OFcom referance (794221), страница 15
Текст из файла (страница 15)
Facebook, in particular, wasmentioned in this context by a number of respondents.It seems very difficult to make your profile private, so I just wouldn’t bother – Female 23,urban/suburban•Other online sites and facilities were perceived to have more obvious threats.For example, online dating sites, which encouraged individuals to meet, and onlinebanking and shopping sites which involved the transfer of money, were both thoughtto carry more obvious and concerning risks.What could happen, nothing bad, it is not like internet banking where they can steal all yourmoney – Male 25, urban/suburban•Younger users felt that they were ‘invincible,’ and that even if they were affectedby the risks discussed, they would be able to deal with them.•The need for interaction and attention outweighed the need to be safetyconscious. This was particularly the case for younger female users who in somecases appeared to have low self-esteem and craved attention.A lot of people wouldn’t listen to [Bebo’s privacy video].
Most people couldn’t be bothered,they’d just go straight on and start talking to people – Boy 12, rural/semi-ruralDiscussions with children and adults using social networking sites highlighted an importantpoint. This was that there is a clear overlap between the benefits and risks of some onlinesocial networking activities. For example, the underlying point of social networking is toshare information. The benefit is that users can find each other easily. The risk is that userscannot control who sees their information. Our research found that forty-four per cent ofadults with current social networking profiles said that their profile was visible to anyone,while 41% of 8-17 year olds with visible profiles said their profile can be seen by anyone.56Social NetworkingSection 88 Literature review of harm and offence insocial networkingThis section is a summary of the literature review compiled by Andrea Millwood Hargrave,Sonia Livingstone and David Brake, which forms part of Ofcom’s submission to the ByronReview.
The review can be found athttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/telecoms/reports/byron/annex6.pdfMost research regarding potential internet-related harm relates to risky contact rather thancontent, primarily that involving interaction with other internet users. Indeed, this updatefound a number of studies that addressed the risk of inappropriate contact (e.g. bullying - forwhich more research exists than for the first review, and also online contact with strangers).The research suggests that such contact may put users at risk of harm, either directly (as inmeeting strangers in dangerous situations) or indirectly, from the consequences of theironline behaviour.Research on social networking sites has concentrated on the internet, although these arealso available on mobile telephony as a delivery platform. There are differences in theprincipal sites used – in the UK, Bebo (and then MySpace) is currently more popular while inthe US much of the research has looked at Facebook, among others, partly because ofrelative popularity, partly because US research tends to concentrate on university students(who use Facebook).
Research on the risk of harm has concentrated on social networkingsites (raising issues of privacy) rather than information uploaded onto user-generatedcontent sites. For social networking especially, the issue of verifiability and anonymity is aproblem. A significant proportion of young people communicate with strangers online andpost material about themselves which would be considered ‘private’ in most circumstances.The ability to restrict access to sites is known about but not always used. Thus, knowingly,some young people give away inappropriate (private) information publicly (allowing accessto ‘anyone’). However, it seems likely that many more also do so inadvertently, as a result oflimitations in both internet literacy and interface design.This leads to concerns about the possibility of underestimating the unanticipated orfuture consequences of making private information public, especially since it appearsthat many young people have an inadequate understanding of the long-term consequencesof publishing such information (e.g.
employers are reported to look at social networking siteswhen considering employees) The risk of inappropriate contact (especially in relation tosexual predation), harassment and bullying (including the easy dissemination of harassmentor bullying content to others in the network) represent significant and growing policyconcerns when considering the regulation of the internet.Research suggests that young people may be aware of the risks, especially regardingsocial networking sites, but this awareness of these issues and problems is notalways translated into action.
Thus there is growing evidence that, notwithstanding theirmany advantages and pleasures, social networking sites permit young people to createprofiles that expose the individual or that ridicule or harass others, that using such sites forextensive periods of time (as is common) may isolate users of these sites from contact with‘real’ people, albeit only for a few, addicted users.In short, the widespread accessibility of the internet, along with its affordability,anonymity and convenience appears to increase the likelihood of media harm;although some argue that there is little new about online content, familiar content57Social Networkingmerely having moved online, most disagree, expressing concern about theaccessibility of more extreme forms of content that are, potentially, harmful andoffensive.It also appears likely that when children receive hostile, bullying or hateful messages, theyare generally ill-equipped to respond appropriately or to cope with the emotional upset thiscauses; similarly, parents are unclear how they can know about, or intervene in, riskybehaviours undertaken – deliberately or inadvertently – by their children.
In general, the casefor further research seems clear, firstly in relation to the characteristics of vulnerable groups(including strategies for intervention) and secondly in relation to the ways in which theinternet seems to support or facilitate certain kinds of harmful peer-to-peer activity.The Joint Information Systems Committee in the UK commissioned the market researchorganisation, MORI, to conduct an online survey among 500 16-18 year olds who hope to goto university, and a small qualitative project. Among the research findings relating to the useof ICT as a learning tool, were the findings:•Only 5% of this sample claim never to use social networking websites; 65% use themregularly.•Three-fifths (62%) use wikis, blogs or online networks; 44% maintain their own blogor website.•Only a fifth (21%) are part of an online community such as Second Life.•The group thinks technology is very important to their social lives but not a substitutefor face-to-face interaction.A survey in the US conducted as part of the ongoing Pew Internet and American Life projectin late November 2006 (Lenhart and Madden, 2007) found that more than half of allteenagers in the USA who have access to the internet use social networking sites.59 Ofthese most (66%) say their site is restricted or ‘private’.
Frequency of use is high with nearlyhalf of the sample (48%) saying they visit the site at least once a day. There is a cleargender bias with 70% of older girls (15-17 year olds) more likely to have used a socialnetworking site and created online profiles, while just over half of the boys have done so(54% say they have used a social networking site while 57% of boys say they have createdan online profile).Teens & Friends on Social Networking SitesAs we will see echoed in other surveys, the Pew Internet survey finds that most youngpeople (91%) use social networking sites to stay in touch with their circle of friends; 82% saythey stay in touch with their wider circle.
Hargittai (2007) suggests that the choice of socialnetworking site used may increase both digital and social inequality.60 Digital inequality is aconsideration as those who do not have access to the Internet at a friend’s or familymembers’ home are far les likely to use such sites.59Lenhart, A. and M. Madden (2007) "Social Networking Websites and Teens: An Overview"Pew Internet and American Life Projecthttp://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/198/report_display.asp60Hargittai, E. (2007) "Whose Space? Differences among Users and Non-Users of SocialNetwork Sites ", Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1).
http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/toc/jcmc/58Social NetworkingFurther, Hargittai finds that high and low social status users in the US cluster togetheraround certain sites. Hinduja and Patchin (2007) undertook a content analysis of publiclyavailable, but randomised, MySpace profile pages (N=2423) produced by those under 18years old.61 On average they found that teenage users of the profiles they surveyed have 65friends. They also examined frequency of visiting the sites and found that about one-third ofusers had not logged on in the three months prior to the coding period. Over a third (38%)had logged on in the previous three days. The researchers question therefore the suggestedhigh frequency of use of these sites as a staple for young people.
In contrast with theLenhart and Madden findings above, Hinduja and Patchin find that a smaller percentage ofusers, about 40%, restrict access to their site.In the Anchor Watch Your Space survey in Ireland,62 82.5% of the sample of 10-20 year oldssay they have used social networking sites, and 36% are daily users. The difference ingender found is a difference in the length of time of each session in the site, with girls morelikely to spend more time on the sites. Within the sample 15% say they have more than oneprofile.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
