<p>As we’ve all moved into a new world where we have contact on a regular basis with people we’ve never met in person, do you feel that the presumed anonymity can sometimes be a bad thing? That people do and say things that they never would do in real life, that they somtimes assume multiple cyber personalities for their own bizarre and sometimes sinister reasons? The story with the young girl who committed suicide broke my heart, and sometimes I see people on message boards say things that make you wonder if they’re channeling themsleves at 13. How do you think we, as a society, can ensure standards of decorum and courtesy in cyberworld? Is it the newness, relatively speaking, of the medium that makes cyberworld a bit like the wild west? Do Internet communities and providers have any responsibility? Anyone?</p>
<p>The best rule to stick by is to only participate in online chat with someone you know in REAL LIFE… This does not mean you can not have friends outside of your social circle, but there are rules to stick by. Isn’t chatting with strangers the same as “NEVER TALK TO STRANGERS CHILDREN?” I don’t see a difference. I can understand how an adult can have the proper judgment to meet someone online and pursue a relationship with it, be it platonic or sexual. </p>
<p>This 13 year old girl was an extreme case. In her case the parents were aware she was diagnosed with depression, and therefore should of played a larger role in ensuring the safety of the child from online predators. Being that the internet is playing such a big role in children’s lives these days, a ground set of rules should be adhered to. It is absolutely irresponsible to put the blame of the young girl’s suicide solely on the child or adult who were messing around with her. Surely they had no idea of her condition. If a girl were to hang herself due to a boyfriend’s decision to no longer be in a relationship with her, would he be held responsible? No he would not. </p>
<p>The internet can be an extremely safe and pleasant experience, if playing by the rules. It should be the parent’s responsibility to make sure a 13 year old is not engaging in conversation with someone who they don’t know in real life, let alone begin to obtain feelings for an individual whom may not even be existent.</p>
<p>American’s are always quick to point the finger. Just look at the thread that contains the story of that young girl, everyone is indeed quick to point the finger at the parent ending the relationship with the girl. Perhaps the parent on the other end was a mother who’s son was in contact with the strange girl, and therefore decided it is in the best interest of her son to end the relationship? What about the role of the parents? isn’t it their duty to a certain extent to protect the best interest of a child, especially one who is diagnosed with mental disorders. What about the young girl? Isn’t she responsible for not sticking to the rules that I’m sure her parents have laid down time and time again? COME ON people let’s be serious for a minute. Not everything can be blamed on one person, IMO this is one of those cases where the tragedy can be traced to quite a few contributing factors. It is time for American’s to stop being so quick to point the finger, and start analyzing tragedy with attempts to establish ground breaking new regulations, as far as the application of new technologies go and the hazards that come along with them.</p>
<p>I was just thinking about the same thing. I think the problem of cyber-bullying manifests itself in underhanded ways more often than we realize. We usually think about it in terms of teenage internet use, but adults can be just as guilty, as the story of that 13 yr. old in Missouri so tragically portrays.</p>
<p>I think we need to look in our “own backyards” and make sure bullying is not tolerated. One way to diminish bullying is to prohibit multiple cyber-personalities in any one forum. Although cyber forums can be anonymous, courtesy dictates that one person=one voice. </p>
<p>Anyway, I’m going to have to give this some thought…</p>
<p>"The internet can be an extremely safe and pleasant experience, if playing by the rules. It should be the parent’s responsibility to make sure a 13 year old is not engaging in conversation with someone who they don’t know in real life, let alone begin to obtain feelings for an individual whom may not even be existent. "</p>
<p>What responsibility does an individual have to conduct himself or himself in a manner as courteous as he/she would do IRL? Is this something we should expect, and how should that expectation be comunicated?</p>
<p>zoos~</p>
<p>If someone chooses not to conduct him/herself in a courteous manner, most reputable BB’s have TOS in place that if properly and equitably applied, should fix the problem.</p>
<p>If someone is a continual problem, then the issue is a larger one.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Zoosermon - the point is it isnt real life, therefore we should not be as courteous as we are in real life. Sure if it is a new business contact, or a person who people can vouch for in real life, but what about insuring our safety first? The fact that a cute boy is flirting with you, does not dismiss the dangers of conducting chat in cyber space. </p>
<p>Should providers be held responsible? Absolutely not, If I walk in a bad neighborhood at night and someone decides to bust a cap in my ass, should the community be held responsible for the actions of it’s members? NO. If there are complaints about an individual the provider should look into it, otherwise they should not hold any liability for the actions of it’s members. The terms and conditions of the internet providers contract state that they are not responsible for the material distributed through their network, they simply provide the bandwidth. </p>
<p>Yes, in a sense, the internet should very well be perceived as The Wild West of the twenty first century. We all have a responsibility to keep ourselves safe and secure, and to analyze such tragedies properly, not just find the first person who we can point the finger at and pin it all on them. We must inform children that if someone does bully you. </p>
<p>It is true that with the evolution of the internet, it seems like the perfect way for bullies to bash anonymously, making it more appealing, and furthering the extent of the damage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and when kidnappers lure children Don’t they usually conduct themselves in a courteous manner? yes most of the time they do, whether using candy or other kind words to gain the child’s trust. TOS is not going to stop anything. The problems are in private conversation, such as instant messaging clients, where there is no supervision.</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct! ;)</p>
<p>However, I do carry a different expectation for a site that claims to be ethical and well-moderated than I do for a “free for all” site.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>
That bears repeating.</p>
<p>"The problems are in private conversation, such as instant messaging clients, where there is no supervision. "</p>
<p>Not sure I completely agree with that, but I very much appreciate your courteous and thought-provoking responses.</p>
<p>zmom, just be yourself and let the rest of them do what they do. Some of us realize that based on our style of posting we have no real anonymity. I have friends IRL who I assume are lurkers on CC (but who knows , they could be posters). I’ve never heard their screen-names , but they know mine. (Hmmmm. Linda and Tommy, who are you? LOL. ) They read my posts regularly to see what I’m going to say next. :eek:. It doesn’t bug me because I am exactly the same off the board as on, sad as that seems.</p>
<p>As to the rest of it, sometimes there are relationships below the surface between posters that might not be exactly what the rest of the community thinks they are. And I kinda like that. LOL. ;)</p>
<p>cur~</p>
<p><em>EVERYONE</em> should be concerned with the integrity of a site into which he has something invested. Sometimes looking the other way in the face of bullying just isn’t enough.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>" It doesn’t bug me because I am exactly the same off the board as on, sad as that seems." </p>
<p>I think it’s admirable and I also appreciate your response 'cause I know you know what I’m talking about.</p>
<p>b. As you know, looking the other way hasn’t been my style. While I certainly understand the role of “others” and of rules, I believe as you do that the community has a role, too. I don’t shirk my role. At least I don’t think I do. </p>
<p>I’m fairly confident that on this board, someone will tell me if I am fooling myself. LOL.</p>
<p>Edit: Oh. Jeez. I see, b. You were commenting on my “let them do what they do”. Sorry. I misspoke. I disagree with myself in the bullying context. I think I meant more live and let live, not “turn a blind eye”. I’d never say that. 
Sorry for the confusion.</p>
<h2>“That people do and say things that they never would do in real life, that they somtimes assume multiple cyber personalities for their own bizarre and sometimes sinister reasons?”</h2>
<p>In a word zoos…YES. They do. And it’s a cautionary fact of which we should all be aware. Personally, I’ve been very disappointed and disheartened to hear of behind the scenes ‘antics’ of people I THINK I have pegged for good guys. I’m left wondering how I could be so wrong especially when I pride myself in my ability to read people. But, that is EXACTLY the hazard of the internet. </p>
<p>I guess I figure a few bad internet apples among the wonderful ones (that’s you zoos, jymmie, curmudgeon, mowc, and too many to mention ;))…is small price to pay. But I do like the “Wild West” comparison UriA makes…definitely well said…lol!</p>
<p>I think the anonymity is only part of what goes into off-the-wall behavior in online communities - there is also something about the medium that seems to free people from the constraints they feel in face-to-face communication, for better and worse. This happens even when participants aren’t anonymous. I’ve been participating in online discussion groups for 30 years, and it’s interesting how every group develops its own character, mostly centered around unwritten social rules. The unofficial rules (expectations, I guess) seem much more variable and important than the official ones.</p>
<p>I am on two motorcycle enthusiasts boards. One dedicated to adventure touring, one a Texas riders’ site. </p>
<p>The first one is the Wild West. I mean if you falter on that one they will stomp you into a mudhole.</p>
<p>I had to go rescue a nephew of mine from their “cafe” and it was Hell. Pure D Hell. Noob’s are devoured like Lecter’s Fava beans. I think they eat the bones, too. Ask something that has been asked and answered that week already and you will have nightmares for a month. Yet, just like a new big city, after a few weeks you start getting the hang of it. Some places you just don’t go. Without a bat in your hand. At least a bat. </p>
<p>The other? Very heavy handed. Not nearly as entertaining but certainly safer.</p>
<p>I don’t go to the big cafe here, either. Not really a place I need to be.</p>
<p>mmm…fava beans.</p>
<p>rofl curm! Completely offtopic, but brings to mind ldgirl carefully dissecting a cat brain (or was it pig brain?) in high school anatomy and physiology while sucking on a grape tootsie pop. She very skillfully and artistically removed the top of the skull and then ceremoniously held it up and launched into her very best Lechter imitation. </p>
<p>Football players ran for the trash cans.</p>
<p>Okay…I know. No offtopic stuff.</p>
<p>Returning to the OP’s original issue, of the 13 yr old who suicided, I think this post in the thread started on that issue says it well
the website is not at fault</p>
<p>lovely images, curm and ldmom!
Are your (back to back) posts a new version of the Texas two-step???</p>
<p>As an aside… and looking through the thinly veiled curtain here… I shall chew on my dinner and ponder over why I would expect the police to protect me if my favorite sport was to throw rocks at them…</p>