OFcom referance (794221), страница 3
Текст из файла (страница 3)
In particular users of all ages appreciated social networking sites as ameans to manage their existing relationships, and particularly for getting back in contact withold friends.Among those who reported talking to people they didn’t know, there were significantvariations in age, but those who talked to people they didn’t know were significantly morelikely to be aged 16-24 (22% of those with a social networking page or profile) than 25-34(7% of those with a profile). In our qualitative sample, several people reported using sites inthis way to look for romantic interests.Only a few users highlighted negative aspects to social networkingThe majority of comments in our qualitative sample were positive about social networking. Afew users did mention negative aspects to social networking, and these included annoyanceat others using sites for self-promotion, parties organised online getting out of hand, andonline bullying.2.4Privacy and safetyFrom Ofcom’s qualitative research it appears that concerns about privacy andsafety are not ‘top of mind’ for most usersThe people who use social networking sites see them as a fun and easy leisure activity.Although the subject of much discussion in the media, in Ofcom’s qualitative research7Social Networkingprivacy and safety issues on social networking sites did not emerge as ‘top of mind’ for mostusers.
In discussion, and after prompting, some users in the qualitative study did think ofsome privacy and safety issues, although on the whole they were unconcerned about them.In addition, our qualitative study found that all users, even those who were confident withICT found the settings on most of the major social networking sites difficult to understandand manipulate.Several areas of potentially risky behaviour are suggested by the qualitative and/orquantitative research. These include:•leaving privacy settings as default ‘open’ (Ofcom Social Networking qualitativeresearch) – 41% of children aged 8-17 who had a visible profile had their profile setso that it was visible to anyone (Children, young people and online contentquantitative research) and 44% of adults who had a current profile said their profilecould be seen by anyone6 (this was more likely among those aged 18-24) (AdultMedia Literacy Audit 2008);•giving out sensitive personal information, photographs and other content(Ofcom social networking sites research/Get Safe Online Report 2007).
Ourqualitative research found that some users willingly gave out sensitive personalinformation. This was supported by the Get Safe Online research which found that25% of registered social networking users had posted sensitive personal data aboutthemselves on their profiles.
This included details such as their phone number, homeaddress or email address. Younger adults are even more likely to do this, with 34%of 16-24 year olds willingly posting this information;•posting content (especially photos) that could be reputationally damaging(Ofcom Social Networking qualitative research). Examples ranged from postingprovocative photos to photographs of teachers drinking and smoking being seen bytheir pupils and pupils’ parents; and•contacting people they didn’t know (and/or didn’t know well) online/acceptingpeople they didn’t know as ‘friends’ (Ofcom Social Networking qualitativeresearch) – 17% of adult users said they talked to people on social networking sitesthat they didn’t know and 35% spoke to people who were “friends of friends” (AdultMedia Literacy Audit 2008).Our qualitative research indicates that some people are more likely than others to engage inpotentially risky behaviour.
This suggests that communications about the implications ofpotentially risky behaviour may need to be looked at in different ways for different groups ofpeople.Our qualitative research also showed that on the whole users appeared unconcerned aboutthese risks. There are several reasons for this, which include, in no particular order:6•a lack of awareness of the issues;•an assumption that privacy and safety issues have been taken care of by the sitesthemselves;•low levels of confidence among users in their ability to manipulate privacy settings;The result for adult privacy settings is not directly comparable to that of children due to differentquestions and sample size in the studies8Social Networking•information on privacy and safety being hard to find on sites;•a feeling among younger users that they are invincible;•a perception that social networking sites are less dangerous than other onlineactivities, such as internet banking; and, for some,•having consciously evaluated the risks, making the decision that they could bemanaged.Discussions 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. However the risk is that leaving privacy settings open means that the usercannot control who sees their information or how they use it. Forty-four per cent of adultswith 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 could be seen by anyone.The potential risks that we have highlighted raise a number of issues for industry and policymakers. These include how best to enforce the minimum age limits, how to ensureaccessible and easy-to-understand privacy and safety policies, educating children, parentsand adults about the privacy and safety implications of social networking sites, and the issueof privacy settings being set to default ‘open’.2.5Research on risk and harmOur findings are consistent with other existing research on risk and harm.
Harm and Offencein Media Content, a literature review of research compiled for Ofcom’s submission to theByron Review by Andrea Millwood Hargrave, Sonia Livingstone and David Brake shows thatthere is a lack of information about any actual harm (as opposed to risk of harm)experienced by users of social networking sites. They state that ‘much of the researchreviewed here deals with the risk of harm (by measuring incidence of exposure to risk, riskybehaviour, or the use of certain media contents which may be harmful to some, etc.). Someof the evidence does demonstrate a link from exposure to ‘actual’ ill effect, although this isgenerally measured either experimentally in the short-term or by using correlational methodswhich cannot rule out all confounding factors.’7Much of the research that does exist is from the US and does not map exactly to thesituation in the UK.
More research will need to be done to fill gaps in the current researchbase before a clearer picture of actual harm and the negative aspects of social networking inthe long term emerges.7The full literature review can be found athttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/telecoms/reports/byron/annex6.pdf9Social NetworkingSection 33 Overview of social networking sitesThis section of the report provides an overview of social networking sites to put them in thecontext of recent developments in internet and communications technology.
To provide afoundation for the rest of the report, it looks both at the historical background of socialnetworking and at recent issues that have arisen concerning the sites.3.1What is a social networking site?At the most basic level social networking sites are sites which allow users to set up onlineprofiles or personal homepages, and develop an online social network. The profile pagefunctions as the user’s own webpage and includes profile information ranging from their dateof birth, gender, religion, politics and hometown, to their favourite films, books quotes andwhat they like doing in their spare time. In addition to profile information, users can designthe appearance of their page, and add content such as photos, video clips and music files.Users are able to build a network of connections that they can display as a list of friends.These friends may be offline actual friends or acquaintances, or people they only know orhave met online, and with whom they have no other link.
It is important to note that the term‘friend’, as used on a social networking site, is different from the traditional meaning given tothe term in the offline world. In this report we will use the term as it is used on a socialnetworking site: anyone who has invited, or been invited by, another user, to be their ‘friend’.There are many applications and types of content that can be used on social networkingsites, and these are covered in detail in Section 6.3.2Development of social networking sitesIn many ways the ideas behind social networking sites are not new.
It has been possiblesince the early days of the internet to do many of the things which social networking siteusers do now, such as creating personal web pages and communicating with others throughinterfaces such as chat rooms, internet forums, message boards, web communities andblogs.Several sites combining functions of today’s social networking sites appeared in the late1990s. In worldwide terms many people see Friendster as the first to make a serious impact.It launched in 2002 before falling back relative to other sites in 2004.8 In the UK many peoplefirst heard about social networking sites through the media coverage of Friends Reunited(launched in 2000), and especially ITV’s decision to buy the site for £120m in 2005.9A wave of other sites soon followed, and this has continued up to the present, as Figure 1shows:8Boyd, D and Ellison, N, ‘Social Network Sites, Definition, History and Scholarship’, Journal ofComputer Mediated Communication (October, 2007),http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html.9http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4502550.stm10Social NetworkingFigure 1: Simplified timeline of select social networking sites (2000-2007)102000Friends Reunited2002Friendster2003LinkedIn,MySpace, Hi52004Flickr, Piczo,Facebook(Harvard only)2005Bebo, Facebook(school networks)20062007Facebook(everyone)SagazoneAs the number of sites grew, so they have diversified in terms of focus.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
