformationservesasaguideforaction.’ Thistheoryhasbeenemployedtoexplaininstancesofaggression:researchhasshownthatyoung consumersofmediaarelikelytocopyaggressiveactsandbehaviourwhereadultsshownengagingin itarerewardedfortheiractions.Whereviolentactsreceivepunishment,childrenarelesslikelytocopy thisbehaviour(Banduraetal 1963).Withthepopularityof‘stunt’programmessuchasJackass(MTV) andPunk’d(MTV)aswellassimilarcontentbeingfoundonvideo-sharingwebsites,concernsarose thatyoungpeoplewouldviewthisandseektoemulatedisplayedbehaviour(Virtue2002). However,experimentsthoughttoestablishthistheoryinthemediacontexthavebeencriticisedfor focusingonshort-termeffectsandforfailingtocapturewhattheinfluenceofsustainedexposuremay be(LivingstoneandMilgrave-Hargreaves2006).Despitefrequentlyexpressedfears,weremainalong wayfromanykindofconsensusthatviewingcausesbehaviour. Anovertfocusonthisaspectattheexpenseofotherconsiderationsfailstotakeaccountofthe massivelychangedcontextinwhichyoungpeopleaccess,consumeandusedigitalmedia technologies.Wecannolongersimplyconceptualiseyoungpeopleaspassiveplayersonwhommedia exertsaninfluenceofonekindoranother.Theabilitytointeractandsocialiseonline,includingby usingcontentofanincreasinglysophisticatednature,meansthatyoungpeoplethemselvesplaya crucialroleinformulatingrules,regulationsandthelimitsofacceptablebehaviouronline. Tounderstandwhatmotivatesyoungpeople’sactionsonlineandhowtheyconceiveofgoodandbad behaviourinanonlinecontext,wenowturntoconsiderthemoraldevelopmentandthepotential impacttheinternetmayhaveonmoralaction,takingparticularaccountofpeereffects.

Impactonmoralandsocialdevelopment Moralityisconsideredadevelopmentalprocess.Piaget(1932)dividesthisprocessintotwostages: • Heteronomousmoralthinking inwhichrulesareprovidedbyadultsandreinforcedby punishment.Atthisstage(inotherwords,uptotheageof10or11),childrenthinkthatrulesare fixedandabsolute,andtendtomakemoraljudgementsonthebasisofconsequences.

25

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

• Relativistmoralthinkinginwhichchildrentakeamorerelativistperspective,andformmoral judgementsmoreonthebasisofintentions(Piaget1932).Duringthisstage,rulesare internalisedbutyoungpeoplealsoactonindependentmoraljudgementsbasedonsocial experience(Bradley2006). BuildingonPiaget’swork,Kohlberg(1958)extendedthedevelopmentalprocesstosixstages,during whichtheindividualmovesthroughthreephasesofmoralreasoning:pre-conventional,conventional andpost-conventional.ThesestagesareoutlinedbrieflyinBox2.1.

Box2.1:Kohlberg’ssixstagesofmoraldevelopment Phase1:Pre-conventionalmorality Stage1:Obedienceandpunishmentorientation ThisstageislargelysimilartoPiaget’sfirststage,withchildrenacceptingrulesasabsolutesandmakingjudgements onthebasisofconsequencesandpunishments. Stage2:Individualismandexchange Atthisstage,childrenbegintorecognisethatthereisnotjustone,absoluteview.Theyunderstandthatdifferent individualshavedifferentviewpoints,andwillpursueacourseofactionrelativetotheirownindividualinterests. Whilechildrenatthisstagestilltalkaboutpunishment,thecontextinwhichtheydosohaschanged.DuringStage1, punishmentprovesthewrongnessoftheaction.InStage2,punishmentisariskyouwishtoavoid. Thesestagesarecalled‘pre-conventional’,asmoralityisstilllargelyanexternalprocessdeterminedbyothers. Phase2:Conventionalmorality Stage3:Goodinterpersonalrelationships Youngpeopletypicallyreachthisstagewhentheyareenteringtheirteenageyears.Moralityisnowviewedasmore thanamatterofsimpledeals,andthereisawider,thoughstilllimited,conceptofsocietyinmoraldecisions.Young peoplebasemoralityonadesiretoliveuptotheexpectationsoffriends,familyandthecommunitybybehavingin ‘good’ways.Inthiscontext,goodbehaviourconstitutesthatwhichhasgoodmotives,andwhichtakesaccountof interpersonalfeelings–forinstance,love,empathy,trustandconcernforothers. Stage4:Maintainingsocialorder Stage4widenstheconceptofsocietyfromtwo-personrelationships(inotherwords,thosewithfamilymembersand closefriends)toaconcernregardingsocietyasawhole.Atthisstage,moralreasoningplacesanemphasisonobeying laws,respectingauthorityandperformingone’sdutysothatsocialorderismaintained. Thisphaseseestheindividualprogressingtomakingmoraldecisionsfromtheperspectiveofsocietyasawhole.Itis referredtoas‘conventional’,asitinvolvesthinkingfromthepositionofafully-fledgedmemberofsociety.Thisstage isdominantataroundage16. Phase3:Post-conventionalmorality Stage5:Socialcontractandindividualrights ThisstageseesmoralreasoningstretchedbeyondStage4toconsiderationofwhatmakesforagoodsociety (Kohlberg1981,Gibbsetal 1983).Itisfocusedontheexistenceofbasicrights(forinstance,arighttolibertyandto life)andtheexistenceofdemocraticproceduresforchanginglawsandimprovingsociety.Atthisstage,moralityand rightscantakepriorityoverparticularlaws–forinstance,wheretherighttolifeisinvolved. Stage6:Universalprinciples Thisisthehigheststage,wheremoralreasoningseekstodefinetheprinciplesbywhichweachievejustice.Kohlberg’s accountofthisstageisbasedonKantianandRawlsiantheoriesofjustice,withmoralreasoningtreatingallclaimsin animpartialmannerandseekingtodefineuniversalprinciples.ThisstageisdesignedbyKohlbergtobelargely theoretical:evenwhenindividualsreachPhase3,allpost-conventionalmoralresponsesareconsideredtobeStage5 (ColbyandKohlberg1983). Source:Crain1985

26

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Developmentinmoralreasoningisnotpresumedtobeaprocessofmaturation(Kohlberg1968). Instead,youngpeopleprogresstohigherstagesthroughthinkingaboutmoralproblems,andthrough socialexperienceandinteractionsthatchallengelowerstagesofreasoning.Thusmoralreasoningcan bedevelopedonlybyworkingthroughsituations,ratherthanfrommereinstruction. Factorsthatcanaffectmoraldevelopmentincludealackofeffectivefeedbackandremotenessfrom harm,aswellasreducedriskofdetectionandpunishment(Wilkins1997).Eachoftheseareclearly presentonline:individualsdonotalwaysreceivestrong,effectivefeedback(inotherwords,one emanatingfromanauthoritativesource)aboutthehurtfulimpactoftheircommunicationsoractions, whilethereisasignificantlyreducedriskofdetectionandpunishmentforactivitiesthatareillegaland muchlessforactionsthatmaybemerelyunethicalorrude. Moralaction Iftheinternethasaneffectonmoralactionandwhetheryoungpeopleactwithinagivenmorality,we mustconsiderfirstwhetherthetechnologicalfeaturesoftheinternetitselfencouragebehaviourof oneformoranother,andsecond,whetherthisispredominantlyduetothefactthattheinternet facilitatesgreaterinteractionbetweenpeers,ultimatelyheighteningtheirinfluence. ‘Bad’behaviouronlineoccursfrequently:inonlineenvironments,individualsoftenactinwaysthatare ‘disinhibited,de-individuatedandself-absorbed’(Denegri-Knott2003).Evenwhereyoungpeople havesuccessfullynavigatedstagesinmoraldevelopment,cyberbullying,hacking,intellectualproperty theftandotherformsofnegativebehaviourindicatetheextenttowhichsomearewillingto transgressfromtheirmoralcodeinonlineenvironments. Whatcancauseustoselectivelydisengageourmoralcontrol?Bandura(1991)identifiesthreecauses thatarerelevantinanonlinecontext:

• Moraljustification

Individualsmaketheirconductpersonallyandsociallyacceptablebysaying theirbehaviourwascarriedoutformoralreasons.Forinstance,whereIntellectualPropertytheft isconcerned,perpetratorsoftenfocusonnotionsthattheentertainmentindustryis‘rippingoff’ consumersorartists.

• Disregarding,minimisingorignoringtheconsequences Insituationswherethe consequencesofone’sactionscanbeminimisedordisregarded,individualscanreasonthatthere isnoneedforself-censure.Importantly,distancemakesapersonmorelikelytopermitharmto another.Whenthevictimismoreremote,consequencesareeasiertoignore.

• Dehumanisingthevictim Wherethevictimisdehumanised,internalisedempathycanno longeractasamotivationalforce(Hoffman1991).Again,thishasparticularresonancegiventhat dehumanisationcanoccurthroughlackofaffectivefeedback–aparticularfeatureofonline environments. Itisclearthatthetechnologicalfeaturesoftheinternetcontributetotheeasewithwhich consequencesofactionscanbeminimisedorignored.Participantsinourdeliberativeworkshops commentedthatitwascertainlyeasiertobe‘meaner’online,andtosaythingstheywouldnotsayin aface-to-facediscussion. Bloggershavefrequentlycomplainedthatpeoplearewillingtocontributehighlynegativecomments, oftenamountingtopersonalabuse,inresponsetopostings.Therecentexperienceofshort-lived GuardiantravelbloggerMaxGogartyillustratedthelevelsofvitriolthatcanbedirectedtowards peopleparticipatingonline.Maxcontributedablogdetailingthestartofhisgap-yeartravels,tobe updatedthroughouthistrip.ItwashaltedbytheGuardianbecauseofthelevelofunpleasant personalandabusivecommentsthepostattracted.Thisexamplealsoshowshowpeoplestriveto makemoraljustificationsfortheiractions.Manypeopleclaimedthattheauthorsoftheabusive postingsweremerelyreactingtosuspicionsofnepotism,asGogarty(arelativelyinexperiencedwriter) wasrumouredtobethesonofaGuardiantravelwriter(Behr2008). Ineverydaylife,situationsthatcalluponamoralvaluesystemarealsoofcourseheavilycontext dependent(Turiel1983).Whilemoralvaluesarecategoricalanduniversal,socialconventionsare

27

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

arbitrary,andaredeterminedbyalterablesocialsystems.Inordertodecideonabestcourseofaction, youngpeoplewillnotonlyconsulttheirsenseofmoralitybutalsomakereferencetothesocial contextinwhichthedecisionisgoingtobemade(Bradley2006). Offline,socialcontextswill,ofcourse,includepeers,butalongsideparents,adultsandotherauthority figures,aswellasthewidercommunity.Online,thesocialcontextislargelyformedbythecommunity inquestion–which,initself,isprimarilymadeupofpeers.Thustheroleofpeersisparticularly importantinonlineenvironments. Evidenceshowsthatpeerscanhavepositiveandnegativeeffects.Forexample,ifayoungperson socialiseswithagroupofteenagerswhoallstudyhard,theindividualconcernedismorelikelytotry toliveuptotheseexpectations.Conversely,researchsuggeststhatspendingtimewithpeerswho thinkitis‘uncool’tostudymakesitdifficultfortheindividualtobreakoutoftheenforcedsocial norm.Whilethisdoesnotpresumeyoungpeopledirectlycopytheactionsoftheirpeers(the‘ifyou sayjump…’analogy)recentresearchsuggeststheeffectsofpeerpressurearestrongerthan previouslypresumed(Margoetal 2006). Peerinfluenceisalsocomplex,operatingatmanylevels.Forexample,femaleadolescentswillbemore influencedbythelargerpeergroupthanbytheirbestfriends.Empirically,researchershaveshown thatpeersinaclassroomcanhavesignificanteffectsonthelikelihoodofanadolescentusingdrugs, drinkingalcohol,smokinganddroppingoutofschool(GaviriaandRaphael1997).Local‘cultural norms’–theusualbehaviourofteenagersinthelocalcommunity–havemeasurableeffectsonthe behaviourofallyoungpeoplelivingthere(Margoetal 2006):ifeveryonesmokesbehindtheir parents’back,itbecomesacceptable,eveniftheteenagerbelievesthatitiswrongorharmful. Meanwhile,thereisanotherdynamicgoingon,whichisasortofunconscioussocialselection: researchhasalsoshownthatyoungpeopletendtogravitatetowardsotherswhoshareinterestsand views,thusmakingitmorelikelythat,forinstanceinaclassroomcontext,well-behavedyoungpeople willboosteachother’scommitmenttowork,whiletheirless-well-behavedpeerswillspureachother ontomoredisruptivebehaviour(ibid,Kandel1978). Thishasimplicationsforthepeereffectsofsocialnetworkingsites,wherelargenetworksofpeerscan beeasilycoordinated,andwherepeerscanengageinself-selectionmuchmoreeasily,makingfriends andconnectionswithpeoplewhoalreadysharetheirinterests.Thisactivitymeansthatpeersoften havereciprocaleffectsoneachother(Kandel1978). Therearealreadysuggestionsthatpeersonlinedoinfluenceeachothermorenegatively,andina potentiallymorepowerfulway,thanintheofflineworld.Forinstance,thesocialnetworkingsite Facebookincludesanumberofpro-anorexiagroups.Thesearesetupbyusersthemselves,and provideforumsfordiscussionandcomment.Severalhaveinexcessof200members.Charitiesworking totackleeatingdisordersrecentlycondemnedsocialnetworkingsitesforfailingtoremovesuch groups,whichtheyclaim‘encouragepeopletoavoidtreatmentorgainideasabouthowtomaintain theirdisorder’(BBC2008).Inresponse,Facebookhassaidthatitwillnotremovesuchgroups becauseitisimpossibletojudgewhichsupportgroupsarepositiveandwhichencourageunhealthy behaviour.Nonetheless,itisclearfrombothsidesofthedebatethatthereistacitacceptancethat youngpeopleinfluenceeachotherintheseenvironments. Thissituationposesbothchallengesandopportunitiesforpublicpolicy.Ontheonehand,itshows thatmitigatingnegativepeereffectswillbeextremelydifficult–particularlyinthecurrent environment,whichremainsrelativelyfreeofadultmediation.Ontheother,itemphasisesthe importanceofharnessingthepotentialofpeerstocreatepositiveoutcomes–forinstance,by providingsupportandadviceinareasofeducation,employment,healthandwell-being.

Issuesdominatingthecurrentdebate Withthisbackgroundevidenceinmind,wenowturntoconsiderthefollowingspecificissuesthat havedominateddebatesonyoungpeople’suseoftheinternet: • Exposuretoage-inappropriatecontent

28

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

• Violentcontent • Sexualcontent • Cyberbullying • Attitudestosafety • Attitudestoprivacy • Exposuretoadvertising • Plagiarismandwebcredibility. Exposuretoage-inappropriatecontent Thereis,ofcourse,alongtraditionofrestrictingaccesstocertainmaterialforcertainages.Broadcast televisionissubjecttothewatershed,ensuringthatcontentofanexplicitlyadultnatureisnotshown untilafter9pm.Filmsand,latterly,videogamesaresubjecttoageratingsandclassificationsthat recommendthecontentonlybeviewedbypeopleof12,15or18andabove,forexample. Theserestrictionshavebeenworkablebecausetherearepointsatwhichtheycanbeeffectively employed.Filmandvideo-gameretailerscanchecktheageofthepersonpurchasingtheproduct, whileterrestrialtelevisionisbroadcastalongalinearscheduleandsubjecttostricteditorialcontrols. However,wheretheinternetisconcerned,suchrestrictionseitherdonoteffectivelyexistorare impossibletoimplement.Internetcontentisdeliveredondemandfromavarietyofcontentcreators andsourcesacrosstheglobe.Youngpeoplenowhaveeasieraccesstoage-inappropriatecontentthan everbefore. Concernshavechieflyfocusedonaccesstoviolentcontentorimagesofagraphicsexualnatureand theextenttowhichthesecan‘harm’youngindividuals.Theterm‘harm’canencompassshort-term harm–forinstance,withcontentthatisinstantlydistressingorfrightening–aswellasmorelongtermeffects–forexample,contentthatservestocultivatecertainattitudesorviewsofsocietyand appropriatebehaviour.Thereare,ofcourse,greatdifficultiesinprovidingevidenceoftheeffectof viewing,andinunderstandingtheextenttowhichothersocialinfluenceshavehadamoresignificant roletoplay(LivingstoneandMillwood-Hargrave2006).Therearealsoethicalproblemsinexposing youngpeopletopotentiallyharmfulcontentinordertoanalyseitseffect. Assessingwhatcontentisageappropriateisnotaneasytask(althoughcommentinthemediaand policycirclesoftenseemstopresumethatitis).Youngpeopletendtohaveverydifferentperceptions fromadultsofwhatisageappropriate,andoftenbelievethatcontentisappropriateoratleastnot harmfultothemeventhoughitmaybeharmfulforchildrenofayoungerage(Livingstone2002). Severalcommercialservicesoffer‘walledgarden’versionsoftheinternet–inotherwords,alimited internetthatoffersaccesstocertainsitesthatarepredeterminedas‘safe’.Filteringsystemsalso allowsparentstorestrictaccesstocontentbasedontheageofthechild.Limitingaccessremainsa difficulttaskthathastakenonanewcomplexitywiththeintroductionofvideo-sharingwebsites, whichallowyoungpeoplethemselvesnotonlytosharecontentwhichmaybedeemed‘harmful’but alsotocreatecontentthatcomesunderthisdefinition.Next,welookattheextentofthisbehaviour andtheimpactitmayhaveonyoungpeople,consideringbothdistresscausedandthepropensityto encouragenegativebehaviours. Violentcontent Thepossibilityofyoungpeoplebeingexposedtoviolentcontenthasbeenattheforefrontof policymakers’mindsfordecades,frominvestigationsintotheeffectofviolentcomicsinthe1950sto, morerecently,theimpactofvideogamesandviolentfilms. Violenceinthemediacontinuestobeapointofblameforpeopledecryingincreasedviolencein society.Mostrecently,useofknivesinvideogameshasbeenonesourceofblamefortheincreasein knifeattacksintheUK’scities(Pascoe-Watson2008).Butourconceptof‘violentcontent’recently tookonanewaspectasuser-generatedcontentcontainingviolence–forinstance‘happyslapping’

29

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

videos(whereaphysicalattackisfilmedonamobilephonethensharedonline)–capturedpressand publicattention. Whatimpactisthisnewformofviolentcontentlikelytohave?Tounderstandthis,itisnecessaryto lookatfourfactors:scale,access,contextandresemblanceofreality(forafulldiscussionofthe impactofharmfulandoffensivecontentseeLivingstoneandMillwoodHargrave2006).

• Scale Thispointrelatestothescaleofviolentcontentavailableonline.Itis,ofcourse,impossible toassesshowmuchviolentuser-generatedcontentisonline.TheWebisforeverexpandingin size,withnewcontentaddeddaily.Anyassessmentisalsodependentuponadefinitionof ‘violent’,whichisitselfdependentonthecontextinwhichviolenceisportrayed. InJuly2007,Panorama(BBC1)aired‘Children’sfightclub’–adocumentaryhighlightingthe numberofvideoscreatedbyusersavailableonlinewhichfeaturedbrutalfightsbetweenyoung people.Thenumberofthistypeofvideoisdifficulttoassess,butaquicksearchonanynumber ofvideo-sharingwebsitesdeliversseveralhundredresults.Therearealsositesdedicatedto showingonlybriefclipsoffightingandnothingelse(‘Purestreetfights’beingonesuch example).Themostpopularvideoatthetimeofwritingwasentitled‘Girlbeatupinstreet’.It hadbeenviewedalmost1,250,000times.

• AccessAccesstoviolentcontentisnowmucheasierthanitwasinthepast.Whereascontent accessedinanofflinecontextwasoftensubjecttoenforcedagerestrictions,itisstrikinghow quicklyandeasilylargenumbersofviolentvideoscanbeaccessedonline.Thisisnotcontent whichonehastosearchveryhardfor.Onvideo-sharingsites,typingtheworld‘fight’intothe searchbarbringsupseveralhundredorthousandresultsandonceonevideoisfounditiseasyto movefromtheretootherlinkedvideoswhichprovidesimilarcontent.IntheUK,justoverone quarter(27percent)ofyoungpeopleagedbetween9and19reporthavingvisitedwebsites containing‘gruesome’or‘violent’content(LivingstoneandBober2005).

• Context Perhapswherethisonlinecontentrepresentsthestarkestdeparturefromviolence otherwisefeaturedinfilmsandtelevisionshowsisitslackofcontext.Inthelatter,violence usuallyappearswithinanarrativeandviewerstendtorespondonthisbasis.Iftheviolenceisnot consideredanecessarypartoftheplot,itislabelledgratuitousandthefilmwillberatedand restrictedasaresult.Whereusergeneratedshortvideosareconcerned,thereisusuallyeitherno orverylittleprovidedcontext.Wehavenoideawhoisintherightorinthewrong,whodeserves to‘win’oranyofthefactsatallintheleaduptothefight.Theentirefocusisthepureviolence ofthefightitself.

• Resemblanceofreality

Afurtherfactorthatisoftenconsideredindeterminingthescaleof impactviolentcontentcanhaveisitsresemblancetorealityandinparticularwhetherthe violenceisofaformthatcanbeeasilyimitated.Theviolencefeaturedinvideogames,for example,haspreviouslybeendeemedtohavealimitedimpactongameplayersbecauseofits dream-like,fantasyquality.Incontrast,thereisnothingdreamlikeabouttheviolenceexhibitedin user-generatedfightvideos.Ithasitsverybasisinreality,takingplaceinschoolplaygroundsand localstreets,andwithnoneoftheconventionsthatexistwithinsomegenresoffiction.

Concernovertheimpactthatsuchcontentcouldhaveonyoungpeopleisfocusedontwopossible outcomes.Thefirstisthatyoungpeoplemay,intheshortterm,findsuchcontentdistressingor upsetting.Researchshowsthatunexpectedorde-contextualisedviolenceislikelytohavethiseffect (LivingstoneandMillwood-Hargraves2006).Butthesecond,andgreatest,popularfearisthatthis phenomenonisactuallyencouragingandincentivisingviolence:thatyoungpeoplearemorelikelyto performsuchactsforfilmingpurposes.Evidencelinkingimitationtoviewingissparse.However,there arestudiesthatshowacorrelationbetweenviewingviolentactsandaggressivebehaviouramong youngboys(Belsen1978).Aswithmuchoftheresearchofthiskind,criticismsintermsofits methodologyandtheapplicabilityofthefindingstoreal-lifescenariosarerife. But,inthecontextofuser-generatedcontent,wemustalsoconsiderthepresenceofpeereffects, especiallywherecontentispostedwithinsocialnetworkingenvironments.Wecanalsoreferbackto

30

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

factorsthatinfluencemoraldevelopmentandaction.Thereareanumberofareaswheretheonline contextcouldnegativelyinfluencebehaviour. Manyvideo-sharingsiteshavethefacilitytoprovidefeedbackonaposteditem.Thisiseffectivelythe mechanismbywhichcontentismonitored,sinceYouTubedoesnotengageinanyformalregulationof contentitself–instead,leavingthisprocesstoits‘community’ofusers.Communitymembers thereforehavetheopportunitytoinfluencebehaviourbyprovidingaffectivefeedbackandmoralclues astowhatconstitutesrightorwrongactioninthiscontext. However,whileitdoesappearthatthecommunityisregulatingitselfinsofarasitdebatesand explorescontentpostedonthesite,itdoesnotdothisinthemannerintendedbyYouTube.Videos thatareclearlyinbreachofcommunityguidelinesprovidedbyYouTube(forinstance,thatviolent, racistorcopyrightedcontentshouldnotbepostedonline)failtobereported,despitethefactthey havebeenviewedseveralthousandsoftimes.Researchshowsthatduringathree-monthperiodin 2007,only0.5percentofvideoswereremovedoutofapproximately6millionposted(basedonan averageof65,000perday)(Chaetal 2007). Furthertothis,thecommentsattachedtovideostendnottobeincondemnationoftheacts portrayed,butinsteadnegotiateadiscussionaroundthe‘quality’oftheviolence:whetheritisfake, or‘lame’.Positivecommentsareoftenreceivedonthebasisofthestrengthandbrutalityofthefight. Evidenceshowsthatcommentsreceivedfromsocialnetworkingsitesarestrongpredicatorsofyoung people’sselfesteem.Inaddition,oneofthemostimportantpredicatorsofanindividualengagingin antisocialbehaviouriswhethertheirfriendsalsoengageandapprove(Mahoneyetal 2005,Wood 2005).Thereisarealsense,then,thatadolescentscanberewardedforpostinggoodqualityfights andthatwithinasizeablecommunitythisbehaviourisencouragedasacceptable. Whatismore,thelackofformalregulation,thenon-removalofcontentandthesheernumberof videosupdateddailymeansthereislittlesenseofconsequenceand/orpunishment.The‘punishment’ outlinedintheYouTubeCommunityGuidelinesincludesreceivingawarningnotificationor terminationoftheaccountanddeletionofallvideos.Ifanaccountisterminated,theuseris prohibitedfromeversigningupforanotheraccount.Finally,wherehappyslappingandotherformsof ‘cyberbullying’areconcerned,therearestrongindicationsthatyoungpeoplearecapableof dehumanisingthevictimorminimisingtheconsequencesofsuchactions,aswewillexploreinlater sections. Sexualcontent Studiesindicatethatofthe1,000most-visitedsites,10percentaresex-orientated.Meanwhile, portrayalsofsexuallyexplicitmaterialofaviolentnatureontheinternethaveincreased,and accesstosuchmaterialhasbecomeeasier(Griffiths2000).Pornographicsitesareparticularly popularamongyoungboys(Jacksonetal 2007). Concernsaboutyoungpeopleviewingexplicitlysexualcontentorpornographyareoftencentred onthefactthatchildrenandyoungpeoplecanfindexposuretosuchcontentdistressing (LivingstoneandMillwood-Hargrave2006).Morethanhalf(57percent)ofyoungpeople(9–to 19-years-old)claimtohaveencounteredsexuallyexplicitmaterialonline(LivingstoneandBober 2005).Themostcommonreactiontosuchexposurehasbeentoleavethesitequickly.Instances ofthiskinddonottendtobereportedtoparentsorguardians,withonly16percentofparents believingtheirchildhasseensuchcontentonline(ibid). Researchhascentredonwhetherviewingsuchcontentmeansyoungpeopledevelopunrealistic expectationsorbehavioursregardingsexualrelationships,andsecondlywhetheritcould encouragemorepromiscuousbehaviouramongyoungpeople(BraggandBuckingham2002).A declineintheageatwhichyoungpeoplefirsthavesexualintercourse,alongwithhigherratesof teenagepregnanciesandconcernsaroundthesexualisationofchildhood(particularlythe ‘tweening’ofpre-adolescentchildren),meanthatthereremainsgreatsensitivityaroundthisissue (Margoetal 2006).

31

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Evidenceshowsthatthepredominanceofsexualcontentinyoungpeople’smediadiethasa significantassociationwiththeirsexualactivityandtheirfutureintentionstobesexuallyactive (Pardunetal 2005).However,onlinecontentisbynomeansthechiefculprit.Takingwebsites, films,televisionprogrammes,magazinesandmusictogether,11percentof13-to15-year-olds’ mediacontainedsexualcontent.Thestrongestassociationswerefoundwithfilmsandmusic (ibid). Furthermore,thereisevidenceofalinkbetweenconsumptionofpornographyandthepresence ofsexuallyaggressiveattitudesandbehaviours,andthatexposuretosexuallyexplicitmaterialin onlinefilmsissignificantlyrelatedtobeliefs–heldequallybyboysandgirls–thatwomenaresex objects(PeterandValkenburg2007).Evidenceshowsthattheinternetinparticularisnowacting asa‘sexualsuperpeer’,particularlyforyounggirlswhoareincreasinglyturningtoonlinesources forcuesonhowtoact(Brownetal 2005). Again,thereareconcernsaboutuser-generatedcontentand,inparticular,photosandvideos postedbyyoungpeopletosites,whichmayfeaturethemselvesorothersinrevealingposesor situations.Whethersuchactivitieshavelong-lastingemotionaleffectsisdifficulttomeasure. However,itcertainlyraisesthepossibilityofunwantedattentionandapproachfrompeople wantingtopreyonyoungerinternetusers.Alongsidethis,thematerialmaybetakenoutof whateverlimitedcontextithasduringlaterstagesoftheyoungperson’slife,ifpotential employersoruniversitiessearchtheinternetforbackgroundinformationonapplicants. However,whileraisingconcerns,thisincreasedaccesstomaterialrelatedtosexandsexualityalso presentsanopportunity,byactingasasourceofeducationandinformation.Particularlywhere sexualhealthisconcerned,themediahaslongbeenasourceofinformationforyoungpeople (BraggandBuckingham2002),andagrowingnumberofyoungpeopleturntotheinternetfor healthinformationmoregenerally(KaiserFamily2002).Theneedforprovidingaccessibleand trustedinformationonsexualhealthonlineisclear. Cyberbullying Bullyingisakeyissueforyoungpeople,with35percentofYear6(aged12)pupilsreportingbullying asamainconcern.Thispercentagedecreaseswithage,with25percentofYear8sreportingitasa mainconcern,andonly15percentofYear10pupils.Almostonethird(30percent)ofschoolpupils reporthavingbeenbulliedatschoolinthepreviousfourweeks(DCSF2007). IntheUK,evidenceshowsthat22percentofyoungpeoplehavebeenvictimsof‘cyberbullying’at leastonce,reportinghavingreceivedhurtfulcommentsviatextmessageorhavingexperiencedabuse onforumsandsocialnetworkingsites.Overthepastyear,cyberbullyinghasbecomeakeypublic concern,especiallyinthecaseofpupilsusingdigitaltechnologies(particularlyvideocapturedon mobilephones)tobullytheirteachers(Harrison2007). Butdespitethereadinessofthemediatoengagetheterm‘cyberbullying’,ourresearchsuggeststhat thetermisnotacoherentoneforyoungpeople.Inourdeliberativework,thetermwasnot referencedbyanyagegroupwhendiscussingtheseissuesdirectly.Perhapsthisisalogicalapproach– thesymptomsofbullyingarethesameonlineasoffline,withthesoledifferencebeingtheirdelivery throughtechnologicalmeans. Ourresearchshowsthatonlinepeergroupslargelyperpetuateexistingofflinegroups,andthat communicationonline–whethernegativeorpositive–isshapedbytheofflinerelationship.Asone youngpersonexplains: ‘Itdependswhoitis.Ifit’syourenemy,youcuss’emdownandtheycussyouback, butifit’sjustlikeyourgirlfriendorsomethingyoujustlikechat.’(Boy,14,ABC1) Whilethepresenceof‘cyberbullying’asabywordusedbythemediaiscertainlyhelpfulintermsof heighteningawarenessoftheissue,italsoraisesthepossibilityofcyberbullyingbeingseenasa problemseparateanddistinctfrombullying.Whilethelatterisseenasasocialproblem–locatedfor instanceinschoolsorworkplaces,andwithrelativelevelofagreementofjointresponsibilityfor

32

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

dealingwithperpetrators–thesuggestionthatcyberbullyingisa‘new’phenomenonbringsthe possibilityofthiscoalitionofresponsibilitybeingignoredinfavourofblamingtechnology,or technologyproviders.Theseparties,ofcourse,dohavearole,butarenottheonlyplayerswhocould bepartofaworkablesolution. Nonetheless,youngpeopledidsaythatitwaseasiertobeunkindoroffensivetopeopleonlineas opposedtooverthephoneorfacetoface–perhapsbecausetheywouldavoidseeingtheimmediate impactoftheirbehaviour.Anumberofparticipantsalsosaidthatonlinecommunicationhad aggravatedproblemsandargumentswithfriends: ‘IhavemuchmoreargumentsoverMSNthanIhaveinreallife…Ithinkpeoplefeel saferonMSNsotheygetmorerude.’(Girl,15,ABC1) ‘Ifyou’reannoyedatafriend,youcouldsaythatonMSN.It’seasierthansayingitto theirface.’(Girl,13,ABC1) Stillagreatdealofactivitywhichadultsmayconsiderbullyingbehaviourhadambiguousconnotations foryoungpeople.Youngpeoplefeltthatspeakingonlinewasmorelikelytoleadto misunderstandingscomparedtoface-to-faceorphoneconversations: ‘Youmightsaysomethingandnotmeanittobeangryandthepersonmightjusttake itanotherway.’(Boy,18,C2DE) ‘Thebadthingisthatyoucantypeitandthinkitsoundslikesomethingelse.’(Girl,17, ABC1) Therewerealsostrongsocialnormsaround‘seeingthejoke’withregardtoonlineactivity.Infact,all thegroupsemphasisedthatputtingembarrassingphotosoffriendsandacquaintancesonlineisfully acceptableandconsideredharmless.Here,youngpeoplewereadeptatminimisingtheconsequences oftheiractions,becomingwilfullyignorantoftheharmthatcouldbecausedbysuchunwanted exposure.Discussionofthisissuepromptedmanyparticipantstotellstoriesofsimilarandmore extremethingsthattheyhaddoneorthathadhappenedtothem. Referringtoanimaginedscenarioofayounggirlwritingonanothergirl’sfaceandpostingtheimage online,responseswere: ‘Icanunderstandifshefallsasleepandtheydrawonherfaceorwhatever,yeah,it’s funny,I’dputitonthere.’(Boy,15,C2DE) ‘I’mthekindofpersonwhere,ifsomeonedidthattome,I’dlaughaboutitandtakeit asajoke.’(Girl,13,ABC1) Amongyoungeragegroups(13-16),therewasrarelyanyrecognitionofthefurtherharmthatmaybe generatedbyenablingwidecirculationofembarrassingorhurtfulimages,videosandcomments: ‘Someonepassedout…weputatamponuphernoseandshewokeupanddidn’teven know,shewassodrunk…shewaswalkingaroundwiththistamponuphernose,with writingalloverherface….Therewasaplasterwithahangingtamponandoneupher noseandshedidn’trealiseandwetookpicturesandputitonMySpace.’(Girl,18,C2DE) ‘MyfriendsethishandonfireandslappedXroundthefaceandweputiton[the internet].’ (Boy,14,ABC1) Importantly,asyoungpeopleinmiddleadolescencediscussedsuchactivitiesinmoredetail,stories movedseamlesslyfromactivitiesthattheyhadrecorded,onmobilephonesordigitalcamerasfor instance,andthenpostedonline,toactivitiesthathadtakenplacein‘reallife’andnotbeen distributedanyfurther.Olderparticipantswere,onthewhole,moreconsciousofthequalitative differencesbetweenonlineandface-to-facecommunicationandthepotentialforonlineexposureto behurtfultopeers: ‘Sometimesyoucangetalienatedfromyourfriends.Likeyoucanhaveonefriendand sayeveryonestartsto–likeonepersondoesn’tlikethemthensaystotheothers‘I

33

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

don’tlikethem’andstartsbitchingaboutthem,thenbeforeyouknowittheycanall beblockedandthisonepersoncanbelike“Allmyfriendshaveblockedme”.That usedtohappenalotinsecondaryschoolandit’slike–“Getalife”,d’youknowwhatI mean?’(Boy,18,C2DE) Attitudestosafety Theissueofchildsafetyonlinehascapturedtheattentionofparents,policymakers,industryandthe press.Ithaslargelybeendealtwithfromtwoperspectives:first,seekingtocurtailinstancesof,and accessto,childabuseimagesonline,andsecond,limitingtheopportunitiesofpredatoryadultsto reachyoungpeopleonline.Here,wefocusonthislatterissue,andofyoungpeople’sexperiencesof unwantedsexualapproaches. Earlyconcernsinthisareacentredontheroleofchatroomsinfacilitatingsuchactivity.Following variouspressstoriesandgovernmentandindustrysafetycampaigns,someofthemostpopular chatroomproviders–forinstanceMicrosoftandYahoo!–closeddowntheirservices(ICF2001).Our researchindicatesthatchatroomsnowmakeuplittle,ifany,ofyoungpeople’sonlineactivity. However,thenewcropofinternetservices–particularlysocialnetworkingsites(SNSs)–offernew opportunities,raisingconcernsthatyoungpeopleareyetmorevulnerabletoapproachesfromthose whowoulddothemharm.Lastyear,theChildandOnlineExploitationCentre(CEOP)heldaseriesof seminarsconsideringtheriskstoyouthfromsocialnetworkingsitesarguingthatthese‘new environment[s]canfacilitatenewformsofsocialdevianceandcriminality’,particularlyinenabling ‘newopportunitiesforsexualexpressionanddeviancebothtoyoungpeopleandadultswithasexual interestinthisgroup’(CEOP2006). EvidencedrawnfromMySpaceusers(ofallages)intheUSfoundthatfewerthanoneinthreehadan uncomfortableexperienceonMySpace,withonly7to9percentapproachedforasexualliaison. NearlyallofthosesimplyblockedtherequesterfromcontactingthemthroughtheirMySpacepage. Thoseunder18wereevenlesslikelytoreceivesexualsolicitationsthanolderusers(Rosen2006). However,exposuretorisksofthiskindcontinuestobeaconcern,andhigh-profilecampaignshave continuedtoalertyoungpeopletothepossibledangers.Thesubjectalsoremainsapopularonetobe coveredbymassmedia.Asaresult,themessageappearstohavebeensuccessfullyreceivedbyyoung peoplethemselves.Ourdiscussionswithyounginternetuserssawthemrepeatmedia-friendlyphrases suchas‘strangerdanger’andthemerefactofconversingwith,ormeetingwith,peoplemetonline wasinexorablylinkedwithpaedophiles.Infact,whendiscussingrisksassociatedwithinternetuse,the threatposedbypaedophileswastheissuemostcommonlyraisedbyallgroups. Wepresentedthegroupswithascenariodescribingaface-to-facemeetingwithsomeoneoriginally metonline: Scenario:Offlinemeeting DarrenmadefriendswithSusanthreemonthsagoinachatroom.SusanhastoldDarrenthatshe isalsoagedx[agechangedtocorrespondtoeachgroup]andlivesinLondon.Susanhasaskedif theycanmeetupinperson,andDarrenhassaidyes. Whenpresentedwiththisscenario,theyoungpeopleimmediatelyemphasisedtheriskassociatedwith suchanaction: ‘Like,ifyougoalongandtheykidnapyou…like,it’snotreallygoingtohappenbutit might.’(Boy,14,ABC1) Butwhilethebarebonesofthemedia,industry,parentalandgovernmentsafetymessageshave certainlybeenreceived,thereareimportantcaveatstorecogniseintermsofyoungpeople’spractice asopposedtoexpressedattitudes.‘Strangerdanger’wascertainlyarecognisedconcept.However, thisdoesnotmeanthatyoungpeoplearenecessarilyunwillingtomeetpeoplewhotheyhavefirst hadcontactwithonline.Socialnetworkingsitesofferhugeopportunitiesforwideningfriendship circlesatatimewhenadolescentsocialisationisatitspeak–forexample,bymakingfriendswith

34

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

‘friendsoffriends’.Thisphrase‘friendsoffriends’isparticularlyimportant,andwasfrequently usedbyyoungpeople. AsBoyd(2006)comments,‘friendship’isanexpansiveterm–itcanencompassrelationshipsthat aremuchmorediffusethanthoseexplainedbytheterms‘sister’,‘brother’,‘partner’,‘workmate’ andsoon.Withtheriseofthesocialnetworkingphenomenon,thetermhasbeenpushedeven further.TheconceptoffriendshiponsitessuchasMySpace,BeboandFacebookisstretchedto includefamouspeopleyoumightadmire,bands,brandsandplaces;profilesrepresentingthese peopleorplacesmayormaynothaveanyrealconnectiontowhattheyrepresent. A‘friendofafriend’canincludepeoplefromaverywidecircleandcancounterlargedifferences inageandlocation.Thepotentiallytenuousnatureofthislinkisillustratedinthefollowing participants’comments: ‘IfyoumeetoverMSN,youkindofvaguelyknoweachotherbecauseyouhaveto gettheiraddy[address]fromsomeone,so….’(Boy,18,C2DE) ‘Butd’youknowwhatpeopledo–whenyousendlink…chainemails,youcanget theemailsofotherpeoplethathavebeenchainingtoeachother.’(Girl,17,ABC1) Theideathatsomeoneisafriendofafriendcangiveyoungpeopleacertainsenseofassurance– forexample: ‘Iwouldnevermeetsomeoneonline,ever.ImeanIwouldn’ttalktopeopleIdidn’t know,unlessthey’reafriendofafriend,letalonemeetupwiththem.’(Boy,17, C2DE) ‘Ifthey’relikeafriendofafriend[I’dtalktothemonline],Iwouldn’tjustlookupa randomperson.’(Girl,14,ABC1) Whiletherewerestrongsocialnormsagainstmeetingupwithpeopleyouhavemetonline– primarilybecauseitwasthoughtofas‘sad’or‘desperate’–membersofthe15-to16-year-old agegroupwerewillingtoadmithavingdoneso,primarilytomeetmembersoftheoppositesex. Thiscoincideswithevidenceregardingthedevelopmentalstagesofyoungpeople’smediause, andreinforcesthepointthatitisduringthesemiddleteenageyearsthatyoungpeoplearemost likelytotakerisksinthenameofpursuingsocialactivities.Thisagegrouptendstograspthe opportunitiespresentedbySNSsinordertoexperienceasenseoffreedomfromadult interference,butalsoinordertodemonstratethattheyhavesuccessful,maturesocialinteractions: ‘Thewholepointoftheprivacy[setting]is,like,sothatpeopledon’taddyouthat youdon’tknowbutattheendoftheday,youshouldbeabletomakeyourown decisions–especiallyatthisage.’(Boy,16,ABC1) Whenitcomestotalkingtopeopletheydidnotknowwell,youngpeoplefavourtheinternetover othercommunicativemeansbecauseitenablestheusertocontrolone’ssocialinteractions (Maddelletal 2007).Forinstance,thefactthattoolssuchasinstantmessaging,textmessaging andemailcanbeusedforeithersynchronousorasynchronouscommunicationsmeansthatyoung peoplearegiventheopportunitytothinkabouttheirresponseifdesired(ibid): ‘Cosifyoudon’tknowthemverywell,youmightnotwannaspeaktothemover thephonecositmightbeabitawkwardwhereasyoucangettoknowthembetter online.’(Girl,18,C2DE) ‘Youcantalktopeopleyoudon’tknowthatwellwithoutitbeingawkward.’(Girl, 16,ABC1) Butwhileindividualswerewillingtotakerisks,thegroupalsoshowedevidenceofeffortsto maximisesafety,illustratingtheextenttowhichexperiencecanenableyoungpeopletodevelop levelsofmedialiteracywithoutformaleducation(Buckingham2005b).The15-to16-year-old groupheldextendeddiscussionsaboutthewaysinwhichtheywouldestablishtheidentityand ageofsomeonetheymetonline.Webcamswereseenasthemosttrustworthysource,while

35

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

picturesweretrustedbysomebutnotothers: ‘Iwouldn’ttrustanyoneunlesstheyhadawebcamcosthenyoucan,like,seethem butpictures–that’sadifferentthing.’(Boy16,ABC1) Participantswhodidmeetupwithonlineacquaintancessaidthattheywouldspeakfirstonthe phone.One16-year-oldgirlsaidthatshecouldtellbythenatureofthecommunicationiftheperson wasanadultpretendingtobeheragebythetypesofquestionsthattheyasked,andalsothrougha complicatedmethodofcommunicatingwiththatpersonusingmorethanoneprofileinorderto comparetheiranswers: ‘AboycanmeetagirloragirlcanmeetaboyoverMSNaswell,taketheirnumber andmeetthem…youjusttaketheirnumberandthenyoutalktothemyeah,you don’thavetomeetthemstraightaway,youjusttalktothemforaboutaweekandyou justmeetthemafter.’(Boy,14,ABC1) ‘Likesometimestheytrytoohardtobeinwiththekids,Idon’tknow,liketheytrytoo hardtoactlikeachild,butit’sobvious.’(Girl,15,ABC1) Participantsinallagegroupsdemonstratedthattheywereawareofsafetymeasures,suchasbeing accompaniedbyfriendsandmeetinginapublicplace: ‘Ifyoudiddothat[meetingupwithanonlineacquaintance]thenyouwouldatleast gowithaloadoffriends,butIwouldn’tdoit.’(Girl,16,ABC1) Attitudestoprivacy Closelyrelatedtocampaignsaroundsafetyarecampaignsencouragingyoungpeopletoprotecttheir privateinformationandpersonaldetailsonline. TheGovernment-backedwebsitethinkUKnow.co.ukgivesadviceon‘howtostayincontrol’by limitingtheamountofpersonaldetailsgivenawayonline.Forexample,thesitestronglyrecommends onlygivingyourmobilephonenumbertofriends‘youknowintherealworld.Ifyourmobilenumber isgiventopeoplethatyoudon’tknow,theymayhassleyou.Thisiswhyit’salsobestnottoputyour numberonyourprofileofyoursocialnetworkingsite(likeBebo,MySpaceandFacebook)’(quoted fromwww.thinkuknow.co.uk/11_16/control/social.aspx). High-impactcampaignsshownincinemashavealsosoughttoraiseawarenessaboutthedifficultyof assessingexactlywhoyouarecommunicatingwithonline,andtheimportanceoflimitingtheamount ofpersonalinformationyoutellthemonthisbasis. Butinconceptsofprivacyandthepersonalareperhapswhereyoungpeopleandadultsdivergethe most.Anecdotalevidencepointstowardsrapidlychangingideasofwhat‘privacy’meansinadigital age(Nussbaum2007),withyoungpeopleincreasinglywillingtoliveoutmuchoftheirlives,their aspirations,hopesanddailythoughtsinpublicandonline. Thisdoesnotmeanthatyoungpeoplehavenoconceptwhatsoeverofprivacy:theyattachparticular importancetokeepingsomecategoriesofinformation(forexample,mobilephonenumbers)private. OfthosewithprofilesonSNSs,only2percentincludetheirmobilephonenumberaspartoftheir profile.However,manyothercategoriesofinformationaregivenoutwillinglyandenthusiastically:for example,themajorityofteenagersincludetheirfirstnameandaphotoofthemselves(Lenhartand Madden2007). DisclosureofpersonalinformationispracticallyarequirementasfarasSNSsareconcerned.The purposeofsuchsitesistoconnectwithfriendsandacquaintances,andusingarecognisablemoniker –whetherone’srealnameoraknownnickname–isnecessaryinorderthatfriendscanfindandlink withyou.Inourresearch,participantsgenerallysaidtheyusednicknamesorfirstnamestodescribe themselvesonlineand,wherenicknamesortaglineswereused,thesewereoftenbasedonprivate jokeswithfriendsratherthanbeinganattempttodisguisetheiridentity: ‘I’vegotanicknamethatIuse,thatwepickeduponholiday.’ (Girl,17,ABC1)

36

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Box2.2:Informationprovidedbyteenagersonline(figuresfromUnitedStates)

•82%ofprofilecreatorshaveincludedtheirfirstnameintheirprofiles. •79%haveincludedphotosofthemselves. •66%haveincludedphotosoftheirfriends. •61%haveincludedthenameoftheircityortown. •49%haveincludedthenameoftheirschool. •40%haveincludedtheirinstantmessagescreenname. •40%havestreamedaudiototheirprofile. •39%havelinkedtotheirblog. •29%haveincludedtheiremailaddress. •29%haveincludedtheirlastnames. •29%haveincludedvideos. •2%haveincludedtheirmobilephonenumbers. •11%ofprofile-owningteensposttheirfirstandlastnamesonpublicly-accessibleprofiles •5%ofprofile-owningteensdisclosetheirfullnames,photosofthemselvesandthetownwheretheylivein publicly-viewableprofiles. Source:LenhartandMadden(2007) ‘[Youhave]pictures–soyouknowwhotheyare.Butalso,like,afterawhile,itjust startsbecoming–likewhenyouseethenamecomeupsomewhereyouwouldbelike, yeahthat’ssoandso.’(Boy,18,C2DE) Socialnetworkingprofileswerealsoreferredtoasregularlyusedfor‘self-advertising’.Itwas repeatedlyassertedthatusersneededtomaketheirprofilesattractiveinorderthatpeoplewould wanttobefriendthem.Inordertodothis,includingphotographswasarequirement: ‘You’relikeadvertising[onBebo]soyoulikeputyourownpictureupandyourown information.’(Girl,13,C2DE) Thisideaofself-advertisingwasfrequentlyreferenced,andledtomanyyoungpeopledisregarding privacyoptionswherethesewouldlimit‘self-advertising’opportunities.Forexample,settingyour profileto‘private’,usingthetoolsprovidedbytheSNSitself,meantthatotherpeoplecouldnotview youronline‘advertisement’.Thiswouldnegativelyimpactonyourabilitytomakefriends: ‘Ifyouwanttomakenewfriendsontheinternetthen[ifyouhaveitsettoprivate]no onecanviewyourprofiletomakefriendswithyou.’(Boy,15,C2DE) However,youngpeople’sassessmentsofthebalancebetweenpublicisingandprivacycontainedsome inherentcontradictions.Youngpeopleexpressedcleardiscomfortwiththeideaof‘weirdos’lookingat theirprofilesonline.Butwhileparticipantsdidnotlikethethoughtofbeingspiedon,theyalso admittedfeelingcompetitivewithregardtothenumbersofpeoplewhoviewedtheirprofile,andthey highlightedtheimportanceofappearingtohavealotoffriends: ‘Idon’tliketheideaofpeoplegoingthrough,liketheycanseeyourdisplaypicture, obviously,butIdon’tlikethethoughtofthemactuallygoingthrough,likepervingon you,sendingphotocommentsandyou’rejustlike–it’sweirdpeople.’(Boy,18,C2DE) ‘IdislikethatyouhaverandompeoplegoingonyourBeboandlookingatyourstuff andbeingabitweirdbutIdolikethewayIcancontactmyfriendsfreeandlookatmy friends’profilesandseeanynewstuff.’(Girl,13,ABC1) Anotherareawhereyoungpeoplewereoftenlaxintermsofprivacy,isinrespondingtoquizzesand questionnairesonline.OnMySpace,thebulletinboardfeatureisoftenusedtopostresponsestoshort quizzes.Arecentpostingfromoneidentifiable16-year-oldfemaleincludedanswerstothefollowing questions:

37

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

• doyouloveanyone: • doyouhateanyone: • doyouhavegoodrelationshipswithfriends: • doyouhavegoodrelationshipswithfamily: • whichfrienddoyoulikethemost: • whichfamilymemberyoulikethemost: • whatdoyouvaluemore,friendshiporaperfectrelationship: • howimportantissexinarelationshiptoyou: • areyouattractedtopeopleofthesamesex: • whowasthelastpersonyoulustedafter: • doyoutrustpeoplewithyourlove: • couldyouhavesexwithsomeoneyoudonotlove: • areyoualovingperson: • doyouevenbelieveinlove: • whoisthemostimportantpersontoyou: • haveyoulostyourvirginity: • haveyoueverkissedordoneanythingwithsomeoneofthesamesex: • whowasthelastpersonyouhadsexwith: (MySpacequestionnaire,uploaded7/3/07) Sheansweredfurtherquestionsregardingherfavouritealcoholicdrink,drugandsoon,despitethe factthatshemaynothavebeenawarethattheanswerssheprovidedwerevisibletopeopleusingthe site. Theideaisthatusersposttheanswerstothesequestionstothebulletinboard.Othermembersof theposter’snetworkarethensupposedtoaddtheirownanswers,re-posttothebulletinboardand reachanewnetworkofSNSusers. DespitethefactthatSNSusers’networkscanstretchtomanyhundreds,oreventhousands,of contacts–someofwhomwillbepersonallyknowntotheposterbutmanyofwhomwillnotandwill insteadbecapturedundertheelusivephrase‘friendoffriend’–younguserscouldseenorisks involvedinparticipatinginsuchactivities.Despitethefactthattherehavebeenrecentpressstories regardingpotentialemployersoruniversitiessearchingsocialnetworkingsitestofindoutinformation aboutapplicants(BBC2007a,Lisberg2008),comparedwithmeetingupwithpeopleinreallife,or givingawaypersonaldetailssuchasaddresses,thistypeofactivitywasbarelydiscussedina‘risk’ contextatall: ‘Everyonedoesquizzes,it’snottoomuchofabadidea;it’sonlyabadideaifyour teacherscatchyou.’(Boy,14,C2DE) Perhapstheclearestwaytoarticulatethecontradictioninyoungpeople’sattitudesistounderstand theirbehaviourasbeingmadeupofprivateconversationsthattakeplaceinpublicspaces(Shirky 2008).Toalimitedextent,thisisalreadyasociety-widetrend,withmobilephonesenablingpeopleto have‘private’conversationsinverypublicplaces–forexampleontransport–onaregularbasis. However,theseconversationsaretemporaryinnatureandprovidenolasting,meaningfultrace.Thisis verydifferenttothelong-lastingnatureofconversationscarriedoutonline,whichmayremain availableformanyyearstocomeandcantypicallybelinkedeasilytotheposter,alongwithawhole hostofotheridentifyinginformation. Exposuretoadvertising Awillingnesstoabandonprivacyhasstronglinkstoyoungpeople’spotentialincreasedexposureto

38

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

advertisinginonlineenvironments.Therehasbeenalongagreementthatadvertisingtoparticularly youngchildrenshouldbelimited.Theadvertisingofharmfulproducts–forinstancealcoholand tobacco–toyoungpeoplehaslongbeenproscribed,andtheconceptof‘harmful’hasrecentlybeen widenedtoincludejunkfood.UndernewOfcomguidelines,advertisingofjunkfoodisrestricted alongsidebroadcasttelevisionprogrammesthathavesubstantialappealtounder-16s. However,thereisalsorisingconcernattheimpactofadvertisingitself–overandabovetheproducts itpromotes.Thecommercialisationofchildhoodhasbecomeanemergingthemeforpolicymakers, academicsandparentsalike.Evidenceshowsthatthemoreinvolvedchildrenarewithconsumerism, themorelikelytheyaretoexperiencedepression,anxietyandstress-relatedphysicaldiscomfort (Schor2004).Inparticular,thesesymptomsareshowntobeexacerbatedbypoverty:childrenfrom thepoorestsocio-economicgroupsarethemostinterestedinconsumerandmaterialisticconcerns (Mayo2006). Alongsidethesepolicyconcerns,therehasbeenanexpansioninthechildrenandyoungpeople’s market,asboththeexpenditureofyoungpeopleandtheirinfluenceonparentalpurchaseshas increased(Schor2004). Eachyear,youngpeopleintheUKspendanestimated£680millionoftheirownmoneyonsnacks andsweets,afurther£660milliononclothing,£620milliononmusic,£400milliononfootwear,£350 milliononcomputersoftware,£250milliononmagazinesand£38millionontoiletries(Childwise 2005,citedinMargo2007).Itisnowonderthatproducershavesoughttoadvertisetheirwaresto thisgrowingmarket. Advertisingtochildrenhastraditionallybeenlimitedalongdevelopmentallines.Asfarasbroadcast mediaisconcerned,bytheageoffivemost(butnotall)childrenareabletodifferentiatebetween advertisementsandprogramming,toalimitedextent.However,theystillseeadvertsasentertainment orunbiasedinformation. Adeeperunderstandingofthepersuasiveintentionsofadvertisersoccursbyaroundeightyearsold. Accordingtoonestudy,53percentofchildrencouldunderstandthisbyages6-7,and87percentby ages8-9.Byages10-11,almostall(99percent)ofchildrenrecognisedthatadvertisementswere attemptingtosellproducts(RobertsonandRossiter1974). Attheageofeight,youngpeoplealsorecognisethatadvertisementsdonotalwaystellthetruth (Schor2006).Butresearchshowsthatthepresenceofscepticismdoesnotaffectthedesireforthe advertisedproduct,evenfor9-to10-year-olds(Brucksetal 1998,Roedder1999).Infact, longitudinalresearchshowsthatadvertshaveastrongpositiveinfluenceondemand–especiallyfor girls(SafferandDave2003,SafferandChaloupka1999). IntheUK,advertisinghasbeenregulatedinlightofthesefindings,withadvertisingtounder-12s heavilyrestricted.Butrecentlytherehavebeenaccusationsthatadvertisersareseekingtoundermine agreementsaroundageappropriatenessandtodevelopamoresophisticated,adult-likerelationship withchildrenandyoungpeoplefromanearlierage(seeMargoetal 2006forafulldiscussion).In particular,concernshavebeenraisedaboutthepracticesofadvertisersinonlineenvironments– particularlythosethatarepopularwithyoungpeople,suchassocialnetworkingsites. AdvertisingisahugepartofSNSssuchasMySpaceandBebo.Whetheronbehalfofalarge commercialidentity(theCoca-ColaadsbythebandWhiteStripeswerefirstshownonMySpace)or originatingfromanunsignedband,anindividual’sclothinglabelorpromoterofalocalclubnight: marketingmaterialofoneformoranotherpopsupincommentsandonbulletinboardsonamore thandailybasis. Suchmaterialalsobecomesanintegralpartofusers’profiles.Justasyoungpeoplemakeconnections withbandsorfamouspeopleto‘writethemselvesintobeing’andbuildtheironlineprofile,flyersfor clubnightsandotherpromotionalmaterialservetoillustratetheusers’framesofreference,interests andalignmentsthatexistwithintheirnetworks. InasurveybytheEuropeanResearchintoConsumerAffairs(ERICA),48percentofchildrensaidthey hadseensomethingonlinethatmadethemwanttomakeapurchase,andonequarterofthose

39

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

surveyedhadboughtitemsonline(EuropeanResearchintoConsumerAffairs2001).Researchalso suggeststhatchildrencanbeconfusedbytheblurringofadvertisementandcontentonwebsites. Youngpeoplewhoarequitecriticalofmainstreamadvertisingaremuchlesslikelyeventobeawareof suchpractices(Seiter2004).‘Advertorial’contentregularlyfeaturesonbrands’ownwebsites,whereit ofcoursenotsubjecttothesameguidelinesthatapplytoadvertisementsinpaid-foronlinespaces. Marketerscancreatemoremeaningfulrelationshipswithconsumersonlinethantheycanoffline, offeringlevelsofinteractivitythatareimpossiblewithbroadcastadverts.Thishasbeenusedtogreat effectonsocialnetworkingsites–particularlyBebo,whichfeaturesbrandprofilesonthefrontpage ofthesite.Youngpeoplecanbecome‘friends’withthesebrands,submittingtheirowncontenttothe profilepage,addingcommentsandengaginginavarietyofinteractiveactivity.Concernsaroundthis practicewereraisedrecentlywhenitemergedthe‘Skittles’brandofconfectionaryhadpaidBeboa six-figuresumtofeatureheavilyonthesiteandtorecruityoungpeoplefromaged13upwardstobe its‘brandambassadors’. BrandidentityofyoungpeopleinBritainisalreadysignificantlyhigherthanotherdevelopednations, includingintheUS(Mayo2005).Byentwiningbrandsevenfurtherwithyoungpeople’sonline identities,thepracticesofadvertisersonsocialnetworkingsitesarelikelytofurtherexacerbatethe problem. Plagiarismandwebcredibility Theinternethasundoubtedlyrevolutionisedthewayweaccessandshareinformation.The educationalbenefitsofinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)havelongbeenheraldedby policymakers,andyounginternetusersregularlyrecordgoingonlinetocompletetheirhomework tasks.However,concernshavearisenregardingtheextenttowhichtheinternetfacilitatesa‘copyand paste’culture,inwhichyoungpeoplearerelativelyunquestioningabouttheveracityofinformation accessedonlineandequallypreparedtopresentitastheirownwork. Itis,ofcourse,difficulttoassessthescaleoftheproblem,andtheextenttowhichplagiarismhas drasticallyincreasedwiththeemergenceoftheinternet.Copyingentireparagraphsfrombooksor studyguideswasnotunheardofinapre-digitalage–however,therearenowseveralsitesonthe webthatofferessaystodownload,eitherforfreeorforasmallfee.Addedtothis,thereare translationsitesthatcantranslateforeign-languagetextsintoEnglishorviceversa,aswellas informationresourcessuchasWikipediafromwhichlargeswathesoftextcanbecopiedandpasted intoanessay. Throughoutippr’sdeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopleplagiarismwasdescribedasextremely common,andalargenumberofparticipantsinallthegroupsadmittedtocuttingandpasting informationfromtheinternetandusingitinschoolwork.Theonlylimitingfactorswereseentobe practical,intermsoftheconsequencesofbeingcaught.Toescapethis,respondentsdetailedtheways inwhichtheyhadhonedtheirplagiarismskillsinorderthatitwouldnotbedetected: ‘IfI’vegotanEnglishessay,I’llgoonGoogle,typeinwhattheessay’saboutandcopy andpasteit–it’sdone.’(Boy,15,C2DE) ‘Iwouldn’tdownloadawholeessaybecausethey’dfindoutbutI’ddownloadalotof it.’(Girl,14,ABC1) ‘It’salright,youcanedititanddosomespellingmistakesorit’sgonnalooktoogood.’ (Girl,13,C2DE) Itisthismoresophisticateduseofworkthatteachersthemselvesadmitisproblematicintermsof identifyinginstancesofplagiarism.Whileolderagegroups(17-to18-year-olds)didrecognise plagiarismasamoralissue,discussionsaroundthiswereverylimitedandimplicitratherthanovertly tackled.Forexample,theyweremorelikelytotrytojustifytheirdecisiontocut,pasteandre-word onlineinformationintheirschool-work: ‘Forcoursework,it’sallaboutindividualresearch,anditisresearchinasense,you’re justre-wordingit.’(Boy,18,C2DE)

40

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Relatedtotheissueofplagiarismistheextenttowhichyoungpeoplearewillingtoacceptwhatthey readonlineatfacevalue.Faceretal (2003)arguethatyoungpeopletendtoacceptinformation onlineasimmediatelyauthoritative,whileBevortandBreda(2001)foundthatchildrendidnot questionthecredibilityortrustworthinessofwebsites. Youngpeopleinterviewedforthisresearchprojectplacedalargeamountoftrustinthesearchengine Google,indicatingitwasthefirststepinattemptingtofindinformationonline.Itwasalsopraisedas areliablewebsite.Nonetheless,itstillpresentedsomedifficultiesinsiftingthroughinformationtofind whatwasrequired: ‘Googleisquitereliableexceptthatsometimeswhenyoutypethingsinitcomesup withquitealotofwebsitessoyoudon’tknowwhototrust.’(Girl,13,ABC1) Theyalsoexpressedtrustinlargeandestablishedtraditionalmediabrands–particularlytheBBC– partlybecauseitwasaknownbrand,butalsobecauseinformationwaseasilyfoundonit: ‘Ifwewanttofindoutnewsquick,wejusttypeinBBC,that’swhatweknow,that’s whatweseeonTV.’(Boy,14,ABC1) Inassessingthereliabilityofinformationonline,youngpeopletendedverymuchtotrusttheir instincts,judgingbysuchfactorsashowthewebsitelooks,itsformatandlayout,aswellaswhether thewebsitewas‘official’. Whereeffortshadbeenmadetotailorinformationandcontenttoyoungpeople,reactionsfrom youngpeoplethemselvesweremixed,andforthemostpartwebsitestooobviouslygearedtowards ‘youngpeople’wereseenaspatronising. Forinstance,whendiscussingtheNumber10websiteaimedatyoungpeople,participants commented: ‘Itmakesyoufeellikeakid,like‘kid’snews’butyoucouldjustgoontheBBCNews likeeveryoneelsegoeson.Thisisabit,like,it’stryingtobecool.’(Boy,14,ABC1) ‘Ihateitwhentheytrytomakeitinterestingforouragegroupcositneverworksand theyalwaysmakeyoufeelreallyjuststupid.’ (Girl,16,ABC1) Themostpopularwebsitesweretheonesthatweremostinteractive–forexample,websitesthat includedtheopportunitytolistentomusic,watchvideosorengagethroughMSN,asthefollowing youngpeopleexplainedinrelationtotheBBCBlastwebsite,whichoffersacreativeforumforyoung people: ‘That’smuchmoreattractivebecausethat’sgotvideosandit’sgotgames.That’smuch better.’ (Boy,15,ABC1) ‘It’skindoflikeMySpaceinawaycosit’sgotmessageboardsandvideo.’(Girl,17, ABC1) Incontrasttoyoungpeople’swillingnesstoacceptinformationatfacevalue,therewerestronglevels ofdistrustwhereitcametofinancialmatters,withmanyparticipantsrelatingstoriesof‘hacking’and beingrippedofffinancially.However,givenyoungpeople’slimitedmeanstoengageinfinancial transactionsonline,itisdifficulttodrawanyconclusionsabouthowthiswillinfluencetheirbehaviour inlateryears.Whatisinterestingisthatthelinkbetweenprivacyandpersonalinformationand financialsafetywasnotdrawn.Theconceptofidentitytheft,ratherthanfinancialriskinimmediate, monetaryterms,wasnotraised.

Summary Ourconcernsaroundtheeffectofmediamustprogressfromsimplyconsideringthedangersofyoung peopleaccessingage-inappropriatecontent.Restrictingaccesstocontentonthebasisofageis extremelyhardtogetrightand,wheretheinternetisconcerned,hastendedtowardsa‘blanket18 andunder’and‘18andabove’approach.However,therearecleardifferencesinmaturityand developmentbetweena12-year-oldanda17-year-old.

41

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Whatismore,adultassessmentsofcontentthatisageappropriateareoftenmisguided.Reactionsto theNumber10website,aimedatyoungpeople,showhowquicklyorganisationsriskalienatingyoung peopleiftheygetthetonewrong. Itisimportantthatwetakeproperaccountofthesocialcontextinwhichyoungpeopleinteractonline –particularlysincethisislikelytohaveastrongeffectontheirbehaviourandchoices.Ourevidence showsthatyoungpeoplearecapableoflearningthroughexperienceanddevelopingtheirown strategiesfordealingwithsomeofthechallengesthatnavigatingadigitalmedialandscaperaises(for instance,developingsafetyconstructswhichdeterminewhetherornottotrustonline). However,thereremainclearareasthatpresentrealconcern,andthatpolicymustbegintoconsider howtoaddress–forinstance,theprevalenceofviolenceandtheculturethatsurroundsthison video-sharingsites,thelackofdistinctionthatyoungpeopledrawbetweenexposureinonlineand offlinecontexts,andthewillingnesstotakeinformationfoundonlineatfacevalue. Thislastpointraisesparticularconcernswherethescaleofincreaseofonlineadvertisingisconcerned. Thereisastrongsensethattheopportunitiesaffordedtoyoungpeopleonlineareexceedingtheir understanding–particularlywhenweconsidersituationsinwhichjudgmentsofamoralnatureare required. Acommonthreadthrougheachoftheseconcernsthatpervadesyoungpeople’sactivityonlineisa lackofreflectiveness.Thereisverylittlesenseoftheinvisibleaudiencewhomaybewitnesstoa youngperson’sactivities,orthatinformationorcontentmaybetakenoutofthesocialcontextin whichitismadeavailableandjudgedondifferentcriteria.Inattemptingtoaddressthis,wemusttake peerinfluencesseriously–especiallygiventhelackofheedthatyoungpeoplepaytowardsother limits,suchaslegalrestrictions.Tacklingthisisobviouslyadifficultareaforpublicpolicy,asitinvolves changingbehaviourwithincommunitiesratherthanintroducingtop-downrulesandregulations. Akeyneedthatemergesfromthischapteristhatofdetermininganewroleforthecorporatesector– includingtheinternetindustry,butalsoothercompaniesthatseektoengagewithyoungpeoplein onlineenvironments–todeterminewherethelimitsoftheirresponsibilitylie.Theextentof socialisationthattakesplaceinonlineenvironmentswouldsuggestthatcorporateentitiesnowtake onasignificantroleinraisingyouth.Assuch,itisimportanttostrikeanaccordthatdetermineshow farthesepartiesshouldgoinattemptingtoprovidegreaterlimitsand,importantly,strongerguidance andmorepositivenormsforyoungpeopleinteractingincommercialdomainsthatareotherwise largelyfreefromadultmediation.

42

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

3.Thelimitsofrulesandregulations Thepreviouschaptershowedthattherearecontinuingareasofconcernwhenitcomestoyoung people’sinteractionwithdigitalmedia.Usingtheinternetdoesincreasethepossibilityofbeing exposedtoharmfulcontentoratthereceivingendofharmfulbehaviour.Especiallywhenmore extremecasesarehighlightedbythemedia,itisunderstandablethatthefirstplacewelooktosolve suchproblemsisformalregulation. Theinternetposesaspecialchallengeinthiscontext,andtherearegreatdifficultiesinimposinga formalregulatoryenvironmentonlineinawaythatmirrorstheregulationthatwehavelongimposed onourbroadcastindustries.Asaconsequence,workablesolutionsarenotlikelytobesolely regulatory.However,itisusefultounderstandthecurrentregulatorypositionandbegintoconsider whenandwhereitcouldbechangedtoreflectourrapidlychangingmediaenvironment. Thischapteroutlinesthecurrentregulatoryframework,identifyingwhatitcoversandwhatitdoes not.Itoutlinessomeofthedifficultiesinregulatinginternetcontent,andconsiderssolutionsoffered byself-regulationandco-regulation,andbytechnologicalsystemssuchasfilteringmechanisms.In doingso,italsohighlightstherolethatmaybeplayedbypartiesotherthangovernment.

Thecurrentregulatoryenvironment Thisnextsectiondetailsthecurrentregulatoryenvironmentasitappliestotheinternetandinternet content.Itoutlinesthemostrelevantlawsandthenreviewshowgovernmenthasspecifically approachedtheregulationofcommunications–includingtelevisionandtheinternet–intheUKand Europe. Basiclegalstandards Duringitsearlydays,theinternetwasregularlycharacterisedasa‘newfrontier’,or‘WildWest’–a lawlessenvironment.However,onlinecontenthaslargelybeensubjecttothesamelegalactsasother publications,andwhatisillegalofflineisalsoillegalonline.So,inadditiontolawsrelatingtochild abuseimages(forexample),onlinepostingsaresubjecttodefamation,libelandintellectualproperty law. ThefollowingActsoflawareamongthoserelevanttoonlinecontent:

• ThePublicOrderAct1986 makesitanoffenceforapersontousethreatening,abusiveor insultingwordsorbehaviour,ortodisplayanywrittenmaterialwhichisthreatening,abusiveor insultingwhichislikelytostirupracialhatred.

• TheSexualOffencesAct2003relatestothecreation,possessionanddistributionofindecent imagesofchildrenunder18yearsofage.Wheretheinternetisconcerned,makinganimage includesdownloading–asdoingsomeansacopyoftheimageiscreated.ThisActalsocreateda newoffenceof‘grooming’,whichmakesitacrimetobefriendachildontheinternetorbyother meansandtomeetorintendtomeetthechildwiththeintentionofabusingthem.

• TheDefamationAct1996 appliestotheinternetjustasitappliestoofflinematerial:the definitionof‘publication’undertheActincludeswebsiteswheretheyareavailableforthepublic toaccess.Typically,theoriginatorofdefamatoryremarks(inotherwords,thepersonwhohas writtenthecommentorstatement)isheldresponsible,andawebsiteownerwhoallowsother userstopostcommentsisprovidedadefenceunder‘innocentdissemination’solongasthe personorfirmhostingthecontent‘tookreasonablecareinrelationtoitspublication,anddidnot know,andhadnoreasontobelieve,thatwhathedidcausedorcontributedtothepublicationof adefamatorystatement.’

• TheObscenePublicationsActs1956and1964 makeitanoffencetopublishanycontent thatmay‘depraveandcorrupt’thoselikelytoread,seeorhearit.Thiscouldincludeimagesof extremesexualactivity,suchasbestiality,necrophilia,rapeortorture.Importantly,thetestfor obscenityisthetendencytocorruptordepraveanadult,ratherthanachildoryoungperson.As

43

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

aresult,lawenforcersrecognisethatthislegislationislikelyonlytorelatetothemostextreme imagesratherthanpreventingthemajorityofonlinepornography. However,whiletheselawsareapplicableonlinetheyarenonethelessdifficulttoenforce.Thisisfora numberofreasons,whichweshallexploreinthesection‘Whyisinternetcontentexcluded?’ Wenowgoontolookatregulationrelatingspecificallytothecontentofcommunications. Regulationofcommunicationscontent HerewelookattheCommunicationsAct2003,theEuropeanAudioVisualMediaDirective(2006), self-regulationandco-regulation,andtechnologicalsolutions. TheCommunicationsAct2003 Wherebroadcastcontentisconcerned,wedonotsimplyexpectprogrammestomeetabasicstandard ofbeinglegal.Film,radioandtelevisioncontenthaslongbeensubjecttostandardsthatextend beyondbasiclawsandrelatetomoresubjectiveareas,suchastasteanddecency,andcurtailingthe provisionofcontentthatislikelytocauseharmoroffence.Themostimportantpieceoflegislationin thisrespectistheCommunicationsAct2003.ThisActestablishedOfcom,anddefinedthelimitsof contentregulationasweformallyknowit.

Box3.1:Ofcom’sStandardsCode Ofcom’sStandardCodesetsoutobligationsfortelevisionandradioprogrammestoensurethat:

• Peopleundertheageof18areprotected • Materiallikelytoencourageorincitethecommissionofcrimeortoleadtodisorderisnotincluded • Newsispresentedwithdueimpartialityandaccuracy • Adequateprotectionisprovidedfromoffensiveandharmfulmaterial • Advertisingisnotmisleading,harmfuloroffensivenorcontravenestheprohibitiononpoliticaladvertising. Becauseoftheloomingprospectofconvergence,theActsoughttotakeaplatform-neutralapproach tocontentregulation.So,ratherthansaying‘allcontentontelevisionisregulated’,Ofcom’sStandards Codeappliestoall‘televisionlicensablecontentservices’.Thuscontentdeliveredviamobilephones, theinternetorotherdistributionmeanscouldbeincluded,aslongasitismadeavailableforreception bythegeneralpublic(inotherwords,isnota‘private’service)andismadeupoftelevision programmes. Soforexample,oneelementofthecodetranslatedpracticallyistheimplementationofthe watershed,whichrunsfrom9pmto5am.Thisprovidesaguidingdevicetoparentsandyoungpeople thatanycontentbroadcastafter9pmwillbeaimedatadultaudiences. WhatisnotcoveredbytheAct? Thedefinitionexcludesservicesprovidedbyelectronic communicationsnetworksaslongastheirmainpurposeisnottomaketelevisionorradioprogrammes availableforaviewingpublic.Theyarealsoexcludediftheyoffera‘two-wayservice’(inotherwords, onethatreliesonusers‘pulling’contentviatheinternet,ratherthanhavingcontent‘pushed’to them). ThustheCommunicationsActexplicitlyexcludesinternetcontentfromOfcom’sregulatoryremit.But astheinternetbecomesamajorsourceofentertainment,newsandinformation,thisstancehasraised somedifficultpoliticalquestions. TheEuropeanAudioVisualMediaDirective(2006) InEurope,therehasrecentlybeenstrongdebateovertheproposedamendmentstotheTelevision WithoutFrontiersDirective(TWFD).TheTWFDwasintroducedin1989tosetstandardsacrossEurope fortheregulationoftelevisionservices,bothineconomicterms,andintermsofcontent. Overthepastfewyears,theEuropeanCommissionhasinvestigatedupdatingtheDirectiveinorderto reflectthechangingnatureofaudio-visualservices.Thedebatehasragedovertheextenttowhich

44

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

regulationshouldbeextendedtointernetcontent,andtherevisedDirectivehasbeenthrough numerousdraftsinordertoensurethatwhileon-demandorInternetProtocolTelevision(IPTV)deliveredbroadcastcontentiscaptured,internetcontentisnot. TheUK,ledbyOfcomandtheDepartmentforCulture,MediaandSport(DCMS),hasheldfasttoits positionthatthisistherightdirectiontotake,andthatmoresubstantiallegislationwoulddramatically harmaburgeoningnewmediaindustry,stallinnovation,andadverselyimpactthedevelopmentof Europe’s2010agenda(Jowell2006). ThefinaltextoftheDirectivehasnowbeenagreed,andmemberstateshaveuntiltheendof2009to implementit.Themostsignificantchangeistherequirementthatmemberstateshavetointroduce ‘co-regulation’ofvideoon-demandservices.Otherthanthis,itislikelythatonlyafewregulatory changeswillbenecessary.However,thepathoftheDirectivehasofferedthemosthigh-profile opportunitytodiscussregulatoryissuesinrelationtotheinternetforsometime. Whyisinternetcontentexcluded? Thereareanumberofreasonswhytheinternethasbeentreated differentlyfromotherbroadcastcontent.Wediscussthreeofthesehere. First,internetusersareseenasbeingmuchlesspassivethanviewersofbroadcastcontent.Thisis partlybecauseinternetusersselectthecontenttheywanttoviewand‘pull’thiscontentbytypingin awebsiteaddress(URL)orclickingonalink.Thisisfundamentallydifferenttothewayinwhichlinear broadcastcontentiseffectively‘pushed’totheviewer.However,itisnotclearforhowmuchlonger thisdistinctionbetweenpassiveandactivewillremainsalient,givenmovestodeliverbroadcast contentviaanon-demandmodelthatprovidesconsumerswithmorechoiceandcontrolovertheir ownmediaexperience. Furthermore,contentconsumersalsooftencontributetotheregulationofcontentandinformation online.Wikipediaisperhapsthemostprominentexample,whereusersactivelycontributetodrafting entriesfortheonlineencyclopaedia.Butusersalsoassistinestablishingthereputationandveracityof otherinformationontheinternet.ReputationsystemsenabletheonlinemarketplaceeBaytowork effectively,asbuyersandsellersratethequalityofeachothers’transactions. Alongsidethis,therearealsoarangeoffilteringandblockingtoolsthatenableuserstomanagetheir ownexperiences:filteringoutunwantedcontent(forinstance,spamemailmessages)orblockingpopupadvertisements. Thesecondkeyfactoristhateditorialcontrolontheinternetiswidelydistributed.Muchofthe transformativenatureoftheinternetisaffordedbythefactthatanyonecanpostcontent–for instance,bywritingablog,settingupawebsite,postingvideostoYouTube,uploadingphotosto Flickr,orsimplycreatingaMySpaceprofileorcommentingonanewsstory.Thismeanstheinternetis arichanddiversesourceofopinionandinformationunlikeanyother. Thethird,perhapsmostimportant,factorinunderstandingwhytheinternetistreateddifferentlyisin recognisingthedifferenttechnicalcharacteristicsthatdistinguishtheinternetfromabroadcastmedia model.Inlegislativeterms,theinternetisseenasadistributiontool–a‘carrier’analogoustothepost office.Underthee-CommerceDirectiveof2001,InternetServiceProviders(ISPs)areafforded‘mere conduit’status.Theyhavenoresponsibilitytomonitorcontentthatpassesovertheirservers.Thisis becauseitisextremelydifficulttocontrolcontentstandardsinanenvironmentinwhichanyonecan beapublisherofcontent,andwherearangeofprovidersareresponsibleformeetinguserdemands. WhileuserswilltypicallyaccessservicesviaanISPsuchasAOL,BT,BulldogorEclipse,thecontent theychoosetoaccesswillnotnecessarilybeprovidedbythesecompanies.Itmaynotoriginatefrom thesamecountryasthepointofaccess,andmayinfactcrossjurisdictionsdependingonthedifferent suppliersinvolvedinfinallydeliveringdatatotheindividual. Thisposesmanyproblems.Thereisadifficultyindecidingwhichpointinthesupplychainisthe correctplacetoassignresponsibility.Moreover,particularlywheremediacontentisconcerned, regulationtendstobebasedonnationalboundariestowhichtheinternetdoesnotconfineitself: contentoriginatesfrom,andcanbereceivedby,peopleallovertheworld.

45

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Internationalstandardsaredifficulttosecure–particularlywhereissuesoftasteanddecencyare concerned.AsBaronessScotlandputit,‘thereisnointernationalconsensusonwhatconstitutes obscenity,orwhenthefreedomofanadulttohaveaccesstoobsceneorpornographicmaterialshould beconstrained’(Hansard2004). WherecontentoriginatesfromoverseasbutfallsfoulofUKlaw,therearevariousobstaclesinhaving suchcontentremoved–particularlyifitdoesnotqualifyasillegalinitscountryoforigin.Evenwhere contentisillegal,countriesmaynothavethesameappetiteorresourcestotackletheproblem.This factisillustratedwhenweconsideronlineimagesofchildabuse:ofthosereportedintheUK,thevast majorityoriginatesfromoverseas–mostcommonlytheUSandRussia(IWF2006). Self-andco-regulation Thefactthattheinternetpresentssuchaqualitativelydifferentenvironmentforregulators–andone inwhichlawsaredifficulttoenforce,comparedtotraditionalbroadcastmedia–meansthatsimply extendingalegalsolutiontocoverconcernsthatarecurrentlyarisingaroundchildrenandyoung people’suseoftheinternetisnotalwaysthemosteffectivecourseofaction. Inresponse,industryandgovernmenthavesoughtalternativewaystomaketheinternetasaferplace, focusingontheuseofselfandco-regulatorymechanismsofwhich,undertheCommunicationsAct 2003,Ofcomhasadutytopromotethedevelopmentanduse. Self-regulationistypicallyregulationundertakenbytheindustrypartnersconcerned.Itisseenas muchmoreflexiblethanformallegislation.Inanenvironmentwhereinnovationhasoccurredata rapidrateandthelimitsoftechnologicalpossibilitychangeregularly,thisisseenasakeyadvantage asitisabletorespondmorequicklytothechangingdemandsofthemarket,anditcaninvolve industryactivelyinsettingstandardsthatwillnotlimitthepotentialofinnovation.Itisalsoseento havecertainbenefitsintermsofcost,typicallybeingmuchcheaperthanformalregulatory mechanisms. Incontrast,co-regulationinvolvesastateactor,andmayrequirelegalprovisionsinordertoensure thatindustrycommitstotheschemeacrosstheboard.Schemesarestilloftendesignedbyindustry,so theyretainsomeofthebenefitsofself-regulationinunderstandingwhatworksandwhatdoesnot, butaco-regulatoryschemeislikelytogivetherelevantpartiesgreaterincentivestoparticipate.Thisis normallybecausetheregulatorybodyresponsibleforco-sponsoringtheschemeholds‘reserve’or ‘backstop’powerstoenforceformalregulationwherenecessary. Decidingwhenandwhereself-orco-regulationisthemostappropriateregulatorymechanismoften dependsonarangeofcircumstances.InapapertotheEuropeanPolicyForum,Foster(2007) identifiestheseas:

• Thedegreeofalignmentbetweentheincentivesofindustryandtheaimsofpolicymakersand thepublic

• Theextenttowhichthegeneralpublicissufficientlyinformedtomakegooddecisions • Whetherthereisacrediblethreattoensurecompliance–forinstance,isthebusinessriskof breachingaself-regulatorycodesufficientoraresignificantfinancialpenaltiesnecessary?

• Whetherthemodelusedwouldbeenoughtogeneratepublicandpoliticaltrustinitsefficacyand avoidfuturemoralpanics. Totakeanexample,wenowconsiderhowthreeorganisations–theInternetWatchFoundation,the AdvertisingStandardsAssociationandeBay–fitthesecharacteristics. TheInternetWatchFoundation TheInternetWatchFoundation(IWF)wassetupin1997.OftencitedasoneoftheUK’smost successfulco-regulatorymodels,itwasinitiallyintendedtosimplyprovideahotlineforreporting child-abuseimages.However,in2001itsremitwaswidenedattherequestoftheHomeOfficeto includecriminallyracistcontent,anditnowdealswiththisandpotentiallyillegaladultpornography. ReportscanbemadetotheIWFviaahotline.

46

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Onceareportisreceived,theorganisationwillinvestigatewhethertheimageisillegal,tracethehost ofthecontentand,ifthehostisintheUK,givethemnoticethattheimageshouldberemoved.It willalsonotifylawenforcement.IftheimageisfoundtobehostedoutsidetheUK,theorganisation willcontacttherelevantinternationalbody.Tofacilitateregulationofsuchaboundary-lessmedium, theIWFasinstrumentalinsettingupINHOPE(aninternationalbodyofinternethotlineproviders). INHOPE’smembersincludegroupsfromtheUS,Austria,Spain,Belgium,Australia,Denmark,Finland, Ireland,Greece,France,Germany,Iceland,Italy,Holland,SouthKoreaandSweden. Whiletheincentivesofindustry,governmentandthepublicarebroadlyaligned–forexample,all partieswouldprefertoridtheinternetofchild-abuseimages–theissueisseriousenoughtorequire substantialpenaltiesfordisregardingtheadviceofacode.EventhoughISPsarenotthecreatorsof suchimages,theyarenonethelessliablefortheirpublicationifandwhentheyhaveknowledgeof theirexistence.Thepenaltyissevere.AlthoughtheIWFisoftenreferredtoasa‘self-regulatorybody’, thislabelisinaccuratesinceitlargelyperformsfunctionsotherwiseundertakenbylawenforcement. ISPsandotherindustryplayerscannotchoosenottoabidebytheIWF’snotices:todosoistoact illegallyandriskprosecution. TheIWF’ssuccessmeansthatitdoescommandthetrustofpoliticiansandpublicandtheprospectof replicatingtheIWFmodelandextendingittoincludeotherformsofcontent–forinstance,that whichisconsideredharmfuloroffensivehasoftenbeenraised.Mostrecently,thesuggestionofa ‘clearinghouse’forinternetcontenthasbeenmooted(Hansard2008).However,itisworth rememberingthatthesuccessoftheIWFislargelyduetothecontentitdealswithandthefactthatit hassuchaspecificremit. TheIWFmodelforremovalofcontentfollowstheso-called‘noticeandtakedownprocedure’.Put broadly,thisprocedureeffectivelyfollowsthefollowingpattern: 1. AuseridentifiesapieceofcontentthatheorshebelievesinfringesUKlaw–forinstance,is libellous,containsillegalimages(suchasthoseofchildrenbeingabused)orinfringescopyright. 2. HeorshenotifiestherelevantISP,whichisthenputonnotice. 3. TheISPwillinvestigatetheclaimofillegalityandremovethecontentaccordingly.Wherecontent contravenesUKlaw,itmaynotifypoliceor,iftheoffencebreachestheISP’sowncontent guidelines,suspendthecontentposter’saccount. Thisproceduremayseemsimpleenough,butitissubjecttomanycomplexities,whichareoften overlookedbypolicymakersandcampaignersalike. In2000,apan-EuropeanprojectcalledRightsWatchexploredtheuseofnoticeandtakedowninorder todevelopatooltoachievepromptremovalofcopyright-infringingmaterialfromtheinternet.The projectwasfraughtwithdifficulties,andendedin2002withoutconsensusbeingreached.Amajor problemitfacedwasfindinganeasywaytoidentitywhethercontentreporteddidcontraveneUKlaw. Whilethisisnotaprobleminsomecontexts,inothersitisveryproblematic.Consideringthecaseof child-abuseimagesonline,thelawisveryclearthatsuchimagesarealwaysillegal.WhenISPsare givennoticeofthepresenceofsuchcontentontheirservers,theyarequicktoremoveit,asitiseasy tojudgeitsillegality.Inthesecircumstances,itisalsorarethattheindividualororganisationposting thecontentarguestheircaseandattemptstodefendtheiractions,meaningthattheintermediary (typicallytheISP)isnotplacedinthepositionofjudgingwhoisrightandwhoiswrong. Butforothercontent,judgmentscanbelessclear-cut.Inthecaseofcopyright,copyrightexceptions (intheUK,fair-dealingprovisions)thatenablelimiteduseofcopyrightedworks,aswellasthefact thatcopyrightisnotaregisteredright,providedifficultiesinassessingwhetherclaimsofinfringement arejustified.Ananxietytoactquicklyandavoidpotentiallegalactioncanleadtohasty,underinvestigatedremovalofcontent(Ahlertetal 2004).Thiscouldhavesevereimpactsonfreespeech, researchandreporting. Therearesimilarissueswithassessingtasteanddecencyandtheoften-complicatedassessmentof whatconstitutesalibellousstatement.ISPshaveexpressedfrustrationsthatalackofguidanceinthe

47

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

noticeandtakedownprocedure–forinstance,signifyingexactlywhatconstitutesa‘notice’,how quicklyanISPshouldacttoremove,andanindemnityfrommaking‘incorrect’judgments–hasleft theminpositionofactingbothasjudgeandjury,andofdealingwithcomplaintsthatwould otherwisebesettledinacourtoflaw. Anyclearinghousedealingwithinternetcontentwouldhavetokeepthesefactorsinmindandsetup procedurestobeabletodealwiththecomplexitiesofcomplaintsthatarelikelytocomein.Itcannot merelyofferahotlinethatpassescomplaintsontoathirdpartyintermediary:clearstandardsand guidelinesforcomplaintsmustfirstbeestablished. TheAdvertisingStandardsAssociation Anexampleofaself-regulatorysystemistheAdvertisingStandardsAgency,whichenforcesselfregulatorycodesforbroadcastandnon-broadcastadvertising.TheCommitteeofAdvertisingPractice (CAP)Codeappliestonon-broadcastadvertisingandincludesprovisionssuchas:

• Marketingcommunicationsshouldcontainnothingthatislikelytocauseseriousorwidespread offence.Particularcareshouldbetakentoavoidcausingoffenceonthegroundsofrace,religion, sex,sexualorientationordisability.CompliancewiththeCodewillbejudgedonthecontext, medium,audience,productandprevailingstandardsofdecency.

• Marketers,publishersandownersofothermediashouldensurethatmarketingcommunications aredesignedandpresentedinsuchawaythatitisclearthattheyaremarketingcommunications.

• Marketersandpublishersshouldmakeclearthatadvertisementfeaturesareadvertisements–for example,byheadingthem‘advertisementfeature’.

• Marketingcommunicationsaddressedto,targetedatorfeaturingchildren(inotherwords,under 16)shouldcontainnothingthatislikelytoresultintheirphysical,mentalormoralharm.

• Advertisementsmustnottakeadvantageoftheimmaturityornaturalcredulityofchildren. • Advertisementsmustnotleadchildrentobelievethatunlesstheyhaveorusetheproduct advertisedtheywillbeinferiorinsomewaytootherchildrenorliabletobeheldincontemptor ridicule. Asfarasinternetadvertisingisconcerned,theCAPCodecovers:

• Advertisementsinpaid-forspacesuchasbanneradvertisementsandpop-ups • Advertisingcontentincommercialemails • Salespromotionswherevertheseappearonline • Commercialtextmessages • Viralmarketingemails • Paid-forentriesinsearch-engineresults • Advertisementsonelectronickiosksandbillboards • Advertisementsinelectronicgames • Useofemailaddressesformarketingpurposes(forexample,spam). Itdoesnotcovermosteditorialcontentonwebsites(otherthanpaid-foradsandsalespromotions)or itemspostedonbulletinboardsandnewsgroups,unlesstheseareplacedbyacommercialcompany. Anyonecancomplainaboutanadvertisement.Afterreceivingacomplaint,theAdvertisingStandards Authority(ASA)willinvestigatetoassesswhethertheadvertisementhasbreachedthetermsofthe CAPCode.MarketersareinformedoftheASA’sdecision,andmaybeaskedtowithdraworamend theirmarketingcommunicationsaccordingly.Iftheydonotcomply,sanctionsmaybeapplied.These canincludetheadversepublicityreceivedfromanegativeASAruling,advertisementalertsthat preventnon-compliantadvertisersfrombeingabletoaccessadvertisingspaceoftheCommitteeof

48

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

AdvertisingPractice’smembers.TheASAandCAPmayrequirepersistentoffenderstohavesomeor alloftheirmarketingcommunicationsvettedbytheCAPCopyAdviceteam,untiltheASAandCAP aresatisfiedthatfuturecommunicationswillcomplywiththeCode. TheCodeworksinsofarastheinterestsofindustryandgovernmentpolicyarealigned:theadvertising industrywouldprefertoescapeformalregulation,astheworkoftheASAismuchswifterandmore flexible.Likewise,thesanctionsthattheASAcanhandout–includingexclusionfromadvertising space–havefinancialramificationsthataresufficientlyseveretopreventcontinualoffending. Finally,thereisafurtherconsiderationthatappliestosomeinternetservices:theextenttowhich usersthemselvesarewillingtocomplywithrulesandregulationsonline.Commitmentstogood behaviourarehardtocomeby,asweexploredinthepreviouschapter.Therehavebeensome attemptstodevelopcodesofethics(BBC2007b)butthesehaveoftenbeenridiculedorignored. Simplyimposingacodeisnotenoughiftheredonotexistincentivestosticktoitornormsto encouragecompliance. eBay Perhapsthemostsuccessfulexampleofself-regulationinthiscontextiseBay.eBayisanonline marketplacethatusesareputationsystemtoestablishtrustbetweenusers,andtoprovideincentives forgoodbehaviourwithinthemarketplace. Forexample,buyersandsellersareratedontheirperformanceinactingswiftlyandthequalityofthe goodssold.Buyersleavecommentsandapositive,negativeorneutralratingfortheseller,andthe sellerdoesthesameforthebuyer.Thenumberofpositivetransactionsoverthelifetimeoftheusers eBaymembershipiscalculatedtogivethebuyerorsellerastarrating,indicatinghowreliablethey are. eBayencouragesuserstoleavehonestandfairfeedbackbecauseofthereciprocalnatureofthe system.Whereasmanyinternetsitesseemtoencouragenegativebehaviourandresponsesfromthose involved,aneBayuserisunlikelytoleavenegativefeedbackwhereitisunwarrantedasthisislikelyto resultintheythemselvesreceivingnegativefeedbackinreturn.Anegativeorlowapprovalratinghas aneffectonusersexperienceofthesite.Forexample,peoplewithlowapprovalratingsareoften excludedfromtransactions,withsellersrefusingtodobusinesswithbuyerswhoseratingislow. Likewise,buyersareunlikelytointeractwithsellerswhosesellinghistoryshowsexamplesoflowqualitygoodsorbadcustomerservice. Becausebuyersandsellersbuildupreputationovertime,theyarealsodiscouragedfromdiscarding theireBaypersonaandstartingagain:todosowouldbetobeginwithoutagoodreputationand thereforebelittletrustedintheonlinemarketplace. WhileeBayhaslongbeenseenasaworkablesolutionforenablingtrustonline,thegrowthofthesite, andinparticularitsusebyestablishedbusiness,hasrecentlyledittochangeitssystemandtodeny sellersthechancetoleavenegativefeedbackforbuyersinorderthatthebalanceofpowermaynot beunfairlydistributedinthesellers’favour(Schofield2008). Technologicalsolutions Therehavebeenanumberofattemptstoprovidetechnicalsolutionstotheproblemsposedbythe internet,andtoprovidegreatercontroltoparentsinlimitingthecontentthattheirchildrenareableto see.Filteringsystemsaretypicallysetbytheparentorguardian,andenableself-regulationoftheir child’sexperience.Alternatively,therehaverecentlybeenmovementsinnetwork-levelblocking–for exampleBT’sCleanFeed–whichblockcertainsitesforawholerangeofusers,orevenentire countries. Filtering Filteringcanrangefrombeingveryrestrictive–forexamplebylimitinguseto‘walledgardens’,which allowaccessonlytoanumberofpre-screenedsites,tobeinglessso–forexample,byusing‘key word’filtersthatsearchforkeywordsconsideredunacceptableandblockingsitesaccordingly.

49

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Keywordfiltersmayseemausefulsolution,buttheyarealsosubjecttotheproblemof‘falsepositives’–inotherwords,theyblock‘innocent’sitescontainingoffendingwordsinalegitimate context.Ironically,thiswasexperiencedbymembersoftheHouseofCommons,whenParliament’s ownfilteringsystemblockedcontentreferringtotheSexualOffencesBill. Filteringsystemsareavailablefairlycheaply,butparents’knowledgeofthemissparse.Thishasledto callsfromchildsafetycampaignersthatfilteringsystemsshouldbeinstalledintoeachnewcomputer asstandard,andsetatthehighestlevel(CHIS2004).Criticsarguethatthisisnotnecessary,andsay thatlimitingfunctionalityanduseabilitytosuchadegreerisksreturningtheinternettothe‘dark ages’(Sweney2008).Filteringsystemscanalsovaryinquality.TheHomeOfficehasbeenworking withtheBritishStandardsAssociation(BSA)todevelopa‘kitemark’forfilteringsystemssothat parentsknowtheyliveuptocertainstandards. Labelling Afurtherenhancementtofilteringsystemsiscombiningthemwithlabellingsystemsthatindicatethe ‘type’ofcontentthatusersareattemptingtoaccess.Perhapsthebest-knownlabellingsystemisthat providedbytheUSFamilyOnlineSafetyInstitute(FOSI),whichcontinuestodeveloplabelsystems offeredbytheInternetContentRationAssociation(ICRA).Thisinitiativewasfirstlaunchedin1999, andisafree-of-chargelabellingsystemthatseekstobeinternationallyapplicablebyusing‘crossculturallanguage’. ItworksbyinvitingwebsiteownerstovisittheICRAwebsiteandcompleteaquestionnaireaboutthe contentontheirsite.Allthequestionsareofthe‘yes/no’varietyandcoverthepresenceofnudity, sexualcontent,inappropriatelanguageandsoon.Oncethequestionnairehasbeencompleted,the ICRAsystemgeneratesalabelthatcanbeaddedtothemeta-tagofthewebsite.Thisessentiallyacts asacomputer-readabledescriptionofthecontentcontainedbythesite. ParentsareabletosetaccessrestrictionsinaccordancewiththeICRAlabellingquestionnaireandfilter contentonthisbasis.Forinstance,theycanspecifythatallcontentcontainingnudityorinappropriate languageshouldbeblocked.Thefilterwillonlyblockaccesstocontentthathasactuallybeen labelled,sothesystemreliesonwebsitepublishersvolunteeringtheirsiteforratingandundertaking thistask.Parentsarealsogiventheoptionoffilteringallnon-labelledcontent,thoughthisislikelyto vastlyrestricttheamountofcontenttowhichayoungpersoncangainaccess. Network-levelblocking Severalcountrieshaveengagedinblockingatanetworklevel.Forinstance,Pakistanrecentlybanned YouTubeduetothepresenceofcontentdeemedoffensive.Chinablocksanumberofsitesona country-widebasis. TheUKinternetindustrydoesengageinnetwork-levelblockingprimarilytostopaccesstosites knowntoregularlycontainchild-abuseimages.TheCleanFeedsystem,developedbyBT,was introducedin2004andworksagainstalistofrepeatoffenderwebsitesdrawnupbytheIWF.Whena userattemptstoaccessasiteonthislist,anerrormessageisreturnedsayingthatthepagecannotbe found.Whilethesystemrecordshowmanytimesaccessisattempted,nofurtherlegalorinvestigatory actionistaken. ThreeweeksafterlaunchingCleanfeed,BTreported250,000accessattemptshadbeenblocked.The systemhasnonethelessbeenthesubjectofsomecriticism.Onitsintroduction,therewereconcerns thatcontentwouldjustmoveelsewhereandthatultimatelytheIWFwouldbeforeverinvolvedina gameof‘catandmouse’intryingtoensurethataccesstoillegalcontentofthiskindiscutoff.There werealsoconcernsthatcontentwouldinsteadbysharedincreasinglyoverpeer-to-peernetworks, makingitultimatelymoredifficulttodiscoverandtrace. Themostrecentsuggestiontoimprovethesafetyoftheinternetwhileengaginginnetwork-level blockingorfilteringwasraisedinaparliamentarydebate.ConservativeMPHugoSwiresuggestedthe creationofan‘internetclearinghouse’,whichitselfwould‘buildadynamicfilterandcreateablacklist databasewhichwouldbeupdatedhourly’(Hansard2008).Thisblacklistwouldworkalongthesame

50

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

linesasBT’sCleanFeedbutwouldhaveanexpandedremittoincludesitesthatglorifiedviolenceand terrorism,pornography,cyberbullying,suicide,internetgamblingandanorexiawebsites. Thefiltercouldthenbeusedtooffertwochoicesofcontent:oneforadultsandoneforchildren,with thedefaultsettingbeingthechildoffering. Thisisnotthefirsttimesuchasolutionhasbeenoffered,anditisnotlikelytobethelast.Butasour explorationoftheeffectivenessoflawenforcementonlineshows,solutionsthatmayseemsimplein offlinecontextsarenoteasilyoreffectivelytransferredonline,foranumberreasons. Inthefirstplace,theinternetclearinghousewouldlikelyhavetobeanorganisationofmammoth proportionsinorderthattheblacklistcouldbekeptanywaynearuptodate.Itwouldalsohaveto takeafairlyblanketapproach,banningwholesitesratherthanindividualpiecesofcontentwithin sites.Ifitsremitdidincludesitesthatglorifiedviolenceorcyberbullying,YouTubewouldcertainly havetobeblacklisted,duetothefactthatsomevideospostedonlinebreachcommunityguidelinesin thismanner. Moreover,thisoptionwouldseemtoofferaverybluntdistinctionbetweencontentsuitablefor ‘children’–inotherwords,thosebelow16or18–andthatsuitableforadults.Ourresearch highlightsthedifficultiesinjudgingwhatcontentissuitableornotfordifferentagegroupsupto18. Suchanapproachrisksmakingtheinternetessentiallyunappealingtoyoungpeopleandminimising riskstotheextentthatopportunitiesarealsoheavilyquashed. Finally,suchanapproachagainfocusesontheregulationofcontentasthemostpressingissuein seekingtoprotectyoungpeopleonline.Again,itisimperativethatwemovebeyondthislimited thinking,towardsabetterunderstandingofhowwemayinfluencemorepositiveexperiencesof engagement.Thisisthemorechallenging,butarguablymoreimportant,areathatpublicpolicymust considerhowtotackle.

Summary Therearecleardifficultiesinsimplyattemptingtotransfertodigitaltechnologiesaformofregulation designedforanofflineoranaloguecontext–particularlyinthecaseoftheinternet.Thisisespecially truewhenwerememberthatbroadcastregulationhaslongbeensetalongnationalboundaries, whereastheinternetisaglobalphenomenon,withcontentandopportunitiesemergingfromaround theworld.Whilethelawcanprovideaframework,thejobof‘regulating’theinternet–thatis, minimisingthepresenceofillegal,harmfuloroffensivecontentandthelevelsofillegal,harmfulor offensiveactivityonline–cannotbeleftsolelytogovernmentandlawenforcement.Foronething, thecostwouldbeprohibitive.Foranother,suchanapproachwouldrarelybesuccessful. Self-andco-regulationcanbeeffectiveinsomecontexts,ascanfilteringsystemsadoptedbyparents, andtheresponsibilitymustbesharedbetweenindustry,government,parentsandusersthemselves. Wemustalsoaskourselveswhetherthisbalanceiscurrentlyfairlydistributed,andwhethereachparty hastakenontheirfairshare.Insomeareaswhereyoungpeopleareconcerned,therightbalanceis currentlymissing. Oneofthelargestgapsinprovisionisthefactthatthereiscurrentlynogovernmentbodythathas clearresponsibilityforthisagenda.Instead,severalgovernmentdepartmentshaveaninterestin differentareas,andworkcontinuesalongthesedepartmentallines.Thishasanimpactonmonitoring standards,onsuggestingactionfromindustry,andonbuildingcapacityofusersandparents.Thereis alsosomeconfusionregardingthenumberofbodiesthatcoverinternetcontentinsomeformor other–forexample,thePressComplaintsCommission(PCC)fornewscontentonline,theASAfor advertisingonline,theBBCTrustforBBCcontent–andsomesensethatthepiecemealsystemweare busybuildingupisbecomingfartoocomplexandlacksasinglebodytooverseeallthisactivity. Therealitiesoftheinternet’stechnologicalstructuremeanthattheresponsibilitytoprovideasafe environmentmustbeextendedbeyondlawenforcementandformalregulatorybodies.Industryhasa significantroletoplayinpromotinggoodpracticeandhelpingdesignandenforceworkable guidelines.Ontheotherhand,industrycannotdoitall.Thefactisthattheinternetisatechnology

51

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

affordingtheuseragreatdealofchoiceandfreedom.Users,ortheguardiansofusers,musttake someresponsibilityforthechoicestheymakeandtheactionstheytake. Overall,wheretheinternetisconcerned,itisimportanttomaintainrealisticexpectationsofwhatwe canandcannotdo.Theinternetisnevergoingtobeanentirelyrisk-freeenvironment.Justassome preyonvulnerablepeopleinreallife,soaretheresomepeoplewhowillseektodosoonline.No youngpersoncanbeentirelyprotectedfromcontentorpeoplewhomaydothemharm,buttherisks canbeminimised. Thesuccessofself-andco-regulationreliesonusersthemselvesbeingabletomakeinformed decisions:being‘medialiterate’inthewaytheyaccessandusecontentandinformation.Inthe followingchapter,welookathowmedia-literacyeducationandtrainingisprogressingintheUK,and outlineareasinwhichitmaybefurtherdevelopedstill.

52

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

4.Learningbydoing:empoweringyoungpeoplethroughmedia practice Regulationcannotsolveallofthechallengeswecurrentlyface.Themedialandscapeinadigitalerais soradicallydifferenttothatofanaloguetimesthatthelevelsofcontrolandsupervisionwehave cometoexpectmaynotsurvivemuchlonger.Asdiscussedinpreviouschapters,thelevelsofeditorial controlthatcouldonceservetopreventyoungpeoplefromaccessingcontentdeemedunsuitableor age-inappropriatecannolongerbeeffectivelyapplied.Thetechnologicalrestrictionsthatare sometimesputinplacecanoftenpresentlittlemorethan‘speedbumps’whichcanbeovercomeif someoneseekingmaterialisdeterminedenough. Thechangesinautonomyandsupervisionofaccessmeanthatthelevelsandresponsibilityof regulationareshifting.Thelackofacentralpointofcontrolshiftsresponsibilitytoindustryplayers, butthenatureoftheinternet–andtheautonomythatusersexerciseovertheirownexperience– meansthatthisresponsibilityissharedfurtherdownthesupplychain,withusersthemselves.This meansthatparentsandeducatorsalikehaveanextendeddutytoenableyoungpeopletobuildtheir skillsetsothattheycanmanagetheirownexperienceeffectively.Thissetofskillsisoftengrouped undertheheadingof‘medialiteracy’. Meanwhile,whileyoungpeopleareabletomanagetheirexperiencesonlinetoacertainextent,there aresomeareasinwhichtheirexperienceisnotenough.Ourresearchshowsthereareclearlygapsthat couldbefilledbymediaeducationofoneformoranother. Inthischapterweconsiderhowthemedia-literacyagendahasbeenprogressingintheUK,lookingat thecurrentapproachemployedbyOfcom.Wethenmoveontolookatwheremedialiteracystill needstobeimproved,consideringwhatkindsofskillsneedtobelearnedandthebestplacefor teachingthem.

Thecurrentapproachtomedialiteracy UndertheCommunicationsAct2003,Ofcomisgivenadutytopromotemedialiteracy.Thereisno singleagreeddefinitionofwhatmedialiteracyactuallyis,butOfcomdefinesitas‘theabilityto access,understandandcreatecommunicationsinavarietyofcontexts’(Ofcom2004:2). Wewilllookatthecurrentapproachtomedialiteracyintermsofaccess,understandingandcreating media. Access AsdiscussedinChapter1,almosttwothirdsof8-to15-year-oldsnowhaveaccesstotheinternetat home.Outsideofthehome,99percentofschoolshaveinternetconnections.Accessisalsoavailable atlibraries,communitycentresandinternetcafés. TheUKhaslongbeenheadingintherightdirectionasfarasuniversalaccesstotheinternetis concerned.Butthisdoesnotmeanthatthedigitaldivideisathingofthepast. Recentresearchshowsthataroundonethirdofthepopulationaredigitallyexcluded(Duttonand Helsper2007).Itisoftenassumedthatthisfigurelargelyrelatestoolderpopulationgroups.However, 11percentof16-to24-year-oldsdonotusetheinternet(UKOnline2007).Clearly,digitalexclusion isnotjustaboutaccess,instead‘itencompassesawidersetofissuessurroundingcontent,skills,and thewidersocialconsequencesoftheincreasinguseofICTinallaspectsoflife’(SocialExclusionUnit 2005:11). Digitalexclusionfollowsdistributionalpatternsofwideraspectsofsocialexclusion.Forinstance,over halfofunemployedpeoplearedigitallyexcluded,asare44percentofsingleparents(OXIS2007). Researchshowsthatmiddle-classchildrenarefarmorelikelytohavehomeaccess(Livingstoneetal 2005). Toovercomethis,someschoolshaveexperimentedwithlaptop-leasingschemes,enablingaccessto technologyatlowercost.Theseschemeshavebeenlargelysuccessful(CabinetOffice2005)and,in

53

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

response,theGovernmenthasannouncedatwo-year,£60million‘computerforpupils’programmeto enablethemostdisadvantagepupilstohaveacomputerathome. Theothersideofthe‘access’equationisaccesstoinformationitself,ratherthansimplythe technology.Justoveronefifthof9-to19-year-oldswhogoonlineatleastweeklysaytheyalways findwhattheyarelookingfor.Themajority(68percent)saytheycanusuallyfindtheinformation theyneed,9percentsaytheycannotalwaysfindit,and1percentsaytheyoftencannotfind informationrelevanttotheirneeds(LivingstoneandBober2005). Olderchildren,thosefrommiddle-classbackgroundsandthosewhosaytheyhavehigherskilllevels aremorelikelytoreportbeingabletofindtheinformationtheyarelookingforonline(ibid). Understanding Aswehavepreviouslynoted,youngpeople’scriticalinterpretationsofinternetcontentarelimited. Researchshowsthattheytendtoacceptinformationonfacevalue,withtwointhree12-to15-yearoldswhohavetheinternetathometrustingmostofwhattheyfindonline(Ofcom2006a).Lessthan onethird(31percent)of12-15swhousetheinternetathomesaytheymakeanychecksonnew websites(fromapromptedlistofchecks,includinghowuptodatetheinformationis,crossreferencingacrossotherwebsitestocheckiftheinformationiscorrect,andlookingintowhohas createdthewebsiteandforwhatpurpose)(ibid). Atadeeperlevel,ourresearchshowscleargapsinyoungpeople’sunderstandingofthe consequencesoftheironlineactivities.Thisgenerationisindangerofbecomingthemosttransparent andopeninhistory:youthfulindiscretionscanberecordedeasily,andmaybestoredandmade availableforseveralyearstocome.Thereisverylittleunderstandingofwhocoulduseinformationin thefuture,andforwhatpurpose. Wherebullyingonlineisconcerned,alackofawarenessofthecompoundingimpactofonline distributionontheextentofanindividual’shumiliationissomethingthatshouldbeaddressed.Some youngpeopleseemtooverlooktheadditionalharmcausedtoapersonbyhavingtheirhumiliation playedoutrepeatedlyonsitessuchasYouTube,tohundredsifnotthousandsofspectators. Thereisanurgentneedtoencouragewithinyoungpeopleagreaterunderstandingofhowandwhen informationisinterpretedbyaudiences–anotionofan‘imaginedaudience’–inordertoenable youngpeopletotakewiderresponsibilityfortheirpersonalprivacyonline. Creatingmedia Perhapsthelargestgapinyoungpeople’smedialiteracyasdefinedbyOfcomistheextenttowhich theyareinvolvedincreatingmediathemselves. Theopportunitiesforcreatingmediaarenowreadilyavailable.Toolsarecheapandeasilyaccessible and,indeed,wherevideo-recordingequipmentorinternetaccessandsoftwareisconcerned,currently inthehandsofmanyyoungpeople(Ofcom2006a).Yet,atpresent,levelsofcreativityarelow.While youngpeoplewillregularlyengageindevelopingtheirMySpacepage–makingitattractive,adding contentandsoon–veryfewyoungpeoplegobeyondthis.Onlyonethirdofyoungpeoplereport havingtriedtosetupawebpage(LivingstoneandBober2005). Ourresearchshowedthatacrossallagegroups,participantsdidnotcreatecontentontheinternet apartfromwhencreatingandmaintainingsocialnetworkingsite(SNS)profiles.Creatingand maintainingwebsiteswasconsideredtobetoocomplicatedandinvolvingtoomucheffort. Participantsalsoreportedthatfriendswhohadsetupwebsiteshadreceivednegative,abusive feedback,andsaidthatthisputthemoff: [Oncreatingwebsites]‘Ittakestoomuchtime.’(Boy,14,C2DE) ‘Myfriend…hasone[awebsite]andsheleavespicturesofherfriendsandpeople postcommentslike“Thisone’sugly”,andit’sjustlike–whywouldyouwanttodo that?’(Girl,15,C2DE)

54

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

‘Ifpeopledon’tlikeit…they’llstartmuggingitandtheywon’tleaveitalone.’(Boy, 15,ABC1) Whiledigitalevangelistshaveoftenheraldedthedigitalageinwhichanyonecancaptureavideoon theirmobilephoneandquicklypostittovideo-sharingwebsitessuchasYouTube,wefoundthatit wasstillfarmorecommonforparticipantstoviewvideosthantocreatecontent.While17-18year oldsweremostlikelytohavecreatedtheirownvideos,thesewereoftenforsocialpurposes,suchas sharingjokeswithinfriendshipgroups: ‘Ithinkyoucandoit[putavideoonYouTube]yourself,butIdon’tknowhow.’(Boy, 14,ABC1) ‘Ifyouweregoingtodoiteveryday[puttingyourownvideosonline]youwouldn’t reallyhavemuchofalife.’(Girl,14,ABC1) Itisclear,then,thatyoungpeoplearenotlikelytotakeuptheopportunitiesaffordedbydigital mediatobecreativewithoutsomedegreeofguidanceandencouragement.Muchofyoungpeople’s lackofenthusiasmforundertakingsuchworkisduetothefactthattheysimplyconsideritfartoo difficult.Faceretal describesettingupwebpagesasan‘exoticactivity’,withonly9percentof youngpeoplehavingengagedinweb-designactivities(Faceretal 2003).Incomparison,modifying pagesonSNSsismucheasier,anditistothistaskthatyoungpeopledevotealargeproportionof theironlinetime.

Improvingmedialiteracy Havingexaminedthecurrentsituation,itisclearthatthereisstillscopetoimproveyoungpeople’s medialiteracy.Partofthisincludesensuringuniversalaccesstotechnologyandgovernmentinitiatives shouldbepromotedaswidelyaspossibletomakesurethattheopportunitiesaretakenup. Butifwearegoingtopromoteuniversalaccess,itmustbeaccompaniedbythoroughmedia-literacy education.Attemptstoteachmedialiteracycanvarygreatlyinpractice.Atitsleastambitious, educationcanrevolvearoundsimpleICTskills.Atthemoreambitiousandinnovativerangeofthe scale,itisrecognisedthatthethreecomponentsofOfcom’smedia-literacydefinitionareclosely linkedandthat‘inprinciple,creativeactivitynecessarilyinvolvesthekindofskillsandunderstandings [featuredinthemedia-literacydefinition];anditmightalsobeexpectedtoassistintheirfurther development’(Buckingham2005b). Welookatwhatcanbedonefirstatconsideringtheimportanceoflearningthroughdoing.Wethen examineanumberoffactorsthathaveanimpactonyoungpeopleandconsidertherolesthatthey couldplaytostrengthenyoungpeople’smedialiteracy:schools,thevoluntaryandcommunitysector, governmentactivities,andinformalroutessuchasviaparentsandpeers. Learningthroughdoing Researchshowsthatcreatingmediaiseffectiveinenablingyoungpeopletodevelopmedia-literacy skills,andcanbemoresuccessfulthanattemptingtosimplyteachconceptsthatareimportanttofull understanding.AsdeBlocketal (2004:4)explain: ‘Throughmakingmediathemselveschildrenalsodevelopagreaterunderstandingof mediagenerally.Theirperceptionsofthemediaintheireverydaylivestakesadifferent light.Whattheywatch,playorreadisnolongerdistantandelevatedbuttheydevelop astrongsenseofaudienceandofcritique.’ Asenseofthe‘imaginedaudience’isimportantparticularlywhenweconsideryoungpeople’slackof reflexivityintheironlinebehaviours–particularlywhereissuessuchasbullyingandprotectingone’s privacyareconcerned.Thissenseprovidesanopportunityforyoungpeopleto‘workthrough’certain issuesthatareimportantformoraldevelopmentandunderstanding.Makingmediacanalsohelp youngpeopleunderstandhowmediaiscreated,andhowmessagesaredevelopedandtailoredtothe audienceinquestion.Indoingso,thepracticecanhelptodevelopcriticalskills.Thesebecomemore importantwhenyoungpeoplearefacedwithanabundanceofinformationandwiththechallengeof knowingwhattotrust,whattotakeasfactandwhattotakeasexpressedopinion.

55

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Thisapproachoflearningbydoinghasothersignificantbenefits–forexample,thepromotionofselfesteemandanopportunityforincreasingthevoiceofyoungpeople(Goodman2003).Thiscanbe particularlyimportantwheredisadvantagedyoungpeopleareconcerned–forexample,opportunities forcreatingmediahavebeenshowntohelpimprovemotivationfordisaffectedyoungboys(Kirwinet al 2003). Thisapproachcanalsohelpyoungpeoplestrengthentheirvoicewithregardtothingsthatmatterto them.Thereiscurrentlyagreatdealofconcernattheapparentapatheticnatureofyoungpeople. Youngpeoplearenowlesslikelytovotethaneverbefore(KeaneyandRogers2006),anddeep cynicismisnowtheprevailingattitudeamongmanyyoungpeopleintheUK(LewisandGreenberg 2007).Thereisalsofirmevidenceofmanyyoungpeople’sdisengagementfrommainstreamnews.The numberofyoungpeoplewhosaytheyonlyfollowthenewswhensomethingimportantishappening hasleaptfrom33to50percentinthepastfiveyears(Ofcom2007a).Twothirdsofyoungpeople alsoagreewiththeviewthat‘muchofthenewsonTVisnotrelevanttome’(ibid),andactively distancethemselvesfromit. Engagementwithnewsmediaisacrucialpartofactivecitizenship:evidenceshowsthatvotingis positivelycorrelatedwithnewsviewing(Norris1996),whilethemassmediaremainsthekeychannel throughwhichpeoplecanaccessthepublicrealmandpoliticaldebate(seeDahlgren1996forafull discussion). Itisimperativethatweseeknewwaystoengageyoungpeopleindebateanddiscussioninorderto haltdeclinesinpoliticalparticipationandcivicengagement.Increasingtheirvoicehasbeenapolicy concernforseveralyearsandnewinitiativesareseekingtoensurethatchildrencaninfluencethe decisionsthataffectthem,forexamplethroughdistributingyouthbudgetsdevolvedfromlocal authorities. Now,wearenotattemptingtoclaimthatinvolvementincreatingmediacanresolvetheentrenched problemofyoungpeople’sdisaffectionwithpolitics,norbethesolewayinwhichyoungpeople shouldmaketheirvoiceheard.Butthereareclearopportunitiestohelpyoungpeoplecreatecontent whichisrelevanttotheirlivesandcommunitiesandtoengageyoungpeopleintheworldaround themandcapturetheirviewsandideas. Inshort,media-literacytrainingofthiskindcanempowerchildrenascitizens,notsimplyasmore informedconsumers.Butwhilethiskindofcreativeactivityhappensinsomeareas,itisfarfroma universalopportunityextendedtoallyoungpeople.Sincetheconceptofmedialiteracywas introducedintolawthroughtheCommunicationsAct(2003),therehavebeenrepeateddiscussionsas towheremedialiteracy‘fits’.Thereareanumberofprovidersthatcouldpotentiallydeliveramedialiteracyagendaofthiskind,buttherehasbeenlittledirectionofwherewouldbemostsuitable. Theroleofschools TheQualificationsandCurriculumAuthority(QCA)developsthenationalcurriculum,which‘defines theknowledge,understandingandskillstowhichchildrenandyoungpeopleareentitled’(from www.qca.org.uk).Medialiteracyhasnoformalplaceinthecurriculum,butthereareopportunities acrosssubjectareastoincludeaspectsofmedialiteracy.Inthefirstplace,useofICTisarequirement inthesecondarycurriculumandremainsarequiredsubjectthroughKeyStage4. ICT,CitizenshipandEnglishprovidethemostobviousopportunitiesformedia-literacyeducation.For example:

• TheICTsyllabus expectspupilstobechargedwith‘exploringthewaysthatICTcanbeusedto communicate,collaborateandshareideasonaglobalscale’aswellas,‘recognisingissuesofrisk, safetyandresponsibilitysurroundingtheuseofICTand‘recognisingthatinformationmustnot betakenatfacevalue,butmustbeanalysedandevaluatedtotakeaccountofitspurpose, author,currencyandcontext’.

• Thecitizenshipsyllabus statesthatstudyshouldinclude‘theroleofthemediaininforming andinfluencingpublicopinionandholdingthoseinpowertoaccount’(KeyStage3).Inthisarea,

56

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

thecurriculumshouldalsoprovideopportunitiesforpupilstoworkwitharangeofcommunity partnersandto‘useandinterpretdifferentmediaandICTbothassourcesofinformationandasa meansofcommunicatingideas’.

• Englishteaching hasalonghistoryofdrawingonavarietyofmediatexts,andthisapproach continuestoformpartofthecurriculum. Alongsidethis,mediaeducationcantakeplaceexplicitlywithinmediastudiescoursestakenatGCSE orALevel. Nevertheless,thescopeforincreasingthelevelsofmedia-literacyteachingwithinschoolsislimited. Thecurriculumisalreadynotedasbeingfairlycrowded,anddespitethepossibilityforincludingthese skillsincitizenshipeducation,therearealsoagreatmanyotheraspectsofcitizenshiptocover.Across therangeofagenciesthatmayhavearoleinpromotingmedialiteracyintheformaleducationarena –theQCA,localeducationauthorities(LEAs),theBritishEducationCommunicationsTechnology Agency(Becta)andtheTeacherDevelopmentAgency–nonehavemedialiteracyastheirprimary focus.Eachofthesebodiesclearlyhashigherpriorities. Whiletherearerecognisedareasofgoodpractice,teachingisnowherenearuniversal.Itcanoften dependontheskillsandcapabilitiesofteacherexpertise,aswellasthelevelofaccesstosuitable resources(Kirwanetal 2003).And,while8-to11-year-oldsarehappytolearnmediaskillsfrom teachersorparents,nearlyhalfof12-to15-year-oldsprefertolearnaboutthemediafromtheirpeers (Ofcom2006a). Thecapacityforyoungpeopletobuildtheirmedialiteracyatschoolisalsoimpactedbythelevelof restrictionsthatschoolsplaceontechnologyuse.Severalschoolsbanaccesstosocialnetworking sites,orplacesignificantrestrictionsonuseofequipmentoutsideofaformaleducationprogramme. Suchpracticesarguablyhampertheextenttowhichschoolsthemselvescanassistinbridgingthe digitaldivide,byprovidingaccessforthosewhodonothaveitathome,andallowingtheseyoung peopletoexplorethesocialaspectsofthistechnology(HollowayandValentine2003). Theroleofthevoluntaryandcommunitysector Anumberoforganisationshavearoleinpromotingmedialiteracyacrosstheinformalsector.Manyof theseareincludedassignatoriestotheMediaLiteracyCharter(at www.medialiteracy.org.uk/taskforce/)developedbytheMediaLiteracyTaskForce–anorganisation thatbringstogethertheBBC,theBritishBoardofFilmClassification,theBritishFilmInstitute, Channel4,ITV,theMediaEducationAssociation,TheUKFilmCouncilandSkillset. TheMediaLiteracyCharterisarelativelyshortdocumentoutlininganumberofprinciplestowhich signatoriescommitthemselves.Theseinclude‘supportingtheprinciplethateveryUKcitizenofany ageshouldhaveopportunities,inbothformalandinformaleducation,todeveloptheskillsand knowledgenecessarytoincreasetheirenjoyment,understandingandexplorationofthemedia’and ‘encouraging,enablingorofferingopportunitiesforpeople’todeveloptheirskillssetwheremediais concerned,includingbeingableto‘identify,andavoidorchallenge,mediacontentandservicesthat maybeunsolicited,offensiveorharmful’. Signatoriestothecharterincludespecialistmediaorganisations,mediacollegesandyouth organisations,allofwhichhavearoleindeliveringmedialiteracyintheinformalsector. Acrossthepiece,theinformalsectorhasahandindeliveringout-of-schoolmedia-relatedactivities. Themajorityhaveacommitmenttoencouragingthedevelopmentofyoungpeople’sskills,primarily throughlearningbydoing.Inaddition,thereisalargecommunitymediasectorintheUK encompassingorganisationsthatproduceradioandtelevisionprogrammingandinternetcontent.Still, provisionisfarfromuniversal. Communitymediaandyouthmediaprojectsoftensharemanyfeaturesincommon,butperhapsthe mostprominentisaninsecure,andoftenhaphazard,fundingbase.Ininterviewswitharangeof mediapractitionersfromSouthwestEngland,manyexpressedfrustrationsthatagreatdealoftheir timewasspentseekingfunding,andthattheshort-termnatureoffundingreceivedoftenmeantthey

57

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

wereunabletoprovideacontinualordevelopmentalprogrammefortheyoungpeopleinvolved. Instead,projectswereepisodicanddiscrete.Otherresearchreportsconcurthatacrossthesectorthere isalackofstrategic,long-termfunding.Therearealsofewforumsforsharingexpertiseand experienceandestablishingbestpractice(Kirwinetal 2003). ThereisarangeofbodiesthatfundactivitiesintheUK.TheseincludetheArtsCouncil,Creative Partnerships,theUKFilmCouncil(throughitsRegionalScreenAgencies)andgrant-makingbodies, suchasFirstLight.In2006,theGovernmentlaunchedMediaBox–a£6millionfundaimedat fundingmediaactivitiesamongyoungpeople.Butthemajorityofthismoneyishotlycontested,or canoftenbefocusedtowardsoutcomesorprojectsthatdonotspecificallyinvolveteachingmedia literacy. Forexample,MediaBoxexplicitlystipulatesthatgrantmoneycannotbedirectedtowardsfunding adultsupervisionoryouthworkers’involvementinmediaprojects:theprojectsmustbeled,managed anddeliveredbyyoungpeoplethemselves.Whilethiscanoffermanybenefits,itmissesoutonthe opportunitiesthatcanbegainedfromadultsupervision–particularlyfrommediapractitioners,who mayhavesignificantexpertisetoshare.Ourevidencesuggeststhatmostyoungpeoplerequiresome degreeofencouragementandguidanceinordertosuccessfullydelivermediaprojectsandtobecome active‘creators’,ratherthanjustconsumersofmedia. Theroleofgovernment Ifanewmedia-literacyagendaistohaveimpact,itwillneedgreatercoordinationanddirection,with adegreeofassurancethatmedia-literacyteachingwillbeapriorityatsomelevel.Currently,Ofcomis responsiblefor‘promoting’themedia-literacyagenda.Thismayhavemadesensewhenthe CommunicationsActfirstmaterialisedas,sinceinternetcontentwasexcludedfromtheAct,some systemwasneededtoensurethattheneedsofcitizensinanewmediaenvironmentwereatthevery leastbeingconsidered.ButOfcomhaslittlepowertobebold,ortomakesubstantialcommitmentsto deliveringonthisagenda. Medialiteracyshouldnotsolelybeconcernedwithyoungpeople,butitisyoungpeoplewhoare thoughttobemostvulnerablewhererisksposedbytheinternetareconcerned.Ifwearegoingto provideyoungpeoplewiththeskillstoensuretheironlineexperiencesarepositive,medialiteracy musthaveaplaceinyoungpeople’sformativeyears–particularlyduringperiodsofadolescence, whentheyaremostlikelytopursuerisksforsocialgain,andwherethemediaisincreasinglybecoming thetoolofchoice.Medialiteracyshouldbegivenhigherprioritywithingovernmentandplaced directlywithinthedepartmentwiththewherewithaltoensurerelevantpartiesaredeliveringonthe agenda–theDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF). Theroleofparents Ofcourse,itisnotonlyexternalorganisationsthathavearoleindevelopingchildren’scapabilitiesin thisarea.Parentscontinuetohavearoleinmaintainingthesafetyoftheirchildrenwheremediais concerned,justasinotheraspectsoftheirchild’slife. Threequartersofparentswithchildrenagedbetween8and11reportfeelingworriedabouttheir childseeinginappropriatethingsontheinternet.Forparentsof12-to15-year-olds,thisfigurefalls justslightlyto72percent(Ofcom2006a).However,parentsarelikelytounderstateinternetrisksfor theirchild,withonly16percentbelievingthattheirchildhascomeintocontactwithonline pornography,comparedto57percentofyoungpeoplewhosaythattheyhave(Livingstoneand Bober2005).Meanwhile,twothirdsofparentsofchildrenwithinthisagegroupsaythattheirchild knowsmoreaboutusingtheinternetthantheydo. Theabilityofparentstodealwithyoungpeople’sexperiencesandprovideinstructionandguidanceis fairlylimited.Whilemorethanhalfhavesomeformoffilteringsysteminstalled,fewparentshave specificrulesastohowtheirchildrenshouldusetheinternet(ibid).Thisreflectstheresultsofour research,inwhichyoungpeoplereportedveryfewparentalrestrictionsandverylittleparental awarenessoftheironlineactivities.

58

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Table4.1:Parentalrulesandpracticestorestrictyoungpeople’sinternetuse Typeofrule Activity Privacyrestrictions

Percentageofparents whoundertakeactivity

Tellchildnotto: •giveoutpersonalinformationonline •buyanythingonline •usechatrooms •filloutonlineformsorquizzes •downloadthings

86% 77% 62% 57% 24%

Tellchildnotto: •useinstantmessaging •playgamesonline •useemail

24% 10% 11%

Supportivepractices(overt monitoringorco-using)

•Askchildwhathe/shedidorisdoingontheinternet •Keepaneyeonthescreenwhenthechildisontheinternet •Helpchildwhenhe/sheisontheinternet •Stayinthesameroomaschildusingtheinternet •Sitwithchildandgoonlinetogether

81% 63% 57% 50% 32%

Checkingup(covert monitoring)

•Checkthecomputerlatertoseewhatthechildvisited •Checkthemessagesinthechild’semailaccount

41% 25%

Peer-to-peerrestrictions

Source:AdaptedfromLivingstoneandBober2005 Table4.1illustratesthetypesandfrequencyofparentalrulesandpractices,showingthatparentsare morelikelytoengageinprivacyrestrictionsalthoughsomesupportivepractices,suchasusingthe internetalongwiththeirchild,arealsocommon. ThepracticesshowninTable4.1aremorelikelytobeputinplacefor9-to11-year-oldsthanfor olderagegroups.Therewasnodifferenceinregulationappliedtogirlsandboys,noranydifferences onthebasisofsocio-economicstatus(ibid). Whilethereappearstobenodirectrelationshipbetweenimplementingmoreorlessregulationand theopportunitiesandrisksthatchildrenencounteronline,anindirectrelationshipisapparent. Parentalregulationisshowntobepositivelyrelatedtochildren’sinternetskills:childrenwhoseparents havemorerulesinplacetendtousetheinternetmoreandgainmoreskills(Livingstoneetal 2005). Intermsofthetypesofregulationinplace,supportivepracticesareshowntoincreasetheonline opportunitiesofchildren,whilelimitsinpeer-to-peeractivityminimisebothopportunitiesandrisks (ibid).Supportivepracticesmaybedependentonparents’owninternetskills,andherea‘digital divide’stemmingfromparents’workandeducationalexperiencescanhaveaneffect(Faceretal 2003). Therearesignificantdiscrepanciesbetweenwhatregulationsparentssaytheyhaveinplaceregarding mediauseinthehome,andwhatchildrenactuallyreport(Buckingham2005b).Asourevidence shows,youngpeopleareproficientinside-steppingtechnicalregulations,andareunawareofany specificregulatorypracticesinplace.Whatismore,parentalregulationsareshowntobecomeless effectivewithage,withinterventionin9-11-year-oldshavingthemostsignificantimpact(Livingstone etal 2005). Clearly,parentscanhavearoleinheighteningtheirchild’smedialiteracy–particularlyatyounger ages–butthisisrelatedtotheparents’ownskilllevel:wherethisislacking,morerestrictivepractices maybeputinplacethatcanlimitthebenefitsthatyoungpeoplecanreapfrominternetaccess. Evidenceshowsthatinsomekeyareasofconcern,suchasbullying,parentshavelittleideaofhowto dealwithproblemswhenreported(Livingstoneetal 2004),andatendencytooveract(forinstance, byremovinginternetaccessaltogether)maydecreasethelikelihoodofthechildreportingissueswhen andwheretheydoarise.

59

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Itisimportant,then,thatwedonotneglectparentswhendevisinginformationcampaignstoincrease medialiteracyandminimiserisks.Thisdoesnotmeanheighteningawarenessoftherangeoffiltering mechanismsavailable,butratherconcentratingonbuildingparents’capacitytodeliverasupportive onlineexperience–particularlyforyoungerchildren.Thisisinpartpredicatedbyparents’ownlevelof ICTskill,sosupportinthisareashouldalsofocusonhelpingparentsdevelopusefulskillsindealing withinnovationsinnewmediasotheycanunderstandandreacttotheirchildren’sexperiencesand behavioursonline. Theroleofpeers Evidenceshowsthatyoungpeoplearemostlikelytogotoafriendiftheyhaveaproblemtheyneed todiscuss(DCSF2007).Wehaveseenalsothatwheredigitalmediaisconcerned,youngpeopleare mostlikelytowanttolearnfromtheirpeers. Thepotentialroleofyoungpeopleinbuildingeachother’smedialiteracy,andinsupportingeach otherwhenproblemsarise,tendstobeneglectedinfavourofanemphasisoncyberbullying,happy slappinganduser-generatedcontent.Butpeersformanimportantpartofyoungpeople’s socialisation,andbecomemoresoduringthetransitiontoadulthood. TheGovernmenthasrecentlyannouncedfurtherfundingforpilotsexploringtheroleofpeer mentoringforyoungpeopleexperiencingbullying.Suchpilotscouldbeextendedtoanonline context,withtrainingprovidedforolderpupilsandolderwebsiteuserstoprovideadvice.Youth servicesalsohavearoleinhelpingpeerstosupporteachother.Youthservicescanprovidean importantframeworkthroughwhichsupportivepracticesmaybedelivered,providedthattheyouth workersthemselveshaveadequateunderstandingofthetechnologiesandtheexperiencesofyoung people. Peersareextremelyimportantgiventhattheveryessenceofmany‘Web2.0’innovations(thatis, servicesthatfacilitatecreativityandinformation-sharingamongusers)isthecollaborationthattakes placebetweenusersthemselves.Bebo,MySpace,YouTube,Facebookandotherpopularsitesshould agreetoprovidematerialrelatedtopeersupport,andofferopportunitiesforqualifiedadvicefor youngpeopleexperiencingproblemsonline.Ofcourse,gettingthisrightwillnotbeeasy,andour researchfoundthatyoungpeoplewereveryawareofwhenadviceorinformationwebsiteswere ‘talkingdown’tothemorwereaimedatpeopleyoungerthanthem.Nonetheless,somesitesdogetit right:ourworkshopparticipantshighlyratedboththeYouthInformationwebsite (www.youthinformation.com)andFrank(www.talktofrank.com).Thesesitesshouldbeusedasmodels forextendingadviceprovisionforproblemsexperiencedbyyoungpeopleintheonlineworld.

Summary Becauseformalregulationaloneisnotfullyeffective,theinternetrequiresadifferentapproach:one thatinvolvesparents,guardians,educatorsandusersjustasitinvolvesindustryandgovernment. Medialiteracyisacrucialpartofthiscollaborativesolution. Thereisacommonviewthatyoungpeople’sunderstandingfarexceedsthatofadults.Often,where technicalproficiencyisconcerned,thismaywellbetrue.However,thereareclearexampleswherethe opportunitiesofferedbydigitaltechnologies,whencoupledwithyoungpeople’stechnicalexpertise, farexceedyoungpeople’sconceptualunderstanding. Increasingyoungpeople’sawarenesstoenablethemtobemorereflectiveabouttheironline behaviour,anditsimpact,shouldbeapriorityofmedialiteracy.Encouragingyoungpeopletocreate mediathemselveswillenablethemtodevelopthenecessaryskills,aswellasdeliveringotherbenefits suchasincreasedself-esteemandmotivation. Ourcurrentmedia-literacyframeworkisnotambitiousenough.Thereiscurrentlynoguaranteethat media-literacyteachinginschoolsisreachingyoungpeople,andtheschoolcurriculumisalreadyso crowdedanyexpectationofformaleducationofthiskindisunrealistic.However,ourattemptat ‘promoting’medialiteracydoesnotmakebestuseoftheexpertisethatisalreadyavailable– particularlyamongthevoluntaryandcommunitysector.Arangeoforganisationsexistthatwouldbe

60

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

abletodeliveradynamicmedia-literacyprogrammethatwouldbebothattractiveandusefultoyoung people.Itisimportantthatwetakestepstoexploitthepotentialofthosebodiesmostreadyto providethisfacility. Finally,theroleofparentsandpeersshouldnotbeoverlooked.Theseindividualsaremostlikelytobe usefulatdifferentdevelopmentalstagesofyoungpeople’smediause(parentsforyoungerchildren andpeersforolderteenagers),andsafetyandempowermentcampaignsshouldmakesuretheyare factoredintoanysuccessfuldeliveryprogramme. Inthefinalchapter,weoutlinewhereamoreambitiousmedia-literacyprogrammewouldfitintoa newstrategy,alongsidebroaderrecommendationsforgovernmentandindustry.

61

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

5.Conclusionandrecommendations TheGovernmenthaslongbeenconcernedabouttheplaceofmediaineverydaylife,andits impact.Theseconcernshavetendedtobefocusedonitseffectofyoungpeople,whoareseenas themostimpressionableandvulnerablepeopleinsociety.Tosomeextent,theinternetpresents merelythenextstageinanongoingcycleofpanicabouttheinfluenceofthemedia,whichhas encompassedcomicbooks,films,televisionprogrammes,andcomputergames,eachofwhichhas atsomestagebeenaccusedofhavingthepotentialtoharmormorallycorruptchildrenandyoung people. Therehasneverbeenanyfirmevidencethatthemediacanhavethelevelofpowerthatwe attributetoit.Butdespitethis,regulatorymethodshavetendedtoerronthesideofcautionand restrictaccesstosomecontentonthebasisofprotection.Thisapproachissofirmlyingrainedin oursocietythatprotectionistinterventionssuchasthewatershedcontinuetogainwidespread support–notleastfromparentsbutalsofromyoungpeoplethemselves. Whileweshouldnottreattheinternetassodramaticallydifferentatechnologythatwethrowout allexperienceandresearchthathasgonebefore,itdoes,arguably,requireadifferentapproach. Thegreatestchallengeistomovefromthepreviousmodel,whichchieflyconsideredtheimpactof contenttoanewonethatconsiderstheimpactofengagementthroughmedia,andtoseekto influencethisinawaythatleadstopositiveexperiencesforyoungpeople. Ashiftofthisnaturedemandsthatregulationcannotbedevisedanddirectedinascentralaway asithasbeenbefore:thereisnoone,clearbodytowhichwecanattributeresponsibilityandthat wecansimpleleavetogetonwithit.Instead,weneedapartnershipapproachthatencompasses allrelevantparties:includingusersthemselves,parents,thecommercialsector,thevoluntaryand communitysectorandnationalgovernmentsandbeyond,tointernationalstandardsand cooperation. Theprocessiscertainlymorecomplicatedthantheexistingsystem,butaresponsibilitysharedin thismannershouldnotsolelybeseenasanextraandundesiredburden.Itisalsosymbolicofone ofthegreatestfeaturesoftheinternet:thefactthatitisademocratictool,enablinguserstogain suchcontrolovertheirmediaexperiencethattheycannotonlychoosewhattoconsume,and whenandwheretoconsumeit,butcanalsoaddtheirvoiceandopiniontothemassof informationandentertainmentthatisoutthere. Theapproachadvocatedinthisreportistorespectthisgreat,liberatingfeatureoftheinternet andnottocurtailopportunitiesinthepursuitofremovingrisksentirely.Usingtheinternetwill alwaysprovideacertainlevelofrisk,justasdoescrossingthestreetoranynumberofotherdaily activities.Itisimportantthatgovernmentisrealisticinitsexpectations,andintheexpectations thatittransferstoparentsconcernedfortheirchildren. Itisalsoimportantthatthesebenefitscontinuetobehighlighted.Thisiswheremedialiteracy shouldtakeanempoweringapproach,encouragingyoungpeopletotrulyengagewiththewealth ofopportunitiesdigitaltechnologiespresent,butwithadultguidanceandexpertadvicetoensure thattheirunderstandingcancatchupwithexpertise. Ourrecommendationsarebrokendownintothosethatapplytogovernment,industry,educators, parentsandusersrespectively.Takenacrossthepiece,theywillenhanceyoungpeople’sonline experienceswhileenablingriskstobeminimised.However,theseresponsesshouldalsobeseenas aworkinprogress:thedemands,experiencesandbehavioursofaudienceswillchangeintime.In thefirstplace,itisimportantthatwetakethenecessarysteps,outlinedabove,toestablisha frameworkthatcanreactinasensible,appropriateandtimelyfashiontothesechanges.Without thisframework,wewillcontinuallybeinreactivemode,swayedbymedia-drivenmoralpanics,and neglectingtoprotectandprepareyoungpeoplesufficientlyforthedigitalworldtheyareleftto navigate.

62

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Recommendationsforgovernment 1.Ofcomshouldbechargedwithproducinganannualreportdetailingtheeffectiveness ofexistingself-andco-regulatoryregimes. Ofcomcurrentlyhasadutytopromoteself-andco-regulatoryschemes.Inordertomakesure actionwhereinternetcontentanduseisconcernediscoordinatedandcomprehensive,Ofcom shouldproduceadedicatedannualreportdetailingtheeffectivenessofschemesandidentifying wheretherearegapsinprovision.Governmentcanthentakeaviewofwhereindustryshouldtake furtheraction.Ifthisisnotforthcoming,governmentshouldconsideralternativeregulatory approaches. 2.ResponsibilityformedialiteracyshouldbegiventotheDepartmentforSchools, ChildrenandFamilies. Responsibilityforthemedia-literacyagenda–andforidentifyingthewaysinwhichyoungpeople engagethroughmedia–shouldbemovedtotheDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies (DCSF).Medialiteracyhassofarsufferedfromalackofengagementinthisquarter,butitisthis departmentthathastodealwiththeeffectsofalackofmedialiteracy–includingbullyingonline, childsafetyandsoon.ProvidingtheDCSFwiththisnewresponsibilitywillenableittoengage schools,aswellasteachertrainingcolleges,youthservicesandfamilies,inbuildingthecapacityof youngpeopletogetthebestoutoftheironlineexperience. TheDCSFshouldalsosetupanadvisorygroup,consistingofyoungpeopleandtheChildren’s Commissioner,toprovideadviceandguidanceinthisarea.Thiswouldemphasisetheimportance ofyoungpeople’sparticipationasactivecitizensinthemediaspace,andwouldprovideauseful opportunityforyoungpeoplethemselvesprovidinginputandadvicetothepolicyprocess. 3.Consultationshouldbedrivenforwardontheextentofcorporatesocialresponsibility toyouthinonlineenvironments. TheDCSFneedstoleadtheagendaintermsofunderstandingtheroleofcorporatesocial responsibilitywhereraisingyouthisconcerned.ThismeansconsideringtherolesnotonlyofISPs, mobileoperatorsandotherstowhomweregularlyattachtheterm‘industry’,butalsoofawider rangeofcommercialintereststhatseektoengagewithyoungpeopleinsocialspaceslargely unmediatedbyadults.TheDCSFshouldseektodriveforwardpolicyinthisarea,inconsultation withthecorporatesector,consumerorganisationsandrepresentatives,alongsideparentsand, mostimportantly,youngpeoplethemselves,andtaskthecorporatesectorwithdrawingupa definitionofcorporatesocialresponsibilitythatcanthenbeappliedtoengagementwithyoung peopleinthedigitalmediaspace.

Recommendationsforindustry Webelievetherearegroundstoaskindustrytodomoretoprotectyoungpeopleandenhance theirexperienceonline.Industryhasalreadyrecogniseditsroleinsettingstandardsforuser behaviourintheformofacceptableusepoliciesorcommunityguidelines.However,thesearenot largelyrecognisedbymanyusers. 1.Providersofinternetservicespopularwithyoungpeopleshoulddevelopapanindustrycodeofrightsandresponsibilities.ThisshouldbereviewedbyOfcom. Thereisarangeofshortandlong-termactionsthatindustryshouldtake,andthatgovernment shouldencourage.Intheshortterm,werecommendthatprovidersofservicesregularlyusedby youngpeople(forinstancesocialnetworkingsites)bebroughttogetherundertheauspicesof Ofcom,theDepartmentforCulture,MediaANandSport(DCMS)andDCSF,todevelopapanindustrycodeforsocialnetworkingsitesanduser-generatedcontentwebsites,outliningtherights andresponsibilitiesofusersandindustry.Theyshouldtakeadvicefromconsumerbodies, academicsandotherrelevantorganisations.Oncetheprincipleshavebeendrawnupandagreed, theyshouldbereviewedbyOfcomtoensureproperscrutiny.

63

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

2.Industryshouldco-sponsorabodyresponsibleformonitoringcodecomplianceand commissioningfurtherresearch. Industryshouldco-sponsorabodyresponsibleformonitoringcodecompliance.Thisbodyshould collatedataontherateandnatureofcontentcomplaintsandtheextenttowhichthesewere satisfactorilydealtwithbytheorganisationconcerned.Whilethisbodyshouldnotencourage unrealisticexpectations–forinstance,wewouldnotexpectittobea‘clearinghouse’forall complaints,nortoensurethatcodebreacheswerestoppedpre-emptively–itcouldnonetheless conductusefulresearch,particularlyinunderstandingwhere,whenandwhycontinualbreachesofthe codetookplaceandensuringthatnecessaryactionwastaken. 3.Age-restrictionmechanismsshouldbemorerobustandusedmorewidely. Industryandgovernmentneedtoworktogethertoconsiderwhenandwheremoreeffectiveagerestrictionmechanismsshouldbeintroducedtoonlinecontent.Solongasweacceptthataccessto somecontentshouldberestrictedtoyoungpeople,onthebasisofthepotentialharmordistressit maycause,mechanismstoenforcethisshouldbemorewidelydeployed,orthecontentremoved.This isparticularlyapplicableforwebsitessuchasYouTube,whichoftenrestrictsaccessonthebasisofage butverifiesthisonthebasisofaself-reportedbirthdate. Onlineage-verificationschemesaregrowinginnumber.Itisnottheremitofthisreportto recommendoneaboveanother,ortorecommendthattheGovernmentbeinvolvedinprovidinga standardwherethereisanevolvingmarket.Nonetheless,thereisastrongargumentthatage verificationhasnotbeentakenasseriouslyforadultcontentthatsitswithinpopularsitesasithasfor gamblingsites,forinstance.Suchcontent,wheremarked,shouldeitherberemovedorarelevant verificationprocedureshouldbeintroduced. Beyondthis,socialnetworkingsitesshouldtakegreatercaretobuildanunderstandingofthe practicesoftheirusers,andthedisincentivestocomplyingwithageverificationprocedures. 4.Advertisingshouldberestrictedonthebasisoftheproportionofyoungusersofasite. Wherethereisevidencetosuggestthatasizeableportionofasites’usersareunder16,advertising shouldberestrictedacrossthesite.ThusonsocialnetworksitessuchasBebo,junkfoodadvertising shouldbecurtailed,justasitisinabroadcastenvironment. 5.Industrymembersshouldworktogethertodevelopacodeofpracticeforsocial networkingsitesinrelationtoadvertisingandyoungpeople. Providersofsocialnetworkingsitesaimedatyoungpeople,andotherenvironmentsthatarepopular amongunder-16sshouldworkwiththeAdvertisingStandardsAgencytodeviseanextensiontothe currentCodeofPracticeinordertoprotectyoungpeopleinthesespaces.Inparticular,itshouldseek toprovidestrictguidelinesondistinguishingbetweenadvertisingandeditorialcontentandon engagingyoungpeopletofurthercirculatepromotionalmaterialandcontent.Thedemarcation betweenadvertisingmaterialandeditorialisextremelyweak,andanewbalancemustbestruck betweentheneedsofsitestogenerateincomethroughadvertisingandtheprotectionofyoung peoplefromexcessiveconsumerism. Therangeofnewwaysinwhichadvertiserscanengagewithyoungpeopleusingsocialnetworking sitesraisestheimportanceofunderstandingthecorporatesector’sroleinprovidingaresponsibleand positiveexperienceofconsumerismforyoungpeople.Inthelongterm,providersofsocialnetworking sitesandbrandswhoseektoadvertiseonlineshouldengagewithgovernmentdiscussionsregarding theroleofthecorporatesectorinrelationtotheextentofitsinfluenceonyoungpeople–again,with theaimofdevelopinganewdoctrineofcorporatesocialresponsibilitythatappliestothisarea. 6.NewsocialnetworkingservicesjointheInternetWatchFoundation. Allprovidersofservicesthatareregularlyusedbyyoungpeopleshouldbecomemembersofthe InternetWatchFoundationandcontributefinanciallytoitswork.Currently,somesocialnetworking sitesarenotmembersandthuscontributenothingtotheworkoftheorganisation,althoughthey continuetobenefitimmenselyfromtheimportantroleitplays.

64

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Recommendationsforeducation 1.TheDepartmentforSchools,ChildrenandFamiliesshouldseektorevitalisethemedia literacyprogrammeanddelivereducationthroughtheExtendedSchoolsprogrammeand theten-yearYouthStrategy. Thecurrentmedia-literacyagendalacksasenseofpurposeandambition.Itneedsbothgreater fundingandagreatersenseofdirectiontopushitthroughandbuildwithinparentsandusersthe skillstheyneedinordertobeabletotakefulladvantageoftheopportunitiesofferedinadigitalage. Thereiscurrentlylittlescopeorappetiteforintroducingformalmedia-literacyteachingintotheschool curriculum.Neitherisitclearthatthiswouldbeasuccess:sofar,teachinginthisareahasverymuch dependedontheskillsoftheteachersthemselves–whichcanbevariable.TheExtendedSchool programme,whichaimstoenableeveryschooltoofferafter-schoolactivitiestochildrenandyoung peopleby2010,offersanopportunitytobridgesomeofthesegapsbyprovidingafter-school activitiesthatenableyoungpeopletocreatemedia. Inaddition,theten-yearYouthStrategyprovidesopportunitiesforsimilaractivitiestobedelivered throughyouthclubs,withthesupportofyouthworkerswithexperienceinthisfield.Whencombined, thesetwoinitiativeswillprovideampleopportunityforyoungpeopletobesupportedindeveloping media-literacyskillsinwaysthatareattractiveandinterestingtothem. 2.Governmentshouldcoordinatetheexpertiseofexistingcommunitymediaandinformal mediawithschoolstoprovidemedia-literacyteaching. Theexistingcommunitymediaandinformalsectorsalreadyprovidethepotentialexpertiseneeded, butcoordinationwithschoolshas,uptonow,beenlacking,despitethefactthatsomecommunity mediaisjustasimportanttoyoungpeopleasitistoadultcounterparts.Resourcesshouldbedirected towardscoordinatingthesometimesdisparateactivitiesoftheinformalmedia,communitymediaand after-schoolinitiatives. Thereisevidencetosuggestthatthisapproachwillbebothpopularandattractivetoyoungpeopleas wellasenablingthemtobuildskillsinsomeoftheareasinwhichtheyarecurrentlylacking–in particular,encouragingyoungpeopletobecomemorereflectiveoftheactionstheyundertakeonline. 3.Projectsshouldbecarefullyevaluatedandbestpracticewidelyshared. Anationalbody(reportingtotheDCSF)shouldbeputinplacetobuildtheevidencebaseforbest practice,assessprojectsonarangeofcriteria(notsimplyheadcounts)andrewardsuccess.Thereis currentlynoevaluativecriterionforsuccessfulmedia-literacyinitiatives,noranysystemforrewarding excellenceamongschoolsandschoolpupils.TheGovernment’screativelearningprogrammeCreative Partnershipsshouldbeinvestedwiththeresourcesitneedstoestablishaframeworkofthisnatureon anationalbasis. 4.Governmentshouldnotoverlooktheneedsofparents. Particularlywhereyoungerchildrenareconcerned,parentsplayanimportantroleinsupportingyoung people’searlyexperiencesonline.Itisimportantthattheyfeelconfidentintheirskillsetinorderto providethesupportandadvicethattheirchildrenmayneed.Parentalinformationcampaignsshould notfocussolelyonthenegativesthatinternetaccesscanoccasionallybring,butshouldalsoprovide examplesofpositiveexercisesthatyoungpeoplecanundertakewiththeirparentsinordertoexplore notionsofrisk,privacyandpersonalsafetyinabalancedandpracticalway. 5.Informationandlearningopportunitiesforparentsshouldbeavailablethroughexisting initiativessuchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsProgramme. Reachingparentsremainsadifficultchallenge.However,theGovernment’sagendaforsupporting parents,outlinedinTheChildren’sPlan(DCSF2007),providesanopportunitytoensurethat informationisavailableforparentswhenandwheretheywantit.Medialiteracyinitiativesaimedat encouragingparentstoengageinsupportiveonlineactivitiesalongsideyoungpeopleshouldbe deliveredthroughexistinginitiatives,suchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsprogramme.

65

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

6.Traditionalbroadcastersshouldtakearoleindeliveringpositivemedia-literacy information. Theroleofthosetraditionalbroadcastersthatareincreasinglyprominentinonlineenvironments shouldnotbeoverlooked.TheBBCandChannel4arestillhighlytrustedbrands,andcertainlyhavea roletoplayindeliveringeducationalcontenttoenableparentsandyoungpeopletobettercopewith navigatingadigitalenvironment.Ratherthanfocusingonthenegativesofinternetuse–inparticular, concernsaroundchildsafety–theyshouldbecomefullyinvolvedindeliveringmedia-literacy initiativesandinformationtoparents,tohelpthembettersupportyoungpeopleonline. 7.Peersshouldbeencouragedandsupportedinprovidingadviceandinformationonline. WesupporttheGovernment’spilotingofschemesinvolvingpeersinsupportingyoungpeoplewho arebeingbullied,andrecommendthatindustry,educatorsandgovernmentseektoexplorewherethe adviceandsupport-givingroleofpeerscanbefurtherexploredinanonlinecontextandtheroleof youthservicesinenablingthis. Theroleofonlineadvicecentreshasnotbeenfullyexploredinthisreport.However,wehaveseen evidencethat,particularlywherehealthandsexualhealthisconcerned,theinternetcanbeauseful toolforyoungpeople.Giventherangeofinformationoutthere,andthefactthatnotallofitmaybe reliable,werecommendthattheGovernmentconsidersexpandingtheremitofFrank,thedrugs advicehelpline(abrandthatispopularandtrustedbyyoungpeople)inotherareas–mosturgently, insexualhealth.

Summary Theserecommendations,ifimplemented,wouldgosomewayinrespondingnotonlytosubstantive concernsaboutyouthengagementwiththeinternet,butalsotowiderpublicconcernsabouttherole ofthisentityinsociety. Assuggestedintheopeninglinesofthischapter,itissomethingofatraditioninoursocietyto bemoantheharmfuleffectsonmediaconsumptionontheyoung.Thisconcernisnotdifficultto understand.Mediainallforms–butperhapsespeciallytheinternet–isinonesensenothingmore thanatwistedmirror,whichreflectsbackatus,inconcentratedform,theaspectsofoursocietythat wemostdetestandreject:anobsessionwithpornography,voyeurism,bitchinessandgossip,violence andcruelty–and,worse,thepassiveacceptanceofallthesethings. Therealityisthatwewillneversucceedinremovingallthesedistastefulelementsfrommedia, becausetheyoriginateinsocietyitself.Butwecanensurethatchildrenandyoungpeopleare protectedfromthem,untiltheyarereadytonavigatethemostdistastefulaspectsoftheonlineworld forthemselves,andmaketheirowninformeddecisionsaboutwhattheyfindusefulandenjoyableor damagingandunpleasant.

66

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

References AhlertC,MarsdenCandYungC(2004)HowLibertyfromCyberspace:TheMysteryShopperTestsin InternetContentSelf-Regulation Oxford:ProgrammeforComparativeMediaLawandPolicy BanduraA(1977)SocialLearningTheory,NewYork:GeneralLearningPress BanduraA(1991)‘Socialcognitivetheoryofmoralthoughtandaction’inKurtinesWMandGewirtz JL(eds)HandbookofMoralBehaviorandDevelopment, vol1:45-103,Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum BanduraAandWaltersR(1963)SocialLearningandPersonalityDevelopment,NewYork:Holt, RinehartandWinston BBC(2008)‘Pro-anorexiasiteclampdownurged’,onlinenewsstory,24February2008,availableat: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7259143.stm BBC(2007a)‘Unrulystudents’Facebooksearch’,onlinenewsstory,17July,availableat http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6902333.stm BBC(2007b)‘Callforbloggingcodeofconduct’,onlinenewsstory,28March,availableat http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6502643.stm BehrR(2008)‘Backpackers,bulliesandinternetmyths’,blog,17February,availableat: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rafael_behr/2008/02/backpackers_bullies_and_intern.html BelsenW(1978)Televisionviolenceandtheadolescentboy. Farnborough:SaxonHouse BevortEandBredaI(2001)LesJeunesetl’Internet, Paris:CLEMI BlairT(1999)SpeechtotheConfederationofBritishIndustryconference,Brighton,2November1999 BonevaB,QuinnA,KrautR,KieslerS,CummingsJ,ShklovskiI(2003)‘Teenagecommunicationinthe instantmessagingera’inKrautR,BryninMandKieslerS(eds)DomesticatingInformation Technology,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress BoydD(2006)‘Friends,friendsters,andfop8:writingcommunityintobeingonsocialnetworksites’, FirstMonday,vol11,no12 BradleyK(2006)InternetLives:Socialcontextandmoraldomaininadolescentdevelopment,New DirectionsforYouthDevelopment,no.108:57-76 BraggSandBuckinghamD(2002)YoungPeopleandSexualContentonTelevision:Areviewofthe research,London:BroadcastingStandardsCommission BrownJD,Tucker-HalpernCandLadinL’EngleK(2005)‘Massmediaasasexualsuperpeerforearly maturinggirls’,JournalofAdolescentHealth,vol36:420–427 BrucksM,ArmstrongGMandGoldbergME(1988)‘Children’suseofcognitivedefensesagainst televisionadvertising:acognitiveresponseapproach’,JournalofConsumerResearch, vol14:471482 BuchholzESandChinlundC(1994)‘Enroutetoaharmonyofbeing:viewingalonenessasaneedin developmentandchildanalyticwork’,PsychoanalyticPsychology,vol4:354-374 BuckinghamD(2000)AftertheDeathofChildhood:Growingupintheageofelectronicmedia, Cambridge:PolityPress BuckinghamD(2002)‘Theelectronicgeneration?Childrenandnewmedia’inLievrouwLand LivingstoneS(eds)TheHandbookofNewMedia:Socialshapingandsocialconsequences, London:Sage BuckinghamD(2005a)ConstructingtheMediaCompetentChild,MedienPadagogik BuckinghamD(2005b)TheMediaLiteracyofChildrenandYoungPeople:Areviewoftheresearch literature.London:Ofcom

67

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

ChildExploitationandOnlineProtectionCentre(CEOP)(2006)UnderstandingOnlineSocialNetwork ServicesandRiskstoYouth:ApreliminaryreportonthefindingsofCEOP’sSocialNetwork SeminarSeries, London:CEOP ChaM,KwakH,RodriguezP,AhnYYandMoonS(2007)‘Itube,youtube,everybodytubes: analyzingtheworld’slargestusergeneratedcontentvideosystem’,proceedingsoftheseventh ACMSIGCOMMconferenceonInternetmeasurement,October24-26,SanDiego,CA Children’sCharitiesCoalitionforInternetSafety(CHIS)(2004)ChildSafetyOnline:Adigitalmanifesto, London:CHIS Childwise(2005)ChildWiseMonitorTrendsReport2005,Norwich:Childwise ChouCandHsiaoMC(2000)‘Internetaddiction,usage,gratificationandpleasureexperience:the Taiwancollegestudent’scase’,ComputersandEducation Vol35,Issue1:65-80 ColbyA,KohlbergL,GibbsJandLiebermanM(1983)‘Alongitudinalstudyofmoraljudgment’, MonographoftheSocietyforChildDevelopment,vol48:1-2 CorporationforPublicBroadcasting(2003)ConnectedtotheFuture:Areportonchildren’sinternet use,WashingtonDC:CPB,availableat: www.cpb.org/stations/reports/connected/connected_report.pdf CrainWC(1985)TheoriesofDevelopment,NewJersey:PrenticeHall CsikszentmihalyiM,RathundeKandWhalenS(1993)TalentedTeenagers:Therootsofsuccessand failure.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress DahlgrenP(1996)TelevisionandthePublicSphere, London:Sage deBlockL,BuckinghamD,HolzwarthPandNiesytoH(2004) VisionsAcrossCultures:Migrant childrenusingvisualimagestocommunicate,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,availableat: www.chicam.net DealDandSharplesJ(2007)Theinfluenceofvirtualtechnologiesonattentionandcognitivecontrol inyoungpeople,Oxford:InstituteoftheMind Denegri-KnottJ(2003)ConsumersBehavingBadly:Innovationordeviation?Consumerproducer relationshipsaspowerstrugglesontheweb(HOIT)‘Thenetworkedhomeandthehomeofthe future’,conference,Irvine,California,April DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2005)HarnessingTechnology:Transforming learningandchildren’sservices,e-strategy, London:HMSO DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2007a)EveryChildMatters,London:HMSO DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2007b)TheChildren’sPlan:BuildingBrighter Futures, London:HMSO DepartmentforEducationandSkills(DfES)(2003)‘Digitallearningrevolutionforschools’,press release,London:DfES,availableat:www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0003 DevittKandRokerD(2007)TheRoleofMobilePhonesinFamilyCommunication,Brighton:Trustfor theStudyofAdolescence EuropeanResearchIntoConsumerAffairs(ERICA)(2001)Children’sUseoftheInternet,EC/European researchintoconsumeraffairs, availableat:www.net-consumers.org EriksonEH(1950) ChildhoodandSociety, NewYork:Norton EriksonEH(1958)YoungMan Luther, NewYork:Norton EriksonEH(1964)InsightandResponsibility, NewYork:Norton EriksonEH(1968)Identity:Youthandcrisis, NewYork:Norton

68

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

FacerK,FurlongJ,FurlongRandSutherlandR(2003) ScreenPlay:Childrenandcomputinginthe home,London:RoutledgeFalmer FosterR(2007) SelfandCo-regulationinadigitalmediaworld,Adiscussionpaperpresentedtothe EuropeanPolicyForum,availableatwww.london.edu/assets/documents/PDF/EPF_final_paper_Robin_Foster_30_Oct.pdf FunkhouserG(1973)‘Theissuesofthesixties:anexploratorystudyofthedynamicsofpublic opinion’,PublicOpinionQuarterly, vol37:62-75 GaviriaAandRaphaelS(1997)SchoolBasedPeerEffectsandJuvenileBehaviour,EconomicsWorking PaperSeries97-21,SanDiego:DepartmentofEconomics,UniversityofCalifornia GerbnerG,GrossL,MorganMandSignorielliN(1980)‘The“mainstreaming”ofAmerica:violence profileNo.11’,JournalofCommunication,vol30,10-29:14 GibbsJ,SchnellS,BerkowitzMandGoldsteinD(1983)‘Relationsbetweenformaloperationsand logicalconflictresolutions’,paperpresentedatthebiennialmeetingoftheSocietyforResearchin ChildDevelopment,Detroit GoodmanS(2003)TeachingYouthMedia, NewYork:TeachersCollegePress GoswickRAandJonesWH(1982)‘Componentsoflonelinessduringadolescence’,JournalofYouth andAdolescence, vol11:373-383 GranovetterM(1973)‘Thestrengthofweakties’, AmericanJournalofSociology,vol78,issue6: 1360-80 GreenfieldPM,GrossEF,SubrahmanyamK,SuzukiLandTynesB(2006)‘Teensontheinternet: interpersonalconnection,identity,andinformation’inKrautR,BryninM,andKieslerS(eds) Computers,Phones,andtheInternet:Domesticatinginformationtechnology:185-200,Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress GrossEF,JuvonenJandGableSL(2002)‘Internetuseandwell-beinginadolescence’,Journalof SocialIssues,vol58(1):75-90 Hansard(2004)HouseofLordsDebates1March2004vol658,London:HMSO Hansard(2006)HouseofLordsDebates26April2006Volume680,Col1219,London:HMSO Hansard(2008)HouseofCommonsDebates6February2008,vol471,col1089,London:HMSO HarrisonA(2007)‘Whenonlinefriendsspelldanger’,onlinenewsstory,22October,availableat: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7046986.stm HartupWWandStevens,N(1997)‘Friendshipsandadaptationinthelifecourse’,Psychological Bulletin,vol121:355-370 HermanEandChomskyN(1988)ManufacturingConsent:Thepoliticaleconomyofthemassmedia, NewYork:PantheonBooks HoffmanML(1991)‘Empathy,socialcognitionandmoralaction’inKurtinesWMandJGewirtzJL (eds)HandbookofMoralBehaviorandDevelopment, Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum,vol1: 275-299 HollowaySandValentineG(2003)Cyberkids:Childrenintheinformationage, London:Routledge InternetCrimeForum(2001)Chatwise,Streetwise–childrenandInternetchatservices:Apaper preparedbytheInternetCrimeForumIRCsub-group,availableat www.internetcrimeforum.org.uk/chatwise_streetwise.pdf InternetWatchFoundation(IWF)(2006)AnnualandCharityReport, Cambridge:IWF IyengarSandMcGradyJ(2005)‘Massmediaandpoliticalpersuasion’inBrockTCandGreenMC (eds) Persuasion:Psychologicalinsightsandperspectives, secondedition,ThousandsOaks,CA: Sage

69

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

JowellT(2006)SpeechtotheOxfordMediaConvention,19January KaiserFamilyFoundation(2001)GenerationRX.com:Howyoungpeopleusetheinternetforhealth information,MenloPark,CA:TheFoundation Kandel,DB(1978)‘Homophily,selectionandsocialisationinadolescentfriendships’, American JournalofSociology,vol84:427-436 KatzEandLazarsfeldP(1955)PersonalInfluence,NewYork:TheFreePress KeaneyEandRogersB(2006)ACitizen’sDuty.Voterinequalityandthecaseforcompulsoryturnout, London:ippr KirwanT,LearmonthJ,SayerMandWilliamsR(2003)MappingMediaLiteracy, London:BFI,BSC, ITC KoC,YenC,LinH,andYangM(2007)‘FactorspredictiveforincidenceandremissionofInternet addictioninyoungadolescents:Aprospectivestudy’,CyberPsychology&Behavior,10(4),545551 KohlbergL(1958)TheDevelopmentofModesofThinkingandChoicesinYears10to16,PhD dissertation,Chicago:UniversityofChicago KohlbergL(1981)EssaysonMoralDevelopment,VolI:Thephilosophyofmoraldevelopment,New York:HarperandRow KrackhardtD(1992)‘Thestrengthofstrongties:Theimportanceofphilosinorganizations’inNohria NandEcclesRG(eds)NetworksandOrganizations:Structure,form,andaction, Boston,MA: HarvardUniversityPress:216-239 KrautR,LundmarkV,PattersonM,KieslerS,MukoopadhyayT,andScherlisM(1998)‘Internet paradox:asocialtechnologythatreducessocialinvolvementandpsychologicalwell-being?’, AmericanPsychologist,vol53(9):1017-31 LazarsfeldP,BerelsonBandGaudetH(1968)ThePeople’sChoice,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press LeeSJandChaeY(2007)‘Children’sinternetuseinafamilycontext:influenceonfamilyrelationships andparentalmediation’,CyberPsychologyandBehaviorvol10(5):640-644 LenhardtAandMaddenM(2007)Teens,PrivacyandOnlineSocialNetworks, WashingtonDC:Pew InternetandAmericanLifeProject LenhardtA,MaddenM,MacgillAR,SmithA(2007)TeensandSocialMedia, WashingtonDC:Pew InternetandAmericanLifeProject LewisMandGreenbergS(2007)‘Winningheartsandminds:prospectsforprogressivism’inPearceN andMargoJ(eds)PoliticsforaNewGeneration:Theprogressivemoment, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan LeydenJ(2007)‘“WildWest”’internetneedsasheriff’,onlinenewsstory,10August,availableat: www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/10/lords_net_security_report/ LisbergA(2008)‘Employersmaybesearchingapplicants’Facebookprofiles,expertswarn’,online newsstory,10March,availableatwww.nydailynews.com/money/2008/03/10/2008-0310_employers_may_be_searching_applicants_fa.html LivingstoneS(2002) YoungPeopleandNewMedia, London:Sage LivingstoneSandBoberM(2005)UKChildrenGoOnline:FinalreporttotheEconomicandSocial ResearchCouncil,Swindon:EconomicandSocialResearchCouncil LivingstoneSandMillwoodHargraveA(2006)HarmandOffenceinMediaContent:Areviewofthe empiricalliterature, London:IntellectPress

70

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

MacKenzieJM(1984) PropagandaandEmpire:ThemanipulationofBritishpublicopinion18801960, Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress MadellDEandMuncerSJ(2007)‘Controloversocialinteractions:Animportantreasonforyoung people’suseoftheInternetandmobilephonesforcommunication?’Cyberpsychology&Behavior Vol.10,No.1,Pp137-140 MahoneyJL,LarsonRW,EcclesJS(eds)(2005)OrganisedActivitiesasContextsforDevelopment, London:LawrenceElbaum MargoJandDixonMwithPearceNandReedH(2006)Freedom’sOrphans,London:Institutefor PublicPolicyResearch MargoJandSodhaS(2007)GetHappy:ChildrenandYoungPeople’sEmotionalWell-Being,London: NCH MayoE(2004)‘Shoppinggeneration’,YoungConsumers,vol6(4):43-49,Oxford:WorldAdvertising ResearchCentre MayoE(2005)ShoppingGeneration,London:NationalConsumerCouncil McKennaKYAandBarghJA(2000)‘Plan9fromcyberspace:TheimplicationsoftheInternetfor personalityandsocialpsychology’,PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,vol4:57-75 MeerkerkG-J(2007)Pwned*byInternet:Explorativeresearchintothecausesandconsequencesof compulsiveinternetuse,Rotterdam:ErasmusUniversity MeschG(2003)‘Thefamilyandtheinternet:theIsraelicase’, SocialScienceQuarterly 84(4):10381050 MesureS(2008)‘Bridgenddeaths:policewarnofBebo“internetsuicidecult”’,Independenton Sunday,27January,availableat:www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bridgenddeaths-police-warn-of-bebo-internet-suicide-cult-774532.html MonkeL(1998)‘Computersinschools:movingeducationoutofthechildintothemachine’,The InternetandHigherEducation,vol1(2):147-155 MoustakasCE(1989)Loneliness, NewYork:PrenticeHall NieNH,HillygusDandErbringL(2002)‘Internetuse,interpersonalrelationsandsocialiability’in WellmanBandHoythornwaiteC(eds) TheInternetinEverydayLife,Oxford:Blackwell:215-243 NorrisP(2001) DigitalDivide:CivicEngagement,InformationPovertyandtheInternetWorldwide, NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress NussbaumE(2007)‘Sayanything’,NewYorkMagazine,12February NybergAK(1988)SealofApproval:Thehistoryofthecomicscode, Mississippi:UniversityPressof Mississippi Ofcom(2004) Ofcom’sStrategyandPrioritiesforthePromotionofMediaLiteracy–Astatement, London:Ofcom Ofcom(2006a)MediaLiteracyAudit:Reportonmedialiteracyamongstchildren, London:Ofcom Ofcom(2006b) TheCommunicationsMarket2006,London:Ofcom Ofcom(2007a)NewNews,FutureNews, London:Ofcom Ofcom(2007b)TheCommunicationsMarket2007,London:Ofcom PapchararissiZandRubinAM(2000)‘Predictorsofinternetuse’,JournalofBroadcastingand ElectronicMedia,vol44:175-196 PardunCJ,L’EngleKL,BrownJD(2005)‘Linkingexposuretooutcomes:earlyadolescents’ consumptionofsexualcontentinsixmedia’, MassCommunicationandSociety,vol8(2):75-91

71

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Pascoe-WatsonG(2008)‘GordonBrown’sblitzonblades’,TheSun, 14Jaunary,availableat: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article684784.ece PeterJandValkenburgPM(2007)‘Adolescents’exposuretoasexualizedmediaenvironmentand notionsofwomenassexobjects’,SexRoles, vol56:381-395 PiagetJ(1932)TheMoralJudgmentoftheChild, London:KeganPaul,Trench,TrubnerandCo PinquartMandSorensonS(2000)‘Influencesofsocioeconomicstatus,socialnetworkand competenceonsubjectivewell-beinginlaterlife:ameta-analysis’,PsychologyandAging,vol15: 187-224 PrenskyM(2007)‘Howtoteachwithtechnology:keepingbothteachersandstudentscomfortablein aneraofexponentialchange’,EmergingTechnologiesforLearning,vol2,London:Becta PutnamR(2000)BowlingAloneNewYork:Simon&Schuster Register,The(2006)‘MySpacethreatensrecordlabels’,onlinenewsstory,8September,availableat: www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/08/myspace_threatens_record_labels/ RideoutV,VandewaterEandWartellaE(2003)ZerotoSix:Electronicmediainthelivesofinfants, toddlersandpreschoolers, MenloPark,CA:TheFoundation RobertsonTSandRossiterJ(1974)‘Childrenandcommercialpersuasion:anattributionaltheory analysis’,JournalofConsumerResearch, vol1:13-20 RoedderJD(1999)‘Consumersocializationofchildren:aretrospectivelookattwenty-fiveyearsof research’, JournalofConsumerResearch, vol183:183-213 RosenLD(2006)AdolescentsinMySpace:IdentityFormation,FriendshipandSexualPredators, DominguezHills:CaliforniaStateUniversity,availableat: www.csudh.edu/psych/Adolescents%20in%20MySpace%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf SafferHandChaloupkaF(1999)TobaccoAdvertising:EconomictheoryandInternationalEvidence,6, NationalBureauofEconomicResearchWorkingPaperNo.6958 SafferHandDaveD(2003)AlcoholAdvertisingandAlcoholConsumptionbyAdolescents,working paperno9676,Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch SainsburyM(2004)‘Children’sattitudestoreading’, LiteracyToday, issue38:16-17 SandvigC(2006)‘TheInternetatplay:childusersofpublicInternetconnections’,Journalof Computer-MediatedCommunication, vol11(4),article3:932-956 SavageJ(1988)‘Theenemywithin:sex,rock,andidentity’inSavageJ(ed)FacingtheMusic:Essays onpop,rockandculture, London:Mandarin SchofieldJ(2008)‘SellersnegativeoneBayfeedbackchange’,TheGuardian, 21February,available at:www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/ebay.consumeraffairs SchorJ(2004) BorntoBuy:Thecommercializedchildandthenewconsumerculture, NewYork: Scribner SchorJ(2006)‘Whenchildhoodgetscommercialised:canchildhoodbeprotected?’inUllsonC(ed) Regulation,Awareness,Empowerment:Youngpeopleandharmfulmediacontentinthedigital age,Gothenburg:TheInternationalClearinghouseonChildren,YouthandMedia SeiterE(2004)‘Childrenreportingonline:theculturalpoliticsofthecomputerlab’,Televisionand NewMedia, vol5(2):87-107 SelwynN(2003)‘DoingITforthekids:reexaminingchildren,computersandthe“information society”’, Media,CultureandSociety, vol25(3):351-378 SennettR(1977)TheFallofPublicMan,London:FaberandFaber

72

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

ShirkyC(2008)HereComesEverybody,London:Penguin SleepCouncil(2007)‘JunkSleep’,pressrelease,August,availableat:www.sleepcouncil.com SocialExclusionUnit(2005) InclusionThroughInnovation:Tacklingsocialexclusionthroughnew technologies,London:HMSO StorrA(1988)Solitude:areturntotheself,NewYork:TheFreePress SutherlandR,FacerK,FurlongRandFurlongJ(1999)‘Anewenvironmentforeducation?The computerinthehome’,ComputersandEducation, specialedition34(3-4):167-183 SweneyM(2008)‘MPsgetwebfilter“DarkAges”warning’, TheGuardian, 26February,availableat: www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/26/microsoft.digitalmedia?gusrc=rss&feed=media TurielE(1983)TheDevelopmentofSocialKnowledge:Moralityandconvention, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress UKOnlineCentres(2007)UnderstandingDigitalInclusion:Aresearchsummary, Sheffield:UKOnline Centres Unicef(2007)ChildPovertyinPerspective:Anoverviewofchildwell-beinginrichcountries, report card7,Florence:TheUnitedNationsChildren’sFund ValkenburgPMandPeterJ(2007)‘Onlinecommunicationandadolescentwell-being:testingthe stimulationversusthedisplacementhypothesis’,JournalofComputer-MediatedCommunication, vol12(4),1169-1182 ValkenburgPMandSoetersKE(2001)‘Children’spositiveandnegativeexperienceswiththeinternet: anexploratorysurvey’, CommunicationResearch,vol28(5):652-675 VirtueG(2002)‘I’mwithstupid’,TheSundayHerald,17February,availableat http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020217/ai_n12574175 WardL(2008)‘Lifethroughalens:howBritain’schildreneat,sleepandbreatheTV’,TheGuardian, 16January,availableat:www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/16/television.socialnetworking WellmanBandFrankK(2001)‘Networkcapitalinamulti-levelworld:gettingsupportfrompersonal communities’inLinN,BurtRandCookK(eds),SocialCapital:Theoryandresearch,NewYork: AldinedeGruyter:233-274 WoodM(2005)PerceptionsandExperienceofAnti-SocialBehaviour:Findingsfromthe2003/4 BritishCrimeSurvey,HomeOfficeonlinereport49/04,London:TSO WrightCR(1964)‘Functionalanalysisandmasscommunication’inDexterLandWhiteDM(eds) People,SocietyandMassCommunications, Glencoe,Ill:FreePress:91-109 YouGov(2006)MobileLifeYouthReport,London:YouGovavailableat: www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/CPW060101004_2.pdf

73

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Appendix1:Researchmethodology–deliberativeworkshops WeconductedthreedeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopleinthreeareasofLondon:Southwark andCamdenininnerLondonandTwickenhaminouterLondon.Eachworkshopwasheldwitha differentagegroup:years8-9(aged13-14),years10-11(aged15-16)andyears12-13(aged1718).Twelveyoungpeopleparticipatedineachgroup.Theworkshopswereeachthreehourslong,and wereheldinJuly2007.Eachparticipantwaspaidasanincentivetoattend. Recruitment Participantswererecruitedusingareputablemarketresearchrecruitmentagency.Participantswere recruitedinfriendshippairs,toincreasetheirconfidencewithinthegroupsandtoincreasethe likelihoodthattheywouldattend. Alltheparticipantshadbroadbandaccessandmobilephones.Thiswaspartlytoensurethatno participantfeltexcluded,butalsobecausethefocusoftheresearchwasonuseoftheinternetrather thanaccesstoit. Deliberativetechniquesbringtogetherabroadlydemographicallyrepresentativesampleofthe population.Thethreeworkshopswererecruitedtoincludethefullrangeofsocio-economicgroups. Socio-economicgroupsweredeterminedbytheoccupationofthechiefincomeearnerinthe participants’household.Werecognisethatthismethodfordeterminingsocio-economicgroupis simplistic.However,becausethisresearchinvolvedarelativelysmallnumberofdeliberativegroupswe wereclearfromtheoutsetthattherewouldbelimitedscopefordrawingcomparativeconclusions betweensocio-economicgroups.Wethereforemadeapragmaticdecisionthatthismethodwas sufficientforthisproject. Theworkshopswerealsorecruitedtobebroadlyrepresentativeoftheethnicmake-upofeach borough,andtohavea50/50splitofboysandgirls. Deliberativeworkshops Deliberativeworkshopsareheldoveralongerperiodoftimethanfocusgroups.Thishasanumberof advantages.Thelongerlengthoftimeprovidesgreateropportunityfordifferentparticipantsto expresstheirviewsfully,withconfidence,anditprovidesagreateropportunityfordiscussionand debatewithpeers. Eachworkshopincludedlargegroupdiscussions,smallbreak-outgroupdiscussions,asessioninwhich groupmemberswereaskedtheiropinionofparticularwebsites,andasessioninwhichthebreak-out groupswerepresentedwithvariousfictionalscenariosandaskedtocompareandcommentonthem. Thismethodologyenabledustounderstandhowparticipantsarticulatetheirattitudesanduseofthe internetwithintheirpeergroup,andhowtheirviewschangewhenpresentedwithinformationand challengedbypeers. Byusingfictionalscenarios,wewereabletointroducearangeofsensitiveissuesaroundrisk,privacy andsafetyinawaythatdidnotfeeltoopersonal.Wefoundthatoncetheseissueshadbeen introducedinthisway,manyparticipantsdidsharesensitivepersonalexperiences. Theuseofdeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopledoesraisespecificmethodologicalissues.In analysingthesefindings,itisimportanttoacknowledgethatpeer-groupdynamicsinfluencedtheway thatparticipantspresentedtheirviewsandattitudeswithintheworkshops.However,whiletheway thatparticipantsdiscussedissuesmightdifferfromthekindofdatageneratedinaone-to-one setting,suchasaninterview,deliberativeworkshopsspecificallyenabledustoanalysetheshared normsthatgovernyoungpeople’suseoftheinternet–includingtheprocessesbywhichthesenorms arenegotiatedandinterpreted. Asmentionedabove,thisresearchaimedtounderstandinternetusefromtheperspectiveofyoung peoplethemselvesand,assuch,itwasimportanttoavoidintroducingdistinctlyadultterminologyand frameworksintothegroupdiscussions.Whendevelopingandusingthediscussionguidesforthe

74

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

groups,wewereparticularlycarefultoavoidintroducinganytermscarryingparticularmoralor politicalconnotationsforadults,unlesstheparticipantsthemselveshadusedthislanguage.For example,wespecificallyavoidedusingthelanguageof‘risk’or‘cyberbullying’unlessparticipants introducedthetermsthemselves.Wheretheydid,wewerecarefultoexploreanddrawoutwhatthey meantbytheseterms. Wedo,however,recognisethatthereisaninherentandinevitablecontradictioninourattemptnotto imposeparticularframeworksonthediscussions,giventhatmanyofourinitialresearchquestions (suchasthoserelatingtoattitudestorisk)weredeterminedby‘adult’-drivenpolicyconcerns.

75

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Appendix2:Groupprofiles Thisappendixsetsouttheprofilesofthevariousgroupsofparticipants,listedbylocation. LondonBoroughofSouthwark(years8-9/ages12–14) Thereweresixmalesandsixfemalesinthisgroup.Allsocio-economicgroupswererepresented,split between50percentABC1and50percentC2DE.(Forabreakdownofthesegroupings,see Appendix3.)Thegroupwasalsorecruitedtoberoughlyrepresentativeoftheethnicmake-upofthe borough,so50percentofparticipantsinthisgroupwerefromminorityethnicbackgrounds. LondonBoroughofCamden(years10-11/ages14–16) Thereweresixmalesandsixfemalesinthisgroup,andallsocio-economicgroupswererepresented apartfromSEGA.WehadanticipatedthatitmightbeproblematictorecruitparticipantsfromSEGA inthisborough,soweensuredthatthegroupwasbalancedbetween50percentofparticipantsfrom ABC1and50percentofparticipantsC2DEinthegroup.Theethnicmake-upofthegroupwas roughlyrepresentativeoftheborough,so50percentofparticipantswerefromminorityethnic backgrounds. Participantsinthissessionappearedtohavebeenrecruitedinfriendshipgroupsratherthanin friendshippairs.Thefactthatanumberofparticipantsseemedtoknoweachothermaywellhave influencedthenatureandcontentofthelargegroupdiscussions,althoughitisdifficulttojudgethe extentoftheeffect. Twickenham,GreaterLondon(years12-13/ages16–18) Thereweresixmalesandsixfemalesinthisgroup.Allsocio-economicgroupswererepresented,split between50percentABC1and50percentC2DE.Thegroupwasalsorecruitedtoberoughly representativeoftheethnicmake-upofthetown,so25percentofparticipantsinthisgroupwere fromminorityethnicbackgrounds.

76

ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

Appendix3:Socialclasses Socialgrade

Socialstatus

Occupation

A

Uppermiddleclass

Highermanagerial,administrativeorprofessional

B

Middleclass

Intermediatemanagerial,administrativeorprofessional

C1

Lowermiddleclass

Supervisoryorclerical,juniormanagerial,administrativeor professional

C2

Skilledworkingclass

Skilledmanualworkers

D

Workingclass

Semiandunskilledmanualworkers

E

Thoseatlowestlevelofsubsistence

Statepensionersorwidows(nootherearner),casualor lowest-gradeworkers