Hello all, So in round one of the digitally illiterate panic attacks, we saw schools going nuts over their students posting on MySpace. Today's Cnet article from the NY Times discusses summer camps following suit, limiting what images from camp can or can't be posted on personal websites or blogs, what things can be said about camp online, and in one case, forcing an ex-camper to take down an independent discussion forum for campers that was set up explicitly to avoid the moderated camp forum.
Link: http://news.com.com/Web+postings+worry+summer+camp+directors/2100-1025_3-6087060.html Other than making me wish Cnet and the NY Times would get a clue and write intelligently about technology for once, the article is a model lesson in how to fearmonger instead of educate. For two pages, Pam Belluck goes on about how camp directors are panicking over seeing pictures of their camp on MySpace sites. The article subtext: "Summer camp directors have a new scourge, and it is not mosquitoes or impetigo. It is the Internet, specifically sites like MySpace, Facebook and Friendster, where young people often post personal or revealing information." Two different problems seem to be depicted: the first being the posting of camp-related images on sites which may have "inappropriate" content, such as camp counselors at college parties holding cups of beer, and the second being the posting of personal information that could lead sexual predators directly to a camp to prey on innocent children. The first issue is problematic; children or not, employees or not, they still have freedom of speech rights. A camp *cannot* force a student to take down an independent forum for campers, as long as they're not specifically infringing on camp copyrights or trademarks, although Island Lake and others appear to have done exactly that. As far as I know, you can't legally force someone to remove references to your company or name unless you're filing a slander case; simply creating an online community isn't grounds for a panic attack. Similarly, there's the worried camp director quoted who went through some of these MySpace sites, and found some nasty postings about their camp counselors, although most were apparently nice. Guess what? Freedom of speech again, and a very effective feedback mechanism, should the camp choose to accept it instead of running from it. It's scary to think that anyone can publish anything online about your organization, but that's the reality of the internet, and the reality of publishing in general. There are always going to be campers unhappy with the camp experience. Some of them will have blogs. If you try to force them to remove those blogs, then as soon as some of them realize that they can't be forced (legally), they'll simply react with far more scathing commentary. And then your camp will look like something created by George Orwell on a bad day, seeking to control the writing, conversations, and thoughts of your campers. Which is kind of how I see most of the camps listed in this article, though in all likelihood that's Ms. Belluck twisting interviewee responses to create a suitably scary article. The second issue is pure, simple, let's-get-a-lot-of-people-scared-about-MySpace crap. Has it become impossible to write a news article on the internet without playing the "sexual predators are out there" card? The author states no statistics to back up her claim that campers are posting identifying information that could lead to sexual predators arriving at camp. How often has this happened? How often have sexual predators been caught inside your campers' tents with a MySpace printout and Google-mapped directions? Sorry if this didn't occur to you earlier, but a sexual predator looking for a summer camp can readily find one online anywhere in the world. For that matter, it's easy enough to find out where the nearest school is, too...this information is (and must be) publicly available. On the other hand, if you're looking for excuses to force campers to remove all links to your site, then an easy one is to say that posting the camp name makes it easy for all the boogeymen to come find your camp, so everybody take the name of the camp off your websites. In the name of child safety, of course. While the article mentions a couple of camps taking steps to educate children on posting responsibly, it states this in the same vein of "mentioning the camp is bad"...I can only conclude that Ms. Belluck equates posting responsibly to never mentioning camp on MySpace. There's no information on what they're being taught, other than a clear indication that camps should seek to control all of this content being published about their camp. One camp director is listed as having his own MySpace account and adding all counselors as friends so he can more easily monitor what's being said about camp. Why isn't this an example of an organization embracing new technologies, instead of an example of an organization being forced to learn new tricks to monitor and control their wards? Internet education is not: "Hey, you can't ever mention (insert camp name here) on MySpace, post any pictures, or set up any references to camp or try to create an online community for campers that we don't have complete control over." In most cases, these features are online marketing and networking tools that an organization would spend a hefty chunk of their technology budget on. The media has found that fearmongering sells readership. Now the media is applying this to the realm of technology; instead of posting informative content, it's easier to play the sexual predator card and have concerned moms forwarding the article to their summer camp directors and so on and so forth. On the other hand, Fark.com had this article listed under the "stupid" tag a few hours after it was published, for good reason. Clearly, there are those who see this from different perspectives. The challenge is in getting alternative perspectives in front of the decision-makers at these organizations. If we want to suggest that digital literacy is a good thing, we are now in a position where we must directly confront clowns at the NY Times and elsewhere who would rather play off adults' fears than try to examine technology paradigms for their potential. How are we supposed to ask institutions to include internet literacy programming when they can refer to the NY Times as a source for this drivel? How are you going to teach responsible blogging when organizations want no blogs that they can't censor? Schools and Camps are being told by our media that censorship is the only option...and they're also putting those institutions in a position where *if* anything ever goes wrong, they'll be immediately criticized by parents and the media for not exerting enough censorship. Social networking tools should be embraced by summer camps and other child-friendly institutions as the number one way to effectively market their organizations on the internet; instead, the media would rather we were terrified of them. Children need to understand responsible blogging. What I post to the internet could directly influence my chances of being hired by the company I'm criticizing, for example. On the other hand, if my criticism is backed up by solid facts and I'm relating a valid user experience, it could be a very constructive tool. Similarly, a thirteen year old girl needs to know that posting her revealing pictures on the internet might be asking for trouble. If we teach her that we're just out to control her speech and censor her thoughts, how long is it going to be before she figures out how to post content to a site we have no control over (like MySpace) and posts whatever she likes? Is it ok for her to post those pictures as long as she's not mentioning an organization's name, so their butts are covered? In fearmongering, the NY Times becomes directly responsible for every organization they force into this path, and for every child that goes through another year on the internet without the right training in internet safety issues. Oh, and they're probably responsible for every school that gets slapped with a lawsuit on freedom of speech issues, too. Thoughts? Dave. ------------------- Dave A. Chakrabarti Projects Coordinator CTCNet Chicago [EMAIL PROTECTED] (708) 919 1026 ------------------- _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
