Cyberbullying: Ushering in a New Era of Harassment

“Boys will be boys” and “she would never do something like that” are common phrases parents in denial use to justify the actions of their beloved children; surely their progeny—their own flesh and blood—could NEVER be capable of something like bullying! These testimonials of a son or daughter’s character typically arise as a response to accusations or confrontations by other parents. Such allegations are often concerning traditional, real life bullying encounters involving fistfights or hurtful words. Encounters like this are slowly becoming a thing of the past, as a new method of aggravation and intimidation is coming out of the woodwork—cyberbullying. Cyberbullying has become more prevalent than traditional bullying due to increased Internet access, the anonymity of the Internet, and the online, limited-supervision environment that social media/networking fosters.

Cyberbullying is essentially traditional bullying gone high tech. Bullies have taken advantage of many new technologies such as cell phones, instant messaging, and social networking to ridicule or threaten others (Manor 1). Many of these recent “milestones” in cyberbullying can be attributed to the fact that Internet access is becoming more readily available to everyone. With such an increase in availability, it is no surprise that online technology “is fast becoming a preferred method of interacting” (Mishna 1). Tokunaga states, “More than 97% of youths in the United States are connected to the Internet in some way” (1). However, widespread connectivity such as this does have disadvantages. Increases in availability have led to a growing number of online harassers, unveiling the “dark side” of social media (Shannon 1). Wagner (1) suggests that a surge in cyberbullying is occurring, and notes that in 2006 “43% of U.S. teens surveyed by Harris Interactive reported having experienced some form of cyber- bullying in the past year”. Four years is a long time in the social networking world. Facebook was still in its infancy and Twitter did not even exist. If it was 43% four years ago, with the advent of many new social media and networking technologies, it is logical to conclude this statistic has escalated even higher. Juvonen and Elisheva (1) explain in their anonymous online survey of 450 12-17 year olds, “72% of respondents reported at least 1 online incident of bullying”. This number could escalate in a few years as social media/networking grows alongside the decreasing prices for Internet service and the increasing accessibility in cell phones and other multimedia devices. The ease of protecting one’s identity will increase as well.

Anonymity associated with many social networking/media sites provides users, who would not normally bully in a real life situation, with an outlet to express their true “feelings” in an online environment. They have the ability to operate under a protective veil that conceals their true identity. Wagner (1) reveals that out of the middle school participants who took part in a survey pertaining to cyberbullying, “41% did not know the identity of the perpetrators”. It is bad enough to be approached by a bully at school and deal with harsh insults or even violence that can be involved; however, in that situation the victim knows who they are dealing with.

Not knowing who wants to embarrass or hurt you, or their motive for it can be scarier and more traumatizing than an encounter on the school grounds. This nightmare became reality for 15-year-old Teagan Christodoulou from Sydney, Australia. Five weeks after setting up an account at FormSpring.Me, a site where users leave anonymous comments on people’s profiles, she started receiving malicious comments from a female user (ANI 11). When interviewed for the blog Simple Thoughts, she said, “It was upsetting. I always thought I was pretty much friends with everyone” (11). Anyone who says that “ignorance is bliss” evidently has not endured the pain and embarrassment that arises from anonymous cyberbullying.

The ability to hide behind a computer screen caters to bullies who would not engage in bullying in “real life”. Without the risk of physical retaliation from the victim or a bystander, online bullies are free to say or do whatever they please without any unexpected outcomes. Anonymity, as stated above, also allows the perpetrator to avoid unveiling his or her identity to their victim (Wagner 1). “Traditional” bullies must more or less fit a general description; strength, size, and/or a hurtful and aggressive demeanor all fit the bill (Dempsey 963). However, cyberbullies do not need to look or be considered as “tough”; as long as they have Internet access, they can use their keyboard as a weapon to inflict more damage than fists and pure muscle have the ability to.

By shifting from traditional to online methods of bullying, aggressors have the potential to increase their “popularity” online. A Pew and American Life Project study that indicates, “the risk of youth being bullied is higher for adolescents who have an active profile on social networking sites and participate in chat rooms” (Mesch 1). If the cyberbully so pleases, he or she can make the victimization of a person, and its desired effects, available to a wider audience than would be possible on the playground at recess or after school. Bystanders do not need to be physically present to witness such acts of bullying (Dempsey 963). All they need is Internet access to be able to view the embarrassing YouTube video or fake MySpace page the bully produced of the victim.

This widespread availability makes it harder for the suffering to escape online bullies. Victims of traditional bullying have the ability to temporarily get away from their aggressors when they return home from school everyday; for targets of cyberbullying, it is another story. Returning home from school is where it all begins; simply avoiding school or other gathering places does not cut it for victims of cyberbullying (Dempsey 963). Unless they completely avoid the Internet and get rid of their cell phone, there is always the possibility of a cyber-attack. Unfortunately, Ricky Alatorre discovered this truth from personal experience. Ricky had been bullied since kindergarten, so the frequent insults he endured where nothing new. However, things were elevated to a whole other level when words and pictures were posted to a fake MySpace page in his name (Kornblum 4). Ricky, a long time victim of bullies, was “completely devastated” by the embarrassing pictures and accusations of him being gay (he is not) on this fake MySpace page (Kornblum 2,5).

Limited adult supervision is another factor that fuels cyberbullying. Dempsey (963) explains, “Adults are rarely present to intervene when cyber victimization occurs, as suggested by the reported discrepancies between children’s and parents’ online monitoring activities”. On a playground, a fight picked by a bully can be easily thwarted by on looking teachers or classmates. However most of the time in an online setting, there is no backup. The same article goes on to explain that only 21% of victims of online bullying report their encounters in places such as chat rooms, which have the potential to be supervised by an administrator (963). Should I pick a fight in real life with the risk of getting in trouble with teachers, or should I easily attack someone anonymously online, with very little chance of getting in trouble? If I decided to become a bully, my choice of methods would be an easy one.

With increased Internet access, the anonymity of the Internet, and the online, limited-supervision environment that social media/networking fosters, it is no wonder that cyberbullying has become a threatening side effect of social networking/media. Cyberbullying takes the “best” that traditional bullying has to offer and eliminates almost all the risk associated with the old-fashioned method. With increasing numbers of users on social networking and media sites like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, cyberbullies have seen an opportunity to take advantage of all these sites have to offer. As long as people hail this new technology for all the good it offers, there will be bullies there to take advantage of its dark side as well.

Arguments Are Like Battles, It's All In The Tactics and Execution!

Ravit Lichtenberg’s “10 Ways Social Media Will Change In 2010” on the social media site ReadWriteWeb serves as a follow-up and continuation of her previous work, “10 Ways Social Media Will Change in 2009”. Lichtenberg’s new article, following in the footsteps of the 2009 piece, makes an attempt to persuade readers that social media is constantly changing. To support this idea, she provides ten ways social media will change by the end of this year. Through the employment of multiple ideas, evidence, and support, as well as a drive to enhance and build her reputation as a predictor of social media’s future for a second time, Lichtenberg is able to assert a compelling and concrete argument about social media change in 2010.

By beginning her article with and allusion to her past piece, “10 Ways Social Media Will Change in 2009”, Lichtenberg can conclude that all of the predictions she made “have materialized or are on their way.” By doing this, Lichtenberg accomplishes three things. First, she immediately establishes an assertive and persuasive tone for her article. This undoubtedly gives the reader an insight to her opinion on the subject of social media. The second thing Lichtenberg’s introduction enables her to do is establish credibility among her audience. Knowing she has already predicted last year’s changes in social media, the reader is more inclined to believe or be persuaded by her views and evidence pertaining to social media change in 2010. Finally, Lichtenberg’s opening helps her provide is a transition to the thesis of her article, the ten ways social media will evolve for 2010.

With the introduction and central thesis out of the way, Lichtenberg wastes no time switching gears to the bulk of her article, her ten predictions for social media change in the coming year. She creates a well-organized body by separating each of the ten “prophecies” into individual paragraphs. Additionally, she includes bolded sub-headings, which give a brief overview of each prediction. By keeping things organized, Lichtenberg is able to avoid excessively long paragraphs that could potentially confuse readers or cause them to get lost. The list-like format that results from the sub headings also allows readers to quickly return to a previous 2010 prediction they would like to re-evaluate.

Various examples and/or evidence accompanies nearly every future prediction Lichtenberg formulates for the year 2010. Numerous sources, statistics, and surveys facilitate in building and supporting her argument. Doing so allows her to weave objective and concrete facts with her opinion on the subject at hand. Lichtenberg cites multiple websites in her article, including informationisbeautiful.com, twitter-360.com, and uopeople.org. Websites such as these further solidify her ideas with credible and well-known sources. They also allow her to put the readers at ease to a certain extent, as the idea of Lichtenberg’s writing stemming solely from a bias is eliminated. Having multiple sources also decreases the concern for source credibility; for the more diverse and numerous the author’s sources are, the more likely a good amount will be credible.

Much like sources, the employment of statistics and surveys in the article plays a key role in backing up the author’s ideas. Statistics are strategically placed throughout her ten predictions for 2010. When introducing her third prediction, which asserts how mobile phones will take “center stage” in accessing social media, several statistics are employed. One statistic from IDC predicts that by 2010, there will be one billion mobile we browsers. Such a statistic transforms the argument being made. Instead of taking Lichtenberg’s word for it, the reader is now able to access research done by an outside source, in the same way consultants provide an outside opinion for corporations. Surveys, such as the one included in the prediction of ROI (return on investment) being measured, provide a similar reassurance to readers that they received from statistics. The survey mentioning what portion of companies saw what kind of return on investment is key to this argument in the same way the statistic above was key in that prediction. Being able to see not just what an author believes, but what real people and businesses actually said on surveys, persuades readers in the side the author has taken.

Two of Aristotle’s appeals are evident in “10 Ways Social Media Will Change In 2010”. Both of these appeals help persuade the reader, either by offering background information on the author, or by providing an outside look at the argument. Ethos, or the appealing to the credibility of the author, is evident in the introduction of the article. When she mentions that her predictions for 2009 had materialized or were almost at that point, she is appealing to ethos. Logos, or appealing to logic, is exemplified through all the sources, statistics, and surveys Lichtenberg employs to gain a tighter grasp on her audience.

Several elements of Toulmin’s framework are present as well in the article. Every one of Lichtenberg’s ten predictions represents a claim, or a statement of belief, opinion, or fact that serves as the basis to an argument.[iii] Statements such as “Women Will Rule Social Media” or “Social Media Will Move Into New Domains” all qualify as claims made by the author. In most cases, claims such as these do not amount to much unless there is evidence, or examples, personal experience, facts, statistics, surveys, and statements by credible sources to back it up. To get from the claim to the evidence warrants, or links from the claim to evidence frequently taking the form of assumptions and beliefs that are either explicitly stated or implied. ^[iv] The statement, “Virtual worlds, games and avatars were just the beginning of the online-offline integration. In 2010 we’ll see a greater push on this front as distance and physical walls will matter even less” is the first sentence in Lichtenberg’s seventh way social media will change in 2010. It serves as link from the claim of this seventh prediction, “Finally: Real, Cool and Very Bizarre Online-Offline Integration”, to the evidence from Augmented reality and Twitter360 used to back it up. Organizing her arguments in such a manner helps to clearly communicate her message to the reader.

When analyzing her argument, it is also important to note the elements that Lichtenberg excluded from her piece. Through the use of concrete evidence and unbiased claims, she avoids employing any fallacies, or severe imperfections that can damage the effectiveness of an argument, in her writing.[vii] By avoiding ethical, emotional, logical, and visual fallacies, the reader sees that the author is not bent on destroying the credibility of others or overly focused on bandwagon appeal as a means of persuading readers. While some of her arguments may resemble those of the latter, her use of clear evidence is able to back up her belief on the topic at hand.

When writing her article, Lichtenberg employs many techniques, practices, and frameworks. An organized layout sets the stage for a clear and easy to read argument. The use of evidence (logos), credibility (ethos), claims, warrants, and lack of fallacies soon follows. When these elements combine with her drive to improve her reputation, Lichtenberg is able to create a persuasive and tangible argument her audience can understand as an organized and gripping whole.

---

[i] Definition from Georgia Tech eBook chapter 14e

[ii] Chapter 14e

[iii] Definition from Georgia Tech eBook chapter 14f

When I Was Your Age...

What is the nature of the Internet? To some, it is the greatest achievement of the 20^th century, and ultimately a force of greater good. However to others, it is the bane of our existence. One might ask, “How can a difference of opinions over the Internet be on such opposite ends of the spectrum?” While not quite an age-old question, age itself plays a key role in the search for an answer. What it all boils down to is to whom you ask this question. The older the person, the greater the likelihood of them not being the Internet’s biggest fan. The Internet serves as the main catalyst to bring about such a difference in viewpoint not only to the question posed above, but also to multiple aspects of daily life. Today’s Internet generation takes Internet communication for granted to the extent that they have reinvented the social norm on seeking out and maintaining relationships.

Relationships and the significantly different ideologies behind the many aspects of daily life are showcased in political cartoons such as this, demonstrating the effect the Internet has had on society’s youth. Randy Bish's cartoon from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review shows a grandchild questioning his grandfather about his younger days; he wonders how he was ever able to carry on in the absence of Internet sites such as Facebook and E-Harmony. These characters signify two different generations, a pre-internet generation and a post-internet generation. The culture we have been immersed in most of our life plays a huge role in the opinions and viewpoints we formulate every day. For most of his life, the grandfather and the rest of his generation lived without the Internet; they literally had no idea what they were missing. The reason he does not find the Internet to be a vital part of everyday life is plain and simple; it had never been a part of his life at any point. However, the child is in a different boat. The instant gratification of online communication and relationships has clouded his ability to see how people used to find each other and build real life relationships. He cannot fathom a world without Internet, and thus will never be able to experience what his grandfather has.

Visual hints as well as facial expressions also play a part in understanding and interpreting the cartoon. The idea of ethos comes to light by the illustrator choosing a grandfather. Selecting an elderly person could be a means of showing that he has gained wisdom through his many years, and therefore, he has established credibility. The grandfather’s facial expression, a sad and gloomy look, could signify his disappointment over how pervasive the Internet has become in our relationships. The grandchild’s facial expression should be considered as well. He communicates a genuinely surprised expression, displaying his innocence to the question he has posed. He is part of a generation which takes the Internet for granted to the extent that he cannot imagine any alternate lifestyle that does not include Facebook or E-Harmony. The black shadowing seemingly hovering over the grandfather could represent another visual cue. If the illustrator has a positive view on the Internet and its uses, this dark abyss could represent the un-enlightened state-of-mind that many elderly people seem to be stuck in when it comes to the Internet.

A consensus may never be reached when it comes to the nature of the Internet. However, one thing that cannot be argued is the fact that the Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate, interact, and carry on relationships. Most people reading this blog are likely to be grouped into the “grandchild” category that the cartoon displays. However, it is inevitable that the future will bring the next “big thing” since Internet. The real question is will the “grandchildren” of today be able to adapt to the continuously changing times, or will they fall victim to them and become the “grandfathers” of society?

Lunchtime

Although no one cares, I just thought I would let the world know that pizza hut supreme pizza complimented with breadsticks makes one amazing meal!

Oh Hey There, World

Let it be known that on this hallowed Tuesday, June 29th at 9:53 am, Andrew C made his first blog post.

Here is a neat-o tool I thought you all would like!