Cyber Bullying in Ireland

Irish Gov't Seeks To Rein In Cyber Bullying

An anonymous reader points out a story on the Irish Times that says "the Irish government is looking for ways to combat 'cyber-bullying' after data indicated that a significant percentage of young children are subjected to this kind of abuse via their mobile phone and popular social network accounts. The industry has been asked to come up with solutions for this problem and a government office is due to publish a guide on the issue in the near future. Surely this is a problem faced by children in all developed countries these days." (Slashdot.org)

http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/11/14/0230256.shtml

When I received the assignment I was a little skeptical about writing something from Slashdot.org because of the news content and not visiting the site before. When I saw the content from Cyber-Bullying I remember the documentary/ news report we watched in class. The Government of Ireland has absolute right to consider the possible dangers of bullying online. More and more children, teens, even adults are becoming constant users of the Internet. Does the social aspects of Internet Networking make people more vulnerable to act more aggressively to others? Considering the possibilities that this may in fact be true. People seem to have no fear leaving feedback on someone's profile.

Having my own Facebook, as well as a Myspace page, communication between others is relativity limited because their is no non-verbal communication to interact with. Non-verbal communication is largely misunderstood.A hand gesture or facial expression can lead to another to believe the person in sending negative messages to them. Although "nonverbal communication" is limited these web pages have multiple accesses to use to talk and stay in touch with your friends. You can message, post blogs, and even chat live with your friends.

It's when a few bad apples that take away the fun and make socializing online difficult. I have to agree with bigtomrodney (993427) who is pro government control over online bullying. I am very happy that someone is taking the step to control this bad behavior. It's not even the kids anymore. Adults online are just as guilt as their kids. Sending bad emails or making posts around work is bad for business and creates tension in the workplace.

Didn't your mother tell you "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all."

I don't know exactly how the government plans to take action over this predicament, but bullying isn't so much on a computer anymore. It's on cell phones and mobile communication devices that allow online access. How is it the government plans to watch every bad cellphone message, or follow rumors or gossip about someone.

If I could propose a solution it would be to explain the dangers and harmful effects of online bullying. Kids these days are growing up with new technological advancements, which allow them to socialize differently. Communicaiton has changed dramatically over the past 20 years because of the access to the Internet, emails, and cell phones. Coming from someone who was once bullied the "old school" was I would NOT want anyone else to feel the same I did. Especailly when online commiction changes your perspectives and limits your ability to control what happens.

Net Neutrality? Like What? About Whom?

Net Neutrality has been on many people's mind's for the last few years. I was in the library the other day working on another project and was telling one of my friends about the class I was in (COM 125). I was explaining to him about the blogs I have to write every week and told him I was writing my next one on "Net Neutrality." He immediately stated talking about the topic like he had to take an exam on it that day. I was baffled because I knew only a little bit about Net Neutrality--coming from another one of my previous classes taken with Trebor Scholtz in the Media Department. In this blog I set out to learn more about Net Neutrality.

Considering what is going on in the world today with the "Economic Crisis" I found some answers.

What are the current debate over network neutrality?

The current debate over network neutrality is basically over who gets see what and who can access what on the Internet. To me it all started just like how most political arguments start.... Money. How can we make another dollar?
I call this the "lemonade stand technique." Example. If Jimmy and Sally are selling Lemonade on the same street at the same price, how can Jimmy make more money than Sally? This works the same way with business and other conglomerate companies world wide. It's shallow, but remember its just business. If an internet company wants to restrict people from accessing some information it becomes more valuable? Right? (I'll give my opinion later).

When this effect happens in a large spectrum were numerous companies restrict people some people are left defenseless and have no access to information. Traditional allies and foes have rearranged themselves to form strange new alliances and divisions. Even the founders of the Internet and the World Wide Web -- including some who worked alongside each other -- are at odds over how to move forward (Jones, K.C., (2007).

The Internet may run on a phone line or cable line, but it shouldn't be argued over who has the better version. It's nonsense already people are judged from what they own and what they have. I can't leave my apartment without seeing acts of displays and forming trends. You aren't cool if you have this or you should have this because its the latest thing.

Whose interests are at stake, and what are these interests?

The people! The everyday common human being is at stake. Yes this answer sounds a little dramatic and every answer that's controversial and political seems to be the people first. Yes, I believe strongly that the people should come first anywhere around the world. Web 2.0 was built based on the common human being and their answers to the world. Not by NASA, or the FBI. People like you and me who shop at the same grocery store on the weekends.

(I just thought of a last minute contribution for this blog). What if you had to make a certain amount of money a year to have access to Facebook or Myspace? How many millions of people would be working overtime just to have it? How many people would it take to over-through the issue of dividing the Internet into High and Low SES networks. My guestimate would be between the number of people on Facebook and the number of people on Myspace. Interest like dramatic online chats and the little things (on the social network sites) that people use to access online would be like "waking a huge sleeping giant."

Why do you support or oppose network neutrality?

If I can speak liberally about what's happening with computers nowadays, and at the same time not being to flexible (considering were the money is coming) from I would have to support Net Neutrality. People have the right to their own educaiton and knowledge. When I was a kid growing up I heard constant happy stories of growing up, going to high school, and then going to college and grad. school. I was in a mind set (when I was younger) that when you grow up everybody goes to college. WRONG! What ended up happening was everyone I grew up with failed out of school or never went in the first place. This limited their ever-expanding process of education and information. Now just because not everyone can go to school based on whatever the reason may be: Money and finances, not enough devotion to go, other jobs, and military careers. I'm not saying any of these are bad--no way!! You are who you choose to be.

Here's where I am going to make my point. The people who DON'T decide to go to school and work alternative positions are giving back to the ever-growing support the ecomony. Information is still gathered and they still contribute a large amount to the world. The people who DO go to school give back the informatics and knowledge WE ALL REQUIRE TO FUNCTION AS A SOCIETY. Restricting the internet to certain people based on money and economic status is a terriable idea!!! It's like tying a knot in a fire hose, while the water is still running. Eventaully the restriction is going to overpower the knot and the hose will break.
We as a society have to work like the fire hose allowing the flow of information and contribution of information to channel and flurish so everyone has access to the power of ever-expanding answers.

***Jones, K.C., (2007). Information Week: Net neutrality debate remains contentious. (Accessed November 13th, 2008)

***Network Neutrailty. (2008). Wikipedia.com. (Accessed November 13th, 2008)

Artard issues with 2nd Life & World of Warcraft

Is World of Warcraft and Second Life really just an online game? Some may say "yes", but others might have a slight disagreement. I've seen kids, as well as adults, put many hours into these virtual worlds. Their lives are sucked up by this false reality and they form a new one where they can interact with other people around the world. The community of these groups has grown so large that they have formed play groups and economies, which work together and form an alliance to cooperate and function like a real world. Whether its casting a spell or flying aroud chatting with your virtual buddy the virtual life seems to be endless....but where do we draw the line?
Second life is program, which allows you to create a character an enter the 2nd life world and interact with others around the community. You can purchase clothes and develop trades to interact with more online players. With Second Life you can actively play online; buying and selling: Land, homes, clothing, etc. It's almost like living inside of the Matrix--for those who haven't played, minus the gun fights and physiology. World of Warcraft is an MMORPG that allows you to interact with your friends in a mid-evil time, were your stats increase with experience. World of Warcraft doesn't allow the selling of online products and discourages this form of virtual interactive economy. With both games comes a purchase. You have to buy the program and pay monthly as a subscriber. World of Warcraft is $15 a month, were 2nd life is a one time payment $9.95 for a basic plan and $9.95 a month for the premium plan.

Putting money into virtual worlds arises many economic issues with people from the "Real World." First of all, if you charge something in a virtual world it cannot be taxed by the federal government. It's basically like going back to "Old School" economics with buying and trading styles were a simple exchange. (If you dis-consider the use of paypal and credit card exchange, but that's beyond the concept).

Some of the benefits of selling virtual goods is it allows people to have an extra currency coming in. It may not be something you can live on, though a few people have managed to live of the currency they've made off of Second Life. But its definitely using intelligent marketing skills. Perhaps someday, modern day businesses will evolve into a more Second Life characteristic were people don't have a choice and must purchases quality goods off the Internet. The traffic in virtual goods, after all, isn't just another new market. It's a whole new species of economy - perhaps the only really new economy that, when all has boomed and crashed, the Internet has yet given rise to (Dibbell, J., 2004). If the Second life program begins to take off, like what happened to World of Warcraft, the MMORPG might be in trouble. Due to online competion of market value and fight for property the World of Warcraft might need to evolve and change some of its guidlines to keep up with its ecomonmy.

This could very well lead to the end of the world.... of warcraft.

>Levy, S. (2006) World of warcraft: Is it a game? Newsweek, MSNBC.com (Sourced November 6th, 2008)

>Barboza, D. (2005, Dec. 15th) Orge to slay? Outsource it to chinese. The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com. (Sourced November 6th, 2008)

> Dibbell, J. (2004). Weird. The Conde Nast Publication Inc. (Sourced November 6th, 2008)