This morning I saw danah boyd speak at the 2010 Symposium on Youth and Social Media at the Moritz College of Law at OSU. Her keynote focused on how adults shouldn’t blame the internet and social media technologies for behaviors they see teenagers engaging in online they don’t like; those technologies just make those behaviors visible. In her ethnographies conducted with teenagers about their Internet use, she’s found being present on social networking sites is a critical part of their social world. It’s preferable to hang out face to face, but when that’s precluded by overprotective parents or not having public spaces they feel comfortable, teens hang out online. Their online world is a reproduction on their offline world but altered by certain aspects in the digital realm: what you say online is archived and persistent, searchable, able to be duplicated and taken out of context, and seen by invisible audiences.
The most interesting part of the talk for me was when she brought up how just because something is visible online doesn’t mean people are listening. danah gave the example of an extreme case where a girl named Tess in Colorado killed her mom with the help of a few friends. When danah looked at the girl’s MySpace there was over a year and a half of detailed physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. Her friends left supportive comments but felt powerless to help her; there were no adults present in the comments.
Privacy is a complex topic. We used to argue for a right to privacy to justify what happens in the domestic sphere, including domestic violence. The idea that domestic violence was once acceptable is hard to imagine today, in this world, but not that long ago, the logic used to go: “she’s my wife, it’s my home, I can do whatever I want to her.” We cannot use privacy to justify the right to abuse people in private. But we also can’t use privacy to justify not looking when people are hurting or when they’re crying out for help. We need to find a balance that allow us to have control over our information, but also be heard when we are in need of help and support.
So I want to twist this around for a moment. When should we be looking? Not looking to judge or manipulate, but looking to learn, support, or evolve? Shouldn’t we be looking for the at-risk kids who are in trouble? Shouldn’t we be willing to see their stories, their pain, their hurt? So that we can help them? Shouldn’t we be looking to see the world more broadly? Shouldn’t we be willing to see in order to learn and transform the society we live in? This is the essence of what Jane Jacobs called “eyes on the street”.
It breaks my heart that there are youth out there, crying out for help. And no one is listening. – danah boyd: Do You See What I See: Visibility Practices through Social Media”
During the questions, someone asked about what type of social media presence teachers should have. danah’s take was that teachers should have public profiles on social media sites separate from their private personal profiles. Principals should have the password to their public profiles so their interactions with students are transparent. Teachers should not seek out interacting with their students on these sites but let students come to them instead; similar to having an open door policy at school. This made me think about the way I interact with the teens in my after-school program online. Many of them have added me on Facebook/MySpace soon before or right after they leave. I put them on limited profile restrictions (even though there’s nothing I deem scandalous about my online presence, there’s something that just seems too personal about letting them see all my pictures and wall posts). None of them have put restrictions on what I can see. I’ve never seen anything concerning on their profiles, but they do post a lot of personal things, and danah’s talk made me think about what role I have in looking and interpreting what I see (if any).
Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier
