Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Behind The Screen: The Hidden Life of Youth Online

    Uploaded by

    IPPR
    336 views76 pages
    The generational divide between children and young people and their parents is perhaps most widely seen in their views and approaches to the internet and media literacy. With this in mind, how do we ensure that children and young people are safeguarded from harm in way that is not over the top in principle and draconian in style, while at the same time maintaining the internet as a place for freedom, expression, creativity and socialisation? In its recommendations, this report calls for collaboration and support from peers, youth services, teachers and parents, rather than top-down restrictions and rules dictated from central government. The role of media literacy must be fully explored through informal and formal educational structures involving both young people and the older generations to enable use of the internet to be a safe and enjoyable process for all.

    Original Title

    Behind the Screen: The hidden life of youth online

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The generational divide between children and young people and their parents is perhaps most widely seen in their views and approaches to the internet and media literacy. With this in mind, how do we ensure that children and young people are safeguarded from harm in way that is not over the top in principle and draconian in style, while at the same time maintaining the internet as a place for freedom, expression, creativity and socialisation? In its recommendations, this report calls for collaboration and support from peers, youth services, teachers and parents, rather than top-down restrictions and rules dictated from central government. The role of media literacy must be fully explored through informal and formal educational structures involving both young people and the older generations to enable use of the internet to be a safe and enjoyable process for all.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    336 views76 pages

    Behind The Screen: The Hidden Life of Youth Online

    Uploaded by

    IPPR
    The generational divide between children and young people and their parents is perhaps most widely seen in their views and approaches to the internet and media literacy. With this in mind, how do we ensure that children and young people are safeguarded from harm in way that is not over the top in principle and draconian in style, while at the same time maintaining the internet as a place for freedom, expression, creativity and socialisation? In its recommendations, this report calls for collaboration and support from peers, youth services, teachers and parents, rather than top-down restrictions and rules dictated from central government. The role of media literacy must be fully explored through informal and formal educational structures involving both young people and the older generations to enable use of the internet to be a safe and enjoyable process for all.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 76

    WWW.IPPR.

    ORG

    BehindtheScreen
    Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline
    byKayWitherswithRuthSheldon
    April2008
    ©ippr2008

    InstituteforPublicPolicyResearch
    Challengingideas– Changingpolicy
    2 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Foreword
    Thegenerationaldividebetweenchildrenandyoungpeopleandtheirparentsisperhapsmostwidely
    seenintheirviewsandapproachestotheinternetandmedialiteracy.Withthisinmind,howdowe
    ensurethatchildrenandyoungpeoplearesafeguardedfromharminwaythatisnotoverthetopin
    principleanddraconianinstyle,whileatthesametimemaintainingtheinternetasaplacefor
    freedom,expression,creativityandsocialisation?
    Whatthisreporthasrecognisedisthatonlythroughtheparticipationofchildrenandyoungpeoplein
    anypolicycreationandimplementationcanwehopetoachievebestoutcomesforthosewhoare
    deemedtobethemostvulnerableinternetcommunity.
    Initsrecommendations,thisreportcallsforcollaborationandsupportfrompeers,youthservices,
    teachersandparents,ratherthantop-downrestrictionsandrulesdictatedfromcentralgovernment.
    Theroleofmedialiteracymustbefullyexploredthroughinformalandformaleducationalstructures
    involvingbothyoungpeopleandtheoldergenerationstoenableuseoftheinternettobeasafeand
    enjoyableprocessforall.
    Onlythroughworkingtogetherwiththeactiveinvolvementofchildrenandyoungpeopleasan
    integralpartoftheprocesscanwebestensurethatthosewhoneeditareprotectedfromthedangers
    oftheonlinecommunity,andthattheirexplorationofselfidentity,theirplaceincommunityandtheir
    roleinsocietyarefullysupported.

    AlexFarrow(19)
    TheNationalYouthAgency
    3 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Contents
    Aboutippr ........................................................................................................................................... 4
    Abouttheauthors.............................................................................................................................. 4
    Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................ 4
    Executivesummary ............................................................................................................................ 5
    Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 9
    1.Fromconsumptiontoengagement:livinglifeonline................................................................... 14
    2.Managingrisk:publicprivatelives................................................................................................. 23
    3.Thelimitsofrulesandregulations................................................................................................ 42
    4.Learningbydoing:empoweringyoungpeoplethroughmediapractice ..................................... 52
    5.Conclusionandrecommendations................................................................................................ 61
    References......................................................................................................................................... 66
    Appendix1:Researchmethodology–deliberativeworkshops........................................................ 73
    Appendix2:Groupprofiles ............................................................................................................... 75
    Appendix3:Definitionofsocialclasses ........................................................................................... 76
    4 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Aboutippr
    TheInstituteforPublicPolicyResearch(ippr)istheUK’sleadingprogressivethinktank,producing
    cutting-edgeresearchandinnovativepolicyideasforajust,democraticandsustainableworld.
    Since1988,wehavebeenattheforefrontofprogressivedebateandpolicymakingintheUK.Through
    ourindependentresearchandanalysiswedefinenewagendasforchangeandprovidepractical
    solutionstochallengesacrossthefullrangeofpublicpolicyissues.
    WithofficesinbothLondonandNewcastle,weensureouroutlookisasbroad-basedaspossible,
    whileourinternationalandmigrationteamsandclimatechangeprogrammeextendourpartnerships
    andinfluencebeyondtheUK,givingusatrulyworld-classreputationforhighqualityresearch.
    ippr,30-32SouthamptonStreet,LondonWC2E7RA.Tel:+44(0)2074706100E:info@ippr.org
    www.ippr.org.RegisteredCharityNo.800065

    ThispaperwasfirstpublishedinApril2008.©ippr2008

    Abouttheauthors
    KayWithers isaresearchfellowinthedirectors’researchteamatippr.Beforethatsheworkedasa
    researchertoBrianWhiteMP,andwaspolicyadvisertotheInternetServicesProvidersAssociation.
    Herpreviouspublicationsincludethe ChangingNatureofSocietyandtheRoleofTelevision (for
    Channel42008), PublicInnovation:Intellectualpropertyinadigitalage(ippr,withWilliamDavies
    2006)and IntellectualPropertyandtheKnowledgeEconomy(ippr,2006).
    RuthSheldon isaresearchassistantinthepeopleandpolicyteamatippr,whereshehasdesigned
    andcarriedoutqualitativeresearchprojectsusingarangeofmethodologies.Shehasconducted
    researchwithrefugees,peoplewhoareoutofwork,youngpeopleandresidentslivinginsocial
    housing.Priortojoiningippr,Ruthworkedasaresearcherforapublicpolicycommunications
    company,theBBCandwithtwoacademicsociologists.Shehasalsoworkedasavolunteerfora
    communityhistorycharityandforacharityworkingwithyoungpeopleinTowerHamlets.

    Acknowledgements
    Theauthorsandipprwouldliketothankpeoplewhocontributedtothisprojectandparticularlythose
    whocommentedondrafts:JamieCowling,TriciaJessiman,CandicePiresandfromippr,Naomi
    Newman,JuliaMargoandJamesCrabtree.Wewouldliketothankthefundersoftheprojectfortheir
    generoussupportofthiswork:theNationalYouthAgency,andtheDepartmentofCulture,Mediaand
    SportandOfcom,whofundedthequalitativeresearch.
    Finally,wewouldlikeextendthankstotheyoungpeoplewhoparticipatedinthequalitativeresearch
    whoprovidedvaluableinsightsandideas.Withoutthemthisresearchwouldtrulynothavebeen
    possible.
    Theviewsexpressedinthisreportremainsolelythoseofthereportauthors.
    5 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Executivesummary
    Moreandmore,policymakersneedtoaddresstheopportunitiesthatnewtechnologiespresentfor
    youngpeopletoengagewitheachotherthroughmedia,ratherthanissuessimplyrelatingtohowthe
    internetandthecontentithostsimpactsonyoungpeople.Thisisanewareaforgovernment–and
    onethatwillrequireanewapproach,andnewevidence,toenableittobesuccessfullynegotiated.
    Whilewehavearangeofstatisticalinformationrelatingtoaccesstoandownershipofnewmedia
    devices,therehavebeenfewattemptstodelvedeeperthantop-linefiguresandstatisticstoreally
    drawoutthewaysinwhichyoungpeopleengagewithcontent,andwitheachother,online.
    Withoutasoundevidencebaseandunderstanding,policywaversprecariouslybetweenover-
    regulationandnoregulationatall,withneitherapproachlikelytosatisfy.
    Thisreport,drawingonlandmarkqualitativeresearchwithyoungpeopleandoriginalempirical
    analysis,aimstodevelopapolicyagendathatwouldallowgovernment,parents,corporatesand
    internetproviderstoaddressgrowingconcernsaboutchildsafetyonlinewhileensuringthatthe
    opportunitiestheinternetofferstoyoungpeoplearenotrestricted.

    Arapidlychangingmediaexperience
    Youngpeopleinhabitavastlydifferentworldtothatexperiencedbytheirparentsandthecurrentcrop
    ofpolicymakersintheiryouth.Injustover25years,wehavemovedfromamediaworldofjustthree
    terrestrialtelevisionchannelstoonethatoffersanabundanceofcontent,availableonachoiceof
    platforms.Foryoungpeople,theinternetandtheopportunitiesitoffersarenotnoveltiesbutarepart
    ofeverydaylife.Itisdifficultforadults,parentsandpolicymakerstofullycomprehendthis:theycan
    likelyrememberlifebeforeconstantconnectivity,beforebroadbandaccessineveryofficeandbefore
    mobilephoneswereconsideredaneverydayessential.
    Youngpeoplenowhaveaccesstoasophisticatedrangeofnewmediatoolsatincreasinglyyoung
    ages,withfourinfive5-to15-year-oldshavingaccesstotheinternetathome.Youngpeoplereport
    usingtheinternetforseveralhoursanight,primarilytosocialisewithfriendsusingInstantMessenger
    andsocialnetworkingsitessuchasMySpace,FacebookandBebo.
    Accessistypicallyunsupervised.Whilethecomputermaybeplacedinacommunalroomofthe
    house,youngpeopletendtoaccesstheinternetalone.Thishasimplicationsfortheextenttowhich
    theyareabletoengageinsocialandcommercialactivityunsupervisedinwaysthatcouldnothave
    beenimagined20yearsago.
    Thesetrends,thechangingnatureofaccess,andthegenerationaldividebetweenparentsand
    policymakersandyoungpeople,raisehugequestionsastohowcapableparentsaretomakeinformed
    decisionsabouttheirchildren’sinternetuse–forinstance,consideringtheshort-termimpactofthis
    interactionontheirimmediatewell-being,anditslongertermaffectsontheirpsychosocial
    development.

    Understandinghowyoungpeoplenegotiateonlinerisk
    Inordertomakesureanypolicydevelopediseffectiveandappropriate,itiscrucialthatwegainan
    understandingofhowyoungpeopleusetheinternet,andtheirattitudestowardsonlineactivity.The
    pointsbelowsummariseippr’snewfindingsinthisarea:
    • Youngpeoplehavecontradictoryattitudestowardstheinternet Youngpeopledescribe
    manyaspectsofinternetuseasbothpositiveandnegative.Forinstance,whiletheydescribethe
    increasedopportunitytosocialisewithfriendsasabenefit,theyalsoexpressconcernatthe
    ‘addictive’natureoftheinternet.Thesumoftimespentonline,andtheimportanceplacedon
    ‘constantconnectivity’hasimplicationsforyoungpeople’swell-beingandpsychosocial
    development,theoriesofwhichemphasisetheneedtospendtimealone.
    • Attitudestoprivacyandsafetyareextremelycontradictory Youngpeopleexperiencea
    tensionbetweenastrongdislikeofstrangerslookingattheirsocialnetworkingprofiles,anda
    6 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    sensethatamajorbenefitofhavingasocialnetworkingsite(SNS)profileistheopportunityto
    self-advertise.Youngpeopleemphasisetheneedtoaddphotosanddetailontheironlineprofiles
    inorderthatpeoplewillwanttobecometheirfriends.Thisprocessisregularlyreferredtoas‘self-
    advertising’.Theyalsorejectthenotionofmakingtheirprofileprivate,asthiswouldstopitbeing
    viewedwidely.
    • Attitudestomeetingnewpeoplearecontradictory Forexample,youngpeoplearewell
    awareof‘strangerdanger’,andtendtousetheinternettosocialisewithpeopletheyalready
    know.Therearealsostrongnormsagainstusingtheinternettomeetnewpeople.Nonetheless,
    youngpeopledousetheinternettocommunicatewith‘friendsoffriends’–peoplewithwhom
    theyhavesomeconnection,nomatterhowtenuous–forexample,someonewhowaslinked
    throughasocialnetworkingsiteorcopiedintothesamechainemail.
    Whenyoungpeopledomeetupwith‘friendsoffriends’theyhavemetonline,theyhavea
    numberofmechanismstheyemployinordertoensuretheirsafety.Forinstance,theyplacemore
    trustinawebcamthanaphotoinestablishingidentity,asthereisrecognitionthatphotoscanbe
    fake.Theyalsotendtomeetpeoplewithagroupoffriendsratherthanalone.
    • Cyberbullyingisnotarecognisedconcept Youngpeopledonottendtousetheterm
    ‘cyberbullying’,andtherearestrongnormstowards‘seeingthejoke’whereonlinebehaviouris
    concerned.Thecontextofofflinerelationshipsiscrucialindecidingwhethercertainactionsonline
    areacceptableornot–forinstance,posting‘joke’orembarrassingphotosorvideosoffriendsor
    acquaintancesonline.Theparticularimplicationsofonlineexposurearenotsignificantforyoung
    people.Theyoftendonotdistinguishbetweendoingsomethingembarrassingorharmfulto
    someoneandputtinganimageofthisonline.
    Ultimately,theattitudesandbehavioursofyoungpeopleonlineleadustotwoclearconclusions.
    First,youngpeopleconceptualiseriskintermsofimmediate,quantifiableconsequencesofbehaviour.
    Youngpeople’sconceptsofriskarelargelyformedthroughthestoriesinthenewsmediaandwere
    negotiatedintermsofthelikelihoodofanegativeconsequence,includingbeingcaught.So,for
    example,whereactivitiessuchasplagiarism,activitiesequatingtoadultdefinitionsof‘cyberbullying’
    andlaxattitudestoprivacyareconcerned,youngpeoplefeelrelativelyfreefromconsequence,and
    thereforedonotconsidersuchactivitiestobe‘risky’.
    Second,youngpeopledonotreflectontheironlinebehaviour.Thisextendstoyoungpeople’slackof
    awarenessoftheimplicationsofonlineexposureofthemselvesandothers,alimitedconceptofthe
    audiencewhomaybeviewingtheiractivitiesonline,andtheextenttowhichtheyarewillingtotake
    informationaccessedonlineatfacevalue.
    Overall,thesefindingssuggestthatyoungpeople’stechnicalexpertisecanoftenexceedtheir
    understanding.Thisisthegapwhichpolicymustbridgetoensurethatyoungpeoplearenot
    needlesslyputtingthemselvesatriskonlineandinsteadcangetthemostoutofwhattheinternethas
    tooffer.

    Howcanpublicpolicyrespond?
    Inordertotrulyprotectyoungpeopleonline,publicpolicymustbegintoaddressthemorecomplex
    problemsofhowyoungpeopleusemediatechnologiestoengagewitheachother,ratherthansimply
    focusingonthenegativeimpactthatcontentmayhaveonchildrenandyoungpeople.Thismeans
    understandingandtakingaccountoftheactiverolethatyoungpeoplethemselvesplayinformulating
    theirownexperiences.
    Ultimately,wemustaimtoachieveacollaborativeapproachthatengagesarangeoforganisations
    andindividuals,includingparents,educators,governmentandindustry,butthatalsoincludesusers
    themselves.Itisimportanttorecognisethatthereisalimittowhatpublicpolicyalonecanachieve:
    theinternetisneverlikelytobeanentirelyrisk-freeenvironment,andtheactionsofusersthemselves
    willbejustasimportantasregulationintheyearstocome.Nonetheless,publicpolicycanestablisha
    frameworktoallowustoreactinasensible,appropriateandtimelyfashiontochangestomediausers’
    7 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    attitudesandbehaviours.Withoutthisinplace,wewillcontinuallybeinreactivemodeandnegligent
    inadutytoprotectandprepareyoungpeoplesufficientlyforthedigitalworldtheyareleftto
    navigate.

    Recommendations
    1.ChargeOfcomwithproducinganannualreportdetailingtheeffectivenessofexisting
    self-andco-regulatoryregimes
    Ofcomcurrentlyhasadutytopromoteself-andco-regulatoryschemes.Inordertomakesureaction
    whereinternetcontentanduseisconcernediscoordinatedandcomprehensive,Ofcomshould
    produceadedicatedannualreportdetailingtheeffectivenessofschemesandidentifyingwherethere
    aregapsinprovision.Governmentcanthentakeaviewofwhereindustryshouldtakefurtheraction.
    Ifthisisnotforthcoming,governmentshouldconsideralternativeregulatoryapproaches.
    2.GiveresponsibilityformedialiteracytotheDepartmentforChildren,Schoolsand
    Families(DCSF)
    TheGovernment’scurrentmedia-literacyagendaisunambitiousandunder-performing.Ithassuffered
    fromlackofengagementfromDCSF,despitethefactthatthisdepartmentistheonethatlargelyhas
    todealwiththeconsequencesofalackofmedialiteracyofyoungpeopleandadults.DCSFshouldbe
    givenleadresponsibilityinthisareainordertodriveacomprehensivemedia-literacyprogramme
    forward,engagingrelevantdeliveragentssuchasschools,youthservicesandothers.
    3.Driveforwardconsultationontheextentofcorporatesocialresponsibilitytoyouthin
    thenewmediaworld
    TheDCSFshouldleadtheagendaintermsofunderstandingtheroleofcorporatesocialresponsibility
    whereraisingyouthisconcerned.Thismeansconsideringtherolesnotonlyofinternetservice
    providers,mobileoperatorsandotherstowhomweregularlyattachtheterm‘industry’,butalsoofa
    widerrangeofcommercialinterestswhoseektoengagewithyoungpeopleinsocialspacesthatare
    largelyunmediatedbyadults.TheDCSFshouldseektodriveforwardpolicyinthisarea,in
    consultationwiththecorporatesector,consumerorganisationsandrepresentatives,parentsand–
    mostimportantly–youngpeoplethemselves,andshouldtaskthecorporatesectorwithdrawingupa
    definitionofcorporatesocialresponsibilitythatcanbeappliedtoengagementwithyoungpeoplein
    thedigitalmediaspace.
    4.Ensurethatage-restrictionmechanismsbecomemorerobustandusedmorewidely
    Industryshouldcontinuetoworkonimprovingthesafetyoftheirofferingstoyoungpeopleand,in
    particular,shouldlookatstrengtheningage-restrictionmechanismswheretheseareemployed.
    Industryplayersshouldalsoensuretheyarefullyengagedwithcurrentsafetyinitiatives,suchasthe
    InternetWatchFoundation,andsupporttheirwork.
    Theindustry–includingserviceproviders,socialnetworkingsitesandcommercialentitiesengaging
    withyouthonline–shouldcooperatewithgovernmentindevelopingnewcodesofrightsand
    responsibilitiesandensuringgreatercodecomplianceinordertoenhancegoodbehaviourandthe
    positiveexperiencesofyoungpeopleonline.
    5.Revitalisethemedia-literacyagendaanddeliveritthroughtheExtendedSchools
    programme
    Recentadvancesingovernmentpolicy–particularlytheExtendedSchoolsprogramme–presentsa
    hugeopportunitytointroducemedia-literacyteachinginamoreinnovativeandexcitingwaythan
    everbefore.Ratherthantreatingmedialiteracyasaninformationandcommunicationtechnology
    (ICT)skillset,tobetaughtinatraditionallessonformat,youngpeopleshouldbeencouragedto
    createmediatexts–anactivitythatislikelytoprovepopularandbebeneficialintermsofother
    outcomessuchasschoolachievement.Creatingtheirownmediawillenableyoungpeopletobuild
    greatercriticalskillstowardsinformationtheyaccessandcreateandlearnmoreaboutthe
    consequencesoftheiractionsonline.
    Suchaprogrammeofworkcouldbedeliveredbylinkingtheactivitycurrentlyongoinginthe
    8 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    communitymediasectorwiththatofschools,utilisingtheknowledgeandskillsofmediapractitioners.
    6.Makeinformationandlearningopportunitiesavailabletoparents,throughexisting
    initiativessuchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsprogramme.
    Reachingparentsremainsadifficultchallenge.However,theGovernment’sagendaforsupporting
    parentsoutlinedintheChildren’sPlanprovidesanopportunitytoensurethatinformationisavailable
    forparentswhenandwheretheywantit.Media-literacyinitiativesaimedatencouragingparentsto
    engageinsupportiveonlineactivitieswithyoungpeopleshouldbedeliveredthroughexisting
    initiativessuchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsprogramme.
    9 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    1.Introduction
    Allchange:thebravenewmediaworld
    Themediahasconsistentlyplayedanimportantroleincivilisedsociety.Fromtheinventionofthe
    printingpressinthe17thcenturytotheadventoftelevisionandradioandfinally,theemergenceof
    theinternet,themediahasservedtocommunicateideasandinformation,toprovidespaceforpublic
    discourse,andtoentertainandeducatecitizensaroundtheglobe.
    Werelyheavilyonthemedia–forinformation,forentertainmentandforaccesstothepublicsphere
    –andithasthereforelongbeenthoughtofasapowerfulforce,capableofinfluencingtheattitudes
    andbehavioursofitsconsumers.Theroleofthemediainpropagandacampaigns–particularlyduring
    thefirstandsecondworldwars–showshowrealandpowerfulthatinfluencecanbe(Hermanand
    Chomsky1988,MacKenzie1984).

    Isthereaproblem?
    Alongtheway,manyhavevoicedfearsofthepotentialfornegativeinfluencebymediamessages–
    particularlyonchildrenandyoungpeople.Thepresumedpowerofthemediajuxtaposedwiththe
    vulnerabilityofyoungpeople,hasledtopublicpanicwheneveranewmediaformisintroduced.In
    the1950s,therewerewidespreadconcernsabouttheimpactofviolentimagesincomics(Nyberg
    1988).The1960sbroughtfearsthatpopularmusicwouldencourageyoungpeopletoshedtraditional
    valuesandbehavebadlyasaresult(Savage1988).Inmorerecentdecadestherehavebeensimilar
    concernsabouttheimpactofviolenceinfilmsandvideogames,andthesecontinuetothisday.
    Innovationsindigitaltechnologieshaveresultedinanabundanceofcontentandchoice,asuserscan
    accessamind-bogglinglywiderangeofmaterialatanytime,dayornight,throughvastlyincreased
    accesstomediadevices.This,combinedwiththefactthatinternetcontentisnotsubjecttothesame
    standardsthatweapplytotraditionalbroadcastcontent,meansthatparentsandguardiansare
    increasinglyworriedabouthowtostopyoungpeoplecomingintocontactwithcontentdeemed
    unsuitable–forexample,contentdepictingextremeviolenceorofagraphicsexualnature.
    Thesefearsdrawonalongtrendofanalyticalworkthatseekstoassesstheimpactofindividuals
    engagingwithmediabyaccessingcontentthroughvariousdevicestoretrieveinformationorfor
    entertainment.Forexample,doesviewingviolentcontentencourageviolentbehaviour?Does
    increasedconsumptionofsexualcontentencouragepromiscuity,ordoesitcauseviewerstoform
    certainattitudestowardswomen(ormen)?
    Thesequestionsremainrelevant,andplayanimportantroleinourunderstandingoftheinternet.But
    convergenceofnewmediatechnologiessuchastheinternetwithtraditionalmediaformssuchas
    televisionandradiobegsanewquestion:forhowlongcantheregulatorydistinctionbetween
    broadcast(whichisincreasinglytakingonthecharacteristicsofon-demand,multimediacontent)and
    internetcontent(whichisincreasinglytakingonthecharacteristicsofbroadcastmaterial),remain
    salientintermsofstandardsofcontent?

    Possiblesolutions
    Asthedivergencebetweentheconcernsofparentsandpublicpolicymakersandthecurrentmedia
    regulatoryframeworkbecomesmorestriking,wearefacedwithaproblem.Andasthenewsstories
    reportinginternetscandalsbecomemorefrequent,thereisastrongandgrowingsensethat
    somethingmustbedone.
    Butwhat?WhiletheUKhasastronghistoryofstateinterventioninmediaprovision,aswehave
    movedawayfromananalogueagemeansthattheprinciplesandpolicyleversweoncereliedupon
    arethreatened.Inthepast,governmentshavebeenabletoimposepublicobligationsonbroadcasters
    todelivermaterialthatmeetscertainsocialobjectivesinreturnforaccesstospectrum–ascarce
    commodity–tobroadcasttelevision.Becauseofbottlenecksindistributionofbroadcastcontent,it
    hasbeenpossibletoimposestrongeditorialcontrolonanythingthatisdeliveredtoaudiences
    throughtelevision.However,theinternetremovesthesetechnicallimitationsandthusreducethe
    10 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    bargainingtoolsavailabletoregulatorstocontinueregulating.
    Thenewformsofmediameanthereisanewissue:foryoungpeopletoday,engagingwiththemedia
    isatwo-wayprocess.Asopposedtobeingpassiverecipientsofmediamessages,todayyoungpeople
    playanactiveroleincontributingtotheverymediathattheyconsume.Foryoungpeople,themost
    importantfeaturesofdigitalmediatechnologies,andtheonestheyhaveembracedmost
    enthusiastically,arethosethatallowincreasedsocialisationwiththeirpeers–forexample,social
    networkingsites(SNSs),instantmessaging(IM)servicesandtextmessaging(ManteandPiris2002).
    Thisraisesadifferentsetofissues.Perhapsmostprominenthasbeenthethreattoyoungpeople
    fromadultsexualpredatorsonline.Parentsarenownotjustconcernedaboutinappropriatecontent
    butalsoinappropriateapproaches.Thisfearwasperhapsatitshighestwhentheuseofchatrooms
    reacheditspeakduringthelate1990sandintotheearlymillennium,butithasemergedagainmore
    recentlywiththeriseofsocialnetworkingsites.
    Thethreatposedbyadultpredators,thepotentialharmcausedbyviewinginappropriatecontent,and
    thetypicalpolicyresponsestothesethreats,whichcentreonprotection,forinstancebylimiting
    accesstotheinternet,suggestthatyoungpeoplearestillbeingseenasessentiallyreactive–
    respondingtothemediatheyconsume.However,intheemergingdigitalage,thisisfarfromthe
    truth.Wherecontentconsumptionisconcerned,youngpeoplecannolongerbeseenasapassive
    audiencereadytoreceivewhatevercontentbroadcastersputout.Increasingly,theyarebuildingtheir
    ownentertainmentexperiencebyselectingcontenttoviewonlineusingvideo-sharingwebsitessuch
    asYouTube,orbydownloadingcontentviacommercialservicessuchasiTunesorofferingsfrom
    traditionalbroadcasterssuchastheBBC’siPlayer,orChannel4’s4ODservice.
    Butperhapsthestarkestchangeiswhereonlinesocialisationisconcerned.Youngpeopleareusingthe
    internettosocialiseandexploretheiridentitiesinwaysthatcouldnothavebeenimagined20years
    ago.Theinternetisincreasinglybecomingaplatformonwhichemergingsocialtrendsareplayedout:
    increasedlevelsofunmediatedsocialisationofyoungpeoplewithpeers,increasedautonomyfrom
    parents,andanearliertransitionfromchildhoodtoadulthood–particularlywheresexualand
    commercialactivityisconcerned.WhiletheGovernmentgrappleswithhowtobegintoconsiderthe
    problemoftheregulationofinternetcontent,themorecomplexproblemofhowtoregulatetheway
    peopleengagewithitloomslargeinthebackground.

    Aimsofthisreport
    Thisreportcombinesthefindingsofourownqualitativeresearchwithareviewofexistingevidence
    andliterature,toexplorehowregulationshouldrespondtothechangingmedialandscapeandthe
    behaviourofusers.
    Inthefaceofgrowingconcernsfrompoliticiansandparentsalike,theoptionofsimply‘doing
    nothing’inresponsetotheinterdependentissuesdescribedaboveisunlikelytobepolitically
    palatable.Butthereisanequallystrongmessagecomingfromyoungpeoplethemselves:thatthey
    shouldbeabletocontroltheirownexperiences.Wheregovernmentdoesmakeamove,itrunsthe
    riskofalienatingyoungergenerationsbyappearingoutdated,imposingtop-downregulationsand
    actinglikeaparent.
    Commonsensewouldsuggestthattheadultworldisduty-boundtojudgehowsafeandresilient
    youngergenerationsactuallyare,incomparisonwithhowtheyperceivethemselvestobe.However,if
    wearetodevelopappropriatepolicyresponses,thenitisessentialthatwegainanuanced
    understandingofwheretheinternetfitsintoyoungpeople’severydaylives,andtheirattitudes,
    behavioursandexpectationsinrelationtothecontentandopportunitiesitoffers.Whilewehavea
    rangeofstatisticalinformationrelatingtoaccesstoandownershipofnewmediadevices,therehave
    beenfewattemptstodelvedeeperthantop-linefiguresandstatisticstoreallydrawoutthewaysin
    whichyoungpeopleengagewithcontent,andwitheachother,online.
    Withoutasoundevidencebaseandunderstanding,policywaversprecariouslybetweenover-
    regulationandnoregulationatall,withneitherapproachlikelytosatisfy.
    11 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Thisipprreportaimstoaddressthisgap,maintainingthataregulatoryregimefitforfuturemedia
    citizensmustcomefromastartingpointoffirstunderstandingthepractices,behavioursand
    expectationsofyoungergenerations.Itaimstodevelopaprogressiveapproachtomediaregulationin
    whichweseektounderstandtheinterplaybetweenyoungpeople’suseofmedia,socialchangeand
    socialbehavioursinorderthatwecaneffectivelyidentifytheroleforpublicpolicy.
    Ourrecommendationsareaimedatkeepingyoungpeoplesafeinthecontextofrapidlyshifting
    boundariesandchangingopportunitiesandbehaviours.Butitisimportanttorecognisethattherole
    forpolicyisminorinrelationtotherolesofyoungpeoplethemselves,parentsandsocietyasawhole,
    asweincreasinglyunderstandthemoredeeplyrootedconsequencesofnewmedia.
    Thedebateoverhowtoapproachprotectingyoungpeopleonlineisdividedandoftenveersfromone
    extremetoanother.Thereisapolicyvacuum,whichgovernmentmusttakestepstofillsoonerrather
    thanlater.Ourrecommendations,takenacrossthepiece,presentaprogressiveaccountastohowwe
    moveforwardonacollective,society-widebasis,tofulfilboththeexpectationsofparentsand
    guardiansandthedesiresofyoungpeople.
    Thisisnottosuggestthatregulationshouldseeksolelytoadapttoyoungusersasconsumers,nor
    thatregulationinthisenvironmentshouldbelimitedtomerelyfacilitatingconsumerchoiceina
    communicationsmarketplace.Themediacontinuestoplayanimportantroleinearlysocialisationand
    inmovingtowardsactivecitizenshipand,despitetheshiftfromanaloguetodigital,itisclearthat
    continuedinterventioninyoungpeople’smediaexperiencecontinuestobenecessary.So,whilewe
    aimtolistentoyoungpeopleandlearnfromtheirexperiences,wealsoseektoinfluencetheirchoices
    andcurtailthemwherenecessary.

    Researchmethods
    Inordertogainaperspectiveonyoungpeople’suseoftheinternet,wesoughttoconsultwithyoung
    peopleasmuchaspossible.Weheldthreedeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopleandalso
    conducteddiaryresearch.Throughthesemethods,wesoughttoexplorethefollowingkeyissues:
    • Whatdoyoungpeopleusetheinternetfor,andhowdotheyuseit–particularlyinrelationto
    socialnetworkingsites?
    • Whatareyoungpeople’sattitudestowardsprivacyandsafety?
    • Whatareyoungpeople’sattitudestowards,andexperienceof,so-calledcyberbullying?
    • Howdoyoungpeopleusetheinternettofindoutinformation?
    Participantswererecruitedfromarangeofsocio-economicbackgrounds.Allhadbroadbandaccess
    andmobilephones.Thiswaspartlytoensurethatnoparticipantfeltexcluded,butalsobecausethe
    focusofthisresearchhasbeenonuseoftheinternetratherthanaccesstoit.Wedeliberatelyusedan
    approachwithyoungpeopleatitscentreinordertoavoidimposingadultconceptsofriskand
    vulnerability.Instead,thepurposewastounderstandhowyoungpeopleexperiencednew
    technologies,andthepositiveandnegativeaspectsofthesetechnologiesasperceivedbyyoung
    peoplethemselves.
    Theresearchlargelyfocusedontheuseofsocialnetworkingsites,instantmessengerandvideo-
    sharingwebsitesasyoungpeoplethemselvesidentifiedtheseasbeingthemostpopularsites.A
    summaryisavailableinthebox‘Youngpeople’sfavouritesitesandservices’,nextpage.
    AfulloutlineoftheresearchmethodologyiscontainedinAppendix1,withabreakdownofgroup
    participantsavailableinAppendix2.

    Structureofthereport
    Theremainderofthisreportisdividedintofivechapters:
    • Chapter1 givesabroadoverviewofthechangestothemedialandscapethathavetakenplace
    recently,andidentifiesthedriversofthesechanges.Itoutlineshowyoungpeoplehave
    respondedintermsofthetimespentwithmedia,andhighlightschangingpatternsofaccess,
    includingincreasinglevelsofunsupervisedaccess.
    12 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    • Chapter2 looksatthechallengespresentedbythechangessetoutinChapter1,outliningthe
    resultsofourqualitativeresearchinareasincludingsafety,privacyandcyberbullying.Itthen
    considersothercurrentareasofconcern,includingaccesstoharmfulcontentandexposureto
    advertising.
    • Chapter3 outlinesthecurrentregulatoryframeworkandexploresthedifficultiesinvolvedin
    extendingformalregulationtotheinternetenvironment.Italsolooksatthedifferentrolesof
    self-andco-regulation.
    • Chapter4 emphasisesthatwecannotexpectregulationtodoeverything,andthattherealityof
    theinternetissuchthatapartnershipapproachisnotonlywelcomedbutnecessary.Itargues
    thatparents,educatorsandusersthemselvesmusttakestepstobuildtheircapacitytomanage
    theirownexperience.Itthenexploresthecurrentmedia-literacyframework,andprovides
    recommendationsforpushingthisforward.
    • Chapter5 setsouttherecommendationsandconclusionstothisreport.

    Youngpeople’sfavouritesitesandservices
    Socialnetworkingsites
    Therearehugenumbersofsocialnetworkingsites(SNSs),andtheyarepopularamonginternet
    users.ForinstanceFacebook(www.facebook.com)hasover66millionactiveusers(source:
    Facebookpressroom,accessed3/3/08)whileMySpace(www.myspace.com)hostswellover
    100millionaccounts(Register2006).IntheUK,almostthreequarters(72percent)ofchildren
    havevisitedanSNS,andoverhalfofthesehavesetuptheirownprofile(Ward2008).
    Onlinecommunitieshavealwaysbeenastrongfeatureoftheinternet,andSNSsareanatural
    progressionfromthese.Butwhereaspreviousexamplessoughttolinkpeoplearoundashared
    interest,SNSsallowpeopletoconnectthroughexistingsocialrelationships.
    WhileeachSNSdiffersfromthenext,theyshareanumberofcommonfeatures.First,theuser
    buildsapersonalprofile.Theyareaskedtosupplycertaininformationaboutthemselvesin
    ordertogeneratea‘profile’:essentially,thepublicfaceoftheirexistenceinthecommunity.
    Theyadddetailssuchastheirname,age,dateofbirthandhometown,aswellasfavourite
    music,televisionprogrammes,booksandfilms,alongsidephotos,tocreateanindividual
    account.
    Havingcreatedtheprofile,theusercanstarttobuildtheirnetworkbyinvitingothersonthe
    sitetobetheir‘friend’,andbyrespondingtofriendrequestsreceivedbyexistingmembers.
    Usersperusethenetwork,lookingatfriends’profilesandfriendsoffriends’profilesandsoon.
    OnSNSs,interactionbetweenmembersmostobviouslytakesplaceintheformofcomments
    andtestimonialswrittenby‘friends’andaddedtotheusers’page.Therearealsofacilitiesfor
    postingitemsofinterest,promotingforthcomingeventsandadvertisingitemssuchasspare
    rooms.
    OnMySpace,theseitemsareaddedtobulletinboards,whicharevisibletoeachindividual
    withintheposter’snetwork.Theyarethenoftencopiedbyotherindividualswithinthat
    network,re-postedtothebulletinboardinordertoreachmembersofthesecondaryposters’
    networks,andsoon.Usingthisfacility,socialnetworkingsiteshavebeenheraldedasan
    effectivewayofmobilisingpeoplearoundanissue.IntheUS,forexample,schoolchildren
    organisedawide-scaleprotestagainstnewdevelopmentsinimmigrationlawthroughMySpace.
    SNSsalsooffercommunicationtoolssuchasemailandinstantmessaging,sothatmemberscan
    holdprivateconversationswithothermembers,althoughSNSsarelargelypublicspacesin
    whichthemajorityofactivityisvisibletoallmembers.
    ThemajorityofSNSs–andcertainlythosethataremostpopularwithyoungpeople–arefree
    13 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    touse.However,althoughincomeisnotgenerateddirectlyfromusers,theyhaveaveryhigh
    commercialvalue.MySpacewassoldtoNewsCorpfornearlyUS$600millionin2006,whilein
    2007Microsoftboughta1.6percentstakeinFaceBookforUS$240million.Suchfiguresare
    representativeofthevalueofpaid-foradvertisingonthesite,whichisseenasakeygrowth
    area.
    Instantmessagingtools
    Instantmessaging(IM)isoneofthemostpopularwaysforyoungpeopletocommunicate.Itis
    usedfarmoreoftenthanemail,forexample–partlybecauseitcanmorecloselyresemblea
    conversation,offeringreal-timecommunicationincontrasttothe‘letter’formatofemail,which
    isconsideredmuchmoreformal.Itcanfacilitate‘conversations’betweenseveralpartiesatonce,
    andtheyoungpeopleinterviewedinourresearchstatedthattheysometimesparticipatedin
    conversationsfeaturingasmanyas20people.
    LargenumberofyounginternetusersuseIMtochattofriends.Arecentsurveyshowedthat
    82percentofIMpartnerswerefriendsfromschool,incomparisonto48percentwhohadmet
    online(Greenfieldetal 2006).ThereisalsoevidencethatthecloserateenagelivestoanIM
    partner,themorefrequentlytheywillcommunicatewiththemoverIM(Bonevaetal 2003).
    TouseIM,theusermusthaveaworkinginternetconnection.Theysimplydownloadafree
    programfromanIMproviderandselectanIMname–whichcanbetheirrealnameora
    nickname.Userscommunicatebytypingshortsentencesintotheapplication.Thesearesent
    andreceivedalmostinstantaneouslybytherespondent.ThemostpopularIMapplication,AIM,
    hasover100millionregisteredusersand53millionactiveusersacrosstheglobe.
    ItispossibletolimitthelevelsofcommunicationonIM–forinstancebymarkinginyour
    settingsthatyouare‘offline’andthereforeunabletocommunicate.Aswithemail,usersare
    alsoabletoblockotherusersfromcontactingthem.
    Video-sharingwebsites
    Video-sharingwebsitesgiveyoungpeopletheopportunitytobothwatchanduploadvideos,
    andalsotoshareelementsofotherSNSs–forexample,allowinguserstocommentonvideos,
    buildtheirownprofilesandlinkupwithotherusers.
    Themostpopularvideo-sharingwebsite,YouTube,waslaunchedin2005,andin2006was
    acquiredbyGoogleforUS$1.65billion,indicatingthelevelofexpectedfuturecommercial
    revenuethatwillbegeneratedfromthesite’susers.
    Onedoesnothavetobearegistereduserofthesitetowatchvideos,butsomelevelofpersonal
    detailmustbesuppliedinordertouploadcontent.Userswhocontributecontent‘tag’their
    videoswithrelevantphrases,makingiteasiertosearchformaterial.Dependingonwhichvideo
    youarewatching,linkstorelatedcontentappearonthescreen.Thesearedeterminedbythe
    tagsappliedbythepersonwhouploadedthecontent.
    YouTubehasplayedanincreasinglyactiveroleinpubliclife,withdebatesforthe2008US
    presidentialracepostedonthesite,andtheUKForeignOfficerecentlyannouncingitwould
    developitsownYouTubechannel.However,despitetheobviousbenefitsthatthesitecan
    provide,ithasneverbeenveryfarfromcontroversyandoutrage.Thesitehasbeenthecentre
    ofconcernsaroundissuessuchasso-called‘happyslapping’(inwhichphysicalattacksare
    filmedonamobilephonethensharedonline),violenceamongyoungpeople,andcyberbullying
    bothofpupilsandteachers.Thesitehasbeenblockedinseveralcountries,includingThailand,
    UnitedArabEmiratesandIran,duetoanti-governmentmessagesorthepresenceofadult
    contentdeemedunsuitable.
    Sinceitsinception,YouTubehasprovedphenomenallypopular,andanestimated65,000videos
    areuploadeddaily(Chaetal 2007).Thesitehasalsoresultedinthecreationofanumberof
    ‘YouTubecelebrities’–forinstance‘LonelyGirl15’,whichwaspresentedasavideoblogofa
    normal15-year-oldgirlbutwaslaterdiscoveredtobethecreationofaNewZealandactressand
    filmproducers.
    14 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    1.Fromconsumptiontoengagement:livinglifeonline
    Themedialandscapehasrecentlyundergoneadrasticchangeasweshiftfromanaloguetodigital.
    Just25yearsago,Britishtelevisionviewershadachoiceofthreechannels–BBC1,BBC2andITV.In
    thequartercenturysincetheintroductionofChannel4,thenumberofchannelshasmultipliedto
    morethan400(Ofcom2007b).
    Itisworthrememberingthisinordertoemphasisehowvastlyadolescentexperiencesofmediahave
    changed–particularlywhenwecontrasttheexperiencesoftoday’sgenerationofadults(and
    policymakers)againsttheexperiencesofyouthtoday.Aswellasincreasedcontentandchoice,digital
    technologiesofferopportunitiesforamoreinteractiveexperience,intermsofengagingbothwith
    contentandwithotherusers.Thedistinctionbetweenconsumerandproducerisrapidlyblurring,as
    aredistinctionsbetweenpublicandprivate,asconversationsandsocialisationincreasinglytakeplace
    onlineandencompasscontentofanaudio-visualnature.
    Foryoungpeopletoday,theinternet(andtheopportunitiesitoffers)isnotanoveltybutpartof
    everydaylife.Itisdifficultforadults,parentsandpolicymakerstofullycomprehend.Itislikelythey
    canstillrememberatimebeforebroadbandaccesswasnearuniversal,andbeforethemobilephone
    wasseenasanessentialpartofeverydaylife.Assuch,thereisatendencyforadultstoreactto
    children’sexperienceoftechnologyinoneoftwoways(Buckingham2005a).
    Thefirstoftheseistoromanticiseorover-emphasiseyoungpeople’stechnologicalexpertise,giving
    themlabelssuchas‘theMySpaceGeneration’or‘digitalmillennials’andpresumingthatyoungpeople
    show‘natural’adaptabilitytonewtechnologicaldevelopments.Indeed,thisisacommonfeatureof
    politicians’speeches.Forexample,speakingin1999,TonyBlairadmittedthathischildrenwerefar
    moreproficientinusingtheinternetthanhewasandthatheoftenfeltasenseof‘mild,sometimes
    notsomild,humiliation’watchingthemsurftheweb(Blair1999).
    Thesecondtendencyistodepictyoungpeopleasbeingmademorevulnerablebydigital
    technologies,underincreasedthreatfrompredatorsandthereforeinneedofmuchgreaterprotection.
    Arecentparliamentarydebatesuggestedtheinternetshouldoffer‘twochoicesofcontent,onefor
    adultsandoneforchildren’byblacklistingcertainsitestobeupdatedhourlybyan‘internetstandards
    authority’(Hansard2008).Often,thesetwocontradictoryattitudesareheldsimultaneously.
    Often,adultsfearforyoungpeople’ssafetypreciselybecausetheirexpertisemeanstheyareableto
    manipulatetechnologiesinwaysthatfewadultscomprehend.Thisgenerationaldivideraiseshuge
    questionsastohowcapableparentsaretomakeinformeddecisionsaboutthepotentialimpactofthis
    interactionintheshortterm–forinstance,inconsideringtheimpactonyoungpeople’simmediate
    well-beingandlonger-termpsychosocialdevelopment.Asaresult,wemustconsiderwhetherand
    wherepublicpolicyshouldfillthisgapintheinterim.Butfromalonger-termperspective,weshould
    alsoquestiontheextenttowhichsuchinterventionwillcontinuetobenecessary.Oncethecurrent
    generationofyouthmovesintoparenthood,thepresentgenerationgapmaybecomelessstark,and
    theroleforpolicymaywellbedifferent.
    Nonetheless,atpresentitisimportantthatpublicpolicyisformedwithoutrelyingonthebasiseither
    ofromanticnotionsofyoungpeople’scompetenceoronfearoftheunknown–inthiscase,young
    people’sactivitiesonline.Toavoidthesetraps,wemustseektounderstandwhen,whereandhow
    oftenyoungpeopleaccesstheinternet,theenvironmentalandsocialcircumstancesinwhichtheydo
    so,andhowthisactivitychangesovertimeasyoungpeopleenterdifferentlifestages.Thiswillenable
    ustojudgewhereyoungpeoplearelikelytoencounterthegreatestrisk,andwhererisksareminimal.

    Youngpeopleandthemedia
    Therelationshipbetweenyoungpeopleandthemediahasexperiencedtwosignificantchangesover
    thepastfewdecadesthatrelatetoconcernsregardingchildrenandyoungpeople’svulnerabilityand
    well-being.Theserelateto:
    • Increasedaccesstomediadevices
    15 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    • Increasedtime–andincreasedunsupervisedtime–spentaccessingmedia.
    Wewillnowlookateachoftheseinturn.
    Accesstomediadevices
    Youngpeoplenowhaveaccesstoasophisticatedrangeofnewmediatoolsatincreasinglyyoung
    ages.Mobilephonesareparticularlypervasiveamongyoungpeople.Itisestimatedthatjustoverhalf
    often-year-oldsand70percentof11-year-oldsownamobilephone(YouGov2006).Meanwhile,80
    percentof12-to15-year-oldshaveone(Ofcom2006a).Ofcourse,accesstoamobilephonenow
    affordsmorethanjusttheabilitytocallorsendtextmessages.Phonesnowcomewithdigitalcameras
    orvideocamerasattached.Manycanalsoprovideaccesstoradio,TVandtheinternet.
    Fourinfive5-to15-year-oldshaveaccesstotheinternetathome(DCSF2007).Homebroadband
    connectionshavenowovertakendial-upconnectionsintheUK,enablingfasteraccesstomore
    sophisticatedaudio-visualcontent(Ofcom2007b).However,thehomecomputerisnottheonlyplace
    throughwhichtheinternetcanbeaccessed:schools,librariesandinternetcafésprovideplacesof
    accesswhiletheinternetisbecomingincreasinglymobile,withwirelessaccess,doingawaywiththe
    needforconnectionsfixedtoaparticularplace.Neitheristhecomputertheonlydevicethrough
    whichtheinternetcanbeaccessed:thisisnowpossibleviadigitalTV,mobilephoneandvideogame
    consoles.
    Box1.1illustratestheextentofyoungpeople’spotentialaccess.
    Timespentaccessingmedia
    Officialfiguresstatethatyoungpeoplespendonaverageof25.5hoursaweekconsumingaudio-
    visualmedia(includingtelevision,DVDs,radio,internetcontentorusinggamesconsoles).The
    majorityofthistimeisspentwatchingtelevision,whileyoungpeoplereporttheyspendanaverageof
    6.2hoursaweekontheinternet(Ofcom2006a).
    Itisworthnotingthatthisfigureisbothself-reported,andwascalculatedpriortothesocial
    networkingrevolutionthathasrecentlytakenoffinboththeUSandUK.Sincethen,youngpeople
    havereportedthattheyvisitsocialnetworkingsitesanduseInstantMessengerservicesatleastonce
    aday,andspendanaverageofonehoureachnightusinginstantmessagingtechnology(Lenhardtet
    al 2007).Infact,ourresearchindicatesthatyoungpeoplespendbetweenthreeandfourhoursa
    nightonlineusingtheseservices.
    Youngpeoplealsohaveincreasingopportunitytoaccessmediaunsupervised,whichhasraised
    concernsabouttheirabilitytoaccessage-inappropriatematerial.Thisreflectswidertrendsin
    socialisation,withyoungpeopleintheUKspendinglesstimeinvolvedin‘family’activitiesthan
    previously(Margoetal 2006).

    Box1.1:Youngpeople’saccesstomediadevices
    Accesstomediadevices(ages8-15)
    80%haveaccesstotheinternetathome
    72%havedigitalTVathome
    65%havetheirownmobilephone(49%of8-11sand82%of12-15s)
    50%ownagamesconsole,afurtherthird(34%)onebelongingtothehousehold.(Sources:DCSF2007,Ofcom2006)
    Accessoutsidethehome(ages9-19)
    99%ofUKschoolshaveaninternetconnection
    92%haveusedtheinternetatschool
    64%ofchildrenhaveaccessedtheinternetoutsidehomeorschool.Ofthese,17%haveaccessedthenetviamobile,
    6%viagameconsoleand4%viadigitalTV.
    Source:Ofcom2006
    16 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Ofcom’smedia-literacyresearchreportsthat73percentof8-to11-year-oldshaveatelevisionin
    theirbedroom.Acrossallchildrenaged8-15,almostonequarter(23percent)saytheymostlywatch
    televisionontheirown.Thisfigureishigherfor11-15yearolds(Ofcom2006a).Viewingisnot
    restrictedtopre-watershedtimes,evenamongyoungeragegroups:28percentof6-to8-year-olds
    and49percentof9-to11-year-oldsclaimtowatchTVintheirroomsafter9pm(Livingstone2002).
    Arecentsurveyclaimedthatoneinfourteenagersfallasleepwhilewatchingtelevisionlateatnightin
    theirbedrooms(SleepCouncil2007).
    Incomparison,only13percentof12-to15-year-oldsandjust3percentof8-to11-year-oldshave
    internetaccessintheirbedroom(Ofcom2006a).Instead,thehomecomputertendstobeplacedina
    communalarea,suchasthelivingroom.Nonetheless,twoinfive(40percent)of8-11sandover
    two-thirds(71percent)of12-15ssaytheymostlyusetheinternetontheirownathome.
    Whileaccessisunsupervised,thisdoesnotmeanitiswithoutrestrictions.Threequarters(73percent)
    ofparentsof8-15yearoldssaytheyhaverulesabouttheirchild’sTV,videoandDVDviewing.
    Perhapsunsurprisingly,thefigureismuchhigherfortheinternet:95percentofparentsof8-11year
    oldsand78percentofparentsof12-15yearoldssaytheyhaverulesinplaceregardingtheirchild’s
    access.Thesemostlyrelatetowhatcontenttheycanaccess(Ofcom2006a).
    Buttheseresultsdirectlycontradictwithevidenceprovidedbyyoungpeoplethemselves.Inippr’sown
    research,themajorityofyoungpeoplereportednoparentalrestrictionsontheiruseoftheinternet
    whatsoever,andmanyclaimedthattheirparentsdidnotunderstandtheironlineactivities:
    ‘Somethingstheydon’tunderstandandtheyaskmetoexplainittothembuttheystill
    don’tunderstand.’(Girl,13,ABC11)
    ‘Mymumwillasksometimes“Isitsafe?”,butshedoesn’treallyknow.’(Girl,16,ABC1)
    Theonlyrestrictionsrecognisedwerelimitstotheamountoftimeyoungpeoplewereabletospend
    online,becauseofcompetingclaimsfromothermembersofthefamilywantingtousethecomputer.
    Asimilarpictureemergeswhenweconsideraccessatschool.Despitethepresenceoffiltersandother
    safetymechanismstorestrictaccesstoselectedinternetcontent,youngpeoplereportedside-
    steppingtheserestrictionswithrelativeease.Schoolrestrictionswerelargelyseenaschallengesto
    overcome,ratherthanbeingintheinterestsofyoungpeoplethemselves:
    ‘Wehaverestrictionsatschoolbutwecanjustgetanadministrator’saccountandtake
    themoff.’(Boy,14,C2DE)
    ‘Restrictionsstopyougoingonbadsites,likegamessitesandstuff.Ifyoutakethem
    offyoucangoonanything.’(Boy,14,C2DE)
    Thedisappearanceofanysemblanceofa‘watchwithMother’culturehas,ofcourse,raisedconcerns.
    Despitethefactthattelevisioncontentisheavilyregulated,protectionofyoungpeoplehasalways
    reliedtosomeextentonparentalsupervision,andonrulesaboutappropriateconsumptionbeing
    appliedinthefamilyhome.‘Bedroomculture’andtheindividualnatureofinternetaccessmeansthat
    thispartofthesystemisbreakingdowninmanyhomes,withparentsfeelingconcernedbutfinding
    themselvesunabletoidentifyanappropriateresponse.

    Driversofcurrenttrends
    Anumberoffactorshavedriventhecurrenttrendsinyoungpeople’suseofmedia.Theseinclude
    perceptionsoftheeducationalbenefitsofnewtechnology,useoftechnologytoincreaseyoung
    people’ssafety,andeconomicfactors.
    Educationalbenefits
    Whilesocietymaybebemoaningthedominanceofmediainyoungpeople’slives,itisworth
    rememberingthatthesefigureshavebeendrivenbyfactorsotherthansimplyyoungpeople’sdesire

    1.SeeAppendix3fordefinitionsofsocialgroupabbreviations
    17 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    fornewtechnologies.TheGovernmenthaspromotedtheeducationalbenefitofinformationand
    communicationtechnology(ICT),surroundingthisclaimwith‘knowledgeeconomy’rhetoric(Selwyn
    2003)andafinancialcommitmenttothetuneof£6billiontoensurethatallschoolshavebroadband
    connectionstoescapethe‘technologicaldarkages’.
    ICTispresumedtoimprovelearningintwoways:first,byequippinglearnerswithskillsthatare
    becomingincreasinglynecessaryforemployment(Sutherlandetal 1999)andsecond,byenabling
    themtoaccesstheinternetandthustoarepositoryofinformationandawidevarietyoflearning
    resources.Indiscussionsabouttheeducationalbenefitsoftheinternet,avisionoftheinternetasa
    ‘library’ofresourcesisdominant(Sandvig2006)andunderlinesmuchoftherationalebehindpublic
    provision–forexample,inlibrariesthemselvesaswellasUKOnlineCentressituatedacrossthe
    country,whichencourageuserstofindinformationabouttheirlocalpublicservices.
    Theactualeducationalbenefitoftheinternetisthesubjectofmuchdebate.Therearefears,butlittle
    evidence,thatextendedusecancauseattentiondeficitdisorder(Prensky2007),whileresearchisjust
    beginningtoconsiderthelong-termimpactofinternetuseonourwaysoflearning(Dealand
    Sharples2007).Withinformationreadilyavailableattheclickofamouse,theneedtocommitcertain
    factstomemoryiswaning.Forexample,someyoungpeoplearenowdisbelievingofanageinwhich
    peopleactivelyrecalledphonenumbersratherthanquicklyaccessingthemonone’smobilephone
    SIMcard(Prensky2007).
    Meanwhile,informationisbeginningtobedeliveredincreasinglythroughvisualmeans.Sofar,there
    hasbeennosubsequentdropinliteracyrates,butthereisevidencethatenjoymentofreadingis
    declining(NationalLiteracyTrust2006).Information,deliveredmorequicklyandconciselythanever
    before,isnowaccessedfromapatchworkofsitesandsources,oftenwithoutthecontextual
    frameworkthatlongertextscanprovide(Hansard2006).Thishasraisedconcernsnotonlyabout
    youngpeople’stendencytoacceptinformationatfacevalue(Faceretal 2003)butalsoaboutits
    potentialimpactontheircapacitytodevelopresourcessuchascriticalskillsandproblem-solving
    abilities(Moncke1998).
    However,thenotionofICTasatoolthatprovidesyoungpeoplewithessentialeducationalbenefitsis
    onethatisstronglyrecognisedbyparents,themajorityofwhombelieveaccesstoacomputerwill
    helptheirchildachievebettereducationalresults(LivingstoneandBober2005).Indeed,parentsoften
    citeeducationasthecentralbenefitoftheinternet(Buckingham2002),andthisextendstochildren
    undersixyearsold:72percentofparentsofinfantsandtoddlerssaidthattheythinkthatthe
    computerhelpswiththeirchildren’slearning(Rideoutetal 2003).
    Safety
    Asecondimportantdriverofthetake-upoftechnologicaldevicesamongyoungpeopleistheview
    thattheycanincreasesafety.Forexample,whilethemajorityofyoungpeopleownamobilephone,
    theydonot,byandlarge,paythebill(Ofcom2006a).Forthemostpart,mobilephonesare
    introducedintoyoungpeople’slivesbyparentsandguardians,forsafetyreasons.Ownershipof
    mobilephonesincreasesdramaticallyatthetimewhenyoungpeoplebeginsecondaryeducation–a
    stageatwhichtheyarelikelytotraveltoandfromschoolwithoutparentalsupervisionandaregiven
    increasingfreedomtostayoutlaterandlonger(ibid).
    Themobilephoneisnowseenasakeymonitoringandsupervisiontoolinparenting,withparents
    feelingthatyoungpeoplearesignificantlysaferwithonethanwithoutone(DevittandRoker2007).
    Thisisdespiteconcernsrelatingtomobilephonetheft,happyslappingandtext-bullyingandthe
    impactofmobilephonesonindividuals’health.
    Theroleofthemediaandcommunicationdevicesinkeepingyoungpeoplesafeisnotlimitedto
    mobilephones.ThepredominanceofTVinyoungpeople’slivesisoftenseenasadirectresultofa
    movetowardsamorerisk-aversesociety.Parentsreportthattheybelievethesafetyoftheirchild’s
    environmenthaschangedsignificantlysincetheythemselveswereyoung,andthatasaresultthey
    havecurtailedthefreedomtheygivetheirchildren(DCSF2007).Today,childrenhavefewer
    opportunitiestoplayoutside,andtheTVisincreasinglyusedasatime-consumingsubstituteor‘baby
    18 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    sitter’thatkeepschildrenoccupiedandsafefromharmwhilerequiringminimaladultsupervision
    (Livingstone2002).
    Inrelationtotheinternet,thesafetydebatehasbeenacontroversialone.Onitsfirstintroduction,
    therewassomediscussionoftherolethatnewtechnologycouldplayin‘bringingtheoutsidein’–for
    example,providing‘virtualreality’accessenablingyoungpeopletoexperiencesituationswithinan
    environmentofrelativesafety,andsubjecttoparentalsupervision.However,astheinternetmoved
    towardsstrongeruseasasocialtool,concernsbegantomountregardingchildren’svulnerabilitywhen
    theyaccessedonlinespaces.
    Economictrends
    Finally,economictrendshavedrivenafurtherfundamentalchangeinchildren’smediaexperiences,and
    withinhouseholdpractices.Mediagoodsandaccesstotheinternethavebecomemoreaffordable.For
    instance,thepriceofabroadbandconnectionfellby57percentbetween2003and2005(Ofcom
    2006b).Competitioninthemarketislikelytodrivepriceslowerstilloverthecomingyears.
    Computershavebeensubjecttoasimilardeclineinprice,whilethesaturationofthemobilephone
    markethasledmobilephoneoperatorstodevelopcheaperconsumerofferingsthaneverbefore.Pre-
    payandcontractoptionsnowregularlyincludeincentivessuchasfreeeveningandweekendcalls,and
    freetextmessaging.

    Impactonsocialcapitalandwell-being
    Policymakershavebegantorealisetheimportanceofsecuringemotionalwell-beingamongyoung
    peopleaboveandbeyonddeliveringoutcomescommonlyconsideredasbeingwithintheresponsibility
    ofthestate(forexample,goodhealth,educationandsafety)(DCSF2007,MargoandSodha2007).
    Thedebatearoundtherelationshipbetweenmediaandyoungpeople’swell-beinghastendedto
    focusonthepossibilityofcontentcausingharmordistress.Withtheinternetanddigitalmedia,this
    continuestobeaconcern.However,increasinglevelsofmediausehaveraisedadditionalconcerns
    thattheamountoftimespentusingmediacanitselfhaveanegativeeffect–bothdirectly,interms
    ofconsequencessuchaschildhoodobesity,andindirectly–ontheassumptionthattimespent
    consumingmediatakesplaceattheexpenseofotheractivities,particularlyface-to-faceinteraction
    (Krautetal 1998,Nieetal 2002).Thisissometimescalled‘thedisplacementhypothesis’.
    However,acontrastingtheorysuggeststhatinternetusecanactuallybebeneficialforyoungpeople’s
    well-being–forinstance,byhelpingtoconsolidateandcementsocialrelationships,andbyproviding
    opportunitiestoexpandknowledgeandconfidenceaboutparticularissuesoractivities(forexample,
    sexualityordisability).Thistheoryhasgainedprominenceduringrecentyearsasinternetusehas
    becomemoreandmoredirectedtowardssocialisation–particularlyforyoungergenerations,andis
    sometimesknownas‘thestimulationhypothesis’.
    Below,weexaminethemeritsofboththedisplacementhypothesisandthestimulationhypothesis,in
    ordertoconsiderhowdifferentaspectsofinternetuseaffectrelationshipswithfriendsandpeersand,
    ultimately,impactonyoungpeople’swell-being.Wethentakealonger-termperspective,toconsider
    theimpactsofsustainedinternetuseandconstantconnectivityonthepsychosocialdevelopmentof
    youngpeopleandthetransitionfromchildhoodtoadulthood.
    Thedisplacementhypothesis
    Thedisplacementhypothesisstatesthattimespentwithmediatakesplaceattheexpenseofother
    socialorcommunityactivities,thereforeincreasingisolationandhavinganegativeimpactonsocial
    capitalandwell-being.
    Televisionhasbeenviewedasthechiefculpritinthecontextofdecliningsocialcapital(Putnam
    2000),andindeedtherearestrongassociationsbetweentimespentinfrontofthetelevisionand
    levelsofisolationanddisengagementfromciviclife(ibid).Ithasalsobeenblamedmorewidelyfora
    retreatfromthepublictowardsthedomesticsphere,furthercontributingtoadeclinein‘public
    culture’(Sennett1977).
    19 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Wheretelevisionisconcerned,theseargumentshavebeenhotlycontested(forexample,Norris2001,
    Dahlgren1996).Nonetheless,earlyresearchsawsimilarthinkingtransferredtotheinternet:itwas
    arguedthattheindividualisednatureofinternetaccess,alongwiththeabilitytocontactpeoplefrom
    acrosstheworld,wouldencouragetheformationofnew,weaktiesattheexpenseofexisting,
    strongerones(Granovetter1973).Theimplicationisthatthiswouldhaveanegativeimpacton
    communityandwell-being,becauseweaktiesarepresumedtoprovidelesssocialsupport(Krackhardt
    1992,Wellmanetal 2001).
    Thesefearswerefrequentlyaddressedbyearlyliteratureonthesubject,withKrautetal (1998)
    identifyingtheso-called‘internetparadox’:theironythatatechnologydesignedtomakeusmore
    connectedthaneverbeforeactuallyincreasesourisolation.
    Thereissomeevidencethatlevelsofusethatcouldequatetocompulsiveinternetusemayhavethis
    effect.AccordingtoresearchonadolescentMySpaceusers(Rosen2006),theaverageteenageuser
    spendsabouttwohoursadayonthesite,fivedaysaweek.Internetuseofthisintensityhasbeen
    showntocorrelatewithlowself-esteemandhigherlevelsofdepression(Koetal 2007).Several
    researchexerciseshavefoundyoungpeopledescribingtheaddictivequalitiesoftheinternetand
    thesesitesinparticular(Chouetal 2000,Young2004,Johanssonetal 2004).Thisisbackedupby
    ourownresearch,wheregroupparticipantscommented:
    ‘It’sgoodandit’sbad,likethere’sgoodaspectsaboutitbutitcangetannoyingafter
    awhile,likeitcanjustgetreallyaddictive.’(Boy,18,C2DE)
    ‘Iwanttospendlesstime’coswhatIdoonitisjustreallypointless–likeMySpaceis
    justreallyaddictive.’(Girl,17,C2DE)
    Thereisalsoevidencethatinternetuseisnegativelyrelatedtoadolescentperceptionsaboutquality
    offamilyrelationships(Krautetal 1998).However,furtherstudieshaveeitherfoundnodirectlink
    betweeninternetuseandwell-being(Grossetal 2002)orhavecontradictedthedisplacement
    hypothesisaltogether(ValkenburgandPeter2007).
    Amajorreasonfordifferingoutcomesisthatearlierstudiesoftentreatedtheinternetasaone-
    dimensionalvariableandneglectedtoconsiderthevarietyofusestowhichtheplatformcouldbeput.
    Whatismore,themostprominentlyusedfunctionsoftheinternethavechangedovertime,from
    primarilyentertainmentinthe1990s(ValkenburgandSoeters2001)tothedominanceof
    interpersonalcommunicationstoday(Gross2004,Lenhardtetal 2007).
    Thus,whileMesch(2003)findsalinkbetweeninternetsurfing–thatis,justlookingatsitesrather
    thanactivelyengagingthroughchattingandcommenting–andnegativewell-being,thesamestudy
    alsoidentifiesapositivelinkbetweenwell-beingandusingIM.
    Thestimulationhypothesis
    Thestimulationhypothesisarguesthattheinternetcanbebeneficialtowell-beingbyhelpingto
    consolidateorpromoterelationships.Followingthedominanceofthedisplacementhypothesis,later
    researchledtotheadoptionofasecondtheory.Thestimulationhypothesisarguedthatinternetuse–
    particularlyifthisinvolvesinterpersonalcommunications–canhaveapositiveimpactonwell-being,
    andcanalsoservetoheightenthewell-beingofpeoplewhoarefeelinglonely,byallowingthemto
    sociallycompensatethroughuseofonlineconnections(ValkenburgandPeter2007).
    Thestimulationhypothesisandthedisplacementtheoryarebasedonargumentsthatareessentially
    thesameasoneanother.Bothstatethatonlinecommunicationaffectsadolescentwell-beingby
    affectingthetimespentwithexistingfriends(fordisplacementtheoriststhistimeisthoughtto
    decrease,whileforstimulationtheorists,itisthoughttoincrease)andthequalityofthesefriendships.
    Animportantdimensionofwell-beinginyoungpeopleisthequalityandstrengthofrelationships
    withfamilyandpeers(UNICEF2007)andthequalityofone’ssocialnetworkhasbeenshowntobe
    oneofthemostimportantstatisticalpredicatorsofwell-being(PinquartandSorenson2000).
    Adolescentswithhighqualityfriendshipsaremoresociallycompetent,self-confidentandhappier
    thanadolescentswithoutsuchfriendships(HartupandStevens1997).
    20 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Thereissomeevidencethatinternetusemaybenegativelyrelatedtoadolescentperceptionsabout
    qualityoffamilyrelationships(Krautetal 1998).However,morerecentresearchshowsthattime
    spentonlinecannegativelyimpacttimespentwithfamiliesbutdoesnotnegativelyimpactfamily
    communication(LeeandChae2007).Thereisalsoextensiveevidencethatcommunicationtoolssuch
    asIMandsocialnetworkingsiteslargelyservetoconsolidatelocal,existingrelationships(Livingstone
    2004)andareusedprimarilytokeepupwithclosefriendsandfamilymembers(Grossetal 2002).
    UseofIMdominatestimespentonline:ippr’sownresearchhasindicatedthatyoungpeopleare
    spendingatleastacoupleofhoursontheinterneteveryevening,usingsocialnetworkingsitesorIM
    inordertomaintaincontactwithfriends–boththoselivinglocallyandotherssomedistanceaway.
    However,internetusealsoincreasesthelikelihoodofcommunicatingwithstrangersonline:inasurvey
    ofadolescentIMusers,58percentreportedthattheyatleastsometimescommunicatedwithpeople
    theyonlyknewontheinternet,and45percentreportedthattheyatleastsometimestalkedwith
    peopleontheinternetwhotheydidnotknowatall(Grossetal 2002).Thisbehaviourwastypically
    carriedoutby‘lonelier’individuals,andwasrelatedtonegativewell-being.
    So,whileenablingclosefriendstostayclose,theideathattheinternetcanenablelonelyindividuals
    tosociallycompensateforlifeofflineisflawed.Whilelonelinesscanpromptcommunicationwith
    strangers(Grossetal 2002),andpeoplewhofeellessvaluedinface-to-facecommunicationaremore
    stronglymotivatedtocommunicateonline(PapacharissiandRubin2000),theseactivitiesdonot
    deliverresultsintermsoflife-satisfactionandwell-being.
    Foradolescents,thisisaparticularlyimportantfactor.Adolescencehasbeencharacterisedasatimeof
    increasedloneliness,duringwhichlevelsofself-esteemandwell-beingareextremelyvolatileandmost
    likelytobeaffectedbyenvironmentalinfluences(Valkerburgetal 2006).Itisalsoaparticularly
    difficulttimeforadolescentsintheUK:accordingtorecentresearch,UKchildrenhaveworsewell-
    beingthantheirpeersin20otherindustrialisedcountriesinthedevelopedworld(UNICEF2007).
    Significantly,theUKscoreslowestwhenitcomestochildrenfindingtheirpeers‘kindandhelpful’:
    justover40percentdoso,placingtheUKfirmlyatthebottomofthetable(ibid).Thisfactoralone
    couldraisetheimportanceandindividualvaluethatyoungpeopleplaceoninternetcommunications
    –inturnraisingfearsabouttheirgrowinginfluence,butalsoprovidingopportunitiestooffera
    popularroutetotrustedinformation,counsellingandsupportwheretherightservicesareoffered.
    Long-termeffectsofconstantconnectivity
    Erikson’smodelofpsychosocialdevelopment(Erikson1950)identifieseightphasesofpsychosocial
    development(outlinedinTable1.1,nextpage).Eachphaseischaracterisedina‘psychosocialcrisis’,
    whichmustberesolvedbeforethechildcanmoveontothenextdevelopmentphase.
    AscanbeseenfromTable1.1,duringadolescence,the‘psychosocialcrisis’takestheformofidentity
    versusroleconfusion–atimewhenyoungadultsarebeginningtoderiveanindependentidentity,
    developingasenseofself,independenceandcontrolwhilesimultaneouslybeingveryconcerned
    abouthowtheyappeartoothersandpreoccupiedwith‘fittingin’.
    Themediaandcommunicationtoolsplayanimportantroleinmeetingboththeseneeds:first,by
    underlyingyoungpeople’stransitiontowardsgainingautonomyfromtheirparentsandenabling
    formulationofindependentrelationshipswithpeers(ManteandPiris2002),andsecond,byenabling
    youngpeopletoparticipateinandidentifywithagroupofpeers.IMisaveryimportanttoolinthis
    respect:alargepartofitsappealisthesensethatitcreatesofbeingpartofalargecommunityof
    friends.ResearchsuggeststhatitisthequantityofrelationshipsformedonIM,ratherthantheir
    quality,thatteenagersvaluemost.
    Butidentityformationispresumedtorequiresomedegreeof‘alonetime’(Csikszentmihalyietal
    1993),andspendingtimealoneisalsoadevelopmentalnecessityandakeyfeatureofprogressionto
    thenextstageinpsychosocialdevelopment:youngadulthood(Erikson1950,BuchholzandChinlund
    1994).Alonenessandsolitudecanhavepositiveeffectsonotherareasoflifetoo.Csikszenmihalyiet
    al (1993:90)postulated,‘talentedstudentsaremoreabletotoleratesolitudeandarethereforealone
    21 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Table1.1:Erikson’seightstagesofpsychosocialdevelopment
    Stage Ages Basicconflict Importantevent Summary
    1.Oral- Birthto12-18 Trustvs.mistrust Feeding Theinfantmustformaloving,trusting
    sensory months relationshipwiththecaregiver,orrisks
    developingasenseofmistrustandinsecurity.
    2.Muscular- 18months Autonomyvs. Toilettraining Thechild’senergiesaredirectedtowardthe
    anal to3years shame/doubt developmentofphysicalskills,includingwalking,
    grasping.Ifnotencouragedandsupported,the
    childrisksexperiencingshameanddoubt.
    3.Locomotor 3-6years Initiativevs. Independence Thechildcontinuestobecomemoreassertive
    guilt andtotakemoreinitiative,butmaybetoo
    forceful,whichneedstobehandledsensitively.
    4.Latency 6-12years Industryvs. School Thechildmustbehelpedtomeetdemandsto
    inferiority learnnewskillsorriskasenseofinferiority,
    failureandincompetence.
    5.Adolescence 12-18years Identityvs. Peerrelationships Theteenagermustachieveasenseofidentityin
    roleconfusion occupation,sexroles,politics,andreligion.
    6.Young 19-40years Intimacyvs. Loverelationships Theyoungadultmustdevelopintimate
    adulthood isolation relationshipsorsufferfeelingsofisolation.
    7.Middle 40-65years Generativityvs. Parenting Eachadultmustfindsomewaytosatisfyand
    adulthood stagnation supportthenextgeneration.
    8.Maturity 65todeath Egointegrity Reflectiononand Theculminationisastrongsenseofagencyand
    vs.despair acceptanceof fulfilment.
    one’slife
    Source:AdaptedfromErikson1950,1958,1964,1968,citedinMargoetal 2006

    moreoften.Itisalsolikelythatthemotivationtodeveloptalent-relatedskillsrequiresthattheybe
    alone’.Withoutsolitude,learning,thinkingandinnovationmaysuffer(Moustakas1989,Storr1988).
    However,foryoungpeople,thereisoftenafinedividinglinebetween‘aloneness’and‘loneliness’,
    andadolescentsarethoughttofeellonelinessmorekeenlythanpeopleinotheragegroups(Goswick
    andJones1982).Individualswhoareneithercapableofmaintainingasocialnetworknorspending
    timealoneareparticularlylikelytofeellonely(Bucholzetal 1999).
    Whilethereissparseevidencetosuggestthatinternetuse(particularlycommunicativeinternetuse)
    causesloneliness,thereareearlyindicationsthattheinternet–alongwithothercommunicationtools
    –canimpactonyoungpeople’sabilitytospendtimealone.Forexample,youngpeopleinour
    deliberativeworkshopsreportedhighlevelsofusewhichtheysometimesrecognisedaspointlessor
    uninteresting,butnonethelessmaintainedbecauseofwhattheydescribedastheaddictivenatureof
    constantconnectivity.Othersadmittedtoleavingtheirmobilephonesonovernightincasethey
    receivedatextmessageduringthisperiod.Thisraisesconcernsnotonlybecauseitemphasisesthe
    extenttowhichyoungpeoplewishtoremainconnectedatalltimesoftheday,butalsobecauseit
    caninterruptsleep,animportantsourceofrestorativesolitude(Storr1988).
    Theimpactofconstantconnectivityonfuturepsychosocialdevelopmentisdifficulttoassess,
    primarilybecausenoneofthelongitudinalstudiescarriedouttodatehavestretchedbeyondsix
    months(Meerkerk2007).Evidencefrom2003doessuggestthatwhileadolescentsarebyfarthe
    highestusersofIM,levelofusedeclinesrapidlywithage(Bonevaetal 2003).However,wecannot
    concludethattoday’sdemandforconstantconnectivitywillnecessarilydeclineinthesameway.
    Internettoolshavechangedsorapidlyduringthefiveyearsprecedingthisresearchthatitisunclear
    whetherthesameeffectwillcontinuetooccur.
    Andthingswillcontinuetochange.Forexample,atpresent,adolescentsremainthegroupdisplaying
    highestlevelsofinternetuse.Butevidencesuggeststhat,intheUSatleast,the2-5-year-oldage
    groupisthefastest-growinggroupofusers(CorporationforPublicBroadcasting2003).AUSsurvey
    22 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    foundthat48percentofchildrenaged0-6haveusedacomputer,and30percenthaveused
    computergames(Rideoutetal 2003).Withconstantconnectivityreachingever-youngeragegroups,
    itsimpactmaybemoredramaticinthefuture–particularlyintermsofforcingchildrentowardslater
    stagesofpsychosocialdevelopmentatever-earlierages.

    Summary
    Fromwhatweknownow,wecanonlyconcludethatinternetusecanhavegoodandbadeffects–on
    self-esteem,lonelinessandlife-satisfaction–andthatdespiteearlytechno-utopianismordoom-
    mongering,itisfairtosaythat‘theinternetbyitselfisnotamaineffectorcauseofanything’
    (McKennaandBargh2000).Intheshortterm,itisneitherapanaceaforsocialisolationnoradirect
    sourceofproblems.Instead,itislikelythatthecostsandbenefitswillbemitigatedonanindividual
    basisandwilldependonthepersonalitiesofindividualusers,andthetypeofinternetuse.
    Alongsidetechnologicalchanges,therehasundoubtedlybeenaculturalshiftunderpinnedbytherise
    insocialnetworkingsitesaimedatallsectorsofsociety,whichsuggeststhatconnectednessisgood,
    whilesolitude,orlackofconnectivityisnot.Inthelongterm,theseculturalshifts(causedbythe
    increasedintegrationofinternetandconstantconnectivityintoourlives)arelikelytocontinueapace.
    Butequally,weshouldnotactasifthisisnotsomethingwe,asasociety,areincapableofmanaging
    inordertomitigatenegativeeffects.
    Theopportunitiesforyoungpeopletosocialiseonlinearehuge,andthiscanhavebothgoodandbad
    impacts.Butviewingusageintermsofpositiveandnegativeeffectsismisleading:theinternetisan
    interactive,socialentitywithinwhichmanydifferentexperiencestakeplace–learning,interacting,
    meeting,consolidatingviewsandexploringfeelingsandideas.Itistimetomovebeyondtherather
    tireddebateaboutwhethertheinternetisgoodorbad.Itisboth,anditisverymuchpartoflife.We
    nowneedtoconsiderhowwecanprotect,enableanddevelopyoungpeopleusingit.
    Thisleadsustoournextkeyconcern.Forthemostpart,socialactivitiesareunmediatedbytheadult
    world.Socialisingisanimportantpartofpsychosocialdevelopmentthatenablesyoungpeopleto
    begintogainautonomyandformanidentityindependentfromtheirparents.Nonetheless,inthe
    contextoftheinternet,unmediatedsocialcontactdoesraiseconcerns.Justaswewouldnotbe
    happyaboutyoungpeopleengaginginunsuitableactivitiesoffline,beingexposedtoupsetting
    scenesorideaswithoutanadultpresenttohelpthemnavigatetheissueandunderstandtheir
    emotionalresponse,thesameistrueonline.Weneedtothinkagainabouthowtobringparents–
    particularlyparentsofthecurrentgeneration,whomaybeuniquely‘lockedout’ofthisrealmofsocial
    activity–intoapositionofmeasuredauthority.
    Althoughsupervisionofonlineactivitiesshouldnotbecomparedwholesaletothesupervisionof
    offlineactivities,parentsdohavearoleparticularlyinunderstandingtheimpactofsustained,heavy
    internetuseandinprovidinglimitstoensureahealthyrelationshipwithtechnology.Atpresentthere
    isclearlyahugegapinparents’understandingofthetypeofactivitiesinwhichyoungpeopleare
    engagingonline.Whiletherearesensitivitiesinherentinanyattemptbygovernmenttodefinegood
    parenting,parentsmaywellgratefullyreceiveadviceinthisarea–particularlygivenlevelsofparental
    concerncoupledwiththeirlackofawarenessofwhatconstitutesgoodandbadinteractiononline.
    WheretheGovernmentcanmostusefullyalteritsownbehaviourisinrefrainingfromsupporting
    messagesthatsuggestthattechnologyisunquestionably‘good’–particularlyinaneducational
    context.Theimpactsoftheinternetarediverse,anditismisleadingtosuggesttoparentsthat
    internetaccessaloneisaprerequisiteforacademicsuccess.
    Ultimately,weneedtotakeamoresubtleviewofthewaysinwhichtheinternetcanimpactonthe
    well-beingofyoungpeople.Whilecontent(addressedinChapter2)remainsasalientconcern,the
    extentofinteractionitselfraisesquestionsastohowpublicpolicyshouldrespond.Today’syouthare
    tomorrow’sparents,andregulatoryinterventionmaybecomelessnecessaryastimegoesby.However,
    thecurrentgapbetweenthelevelofunderstandingofyoungpeopleandthatoftheirparentsdoes
    suggesttheneedforentitiesoutsideofthefamilytoplayaroleinraisingyouthinanonlineworld.
    Thechallengeofencouragingsuchentitiestoengagepositivelywithyoungpeopleonlineisonethat
    governmentshouldseektotackle.
    23 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    2.Managingrisk:publicprivatelives
    Thepreviouschapterfocusedonwhatrecentchanges,intermsofincreasedopportunitytousemedia
    forawidearrayoftasks,andtodosounsupervised,havemeantintermsoftheimpactonyoung
    people’swell-beingandpsychosocialdevelopment.Thischapterseekstoexplorethisfurtherinterms
    ofunderstandingtheopportunitiesforyoungpeopletoaccessharmfulorinappropriatecontentor
    engaginginharmfulorinappropriatebehaviour,andtheimpactofdoingso.
    Theissueofaccessingharmfulmaterialhascapturedextensivepublicandmediaattention,and
    followsalonghistoryofconcernabouttheeffectandinfluenceofmediaonchildren.Webriefly
    considerthisissue–particularlybecauseitprovidesinsightsastohowviewingcontentisthoughtto
    influencebehaviour.Thisremainsasalientissuewhenwecometoconsideryoungpeoplethemselves
    engaginginharmfulbehaviours.Thisisespeciallythecasewhentakingintoaccounttheroleofpeer
    influences,whichcannowbeplayedoutinaudiovisualform–forexample,throughvideospostedon
    tovideo-sharingwebsites,orthroughinformationsharingwithininternetgroups.
    Thisissueisincrediblypertinentnow,astragediessuchasthesuicidestakingplaceinBridgend,
    Wales,duringthepast12monthshaveheightenedpublicsensitivitiestothepossibilityofnegative
    peerinfluencesinonlineenvironments(Mesure2008).
    Butwhiletheremaybeusefulconclusionsthatwecandrawfromboththeeffectsofthetraditional
    mediaandtheeffectsofnewwaysofengagingwithandthroughthemedia,itisnonetheless
    importantthatwecontinuetodrawadistinctionbetweenthetwo.Weshouldnotexpecttodealwith
    thenumberofissuespresentedbyyoungpeople’suseoftheinternetsimplybymonitoringand
    removingorblockingcontent:thechangingdynamicbetweenconsumerandproducerdemandsa
    moresophisticatedapproach.
    Drawingonevidencefromourdeliberativeworkshops,wetakesomeofthemostprominent
    challengesfacedbysocietyinthiscontext.Weoutlinewhyconcernsexist,reviewevidencesuggesting
    theextenttowhichtheycouldnegativelyimpactyoungpeopleand,finally,setoutthescaleofthe
    problemintheUK.Here,wereferbothtoexistingresearchanddataandourownqualitativeresearch.
    Finally,weprovideevidence,whereavailable,ofyoungpeople’sownattitudesandperceptions,their
    senseofrisk,andhoweffectivetheyseemtobeindealingwiththeproblem.

    Theinfluenceofmediacontent,consumptionanduse:changingconcerns
    Theinternethasfrequentlybeencharacterisedasakindof‘WildWest’ornewfrontier:adangerous,
    unpredictableandlawlessplace(Leyden2007).Insuchanenvironment,thereisagreatdealof
    concernaboutthecontentyoungpeoplemayaccessandtheimpactofthisontheiremotionalwell-
    beingandbehaviour.
    Wespendlargepartsofourdaysconsumingmediaofoneformoranother.Whetherthemorning
    newspaper,theradioonthewaytowork,contentaccessedontheinternetthroughoutthedayorthe
    televisionintheevening,mediacontentsurroundsusasanearconstant.Itisnowonder,then,that
    concernshavebeenraisedformanydecadesaboutitspotentialnegativeinfluence.
    Initialtheoriesofmediainfluenceassumedthemediatohaveastronganddirecteffect,andfocused
    ontheabilityofmediatextsto‘inject’particularmessagesdirectlyintotheconsciousnessofaudience
    members.This‘hypodermicneedle’theorywasformedinresponsetothepropagandacampaignsof
    WorldWarII,butwasalsowitnessedinpopularformwhentheinitialradiobroadcastofOrsonWelles’s
    ‘WaroftheWorlds’causedseverallistenerstopreparefortheforthcomingalieninvasion,treatingthe
    playasfactratherthanfiction(KatzandLazarsfeld1955).
    Thetheorywasquicklydiscounted,andwascriticisedforaffordingtoomuchinfluencetothemedia
    andneglectingotherfactorsthatcontributetotheformationofattitudesandbeliefs–forinstance
    family,peersandotherformsofinterpersonalcommunications(Lazarsfeldetal 1968).Italsotended
    totreattheaudienceasoneamorphousmasswithnoindividualcharacteristicswhatsoever,each
    individualbeingexpectedtoreacttocontentinexactlythesameway(Wright1964).
    24 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Amoresophisticatedaccountofmediainfluencehascentredonthewayinwhichcomplexmedia
    messagescanframeissuesanddiscoursesandhaveasignificantimpactonsettingsocialagendas
    (IyengarandMcGrady2005).Forexample,evidenceshowsthatthereisacloserelationshipbetween
    theamountofattentionthemediadevotestoissuesandtheimportancethatpeopleattributeto
    theseissues(Funkhouser1973).Thuswhilewehavemovedawayfroma‘strongeffects’modelthat
    arguesthatthemediatellsuswhattothink,‘minimaleffects’theoriescontinuetoassertthatthe
    mediacantelluswhattothinkabout(Dahlgren1996).
    Thenegativeimpactsofthisareexploredincultivationtheory,whichlooksatthewaysinwhichlong-
    termconsumptionofmediacancauseviewerstocultivatecertainattitudesorviewsoftheworld
    (Gerberetal 1980).Thistheoryhasbeenexploredheavilyinrelationtocrime,andithasbeenshown
    thattheprevalenceoftelevisiondetectiveprogrammes,andcrimeinthemediagenerally,cancausea
    persontocultivateaviewoftheworldasathreateningandviolentplace(Gerbneretal 1980).
    Thesetheoriesweredevelopedinthetimeofmassmedia,andoftenfocusedparticularlyontelevision
    asapowerfulvisualmedium.Withdigitalmedia,manyofthesefearsbecomelesssalient.Infact,
    thereareconcernsaboutthelossofthepositiveagenda-settingfunctionthatmassmediaoffered–
    forinstance,inestablishingasenseofcommunityandcommonidentity.Thisisthoughttobe
    disappearingasaudiencesbecomefragmentedduetoincreasedchoice.
    Nonetheless,therearestillconcernsthatyoungusersoftheinternetwillcopyeithercontentor
    actionsthattheyseeonline,orthatprolongedexposuretocertaintypesofcontentwillhavea
    negativeimpactontheirattitudesandbeliefs.Sociallearningtheoryarguesthatbehaviourislearned
    throughobservingand,ultimately,mimickingthebehaviourofothers.AsBandura(1977:22)states,
    ‘learningwouldbeexceedinglylaborious,nottomentionhazardous,ifpeoplehadtorelysolelyon
    theeffectsoftheirownactionstoinformthemwhattodo.Fortunately,mosthumanbehaviouris
    learnedobservationallythroughmodelling:fromobservingothersoneformsanideaofhownew
    behavioursareperformed,andonlateroccasionsthiscodedinformationservesasaguideforaction.’
    Thistheoryhasbeenemployedtoexplaininstancesofaggression:researchhasshownthatyoung
    consumersofmediaarelikelytocopyaggressiveactsandbehaviourwhereadultsshownengagingin
    itarerewardedfortheiractions.Whereviolentactsreceivepunishment,childrenarelesslikelytocopy
    thisbehaviour(Banduraetal 1963).Withthepopularityof‘stunt’programmessuchasJackass(MTV)
    andPunk’d(MTV)aswellassimilarcontentbeingfoundonvideo-sharingwebsites,concernsarose
    thatyoungpeoplewouldviewthisandseektoemulatedisplayedbehaviour(Virtue2002).
    However,experimentsthoughttoestablishthistheoryinthemediacontexthavebeencriticisedfor
    focusingonshort-termeffectsandforfailingtocapturewhattheinfluenceofsustainedexposuremay
    be(LivingstoneandMilgrave-Hargreaves2006).Despitefrequentlyexpressedfears,weremainalong
    wayfromanykindofconsensusthatviewingcausesbehaviour.
    Anovertfocusonthisaspectattheexpenseofotherconsiderationsfailstotakeaccountofthe
    massivelychangedcontextinwhichyoungpeopleaccess,consumeandusedigitalmedia
    technologies.Wecannolongersimplyconceptualiseyoungpeopleaspassiveplayersonwhommedia
    exertsaninfluenceofonekindoranother.Theabilitytointeractandsocialiseonline,includingby
    usingcontentofanincreasinglysophisticatednature,meansthatyoungpeoplethemselvesplaya
    crucialroleinformulatingrules,regulationsandthelimitsofacceptablebehaviouronline.
    Tounderstandwhatmotivatesyoungpeople’sactionsonlineandhowtheyconceiveofgoodandbad
    behaviourinanonlinecontext,wenowturntoconsiderthemoraldevelopmentandthepotential
    impacttheinternetmayhaveonmoralaction,takingparticularaccountofpeereffects.

    Impactonmoralandsocialdevelopment
    Moralityisconsideredadevelopmentalprocess.Piaget(1932)dividesthisprocessintotwostages:
    • Heteronomousmoralthinking inwhichrulesareprovidedbyadultsandreinforcedby
    punishment.Atthisstage(inotherwords,uptotheageof10or11),childrenthinkthatrulesare
    fixedandabsolute,andtendtomakemoraljudgementsonthebasisofconsequences.
    25 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    • Relativistmoralthinkinginwhichchildrentakeamorerelativistperspective,andformmoral
    judgementsmoreonthebasisofintentions(Piaget1932).Duringthisstage,rulesare
    internalisedbutyoungpeoplealsoactonindependentmoraljudgementsbasedonsocial
    experience(Bradley2006).
    BuildingonPiaget’swork,Kohlberg(1958)extendedthedevelopmentalprocesstosixstages,during
    whichtheindividualmovesthroughthreephasesofmoralreasoning:pre-conventional,conventional
    andpost-conventional.ThesestagesareoutlinedbrieflyinBox2.1.

    Box2.1:Kohlberg’ssixstagesofmoraldevelopment
    Phase1:Pre-conventionalmorality
    Stage1:Obedienceandpunishmentorientation
    ThisstageislargelysimilartoPiaget’sfirststage,withchildrenacceptingrulesasabsolutesandmakingjudgements
    onthebasisofconsequencesandpunishments.
    Stage2:Individualismandexchange
    Atthisstage,childrenbegintorecognisethatthereisnotjustone,absoluteview.Theyunderstandthatdifferent
    individualshavedifferentviewpoints,andwillpursueacourseofactionrelativetotheirownindividualinterests.
    Whilechildrenatthisstagestilltalkaboutpunishment,thecontextinwhichtheydosohaschanged.DuringStage1,
    punishmentprovesthewrongnessoftheaction.InStage2,punishmentisariskyouwishtoavoid.
    Thesestagesarecalled‘pre-conventional’,asmoralityisstilllargelyanexternalprocessdeterminedbyothers.
    Phase2:Conventionalmorality
    Stage3:Goodinterpersonalrelationships
    Youngpeopletypicallyreachthisstagewhentheyareenteringtheirteenageyears.Moralityisnowviewedasmore
    thanamatterofsimpledeals,andthereisawider,thoughstilllimited,conceptofsocietyinmoraldecisions.Young
    peoplebasemoralityonadesiretoliveuptotheexpectationsoffriends,familyandthecommunitybybehavingin
    ‘good’ways.Inthiscontext,goodbehaviourconstitutesthatwhichhasgoodmotives,andwhichtakesaccountof
    interpersonalfeelings–forinstance,love,empathy,trustandconcernforothers.
    Stage4:Maintainingsocialorder
    Stage4widenstheconceptofsocietyfromtwo-personrelationships(inotherwords,thosewithfamilymembersand
    closefriends)toaconcernregardingsocietyasawhole.Atthisstage,moralreasoningplacesanemphasisonobeying
    laws,respectingauthorityandperformingone’sdutysothatsocialorderismaintained.
    Thisphaseseestheindividualprogressingtomakingmoraldecisionsfromtheperspectiveofsocietyasawhole.Itis
    referredtoas‘conventional’,asitinvolvesthinkingfromthepositionofafully-fledgedmemberofsociety.Thisstage
    isdominantataroundage16.
    Phase3:Post-conventionalmorality
    Stage5:Socialcontractandindividualrights
    ThisstageseesmoralreasoningstretchedbeyondStage4toconsiderationofwhatmakesforagoodsociety
    (Kohlberg1981,Gibbsetal 1983).Itisfocusedontheexistenceofbasicrights(forinstance,arighttolibertyandto
    life)andtheexistenceofdemocraticproceduresforchanginglawsandimprovingsociety.Atthisstage,moralityand
    rightscantakepriorityoverparticularlaws–forinstance,wheretherighttolifeisinvolved.
    Stage6:Universalprinciples
    Thisisthehigheststage,wheremoralreasoningseekstodefinetheprinciplesbywhichweachievejustice.Kohlberg’s
    accountofthisstageisbasedonKantianandRawlsiantheoriesofjustice,withmoralreasoningtreatingallclaimsin
    animpartialmannerandseekingtodefineuniversalprinciples.ThisstageisdesignedbyKohlbergtobelargely
    theoretical:evenwhenindividualsreachPhase3,allpost-conventionalmoralresponsesareconsideredtobeStage5
    (ColbyandKohlberg1983).
    Source:Crain1985
    26 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Developmentinmoralreasoningisnotpresumedtobeaprocessofmaturation(Kohlberg1968).
    Instead,youngpeopleprogresstohigherstagesthroughthinkingaboutmoralproblems,andthrough
    socialexperienceandinteractionsthatchallengelowerstagesofreasoning.Thusmoralreasoningcan
    bedevelopedonlybyworkingthroughsituations,ratherthanfrommereinstruction.
    Factorsthatcanaffectmoraldevelopmentincludealackofeffectivefeedbackandremotenessfrom
    harm,aswellasreducedriskofdetectionandpunishment(Wilkins1997).Eachoftheseareclearly
    presentonline:individualsdonotalwaysreceivestrong,effectivefeedback(inotherwords,one
    emanatingfromanauthoritativesource)aboutthehurtfulimpactoftheircommunicationsoractions,
    whilethereisasignificantlyreducedriskofdetectionandpunishmentforactivitiesthatareillegaland
    muchlessforactionsthatmaybemerelyunethicalorrude.
    Moralaction
    Iftheinternethasaneffectonmoralactionandwhetheryoungpeopleactwithinagivenmorality,we
    mustconsiderfirstwhetherthetechnologicalfeaturesoftheinternetitselfencouragebehaviourof
    oneformoranother,andsecond,whetherthisispredominantlyduetothefactthattheinternet
    facilitatesgreaterinteractionbetweenpeers,ultimatelyheighteningtheirinfluence.
    ‘Bad’behaviouronlineoccursfrequently:inonlineenvironments,individualsoftenactinwaysthatare
    ‘disinhibited,de-individuatedandself-absorbed’(Denegri-Knott2003).Evenwhereyoungpeople
    havesuccessfullynavigatedstagesinmoraldevelopment,cyberbullying,hacking,intellectualproperty
    theftandotherformsofnegativebehaviourindicatetheextenttowhichsomearewillingto
    transgressfromtheirmoralcodeinonlineenvironments.
    Whatcancauseustoselectivelydisengageourmoralcontrol?Bandura(1991)identifiesthreecauses
    thatarerelevantinanonlinecontext:
    • Moraljustification Individualsmaketheirconductpersonallyandsociallyacceptablebysaying
    theirbehaviourwascarriedoutformoralreasons.Forinstance,whereIntellectualPropertytheft
    isconcerned,perpetratorsoftenfocusonnotionsthattheentertainmentindustryis‘rippingoff’
    consumersorartists.
    • Disregarding,minimisingorignoringtheconsequences Insituationswherethe
    consequencesofone’sactionscanbeminimisedordisregarded,individualscanreasonthatthere
    isnoneedforself-censure.Importantly,distancemakesapersonmorelikelytopermitharmto
    another.Whenthevictimismoreremote,consequencesareeasiertoignore.
    • Dehumanisingthevictim Wherethevictimisdehumanised,internalisedempathycanno
    longeractasamotivationalforce(Hoffman1991).Again,thishasparticularresonancegiventhat
    dehumanisationcanoccurthroughlackofaffectivefeedback–aparticularfeatureofonline
    environments.
    Itisclearthatthetechnologicalfeaturesoftheinternetcontributetotheeasewithwhich
    consequencesofactionscanbeminimisedorignored.Participantsinourdeliberativeworkshops
    commentedthatitwascertainlyeasiertobe‘meaner’online,andtosaythingstheywouldnotsayin
    aface-to-facediscussion.
    Bloggershavefrequentlycomplainedthatpeoplearewillingtocontributehighlynegativecomments,
    oftenamountingtopersonalabuse,inresponsetopostings.Therecentexperienceofshort-lived
    GuardiantravelbloggerMaxGogartyillustratedthelevelsofvitriolthatcanbedirectedtowards
    peopleparticipatingonline.Maxcontributedablogdetailingthestartofhisgap-yeartravels,tobe
    updatedthroughouthistrip.ItwashaltedbytheGuardianbecauseofthelevelofunpleasant
    personalandabusivecommentsthepostattracted.Thisexamplealsoshowshowpeoplestriveto
    makemoraljustificationsfortheiractions.Manypeopleclaimedthattheauthorsoftheabusive
    postingsweremerelyreactingtosuspicionsofnepotism,asGogarty(arelativelyinexperiencedwriter)
    wasrumouredtobethesonofaGuardiantravelwriter(Behr2008).
    Ineverydaylife,situationsthatcalluponamoralvaluesystemarealsoofcourseheavilycontext
    dependent(Turiel1983).Whilemoralvaluesarecategoricalanduniversal,socialconventionsare
    27 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    arbitrary,andaredeterminedbyalterablesocialsystems.Inordertodecideonabestcourseofaction,
    youngpeoplewillnotonlyconsulttheirsenseofmoralitybutalsomakereferencetothesocial
    contextinwhichthedecisionisgoingtobemade(Bradley2006).
    Offline,socialcontextswill,ofcourse,includepeers,butalongsideparents,adultsandotherauthority
    figures,aswellasthewidercommunity.Online,thesocialcontextislargelyformedbythecommunity
    inquestion–which,initself,isprimarilymadeupofpeers.Thustheroleofpeersisparticularly
    importantinonlineenvironments.
    Evidenceshowsthatpeerscanhavepositiveandnegativeeffects.Forexample,ifayoungperson
    socialiseswithagroupofteenagerswhoallstudyhard,theindividualconcernedismorelikelytotry
    toliveuptotheseexpectations.Conversely,researchsuggeststhatspendingtimewithpeerswho
    thinkitis‘uncool’tostudymakesitdifficultfortheindividualtobreakoutoftheenforcedsocial
    norm.Whilethisdoesnotpresumeyoungpeopledirectlycopytheactionsoftheirpeers(the‘ifyou
    sayjump…’analogy)recentresearchsuggeststheeffectsofpeerpressurearestrongerthan
    previouslypresumed(Margoetal 2006).
    Peerinfluenceisalsocomplex,operatingatmanylevels.Forexample,femaleadolescentswillbemore
    influencedbythelargerpeergroupthanbytheirbestfriends.Empirically,researchershaveshown
    thatpeersinaclassroomcanhavesignificanteffectsonthelikelihoodofanadolescentusingdrugs,
    drinkingalcohol,smokinganddroppingoutofschool(GaviriaandRaphael1997).Local‘cultural
    norms’–theusualbehaviourofteenagersinthelocalcommunity–havemeasurableeffectsonthe
    behaviourofallyoungpeoplelivingthere(Margoetal 2006):ifeveryonesmokesbehindtheir
    parents’back,itbecomesacceptable,eveniftheteenagerbelievesthatitiswrongorharmful.
    Meanwhile,thereisanotherdynamicgoingon,whichisasortofunconscioussocialselection:
    researchhasalsoshownthatyoungpeopletendtogravitatetowardsotherswhoshareinterestsand
    views,thusmakingitmorelikelythat,forinstanceinaclassroomcontext,well-behavedyoungpeople
    willboosteachother’scommitmenttowork,whiletheirless-well-behavedpeerswillspureachother
    ontomoredisruptivebehaviour(ibid,Kandel1978).
    Thishasimplicationsforthepeereffectsofsocialnetworkingsites,wherelargenetworksofpeerscan
    beeasilycoordinated,andwherepeerscanengageinself-selectionmuchmoreeasily,makingfriends
    andconnectionswithpeoplewhoalreadysharetheirinterests.Thisactivitymeansthatpeersoften
    havereciprocaleffectsoneachother(Kandel1978).
    Therearealreadysuggestionsthatpeersonlinedoinfluenceeachothermorenegatively,andina
    potentiallymorepowerfulway,thanintheofflineworld.Forinstance,thesocialnetworkingsite
    Facebookincludesanumberofpro-anorexiagroups.Thesearesetupbyusersthemselves,and
    provideforumsfordiscussionandcomment.Severalhaveinexcessof200members.Charitiesworking
    totackleeatingdisordersrecentlycondemnedsocialnetworkingsitesforfailingtoremovesuch
    groups,whichtheyclaim‘encouragepeopletoavoidtreatmentorgainideasabouthowtomaintain
    theirdisorder’(BBC2008).Inresponse,Facebookhassaidthatitwillnotremovesuchgroups
    becauseitisimpossibletojudgewhichsupportgroupsarepositiveandwhichencourageunhealthy
    behaviour.Nonetheless,itisclearfrombothsidesofthedebatethatthereistacitacceptancethat
    youngpeopleinfluenceeachotherintheseenvironments.
    Thissituationposesbothchallengesandopportunitiesforpublicpolicy.Ontheonehand,itshows
    thatmitigatingnegativepeereffectswillbeextremelydifficult–particularlyinthecurrent
    environment,whichremainsrelativelyfreeofadultmediation.Ontheother,itemphasisesthe
    importanceofharnessingthepotentialofpeerstocreatepositiveoutcomes–forinstance,by
    providingsupportandadviceinareasofeducation,employment,healthandwell-being.

    Issuesdominatingthecurrentdebate
    Withthisbackgroundevidenceinmind,wenowturntoconsiderthefollowingspecificissuesthat
    havedominateddebatesonyoungpeople’suseoftheinternet:
    • Exposuretoage-inappropriatecontent
    28 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    • Violentcontent
    • Sexualcontent
    • Cyberbullying
    • Attitudestosafety
    • Attitudestoprivacy
    • Exposuretoadvertising
    • Plagiarismandwebcredibility.
    Exposuretoage-inappropriatecontent
    Thereis,ofcourse,alongtraditionofrestrictingaccesstocertainmaterialforcertainages.Broadcast
    televisionissubjecttothewatershed,ensuringthatcontentofanexplicitlyadultnatureisnotshown
    untilafter9pm.Filmsand,latterly,videogamesaresubjecttoageratingsandclassificationsthat
    recommendthecontentonlybeviewedbypeopleof12,15or18andabove,forexample.
    Theserestrictionshavebeenworkablebecausetherearepointsatwhichtheycanbeeffectively
    employed.Filmandvideo-gameretailerscanchecktheageofthepersonpurchasingtheproduct,
    whileterrestrialtelevisionisbroadcastalongalinearscheduleandsubjecttostricteditorialcontrols.
    However,wheretheinternetisconcerned,suchrestrictionseitherdonoteffectivelyexistorare
    impossibletoimplement.Internetcontentisdeliveredondemandfromavarietyofcontentcreators
    andsourcesacrosstheglobe.Youngpeoplenowhaveeasieraccesstoage-inappropriatecontentthan
    everbefore.
    Concernshavechieflyfocusedonaccesstoviolentcontentorimagesofagraphicsexualnatureand
    theextenttowhichthesecan‘harm’youngindividuals.Theterm‘harm’canencompassshort-term
    harm–forinstance,withcontentthatisinstantlydistressingorfrightening–aswellasmorelong-
    termeffects–forexample,contentthatservestocultivatecertainattitudesorviewsofsocietyand
    appropriatebehaviour.Thereare,ofcourse,greatdifficultiesinprovidingevidenceoftheeffectof
    viewing,andinunderstandingtheextenttowhichothersocialinfluenceshavehadamoresignificant
    roletoplay(LivingstoneandMillwood-Hargrave2006).Therearealsoethicalproblemsinexposing
    youngpeopletopotentiallyharmfulcontentinordertoanalyseitseffect.
    Assessingwhatcontentisageappropriateisnotaneasytask(althoughcommentinthemediaand
    policycirclesoftenseemstopresumethatitis).Youngpeopletendtohaveverydifferentperceptions
    fromadultsofwhatisageappropriate,andoftenbelievethatcontentisappropriateoratleastnot
    harmfultothemeventhoughitmaybeharmfulforchildrenofayoungerage(Livingstone2002).
    Severalcommercialservicesoffer‘walledgarden’versionsoftheinternet–inotherwords,alimited
    internetthatoffersaccesstocertainsitesthatarepredeterminedas‘safe’.Filteringsystemsalso
    allowsparentstorestrictaccesstocontentbasedontheageofthechild.Limitingaccessremainsa
    difficulttaskthathastakenonanewcomplexitywiththeintroductionofvideo-sharingwebsites,
    whichallowyoungpeoplethemselvesnotonlytosharecontentwhichmaybedeemed‘harmful’but
    alsotocreatecontentthatcomesunderthisdefinition.Next,welookattheextentofthisbehaviour
    andtheimpactitmayhaveonyoungpeople,consideringbothdistresscausedandthepropensityto
    encouragenegativebehaviours.
    Violentcontent
    Thepossibilityofyoungpeoplebeingexposedtoviolentcontenthasbeenattheforefrontof
    policymakers’mindsfordecades,frominvestigationsintotheeffectofviolentcomicsinthe1950sto,
    morerecently,theimpactofvideogamesandviolentfilms.
    Violenceinthemediacontinuestobeapointofblameforpeopledecryingincreasedviolencein
    society.Mostrecently,useofknivesinvideogameshasbeenonesourceofblamefortheincreasein
    knifeattacksintheUK’scities(Pascoe-Watson2008).Butourconceptof‘violentcontent’recently
    tookonanewaspectasuser-generatedcontentcontainingviolence–forinstance‘happyslapping’
    29 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    videos(whereaphysicalattackisfilmedonamobilephonethensharedonline)–capturedpressand
    publicattention.
    Whatimpactisthisnewformofviolentcontentlikelytohave?Tounderstandthis,itisnecessaryto
    lookatfourfactors:scale,access,contextandresemblanceofreality(forafulldiscussionofthe
    impactofharmfulandoffensivecontentseeLivingstoneandMillwoodHargrave2006).
    • Scale Thispointrelatestothescaleofviolentcontentavailableonline.Itis,ofcourse,impossible
    toassesshowmuchviolentuser-generatedcontentisonline.TheWebisforeverexpandingin
    size,withnewcontentaddeddaily.Anyassessmentisalsodependentuponadefinitionof
    ‘violent’,whichisitselfdependentonthecontextinwhichviolenceisportrayed.
    InJuly2007,Panorama(BBC1)aired‘Children’sfightclub’–adocumentaryhighlightingthe
    numberofvideoscreatedbyusersavailableonlinewhichfeaturedbrutalfightsbetweenyoung
    people.Thenumberofthistypeofvideoisdifficulttoassess,butaquicksearchonanynumber
    ofvideo-sharingwebsitesdeliversseveralhundredresults.Therearealsositesdedicatedto
    showingonlybriefclipsoffightingandnothingelse(‘Purestreetfights’beingonesuch
    example).Themostpopularvideoatthetimeofwritingwasentitled‘Girlbeatupinstreet’.It
    hadbeenviewedalmost1,250,000times.
    • AccessAccesstoviolentcontentisnowmucheasierthanitwasinthepast.Whereascontent
    accessedinanofflinecontextwasoftensubjecttoenforcedagerestrictions,itisstrikinghow
    quicklyandeasilylargenumbersofviolentvideoscanbeaccessedonline.Thisisnotcontent
    whichonehastosearchveryhardfor.Onvideo-sharingsites,typingtheworld‘fight’intothe
    searchbarbringsupseveralhundredorthousandresultsandonceonevideoisfounditiseasyto
    movefromtheretootherlinkedvideoswhichprovidesimilarcontent.IntheUK,justoverone
    quarter(27percent)ofyoungpeopleagedbetween9and19reporthavingvisitedwebsites
    containing‘gruesome’or‘violent’content(LivingstoneandBober2005).
    • Context Perhapswherethisonlinecontentrepresentsthestarkestdeparturefromviolence
    otherwisefeaturedinfilmsandtelevisionshowsisitslackofcontext.Inthelatter,violence
    usuallyappearswithinanarrativeandviewerstendtorespondonthisbasis.Iftheviolenceisnot
    consideredanecessarypartoftheplot,itislabelledgratuitousandthefilmwillberatedand
    restrictedasaresult.Whereusergeneratedshortvideosareconcerned,thereisusuallyeitherno
    orverylittleprovidedcontext.Wehavenoideawhoisintherightorinthewrong,whodeserves
    to‘win’oranyofthefactsatallintheleaduptothefight.Theentirefocusisthepureviolence
    ofthefightitself.
    • Resemblanceofreality Afurtherfactorthatisoftenconsideredindeterminingthescaleof
    impactviolentcontentcanhaveisitsresemblancetorealityandinparticularwhetherthe
    violenceisofaformthatcanbeeasilyimitated.Theviolencefeaturedinvideogames,for
    example,haspreviouslybeendeemedtohavealimitedimpactongameplayersbecauseofits
    dream-like,fantasyquality.Incontrast,thereisnothingdreamlikeabouttheviolenceexhibitedin
    user-generatedfightvideos.Ithasitsverybasisinreality,takingplaceinschoolplaygroundsand
    localstreets,andwithnoneoftheconventionsthatexistwithinsomegenresoffiction.
    Concernovertheimpactthatsuchcontentcouldhaveonyoungpeopleisfocusedontwopossible
    outcomes.Thefirstisthatyoungpeoplemay,intheshortterm,findsuchcontentdistressingor
    upsetting.Researchshowsthatunexpectedorde-contextualisedviolenceislikelytohavethiseffect
    (LivingstoneandMillwood-Hargraves2006).Butthesecond,andgreatest,popularfearisthatthis
    phenomenonisactuallyencouragingandincentivisingviolence:thatyoungpeoplearemorelikelyto
    performsuchactsforfilmingpurposes.Evidencelinkingimitationtoviewingissparse.However,there
    arestudiesthatshowacorrelationbetweenviewingviolentactsandaggressivebehaviouramong
    youngboys(Belsen1978).Aswithmuchoftheresearchofthiskind,criticismsintermsofits
    methodologyandtheapplicabilityofthefindingstoreal-lifescenariosarerife.
    But,inthecontextofuser-generatedcontent,wemustalsoconsiderthepresenceofpeereffects,
    especiallywherecontentispostedwithinsocialnetworkingenvironments.Wecanalsoreferbackto
    30 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    factorsthatinfluencemoraldevelopmentandaction.Thereareanumberofareaswheretheonline
    contextcouldnegativelyinfluencebehaviour.
    Manyvideo-sharingsiteshavethefacilitytoprovidefeedbackonaposteditem.Thisiseffectivelythe
    mechanismbywhichcontentismonitored,sinceYouTubedoesnotengageinanyformalregulationof
    contentitself–instead,leavingthisprocesstoits‘community’ofusers.Communitymembers
    thereforehavetheopportunitytoinfluencebehaviourbyprovidingaffectivefeedbackandmoralclues
    astowhatconstitutesrightorwrongactioninthiscontext.
    However,whileitdoesappearthatthecommunityisregulatingitselfinsofarasitdebatesand
    explorescontentpostedonthesite,itdoesnotdothisinthemannerintendedbyYouTube.Videos
    thatareclearlyinbreachofcommunityguidelinesprovidedbyYouTube(forinstance,thatviolent,
    racistorcopyrightedcontentshouldnotbepostedonline)failtobereported,despitethefactthey
    havebeenviewedseveralthousandsoftimes.Researchshowsthatduringathree-monthperiodin
    2007,only0.5percentofvideoswereremovedoutofapproximately6millionposted(basedonan
    averageof65,000perday)(Chaetal 2007).
    Furthertothis,thecommentsattachedtovideostendnottobeincondemnationoftheacts
    portrayed,butinsteadnegotiateadiscussionaroundthe‘quality’oftheviolence:whetheritisfake,
    or‘lame’.Positivecommentsareoftenreceivedonthebasisofthestrengthandbrutalityofthefight.
    Evidenceshowsthatcommentsreceivedfromsocialnetworkingsitesarestrongpredicatorsofyoung
    people’sselfesteem.Inaddition,oneofthemostimportantpredicatorsofanindividualengagingin
    antisocialbehaviouriswhethertheirfriendsalsoengageandapprove(Mahoneyetal 2005,Wood
    2005).Thereisarealsense,then,thatadolescentscanberewardedforpostinggoodqualityfights
    andthatwithinasizeablecommunitythisbehaviourisencouragedasacceptable.
    Whatismore,thelackofformalregulation,thenon-removalofcontentandthesheernumberof
    videosupdateddailymeansthereislittlesenseofconsequenceand/orpunishment.The‘punishment’
    outlinedintheYouTubeCommunityGuidelinesincludesreceivingawarningnotificationor
    terminationoftheaccountanddeletionofallvideos.Ifanaccountisterminated,theuseris
    prohibitedfromeversigningupforanotheraccount.Finally,wherehappyslappingandotherformsof
    ‘cyberbullying’areconcerned,therearestrongindicationsthatyoungpeoplearecapableof
    dehumanisingthevictimorminimisingtheconsequencesofsuchactions,aswewillexploreinlater
    sections.
    Sexualcontent
    Studiesindicatethatofthe1,000most-visitedsites,10percentaresex-orientated.Meanwhile,
    portrayalsofsexuallyexplicitmaterialofaviolentnatureontheinternethaveincreased,and
    accesstosuchmaterialhasbecomeeasier(Griffiths2000).Pornographicsitesareparticularly
    popularamongyoungboys(Jacksonetal 2007).
    Concernsaboutyoungpeopleviewingexplicitlysexualcontentorpornographyareoftencentred
    onthefactthatchildrenandyoungpeoplecanfindexposuretosuchcontentdistressing
    (LivingstoneandMillwood-Hargrave2006).Morethanhalf(57percent)ofyoungpeople(9–to
    19-years-old)claimtohaveencounteredsexuallyexplicitmaterialonline(LivingstoneandBober
    2005).Themostcommonreactiontosuchexposurehasbeentoleavethesitequickly.Instances
    ofthiskinddonottendtobereportedtoparentsorguardians,withonly16percentofparents
    believingtheirchildhasseensuchcontentonline(ibid).
    Researchhascentredonwhetherviewingsuchcontentmeansyoungpeopledevelopunrealistic
    expectationsorbehavioursregardingsexualrelationships,andsecondlywhetheritcould
    encouragemorepromiscuousbehaviouramongyoungpeople(BraggandBuckingham2002).A
    declineintheageatwhichyoungpeoplefirsthavesexualintercourse,alongwithhigherratesof
    teenagepregnanciesandconcernsaroundthesexualisationofchildhood(particularlythe
    ‘tweening’ofpre-adolescentchildren),meanthatthereremainsgreatsensitivityaroundthisissue
    (Margoetal 2006).
    31 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Evidenceshowsthatthepredominanceofsexualcontentinyoungpeople’smediadiethasa
    significantassociationwiththeirsexualactivityandtheirfutureintentionstobesexuallyactive
    (Pardunetal 2005).However,onlinecontentisbynomeansthechiefculprit.Takingwebsites,
    films,televisionprogrammes,magazinesandmusictogether,11percentof13-to15-year-olds’
    mediacontainedsexualcontent.Thestrongestassociationswerefoundwithfilmsandmusic
    (ibid).
    Furthermore,thereisevidenceofalinkbetweenconsumptionofpornographyandthepresence
    ofsexuallyaggressiveattitudesandbehaviours,andthatexposuretosexuallyexplicitmaterialin
    onlinefilmsissignificantlyrelatedtobeliefs–heldequallybyboysandgirls–thatwomenaresex
    objects(PeterandValkenburg2007).Evidenceshowsthattheinternetinparticularisnowacting
    asa‘sexualsuperpeer’,particularlyforyounggirlswhoareincreasinglyturningtoonlinesources
    forcuesonhowtoact(Brownetal 2005).
    Again,thereareconcernsaboutuser-generatedcontentand,inparticular,photosandvideos
    postedbyyoungpeopletosites,whichmayfeaturethemselvesorothersinrevealingposesor
    situations.Whethersuchactivitieshavelong-lastingemotionaleffectsisdifficulttomeasure.
    However,itcertainlyraisesthepossibilityofunwantedattentionandapproachfrompeople
    wantingtopreyonyoungerinternetusers.Alongsidethis,thematerialmaybetakenoutof
    whateverlimitedcontextithasduringlaterstagesoftheyoungperson’slife,ifpotential
    employersoruniversitiessearchtheinternetforbackgroundinformationonapplicants.
    However,whileraisingconcerns,thisincreasedaccesstomaterialrelatedtosexandsexualityalso
    presentsanopportunity,byactingasasourceofeducationandinformation.Particularlywhere
    sexualhealthisconcerned,themediahaslongbeenasourceofinformationforyoungpeople
    (BraggandBuckingham2002),andagrowingnumberofyoungpeopleturntotheinternetfor
    healthinformationmoregenerally(KaiserFamily2002).Theneedforprovidingaccessibleand
    trustedinformationonsexualhealthonlineisclear.
    Cyberbullying
    Bullyingisakeyissueforyoungpeople,with35percentofYear6(aged12)pupilsreportingbullying
    asamainconcern.Thispercentagedecreaseswithage,with25percentofYear8sreportingitasa
    mainconcern,andonly15percentofYear10pupils.Almostonethird(30percent)ofschoolpupils
    reporthavingbeenbulliedatschoolinthepreviousfourweeks(DCSF2007).
    IntheUK,evidenceshowsthat22percentofyoungpeoplehavebeenvictimsof‘cyberbullying’at
    leastonce,reportinghavingreceivedhurtfulcommentsviatextmessageorhavingexperiencedabuse
    onforumsandsocialnetworkingsites.Overthepastyear,cyberbullyinghasbecomeakeypublic
    concern,especiallyinthecaseofpupilsusingdigitaltechnologies(particularlyvideocapturedon
    mobilephones)tobullytheirteachers(Harrison2007).
    Butdespitethereadinessofthemediatoengagetheterm‘cyberbullying’,ourresearchsuggeststhat
    thetermisnotacoherentoneforyoungpeople.Inourdeliberativework,thetermwasnot
    referencedbyanyagegroupwhendiscussingtheseissuesdirectly.Perhapsthisisalogicalapproach–
    thesymptomsofbullyingarethesameonlineasoffline,withthesoledifferencebeingtheirdelivery
    throughtechnologicalmeans.
    Ourresearchshowsthatonlinepeergroupslargelyperpetuateexistingofflinegroups,andthat
    communicationonline–whethernegativeorpositive–isshapedbytheofflinerelationship.Asone
    youngpersonexplains:
    ‘Itdependswhoitis.Ifit’syourenemy,youcuss’emdownandtheycussyouback,
    butifit’sjustlikeyourgirlfriendorsomethingyoujustlikechat.’(Boy,14,ABC1)
    Whilethepresenceof‘cyberbullying’asabywordusedbythemediaiscertainlyhelpfulintermsof
    heighteningawarenessoftheissue,italsoraisesthepossibilityofcyberbullyingbeingseenasa
    problemseparateanddistinctfrombullying.Whilethelatterisseenasasocialproblem–locatedfor
    instanceinschoolsorworkplaces,andwithrelativelevelofagreementofjointresponsibilityfor
    32 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    dealingwithperpetrators–thesuggestionthatcyberbullyingisa‘new’phenomenonbringsthe
    possibilityofthiscoalitionofresponsibilitybeingignoredinfavourofblamingtechnology,or
    technologyproviders.Theseparties,ofcourse,dohavearole,butarenottheonlyplayerswhocould
    bepartofaworkablesolution.
    Nonetheless,youngpeopledidsaythatitwaseasiertobeunkindoroffensivetopeopleonlineas
    opposedtooverthephoneorfacetoface–perhapsbecausetheywouldavoidseeingtheimmediate
    impactoftheirbehaviour.Anumberofparticipantsalsosaidthatonlinecommunicationhad
    aggravatedproblemsandargumentswithfriends:
    ‘IhavemuchmoreargumentsoverMSNthanIhaveinreallife…Ithinkpeoplefeel
    saferonMSNsotheygetmorerude.’(Girl,15,ABC1)
    ‘Ifyou’reannoyedatafriend,youcouldsaythatonMSN.It’seasierthansayingitto
    theirface.’(Girl,13,ABC1)
    Stillagreatdealofactivitywhichadultsmayconsiderbullyingbehaviourhadambiguousconnotations
    foryoungpeople.Youngpeoplefeltthatspeakingonlinewasmorelikelytoleadto
    misunderstandingscomparedtoface-to-faceorphoneconversations:
    ‘Youmightsaysomethingandnotmeanittobeangryandthepersonmightjusttake
    itanotherway.’(Boy,18,C2DE)
    ‘Thebadthingisthatyoucantypeitandthinkitsoundslikesomethingelse.’(Girl,17,
    ABC1)
    Therewerealsostrongsocialnormsaround‘seeingthejoke’withregardtoonlineactivity.Infact,all
    thegroupsemphasisedthatputtingembarrassingphotosoffriendsandacquaintancesonlineisfully
    acceptableandconsideredharmless.Here,youngpeoplewereadeptatminimisingtheconsequences
    oftheiractions,becomingwilfullyignorantoftheharmthatcouldbecausedbysuchunwanted
    exposure.Discussionofthisissuepromptedmanyparticipantstotellstoriesofsimilarandmore
    extremethingsthattheyhaddoneorthathadhappenedtothem.
    Referringtoanimaginedscenarioofayounggirlwritingonanothergirl’sfaceandpostingtheimage
    online,responseswere:
    ‘Icanunderstandifshefallsasleepandtheydrawonherfaceorwhatever,yeah,it’s
    funny,I’dputitonthere.’(Boy,15,C2DE)
    ‘I’mthekindofpersonwhere,ifsomeonedidthattome,I’dlaughaboutitandtakeit
    asajoke.’(Girl,13,ABC1)
    Amongyoungeragegroups(13-16),therewasrarelyanyrecognitionofthefurtherharmthatmaybe
    generatedbyenablingwidecirculationofembarrassingorhurtfulimages,videosandcomments:
    ‘Someonepassedout…weputatamponuphernoseandshewokeupanddidn’teven
    know,shewassodrunk…shewaswalkingaroundwiththistamponuphernose,with
    writingalloverherface….Therewasaplasterwithahangingtamponandoneupher
    noseandshedidn’trealiseandwetookpicturesandputitonMySpace.’(Girl,18,C2DE)
    ‘MyfriendsethishandonfireandslappedXroundthefaceandweputiton[the
    internet].’ (Boy,14,ABC1)
    Importantly,asyoungpeopleinmiddleadolescencediscussedsuchactivitiesinmoredetail,stories
    movedseamlesslyfromactivitiesthattheyhadrecorded,onmobilephonesordigitalcamerasfor
    instance,andthenpostedonline,toactivitiesthathadtakenplacein‘reallife’andnotbeen
    distributedanyfurther.Olderparticipantswere,onthewhole,moreconsciousofthequalitative
    differencesbetweenonlineandface-to-facecommunicationandthepotentialforonlineexposureto
    behurtfultopeers:
    ‘Sometimesyoucangetalienatedfromyourfriends.Likeyoucanhaveonefriendand
    sayeveryonestartsto–likeonepersondoesn’tlikethemthensaystotheothers‘I
    33 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    don’tlikethem’andstartsbitchingaboutthem,thenbeforeyouknowittheycanall
    beblockedandthisonepersoncanbelike“Allmyfriendshaveblockedme”.That
    usedtohappenalotinsecondaryschoolandit’slike–“Getalife”,d’youknowwhatI
    mean?’(Boy,18,C2DE)
    Attitudestosafety
    Theissueofchildsafetyonlinehascapturedtheattentionofparents,policymakers,industryandthe
    press.Ithaslargelybeendealtwithfromtwoperspectives:first,seekingtocurtailinstancesof,and
    accessto,childabuseimagesonline,andsecond,limitingtheopportunitiesofpredatoryadultsto
    reachyoungpeopleonline.Here,wefocusonthislatterissue,andofyoungpeople’sexperiencesof
    unwantedsexualapproaches.
    Earlyconcernsinthisareacentredontheroleofchatroomsinfacilitatingsuchactivity.Following
    variouspressstoriesandgovernmentandindustrysafetycampaigns,someofthemostpopular
    chatroomproviders–forinstanceMicrosoftandYahoo!–closeddowntheirservices(ICF2001).Our
    researchindicatesthatchatroomsnowmakeuplittle,ifany,ofyoungpeople’sonlineactivity.
    However,thenewcropofinternetservices–particularlysocialnetworkingsites(SNSs)–offernew
    opportunities,raisingconcernsthatyoungpeopleareyetmorevulnerabletoapproachesfromthose
    whowoulddothemharm.Lastyear,theChildandOnlineExploitationCentre(CEOP)heldaseriesof
    seminarsconsideringtheriskstoyouthfromsocialnetworkingsitesarguingthatthese‘new
    environment[s]canfacilitatenewformsofsocialdevianceandcriminality’,particularlyinenabling
    ‘newopportunitiesforsexualexpressionanddeviancebothtoyoungpeopleandadultswithasexual
    interestinthisgroup’(CEOP2006).
    EvidencedrawnfromMySpaceusers(ofallages)intheUSfoundthatfewerthanoneinthreehadan
    uncomfortableexperienceonMySpace,withonly7to9percentapproachedforasexualliaison.
    NearlyallofthosesimplyblockedtherequesterfromcontactingthemthroughtheirMySpacepage.
    Thoseunder18wereevenlesslikelytoreceivesexualsolicitationsthanolderusers(Rosen2006).
    However,exposuretorisksofthiskindcontinuestobeaconcern,andhigh-profilecampaignshave
    continuedtoalertyoungpeopletothepossibledangers.Thesubjectalsoremainsapopularonetobe
    coveredbymassmedia.Asaresult,themessageappearstohavebeensuccessfullyreceivedbyyoung
    peoplethemselves.Ourdiscussionswithyounginternetuserssawthemrepeatmedia-friendlyphrases
    suchas‘strangerdanger’andthemerefactofconversingwith,ormeetingwith,peoplemetonline
    wasinexorablylinkedwithpaedophiles.Infact,whendiscussingrisksassociatedwithinternetuse,the
    threatposedbypaedophileswastheissuemostcommonlyraisedbyallgroups.
    Wepresentedthegroupswithascenariodescribingaface-to-facemeetingwithsomeoneoriginally
    metonline:
    Scenario:Offlinemeeting
    DarrenmadefriendswithSusanthreemonthsagoinachatroom.SusanhastoldDarrenthatshe
    isalsoagedx[agechangedtocorrespondtoeachgroup]andlivesinLondon.Susanhasaskedif
    theycanmeetupinperson,andDarrenhassaidyes.

    Whenpresentedwiththisscenario,theyoungpeopleimmediatelyemphasisedtheriskassociatedwith
    suchanaction:
    ‘Like,ifyougoalongandtheykidnapyou…like,it’snotreallygoingtohappenbutit
    might.’(Boy,14,ABC1)
    Butwhilethebarebonesofthemedia,industry,parentalandgovernmentsafetymessageshave
    certainlybeenreceived,thereareimportantcaveatstorecogniseintermsofyoungpeople’spractice
    asopposedtoexpressedattitudes.‘Strangerdanger’wascertainlyarecognisedconcept.However,
    thisdoesnotmeanthatyoungpeoplearenecessarilyunwillingtomeetpeoplewhotheyhavefirst
    hadcontactwithonline.Socialnetworkingsitesofferhugeopportunitiesforwideningfriendship
    circlesatatimewhenadolescentsocialisationisatitspeak–forexample,bymakingfriendswith
    34 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    ‘friendsoffriends’.Thisphrase‘friendsoffriends’isparticularlyimportant,andwasfrequently
    usedbyyoungpeople.
    AsBoyd(2006)comments,‘friendship’isanexpansiveterm–itcanencompassrelationshipsthat
    aremuchmorediffusethanthoseexplainedbytheterms‘sister’,‘brother’,‘partner’,‘workmate’
    andsoon.Withtheriseofthesocialnetworkingphenomenon,thetermhasbeenpushedeven
    further.TheconceptoffriendshiponsitessuchasMySpace,BeboandFacebookisstretchedto
    includefamouspeopleyoumightadmire,bands,brandsandplaces;profilesrepresentingthese
    peopleorplacesmayormaynothaveanyrealconnectiontowhattheyrepresent.
    A‘friendofafriend’canincludepeoplefromaverywidecircleandcancounterlargedifferences
    inageandlocation.Thepotentiallytenuousnatureofthislinkisillustratedinthefollowing
    participants’comments:
    ‘IfyoumeetoverMSN,youkindofvaguelyknoweachotherbecauseyouhaveto
    gettheiraddy[address]fromsomeone,so….’(Boy,18,C2DE)
    ‘Butd’youknowwhatpeopledo–whenyousendlink…chainemails,youcanget
    theemailsofotherpeoplethathavebeenchainingtoeachother.’(Girl,17,ABC1)
    Theideathatsomeoneisafriendofafriendcangiveyoungpeopleacertainsenseofassurance–
    forexample:
    ‘Iwouldnevermeetsomeoneonline,ever.ImeanIwouldn’ttalktopeopleIdidn’t
    know,unlessthey’reafriendofafriend,letalonemeetupwiththem.’(Boy,17,
    C2DE)
    ‘Ifthey’relikeafriendofafriend[I’dtalktothemonline],Iwouldn’tjustlookupa
    randomperson.’(Girl,14,ABC1)
    Whiletherewerestrongsocialnormsagainstmeetingupwithpeopleyouhavemetonline–
    primarilybecauseitwasthoughtofas‘sad’or‘desperate’–membersofthe15-to16-year-old
    agegroupwerewillingtoadmithavingdoneso,primarilytomeetmembersoftheoppositesex.
    Thiscoincideswithevidenceregardingthedevelopmentalstagesofyoungpeople’smediause,
    andreinforcesthepointthatitisduringthesemiddleteenageyearsthatyoungpeoplearemost
    likelytotakerisksinthenameofpursuingsocialactivities.Thisagegrouptendstograspthe
    opportunitiespresentedbySNSsinordertoexperienceasenseoffreedomfromadult
    interference,butalsoinordertodemonstratethattheyhavesuccessful,maturesocialinteractions:
    ‘Thewholepointoftheprivacy[setting]is,like,sothatpeopledon’taddyouthat
    youdon’tknowbutattheendoftheday,youshouldbeabletomakeyourown
    decisions–especiallyatthisage.’(Boy,16,ABC1)
    Whenitcomestotalkingtopeopletheydidnotknowwell,youngpeoplefavourtheinternetover
    othercommunicativemeansbecauseitenablestheusertocontrolone’ssocialinteractions
    (Maddelletal 2007).Forinstance,thefactthattoolssuchasinstantmessaging,textmessaging
    andemailcanbeusedforeithersynchronousorasynchronouscommunicationsmeansthatyoung
    peoplearegiventheopportunitytothinkabouttheirresponseifdesired(ibid):
    ‘Cosifyoudon’tknowthemverywell,youmightnotwannaspeaktothemover
    thephonecositmightbeabitawkwardwhereasyoucangettoknowthembetter
    online.’(Girl,18,C2DE)
    ‘Youcantalktopeopleyoudon’tknowthatwellwithoutitbeingawkward.’(Girl,
    16,ABC1)
    Butwhileindividualswerewillingtotakerisks,thegroupalsoshowedevidenceofeffortsto
    maximisesafety,illustratingtheextenttowhichexperiencecanenableyoungpeopletodevelop
    levelsofmedialiteracywithoutformaleducation(Buckingham2005b).The15-to16-year-old
    groupheldextendeddiscussionsaboutthewaysinwhichtheywouldestablishtheidentityand
    ageofsomeonetheymetonline.Webcamswereseenasthemosttrustworthysource,while
    35 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    picturesweretrustedbysomebutnotothers:
    ‘Iwouldn’ttrustanyoneunlesstheyhadawebcamcosthenyoucan,like,seethem
    butpictures–that’sadifferentthing.’(Boy16,ABC1)
    Participantswhodidmeetupwithonlineacquaintancessaidthattheywouldspeakfirstonthe
    phone.One16-year-oldgirlsaidthatshecouldtellbythenatureofthecommunicationiftheperson
    wasanadultpretendingtobeheragebythetypesofquestionsthattheyasked,andalsothrougha
    complicatedmethodofcommunicatingwiththatpersonusingmorethanoneprofileinorderto
    comparetheiranswers:
    ‘AboycanmeetagirloragirlcanmeetaboyoverMSNaswell,taketheirnumber
    andmeetthem…youjusttaketheirnumberandthenyoutalktothemyeah,you
    don’thavetomeetthemstraightaway,youjusttalktothemforaboutaweekandyou
    justmeetthemafter.’(Boy,14,ABC1)
    ‘Likesometimestheytrytoohardtobeinwiththekids,Idon’tknow,liketheytrytoo
    hardtoactlikeachild,butit’sobvious.’(Girl,15,ABC1)
    Participantsinallagegroupsdemonstratedthattheywereawareofsafetymeasures,suchasbeing
    accompaniedbyfriendsandmeetinginapublicplace:
    ‘Ifyoudiddothat[meetingupwithanonlineacquaintance]thenyouwouldatleast
    gowithaloadoffriends,butIwouldn’tdoit.’(Girl,16,ABC1)
    Attitudestoprivacy
    Closelyrelatedtocampaignsaroundsafetyarecampaignsencouragingyoungpeopletoprotecttheir
    privateinformationandpersonaldetailsonline.
    TheGovernment-backedwebsitethinkUKnow.co.ukgivesadviceon‘howtostayincontrol’by
    limitingtheamountofpersonaldetailsgivenawayonline.Forexample,thesitestronglyrecommends
    onlygivingyourmobilephonenumbertofriends‘youknowintherealworld.Ifyourmobilenumber
    isgiventopeoplethatyoudon’tknow,theymayhassleyou.Thisiswhyit’salsobestnottoputyour
    numberonyourprofileofyoursocialnetworkingsite(likeBebo,MySpaceandFacebook)’(quoted
    fromwww.thinkuknow.co.uk/11_16/control/social.aspx).
    High-impactcampaignsshownincinemashavealsosoughttoraiseawarenessaboutthedifficultyof
    assessingexactlywhoyouarecommunicatingwithonline,andtheimportanceoflimitingtheamount
    ofpersonalinformationyoutellthemonthisbasis.
    Butinconceptsofprivacyandthepersonalareperhapswhereyoungpeopleandadultsdivergethe
    most.Anecdotalevidencepointstowardsrapidlychangingideasofwhat‘privacy’meansinadigital
    age(Nussbaum2007),withyoungpeopleincreasinglywillingtoliveoutmuchoftheirlives,their
    aspirations,hopesanddailythoughtsinpublicandonline.
    Thisdoesnotmeanthatyoungpeoplehavenoconceptwhatsoeverofprivacy:theyattachparticular
    importancetokeepingsomecategoriesofinformation(forexample,mobilephonenumbers)private.
    OfthosewithprofilesonSNSs,only2percentincludetheirmobilephonenumberaspartoftheir
    profile.However,manyothercategoriesofinformationaregivenoutwillinglyandenthusiastically:for
    example,themajorityofteenagersincludetheirfirstnameandaphotoofthemselves(Lenhartand
    Madden2007).
    DisclosureofpersonalinformationispracticallyarequirementasfarasSNSsareconcerned.The
    purposeofsuchsitesistoconnectwithfriendsandacquaintances,andusingarecognisablemoniker
    –whetherone’srealnameoraknownnickname–isnecessaryinorderthatfriendscanfindandlink
    withyou.Inourresearch,participantsgenerallysaidtheyusednicknamesorfirstnamestodescribe
    themselvesonlineand,wherenicknamesortaglineswereused,thesewereoftenbasedonprivate
    jokeswithfriendsratherthanbeinganattempttodisguisetheiridentity:
    ‘I’vegotanicknamethatIuse,thatwepickeduponholiday.’ (Girl,17,ABC1)
    36 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Box2.2:Informationprovidedbyteenagersonline(figuresfromUnitedStates)
    •82%ofprofilecreatorshaveincludedtheirfirstnameintheirprofiles.
    •79%haveincludedphotosofthemselves.
    •66%haveincludedphotosoftheirfriends.
    •61%haveincludedthenameoftheircityortown.
    •49%haveincludedthenameoftheirschool.
    •40%haveincludedtheirinstantmessagescreenname.
    •40%havestreamedaudiototheirprofile.
    •39%havelinkedtotheirblog.
    •29%haveincludedtheiremailaddress.
    •29%haveincludedtheirlastnames.
    •29%haveincludedvideos.
    •2%haveincludedtheirmobilephonenumbers.
    •11%ofprofile-owningteensposttheirfirstandlastnamesonpublicly-accessibleprofiles
    •5%ofprofile-owningteensdisclosetheirfullnames,photosofthemselvesandthetownwheretheylivein
    publicly-viewableprofiles.
    Source:LenhartandMadden(2007)

    ‘[Youhave]pictures–soyouknowwhotheyare.Butalso,like,afterawhile,itjust
    startsbecoming–likewhenyouseethenamecomeupsomewhereyouwouldbelike,
    yeahthat’ssoandso.’(Boy,18,C2DE)
    Socialnetworkingprofileswerealsoreferredtoasregularlyusedfor‘self-advertising’.Itwas
    repeatedlyassertedthatusersneededtomaketheirprofilesattractiveinorderthatpeoplewould
    wanttobefriendthem.Inordertodothis,includingphotographswasarequirement:
    ‘You’relikeadvertising[onBebo]soyoulikeputyourownpictureupandyourown
    information.’(Girl,13,C2DE)
    Thisideaofself-advertisingwasfrequentlyreferenced,andledtomanyyoungpeopledisregarding
    privacyoptionswherethesewouldlimit‘self-advertising’opportunities.Forexample,settingyour
    profileto‘private’,usingthetoolsprovidedbytheSNSitself,meantthatotherpeoplecouldnotview
    youronline‘advertisement’.Thiswouldnegativelyimpactonyourabilitytomakefriends:
    ‘Ifyouwanttomakenewfriendsontheinternetthen[ifyouhaveitsettoprivate]no
    onecanviewyourprofiletomakefriendswithyou.’(Boy,15,C2DE)
    However,youngpeople’sassessmentsofthebalancebetweenpublicisingandprivacycontainedsome
    inherentcontradictions.Youngpeopleexpressedcleardiscomfortwiththeideaof‘weirdos’lookingat
    theirprofilesonline.Butwhileparticipantsdidnotlikethethoughtofbeingspiedon,theyalso
    admittedfeelingcompetitivewithregardtothenumbersofpeoplewhoviewedtheirprofile,andthey
    highlightedtheimportanceofappearingtohavealotoffriends:
    ‘Idon’tliketheideaofpeoplegoingthrough,liketheycanseeyourdisplaypicture,
    obviously,butIdon’tlikethethoughtofthemactuallygoingthrough,likepervingon
    you,sendingphotocommentsandyou’rejustlike–it’sweirdpeople.’(Boy,18,C2DE)
    ‘IdislikethatyouhaverandompeoplegoingonyourBeboandlookingatyourstuff
    andbeingabitweirdbutIdolikethewayIcancontactmyfriendsfreeandlookatmy
    friends’profilesandseeanynewstuff.’(Girl,13,ABC1)
    Anotherareawhereyoungpeoplewereoftenlaxintermsofprivacy,isinrespondingtoquizzesand
    questionnairesonline.OnMySpace,thebulletinboardfeatureisoftenusedtopostresponsestoshort
    quizzes.Arecentpostingfromoneidentifiable16-year-oldfemaleincludedanswerstothefollowing
    questions:
    37 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    • doyouloveanyone:
    • doyouhateanyone:
    • doyouhavegoodrelationshipswithfriends:
    • doyouhavegoodrelationshipswithfamily:
    • whichfrienddoyoulikethemost:
    • whichfamilymemberyoulikethemost:
    • whatdoyouvaluemore,friendshiporaperfectrelationship:
    • howimportantissexinarelationshiptoyou:
    • areyouattractedtopeopleofthesamesex:
    • whowasthelastpersonyoulustedafter:
    • doyoutrustpeoplewithyourlove:
    • couldyouhavesexwithsomeoneyoudonotlove:
    • areyoualovingperson:
    • doyouevenbelieveinlove:
    • whoisthemostimportantpersontoyou:
    • haveyoulostyourvirginity:
    • haveyoueverkissedordoneanythingwithsomeoneofthesamesex:
    • whowasthelastpersonyouhadsexwith:
    (MySpacequestionnaire,uploaded7/3/07)
    Sheansweredfurtherquestionsregardingherfavouritealcoholicdrink,drugandsoon,despitethe
    factthatshemaynothavebeenawarethattheanswerssheprovidedwerevisibletopeopleusingthe
    site.
    Theideaisthatusersposttheanswerstothesequestionstothebulletinboard.Othermembersof
    theposter’snetworkarethensupposedtoaddtheirownanswers,re-posttothebulletinboardand
    reachanewnetworkofSNSusers.
    DespitethefactthatSNSusers’networkscanstretchtomanyhundreds,oreventhousands,of
    contacts–someofwhomwillbepersonallyknowntotheposterbutmanyofwhomwillnotandwill
    insteadbecapturedundertheelusivephrase‘friendoffriend’–younguserscouldseenorisks
    involvedinparticipatinginsuchactivities.Despitethefactthattherehavebeenrecentpressstories
    regardingpotentialemployersoruniversitiessearchingsocialnetworkingsitestofindoutinformation
    aboutapplicants(BBC2007a,Lisberg2008),comparedwithmeetingupwithpeopleinreallife,or
    givingawaypersonaldetailssuchasaddresses,thistypeofactivitywasbarelydiscussedina‘risk’
    contextatall:
    ‘Everyonedoesquizzes,it’snottoomuchofabadidea;it’sonlyabadideaifyour
    teacherscatchyou.’(Boy,14,C2DE)
    Perhapstheclearestwaytoarticulatethecontradictioninyoungpeople’sattitudesistounderstand
    theirbehaviourasbeingmadeupofprivateconversationsthattakeplaceinpublicspaces(Shirky
    2008).Toalimitedextent,thisisalreadyasociety-widetrend,withmobilephonesenablingpeopleto
    have‘private’conversationsinverypublicplaces–forexampleontransport–onaregularbasis.
    However,theseconversationsaretemporaryinnatureandprovidenolasting,meaningfultrace.Thisis
    verydifferenttothelong-lastingnatureofconversationscarriedoutonline,whichmayremain
    availableformanyyearstocomeandcantypicallybelinkedeasilytotheposter,alongwithawhole
    hostofotheridentifyinginformation.
    Exposuretoadvertising
    Awillingnesstoabandonprivacyhasstronglinkstoyoungpeople’spotentialincreasedexposureto
    38 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    advertisinginonlineenvironments.Therehasbeenalongagreementthatadvertisingtoparticularly
    youngchildrenshouldbelimited.Theadvertisingofharmfulproducts–forinstancealcoholand
    tobacco–toyoungpeoplehaslongbeenproscribed,andtheconceptof‘harmful’hasrecentlybeen
    widenedtoincludejunkfood.UndernewOfcomguidelines,advertisingofjunkfoodisrestricted
    alongsidebroadcasttelevisionprogrammesthathavesubstantialappealtounder-16s.
    However,thereisalsorisingconcernattheimpactofadvertisingitself–overandabovetheproducts
    itpromotes.Thecommercialisationofchildhoodhasbecomeanemergingthemeforpolicymakers,
    academicsandparentsalike.Evidenceshowsthatthemoreinvolvedchildrenarewithconsumerism,
    themorelikelytheyaretoexperiencedepression,anxietyandstress-relatedphysicaldiscomfort
    (Schor2004).Inparticular,thesesymptomsareshowntobeexacerbatedbypoverty:childrenfrom
    thepoorestsocio-economicgroupsarethemostinterestedinconsumerandmaterialisticconcerns
    (Mayo2006).
    Alongsidethesepolicyconcerns,therehasbeenanexpansioninthechildrenandyoungpeople’s
    market,asboththeexpenditureofyoungpeopleandtheirinfluenceonparentalpurchaseshas
    increased(Schor2004).
    Eachyear,youngpeopleintheUKspendanestimated£680millionoftheirownmoneyonsnacks
    andsweets,afurther£660milliononclothing,£620milliononmusic,£400milliononfootwear,£350
    milliononcomputersoftware,£250milliononmagazinesand£38millionontoiletries(Childwise
    2005,citedinMargo2007).Itisnowonderthatproducershavesoughttoadvertisetheirwaresto
    thisgrowingmarket.
    Advertisingtochildrenhastraditionallybeenlimitedalongdevelopmentallines.Asfarasbroadcast
    mediaisconcerned,bytheageoffivemost(butnotall)childrenareabletodifferentiatebetween
    advertisementsandprogramming,toalimitedextent.However,theystillseeadvertsasentertainment
    orunbiasedinformation.
    Adeeperunderstandingofthepersuasiveintentionsofadvertisersoccursbyaroundeightyearsold.
    Accordingtoonestudy,53percentofchildrencouldunderstandthisbyages6-7,and87percentby
    ages8-9.Byages10-11,almostall(99percent)ofchildrenrecognisedthatadvertisementswere
    attemptingtosellproducts(RobertsonandRossiter1974).
    Attheageofeight,youngpeoplealsorecognisethatadvertisementsdonotalwaystellthetruth
    (Schor2006).Butresearchshowsthatthepresenceofscepticismdoesnotaffectthedesireforthe
    advertisedproduct,evenfor9-to10-year-olds(Brucksetal 1998,Roedder1999).Infact,
    longitudinalresearchshowsthatadvertshaveastrongpositiveinfluenceondemand–especiallyfor
    girls(SafferandDave2003,SafferandChaloupka1999).
    IntheUK,advertisinghasbeenregulatedinlightofthesefindings,withadvertisingtounder-12s
    heavilyrestricted.Butrecentlytherehavebeenaccusationsthatadvertisersareseekingtoundermine
    agreementsaroundageappropriatenessandtodevelopamoresophisticated,adult-likerelationship
    withchildrenandyoungpeoplefromanearlierage(seeMargoetal 2006forafulldiscussion).In
    particular,concernshavebeenraisedaboutthepracticesofadvertisersinonlineenvironments–
    particularlythosethatarepopularwithyoungpeople,suchassocialnetworkingsites.
    AdvertisingisahugepartofSNSssuchasMySpaceandBebo.Whetheronbehalfofalarge
    commercialidentity(theCoca-ColaadsbythebandWhiteStripeswerefirstshownonMySpace)or
    originatingfromanunsignedband,anindividual’sclothinglabelorpromoterofalocalclubnight:
    marketingmaterialofoneformoranotherpopsupincommentsandonbulletinboardsonamore
    thandailybasis.
    Suchmaterialalsobecomesanintegralpartofusers’profiles.Justasyoungpeoplemakeconnections
    withbandsorfamouspeopleto‘writethemselvesintobeing’andbuildtheironlineprofile,flyersfor
    clubnightsandotherpromotionalmaterialservetoillustratetheusers’framesofreference,interests
    andalignmentsthatexistwithintheirnetworks.
    InasurveybytheEuropeanResearchintoConsumerAffairs(ERICA),48percentofchildrensaidthey
    hadseensomethingonlinethatmadethemwanttomakeapurchase,andonequarterofthose
    39 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    surveyedhadboughtitemsonline(EuropeanResearchintoConsumerAffairs2001).Researchalso
    suggeststhatchildrencanbeconfusedbytheblurringofadvertisementandcontentonwebsites.
    Youngpeoplewhoarequitecriticalofmainstreamadvertisingaremuchlesslikelyeventobeawareof
    suchpractices(Seiter2004).‘Advertorial’contentregularlyfeaturesonbrands’ownwebsites,whereit
    ofcoursenotsubjecttothesameguidelinesthatapplytoadvertisementsinpaid-foronlinespaces.
    Marketerscancreatemoremeaningfulrelationshipswithconsumersonlinethantheycanoffline,
    offeringlevelsofinteractivitythatareimpossiblewithbroadcastadverts.Thishasbeenusedtogreat
    effectonsocialnetworkingsites–particularlyBebo,whichfeaturesbrandprofilesonthefrontpage
    ofthesite.Youngpeoplecanbecome‘friends’withthesebrands,submittingtheirowncontenttothe
    profilepage,addingcommentsandengaginginavarietyofinteractiveactivity.Concernsaroundthis
    practicewereraisedrecentlywhenitemergedthe‘Skittles’brandofconfectionaryhadpaidBeboa
    six-figuresumtofeatureheavilyonthesiteandtorecruityoungpeoplefromaged13upwardstobe
    its‘brandambassadors’.
    BrandidentityofyoungpeopleinBritainisalreadysignificantlyhigherthanotherdevelopednations,
    includingintheUS(Mayo2005).Byentwiningbrandsevenfurtherwithyoungpeople’sonline
    identities,thepracticesofadvertisersonsocialnetworkingsitesarelikelytofurtherexacerbatethe
    problem.
    Plagiarismandwebcredibility
    Theinternethasundoubtedlyrevolutionisedthewayweaccessandshareinformation.The
    educationalbenefitsofinformationandcommunicationtechnology(ICT)havelongbeenheraldedby
    policymakers,andyounginternetusersregularlyrecordgoingonlinetocompletetheirhomework
    tasks.However,concernshavearisenregardingtheextenttowhichtheinternetfacilitatesa‘copyand
    paste’culture,inwhichyoungpeoplearerelativelyunquestioningabouttheveracityofinformation
    accessedonlineandequallypreparedtopresentitastheirownwork.
    Itis,ofcourse,difficulttoassessthescaleoftheproblem,andtheextenttowhichplagiarismhas
    drasticallyincreasedwiththeemergenceoftheinternet.Copyingentireparagraphsfrombooksor
    studyguideswasnotunheardofinapre-digitalage–however,therearenowseveralsitesonthe
    webthatofferessaystodownload,eitherforfreeorforasmallfee.Addedtothis,thereare
    translationsitesthatcantranslateforeign-languagetextsintoEnglishorviceversa,aswellas
    informationresourcessuchasWikipediafromwhichlargeswathesoftextcanbecopiedandpasted
    intoanessay.
    Throughoutippr’sdeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopleplagiarismwasdescribedasextremely
    common,andalargenumberofparticipantsinallthegroupsadmittedtocuttingandpasting
    informationfromtheinternetandusingitinschoolwork.Theonlylimitingfactorswereseentobe
    practical,intermsoftheconsequencesofbeingcaught.Toescapethis,respondentsdetailedtheways
    inwhichtheyhadhonedtheirplagiarismskillsinorderthatitwouldnotbedetected:
    ‘IfI’vegotanEnglishessay,I’llgoonGoogle,typeinwhattheessay’saboutandcopy
    andpasteit–it’sdone.’(Boy,15,C2DE)
    ‘Iwouldn’tdownloadawholeessaybecausethey’dfindoutbutI’ddownloadalotof
    it.’(Girl,14,ABC1)
    ‘It’salright,youcanedititanddosomespellingmistakesorit’sgonnalooktoogood.’
    (Girl,13,C2DE)
    Itisthismoresophisticateduseofworkthatteachersthemselvesadmitisproblematicintermsof
    identifyinginstancesofplagiarism.Whileolderagegroups(17-to18-year-olds)didrecognise
    plagiarismasamoralissue,discussionsaroundthiswereverylimitedandimplicitratherthanovertly
    tackled.Forexample,theyweremorelikelytotrytojustifytheirdecisiontocut,pasteandre-word
    onlineinformationintheirschool-work:
    ‘Forcoursework,it’sallaboutindividualresearch,anditisresearchinasense,you’re
    justre-wordingit.’(Boy,18,C2DE)
    40 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Relatedtotheissueofplagiarismistheextenttowhichyoungpeoplearewillingtoacceptwhatthey
    readonlineatfacevalue.Faceretal (2003)arguethatyoungpeopletendtoacceptinformation
    onlineasimmediatelyauthoritative,whileBevortandBreda(2001)foundthatchildrendidnot
    questionthecredibilityortrustworthinessofwebsites.
    Youngpeopleinterviewedforthisresearchprojectplacedalargeamountoftrustinthesearchengine
    Google,indicatingitwasthefirststepinattemptingtofindinformationonline.Itwasalsopraisedas
    areliablewebsite.Nonetheless,itstillpresentedsomedifficultiesinsiftingthroughinformationtofind
    whatwasrequired:
    ‘Googleisquitereliableexceptthatsometimeswhenyoutypethingsinitcomesup
    withquitealotofwebsitessoyoudon’tknowwhototrust.’(Girl,13,ABC1)
    Theyalsoexpressedtrustinlargeandestablishedtraditionalmediabrands–particularlytheBBC–
    partlybecauseitwasaknownbrand,butalsobecauseinformationwaseasilyfoundonit:
    ‘Ifwewanttofindoutnewsquick,wejusttypeinBBC,that’swhatweknow,that’s
    whatweseeonTV.’(Boy,14,ABC1)
    Inassessingthereliabilityofinformationonline,youngpeopletendedverymuchtotrusttheir
    instincts,judgingbysuchfactorsashowthewebsitelooks,itsformatandlayout,aswellaswhether
    thewebsitewas‘official’.
    Whereeffortshadbeenmadetotailorinformationandcontenttoyoungpeople,reactionsfrom
    youngpeoplethemselvesweremixed,andforthemostpartwebsitestooobviouslygearedtowards
    ‘youngpeople’wereseenaspatronising.
    Forinstance,whendiscussingtheNumber10websiteaimedatyoungpeople,participants
    commented:
    ‘Itmakesyoufeellikeakid,like‘kid’snews’butyoucouldjustgoontheBBCNews
    likeeveryoneelsegoeson.Thisisabit,like,it’stryingtobecool.’(Boy,14,ABC1)
    ‘Ihateitwhentheytrytomakeitinterestingforouragegroupcositneverworksand
    theyalwaysmakeyoufeelreallyjuststupid.’ (Girl,16,ABC1)
    Themostpopularwebsitesweretheonesthatweremostinteractive–forexample,websitesthat
    includedtheopportunitytolistentomusic,watchvideosorengagethroughMSN,asthefollowing
    youngpeopleexplainedinrelationtotheBBCBlastwebsite,whichoffersacreativeforumforyoung
    people:
    ‘That’smuchmoreattractivebecausethat’sgotvideosandit’sgotgames.That’smuch
    better.’ (Boy,15,ABC1)
    ‘It’skindoflikeMySpaceinawaycosit’sgotmessageboardsandvideo.’(Girl,17,
    ABC1)
    Incontrasttoyoungpeople’swillingnesstoacceptinformationatfacevalue,therewerestronglevels
    ofdistrustwhereitcametofinancialmatters,withmanyparticipantsrelatingstoriesof‘hacking’and
    beingrippedofffinancially.However,givenyoungpeople’slimitedmeanstoengageinfinancial
    transactionsonline,itisdifficulttodrawanyconclusionsabouthowthiswillinfluencetheirbehaviour
    inlateryears.Whatisinterestingisthatthelinkbetweenprivacyandpersonalinformationand
    financialsafetywasnotdrawn.Theconceptofidentitytheft,ratherthanfinancialriskinimmediate,
    monetaryterms,wasnotraised.

    Summary
    Ourconcernsaroundtheeffectofmediamustprogressfromsimplyconsideringthedangersofyoung
    peopleaccessingage-inappropriatecontent.Restrictingaccesstocontentonthebasisofageis
    extremelyhardtogetrightand,wheretheinternetisconcerned,hastendedtowardsa‘blanket18
    andunder’and‘18andabove’approach.However,therearecleardifferencesinmaturityand
    developmentbetweena12-year-oldanda17-year-old.
    41 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Whatismore,adultassessmentsofcontentthatisageappropriateareoftenmisguided.Reactionsto
    theNumber10website,aimedatyoungpeople,showhowquicklyorganisationsriskalienatingyoung
    peopleiftheygetthetonewrong.
    Itisimportantthatwetakeproperaccountofthesocialcontextinwhichyoungpeopleinteractonline
    –particularlysincethisislikelytohaveastrongeffectontheirbehaviourandchoices.Ourevidence
    showsthatyoungpeoplearecapableoflearningthroughexperienceanddevelopingtheirown
    strategiesfordealingwithsomeofthechallengesthatnavigatingadigitalmedialandscaperaises(for
    instance,developingsafetyconstructswhichdeterminewhetherornottotrustonline).
    However,thereremainclearareasthatpresentrealconcern,andthatpolicymustbegintoconsider
    howtoaddress–forinstance,theprevalenceofviolenceandtheculturethatsurroundsthison
    video-sharingsites,thelackofdistinctionthatyoungpeopledrawbetweenexposureinonlineand
    offlinecontexts,andthewillingnesstotakeinformationfoundonlineatfacevalue.
    Thislastpointraisesparticularconcernswherethescaleofincreaseofonlineadvertisingisconcerned.
    Thereisastrongsensethattheopportunitiesaffordedtoyoungpeopleonlineareexceedingtheir
    understanding–particularlywhenweconsidersituationsinwhichjudgmentsofamoralnatureare
    required.
    Acommonthreadthrougheachoftheseconcernsthatpervadesyoungpeople’sactivityonlineisa
    lackofreflectiveness.Thereisverylittlesenseoftheinvisibleaudiencewhomaybewitnesstoa
    youngperson’sactivities,orthatinformationorcontentmaybetakenoutofthesocialcontextin
    whichitismadeavailableandjudgedondifferentcriteria.Inattemptingtoaddressthis,wemusttake
    peerinfluencesseriously–especiallygiventhelackofheedthatyoungpeoplepaytowardsother
    limits,suchaslegalrestrictions.Tacklingthisisobviouslyadifficultareaforpublicpolicy,asitinvolves
    changingbehaviourwithincommunitiesratherthanintroducingtop-downrulesandregulations.
    Akeyneedthatemergesfromthischapteristhatofdetermininganewroleforthecorporatesector–
    includingtheinternetindustry,butalsoothercompaniesthatseektoengagewithyoungpeoplein
    onlineenvironments–todeterminewherethelimitsoftheirresponsibilitylie.Theextentof
    socialisationthattakesplaceinonlineenvironmentswouldsuggestthatcorporateentitiesnowtake
    onasignificantroleinraisingyouth.Assuch,itisimportanttostrikeanaccordthatdetermineshow
    farthesepartiesshouldgoinattemptingtoprovidegreaterlimitsand,importantly,strongerguidance
    andmorepositivenormsforyoungpeopleinteractingincommercialdomainsthatareotherwise
    largelyfreefromadultmediation.
    42 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    3.Thelimitsofrulesandregulations
    Thepreviouschaptershowedthattherearecontinuingareasofconcernwhenitcomestoyoung
    people’sinteractionwithdigitalmedia.Usingtheinternetdoesincreasethepossibilityofbeing
    exposedtoharmfulcontentoratthereceivingendofharmfulbehaviour.Especiallywhenmore
    extremecasesarehighlightedbythemedia,itisunderstandablethatthefirstplacewelooktosolve
    suchproblemsisformalregulation.
    Theinternetposesaspecialchallengeinthiscontext,andtherearegreatdifficultiesinimposinga
    formalregulatoryenvironmentonlineinawaythatmirrorstheregulationthatwehavelongimposed
    onourbroadcastindustries.Asaconsequence,workablesolutionsarenotlikelytobesolely
    regulatory.However,itisusefultounderstandthecurrentregulatorypositionandbegintoconsider
    whenandwhereitcouldbechangedtoreflectourrapidlychangingmediaenvironment.
    Thischapteroutlinesthecurrentregulatoryframework,identifyingwhatitcoversandwhatitdoes
    not.Itoutlinessomeofthedifficultiesinregulatinginternetcontent,andconsiderssolutionsoffered
    byself-regulationandco-regulation,andbytechnologicalsystemssuchasfilteringmechanisms.In
    doingso,italsohighlightstherolethatmaybeplayedbypartiesotherthangovernment.

    Thecurrentregulatoryenvironment
    Thisnextsectiondetailsthecurrentregulatoryenvironmentasitappliestotheinternetandinternet
    content.Itoutlinesthemostrelevantlawsandthenreviewshowgovernmenthasspecifically
    approachedtheregulationofcommunications–includingtelevisionandtheinternet–intheUKand
    Europe.
    Basiclegalstandards
    Duringitsearlydays,theinternetwasregularlycharacterisedasa‘newfrontier’,or‘WildWest’–a
    lawlessenvironment.However,onlinecontenthaslargelybeensubjecttothesamelegalactsasother
    publications,andwhatisillegalofflineisalsoillegalonline.So,inadditiontolawsrelatingtochild
    abuseimages(forexample),onlinepostingsaresubjecttodefamation,libelandintellectualproperty
    law.
    ThefollowingActsoflawareamongthoserelevanttoonlinecontent:
    • ThePublicOrderAct1986 makesitanoffenceforapersontousethreatening,abusiveor
    insultingwordsorbehaviour,ortodisplayanywrittenmaterialwhichisthreatening,abusiveor
    insultingwhichislikelytostirupracialhatred.
    • TheSexualOffencesAct2003relatestothecreation,possessionanddistributionofindecent
    imagesofchildrenunder18yearsofage.Wheretheinternetisconcerned,makinganimage
    includesdownloading–asdoingsomeansacopyoftheimageiscreated.ThisActalsocreateda
    newoffenceof‘grooming’,whichmakesitacrimetobefriendachildontheinternetorbyother
    meansandtomeetorintendtomeetthechildwiththeintentionofabusingthem.
    • TheDefamationAct1996 appliestotheinternetjustasitappliestoofflinematerial:the
    definitionof‘publication’undertheActincludeswebsiteswheretheyareavailableforthepublic
    toaccess.Typically,theoriginatorofdefamatoryremarks(inotherwords,thepersonwhohas
    writtenthecommentorstatement)isheldresponsible,andawebsiteownerwhoallowsother
    userstopostcommentsisprovidedadefenceunder‘innocentdissemination’solongasthe
    personorfirmhostingthecontent‘tookreasonablecareinrelationtoitspublication,anddidnot
    know,andhadnoreasontobelieve,thatwhathedidcausedorcontributedtothepublicationof
    adefamatorystatement.’
    • TheObscenePublicationsActs1956and1964 makeitanoffencetopublishanycontent
    thatmay‘depraveandcorrupt’thoselikelytoread,seeorhearit.Thiscouldincludeimagesof
    extremesexualactivity,suchasbestiality,necrophilia,rapeortorture.Importantly,thetestfor
    obscenityisthetendencytocorruptordepraveanadult,ratherthanachildoryoungperson.As
    43 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    aresult,lawenforcersrecognisethatthislegislationislikelyonlytorelatetothemostextreme
    imagesratherthanpreventingthemajorityofonlinepornography.
    However,whiletheselawsareapplicableonlinetheyarenonethelessdifficulttoenforce.Thisisfora
    numberofreasons,whichweshallexploreinthesection‘Whyisinternetcontentexcluded?’
    Wenowgoontolookatregulationrelatingspecificallytothecontentofcommunications.
    Regulationofcommunicationscontent
    HerewelookattheCommunicationsAct2003,theEuropeanAudioVisualMediaDirective(2006),
    self-regulationandco-regulation,andtechnologicalsolutions.
    TheCommunicationsAct2003
    Wherebroadcastcontentisconcerned,wedonotsimplyexpectprogrammestomeetabasicstandard
    ofbeinglegal.Film,radioandtelevisioncontenthaslongbeensubjecttostandardsthatextend
    beyondbasiclawsandrelatetomoresubjectiveareas,suchastasteanddecency,andcurtailingthe
    provisionofcontentthatislikelytocauseharmoroffence.Themostimportantpieceoflegislationin
    thisrespectistheCommunicationsAct2003.ThisActestablishedOfcom,anddefinedthelimitsof
    contentregulationasweformallyknowit.

    Box3.1:Ofcom’sStandardsCode
    Ofcom’sStandardCodesetsoutobligationsfortelevisionandradioprogrammestoensurethat:
    • Peopleundertheageof18areprotected
    • Materiallikelytoencourageorincitethecommissionofcrimeortoleadtodisorderisnotincluded
    • Newsispresentedwithdueimpartialityandaccuracy
    • Adequateprotectionisprovidedfromoffensiveandharmfulmaterial
    • Advertisingisnotmisleading,harmfuloroffensivenorcontravenestheprohibitiononpoliticaladvertising.

    Becauseoftheloomingprospectofconvergence,theActsoughttotakeaplatform-neutralapproach
    tocontentregulation.So,ratherthansaying‘allcontentontelevisionisregulated’,Ofcom’sStandards
    Codeappliestoall‘televisionlicensablecontentservices’.Thuscontentdeliveredviamobilephones,
    theinternetorotherdistributionmeanscouldbeincluded,aslongasitismadeavailableforreception
    bythegeneralpublic(inotherwords,isnota‘private’service)andismadeupoftelevision
    programmes.
    Soforexample,oneelementofthecodetranslatedpracticallyistheimplementationofthe
    watershed,whichrunsfrom9pmto5am.Thisprovidesaguidingdevicetoparentsandyoungpeople
    thatanycontentbroadcastafter9pmwillbeaimedatadultaudiences.
    WhatisnotcoveredbytheAct? Thedefinitionexcludesservicesprovidedbyelectronic
    communicationsnetworksaslongastheirmainpurposeisnottomaketelevisionorradioprogrammes
    availableforaviewingpublic.Theyarealsoexcludediftheyoffera‘two-wayservice’(inotherwords,
    onethatreliesonusers‘pulling’contentviatheinternet,ratherthanhavingcontent‘pushed’to
    them).
    ThustheCommunicationsActexplicitlyexcludesinternetcontentfromOfcom’sregulatoryremit.But
    astheinternetbecomesamajorsourceofentertainment,newsandinformation,thisstancehasraised
    somedifficultpoliticalquestions.

    TheEuropeanAudioVisualMediaDirective(2006)
    InEurope,therehasrecentlybeenstrongdebateovertheproposedamendmentstotheTelevision
    WithoutFrontiersDirective(TWFD).TheTWFDwasintroducedin1989tosetstandardsacrossEurope
    fortheregulationoftelevisionservices,bothineconomicterms,andintermsofcontent.
    Overthepastfewyears,theEuropeanCommissionhasinvestigatedupdatingtheDirectiveinorderto
    reflectthechangingnatureofaudio-visualservices.Thedebatehasragedovertheextenttowhich
    44 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    regulationshouldbeextendedtointernetcontent,andtherevisedDirectivehasbeenthrough
    numerousdraftsinordertoensurethatwhileon-demandorInternetProtocolTelevision(IPTV)-
    deliveredbroadcastcontentiscaptured,internetcontentisnot.
    TheUK,ledbyOfcomandtheDepartmentforCulture,MediaandSport(DCMS),hasheldfasttoits
    positionthatthisistherightdirectiontotake,andthatmoresubstantiallegislationwoulddramatically
    harmaburgeoningnewmediaindustry,stallinnovation,andadverselyimpactthedevelopmentof
    Europe’s2010agenda(Jowell2006).
    ThefinaltextoftheDirectivehasnowbeenagreed,andmemberstateshaveuntiltheendof2009to
    implementit.Themostsignificantchangeistherequirementthatmemberstateshavetointroduce
    ‘co-regulation’ofvideoon-demandservices.Otherthanthis,itislikelythatonlyafewregulatory
    changeswillbenecessary.However,thepathoftheDirectivehasofferedthemosthigh-profile
    opportunitytodiscussregulatoryissuesinrelationtotheinternetforsometime.
    Whyisinternetcontentexcluded? Thereareanumberofreasonswhytheinternethasbeentreated
    differentlyfromotherbroadcastcontent.Wediscussthreeofthesehere.
    First,internetusersareseenasbeingmuchlesspassivethanviewersofbroadcastcontent.Thisis
    partlybecauseinternetusersselectthecontenttheywanttoviewand‘pull’thiscontentbytypingin
    awebsiteaddress(URL)orclickingonalink.Thisisfundamentallydifferenttothewayinwhichlinear
    broadcastcontentiseffectively‘pushed’totheviewer.However,itisnotclearforhowmuchlonger
    thisdistinctionbetweenpassiveandactivewillremainsalient,givenmovestodeliverbroadcast
    contentviaanon-demandmodelthatprovidesconsumerswithmorechoiceandcontrolovertheir
    ownmediaexperience.
    Furthermore,contentconsumersalsooftencontributetotheregulationofcontentandinformation
    online.Wikipediaisperhapsthemostprominentexample,whereusersactivelycontributetodrafting
    entriesfortheonlineencyclopaedia.Butusersalsoassistinestablishingthereputationandveracityof
    otherinformationontheinternet.ReputationsystemsenabletheonlinemarketplaceeBaytowork
    effectively,asbuyersandsellersratethequalityofeachothers’transactions.
    Alongsidethis,therearealsoarangeoffilteringandblockingtoolsthatenableuserstomanagetheir
    ownexperiences:filteringoutunwantedcontent(forinstance,spamemailmessages)orblockingpop-
    upadvertisements.
    Thesecondkeyfactoristhateditorialcontrolontheinternetiswidelydistributed.Muchofthe
    transformativenatureoftheinternetisaffordedbythefactthatanyonecanpostcontent–for
    instance,bywritingablog,settingupawebsite,postingvideostoYouTube,uploadingphotosto
    Flickr,orsimplycreatingaMySpaceprofileorcommentingonanewsstory.Thismeanstheinternetis
    arichanddiversesourceofopinionandinformationunlikeanyother.
    Thethird,perhapsmostimportant,factorinunderstandingwhytheinternetistreateddifferentlyisin
    recognisingthedifferenttechnicalcharacteristicsthatdistinguishtheinternetfromabroadcastmedia
    model.Inlegislativeterms,theinternetisseenasadistributiontool–a‘carrier’analogoustothepost
    office.Underthee-CommerceDirectiveof2001,InternetServiceProviders(ISPs)areafforded‘mere
    conduit’status.Theyhavenoresponsibilitytomonitorcontentthatpassesovertheirservers.Thisis
    becauseitisextremelydifficulttocontrolcontentstandardsinanenvironmentinwhichanyonecan
    beapublisherofcontent,andwherearangeofprovidersareresponsibleformeetinguserdemands.
    WhileuserswilltypicallyaccessservicesviaanISPsuchasAOL,BT,BulldogorEclipse,thecontent
    theychoosetoaccesswillnotnecessarilybeprovidedbythesecompanies.Itmaynotoriginatefrom
    thesamecountryasthepointofaccess,andmayinfactcrossjurisdictionsdependingonthedifferent
    suppliersinvolvedinfinallydeliveringdatatotheindividual.
    Thisposesmanyproblems.Thereisadifficultyindecidingwhichpointinthesupplychainisthe
    correctplacetoassignresponsibility.Moreover,particularlywheremediacontentisconcerned,
    regulationtendstobebasedonnationalboundariestowhichtheinternetdoesnotconfineitself:
    contentoriginatesfrom,andcanbereceivedby,peopleallovertheworld.
    45 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Internationalstandardsaredifficulttosecure–particularlywhereissuesoftasteanddecencyare
    concerned.AsBaronessScotlandputit,‘thereisnointernationalconsensusonwhatconstitutes
    obscenity,orwhenthefreedomofanadulttohaveaccesstoobsceneorpornographicmaterialshould
    beconstrained’(Hansard2004).
    WherecontentoriginatesfromoverseasbutfallsfoulofUKlaw,therearevariousobstaclesinhaving
    suchcontentremoved–particularlyifitdoesnotqualifyasillegalinitscountryoforigin.Evenwhere
    contentisillegal,countriesmaynothavethesameappetiteorresourcestotackletheproblem.This
    factisillustratedwhenweconsideronlineimagesofchildabuse:ofthosereportedintheUK,thevast
    majorityoriginatesfromoverseas–mostcommonlytheUSandRussia(IWF2006).
    Self-andco-regulation
    Thefactthattheinternetpresentssuchaqualitativelydifferentenvironmentforregulators–andone
    inwhichlawsaredifficulttoenforce,comparedtotraditionalbroadcastmedia–meansthatsimply
    extendingalegalsolutiontocoverconcernsthatarecurrentlyarisingaroundchildrenandyoung
    people’suseoftheinternetisnotalwaysthemosteffectivecourseofaction.
    Inresponse,industryandgovernmenthavesoughtalternativewaystomaketheinternetasaferplace,
    focusingontheuseofselfandco-regulatorymechanismsofwhich,undertheCommunicationsAct
    2003,Ofcomhasadutytopromotethedevelopmentanduse.
    Self-regulationistypicallyregulationundertakenbytheindustrypartnersconcerned.Itisseenas
    muchmoreflexiblethanformallegislation.Inanenvironmentwhereinnovationhasoccurredata
    rapidrateandthelimitsoftechnologicalpossibilitychangeregularly,thisisseenasakeyadvantage
    asitisabletorespondmorequicklytothechangingdemandsofthemarket,anditcaninvolve
    industryactivelyinsettingstandardsthatwillnotlimitthepotentialofinnovation.Itisalsoseento
    havecertainbenefitsintermsofcost,typicallybeingmuchcheaperthanformalregulatory
    mechanisms.
    Incontrast,co-regulationinvolvesastateactor,andmayrequirelegalprovisionsinordertoensure
    thatindustrycommitstotheschemeacrosstheboard.Schemesarestilloftendesignedbyindustry,so
    theyretainsomeofthebenefitsofself-regulationinunderstandingwhatworksandwhatdoesnot,
    butaco-regulatoryschemeislikelytogivetherelevantpartiesgreaterincentivestoparticipate.Thisis
    normallybecausetheregulatorybodyresponsibleforco-sponsoringtheschemeholds‘reserve’or
    ‘backstop’powerstoenforceformalregulationwherenecessary.
    Decidingwhenandwhereself-orco-regulationisthemostappropriateregulatorymechanismoften
    dependsonarangeofcircumstances.InapapertotheEuropeanPolicyForum,Foster(2007)
    identifiestheseas:
    • Thedegreeofalignmentbetweentheincentivesofindustryandtheaimsofpolicymakersand
    thepublic
    • Theextenttowhichthegeneralpublicissufficientlyinformedtomakegooddecisions
    • Whetherthereisacrediblethreattoensurecompliance–forinstance,isthebusinessriskof
    breachingaself-regulatorycodesufficientoraresignificantfinancialpenaltiesnecessary?
    • Whetherthemodelusedwouldbeenoughtogeneratepublicandpoliticaltrustinitsefficacyand
    avoidfuturemoralpanics.
    Totakeanexample,wenowconsiderhowthreeorganisations–theInternetWatchFoundation,the
    AdvertisingStandardsAssociationandeBay–fitthesecharacteristics.

    TheInternetWatchFoundation
    TheInternetWatchFoundation(IWF)wassetupin1997.OftencitedasoneoftheUK’smost
    successfulco-regulatorymodels,itwasinitiallyintendedtosimplyprovideahotlineforreporting
    child-abuseimages.However,in2001itsremitwaswidenedattherequestoftheHomeOfficeto
    includecriminallyracistcontent,anditnowdealswiththisandpotentiallyillegaladultpornography.
    ReportscanbemadetotheIWFviaahotline.
    46 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Onceareportisreceived,theorganisationwillinvestigatewhethertheimageisillegal,tracethehost
    ofthecontentand,ifthehostisintheUK,givethemnoticethattheimageshouldberemoved.It
    willalsonotifylawenforcement.IftheimageisfoundtobehostedoutsidetheUK,theorganisation
    willcontacttherelevantinternationalbody.Tofacilitateregulationofsuchaboundary-lessmedium,
    theIWFasinstrumentalinsettingupINHOPE(aninternationalbodyofinternethotlineproviders).
    INHOPE’smembersincludegroupsfromtheUS,Austria,Spain,Belgium,Australia,Denmark,Finland,
    Ireland,Greece,France,Germany,Iceland,Italy,Holland,SouthKoreaandSweden.
    Whiletheincentivesofindustry,governmentandthepublicarebroadlyaligned–forexample,all
    partieswouldprefertoridtheinternetofchild-abuseimages–theissueisseriousenoughtorequire
    substantialpenaltiesfordisregardingtheadviceofacode.EventhoughISPsarenotthecreatorsof
    suchimages,theyarenonethelessliablefortheirpublicationifandwhentheyhaveknowledgeof
    theirexistence.Thepenaltyissevere.AlthoughtheIWFisoftenreferredtoasa‘self-regulatorybody’,
    thislabelisinaccuratesinceitlargelyperformsfunctionsotherwiseundertakenbylawenforcement.
    ISPsandotherindustryplayerscannotchoosenottoabidebytheIWF’snotices:todosoistoact
    illegallyandriskprosecution.
    TheIWF’ssuccessmeansthatitdoescommandthetrustofpoliticiansandpublicandtheprospectof
    replicatingtheIWFmodelandextendingittoincludeotherformsofcontent–forinstance,that
    whichisconsideredharmfuloroffensivehasoftenbeenraised.Mostrecently,thesuggestionofa
    ‘clearinghouse’forinternetcontenthasbeenmooted(Hansard2008).However,itisworth
    rememberingthatthesuccessoftheIWFislargelyduetothecontentitdealswithandthefactthatit
    hassuchaspecificremit.
    TheIWFmodelforremovalofcontentfollowstheso-called‘noticeandtakedownprocedure’.Put
    broadly,thisprocedureeffectivelyfollowsthefollowingpattern:
    1. AuseridentifiesapieceofcontentthatheorshebelievesinfringesUKlaw–forinstance,is
    libellous,containsillegalimages(suchasthoseofchildrenbeingabused)orinfringescopyright.
    2. HeorshenotifiestherelevantISP,whichisthenputonnotice.
    3. TheISPwillinvestigatetheclaimofillegalityandremovethecontentaccordingly.Wherecontent
    contravenesUKlaw,itmaynotifypoliceor,iftheoffencebreachestheISP’sowncontent
    guidelines,suspendthecontentposter’saccount.
    Thisproceduremayseemsimpleenough,butitissubjecttomanycomplexities,whichareoften
    overlookedbypolicymakersandcampaignersalike.
    In2000,apan-EuropeanprojectcalledRightsWatchexploredtheuseofnoticeandtakedowninorder
    todevelopatooltoachievepromptremovalofcopyright-infringingmaterialfromtheinternet.The
    projectwasfraughtwithdifficulties,andendedin2002withoutconsensusbeingreached.Amajor
    problemitfacedwasfindinganeasywaytoidentitywhethercontentreporteddidcontraveneUKlaw.
    Whilethisisnotaprobleminsomecontexts,inothersitisveryproblematic.Consideringthecaseof
    child-abuseimagesonline,thelawisveryclearthatsuchimagesarealwaysillegal.WhenISPsare
    givennoticeofthepresenceofsuchcontentontheirservers,theyarequicktoremoveit,asitiseasy
    tojudgeitsillegality.Inthesecircumstances,itisalsorarethattheindividualororganisationposting
    thecontentarguestheircaseandattemptstodefendtheiractions,meaningthattheintermediary
    (typicallytheISP)isnotplacedinthepositionofjudgingwhoisrightandwhoiswrong.
    Butforothercontent,judgmentscanbelessclear-cut.Inthecaseofcopyright,copyrightexceptions
    (intheUK,fair-dealingprovisions)thatenablelimiteduseofcopyrightedworks,aswellasthefact
    thatcopyrightisnotaregisteredright,providedifficultiesinassessingwhetherclaimsofinfringement
    arejustified.Ananxietytoactquicklyandavoidpotentiallegalactioncanleadtohasty,under-
    investigatedremovalofcontent(Ahlertetal 2004).Thiscouldhavesevereimpactsonfreespeech,
    researchandreporting.
    Therearesimilarissueswithassessingtasteanddecencyandtheoften-complicatedassessmentof
    whatconstitutesalibellousstatement.ISPshaveexpressedfrustrationsthatalackofguidanceinthe
    47 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    noticeandtakedownprocedure–forinstance,signifyingexactlywhatconstitutesa‘notice’,how
    quicklyanISPshouldacttoremove,andanindemnityfrommaking‘incorrect’judgments–hasleft
    theminpositionofactingbothasjudgeandjury,andofdealingwithcomplaintsthatwould
    otherwisebesettledinacourtoflaw.
    Anyclearinghousedealingwithinternetcontentwouldhavetokeepthesefactorsinmindandsetup
    procedurestobeabletodealwiththecomplexitiesofcomplaintsthatarelikelytocomein.Itcannot
    merelyofferahotlinethatpassescomplaintsontoathirdpartyintermediary:clearstandardsand
    guidelinesforcomplaintsmustfirstbeestablished.

    TheAdvertisingStandardsAssociation
    Anexampleofaself-regulatorysystemistheAdvertisingStandardsAgency,whichenforcesself-
    regulatorycodesforbroadcastandnon-broadcastadvertising.TheCommitteeofAdvertisingPractice
    (CAP)Codeappliestonon-broadcastadvertisingandincludesprovisionssuchas:
    • Marketingcommunicationsshouldcontainnothingthatislikelytocauseseriousorwidespread
    offence.Particularcareshouldbetakentoavoidcausingoffenceonthegroundsofrace,religion,
    sex,sexualorientationordisability.CompliancewiththeCodewillbejudgedonthecontext,
    medium,audience,productandprevailingstandardsofdecency.
    • Marketers,publishersandownersofothermediashouldensurethatmarketingcommunications
    aredesignedandpresentedinsuchawaythatitisclearthattheyaremarketingcommunications.
    • Marketersandpublishersshouldmakeclearthatadvertisementfeaturesareadvertisements–for
    example,byheadingthem‘advertisementfeature’.
    • Marketingcommunicationsaddressedto,targetedatorfeaturingchildren(inotherwords,under
    16)shouldcontainnothingthatislikelytoresultintheirphysical,mentalormoralharm.
    • Advertisementsmustnottakeadvantageoftheimmaturityornaturalcredulityofchildren.
    • Advertisementsmustnotleadchildrentobelievethatunlesstheyhaveorusetheproduct
    advertisedtheywillbeinferiorinsomewaytootherchildrenorliabletobeheldincontemptor
    ridicule.
    Asfarasinternetadvertisingisconcerned,theCAPCodecovers:
    • Advertisementsinpaid-forspacesuchasbanneradvertisementsandpop-ups
    • Advertisingcontentincommercialemails
    • Salespromotionswherevertheseappearonline
    • Commercialtextmessages
    • Viralmarketingemails
    • Paid-forentriesinsearch-engineresults
    • Advertisementsonelectronickiosksandbillboards
    • Advertisementsinelectronicgames
    • Useofemailaddressesformarketingpurposes(forexample,spam).
    Itdoesnotcovermosteditorialcontentonwebsites(otherthanpaid-foradsandsalespromotions)or
    itemspostedonbulletinboardsandnewsgroups,unlesstheseareplacedbyacommercialcompany.
    Anyonecancomplainaboutanadvertisement.Afterreceivingacomplaint,theAdvertisingStandards
    Authority(ASA)willinvestigatetoassesswhethertheadvertisementhasbreachedthetermsofthe
    CAPCode.MarketersareinformedoftheASA’sdecision,andmaybeaskedtowithdraworamend
    theirmarketingcommunicationsaccordingly.Iftheydonotcomply,sanctionsmaybeapplied.These
    canincludetheadversepublicityreceivedfromanegativeASAruling,advertisementalertsthat
    preventnon-compliantadvertisersfrombeingabletoaccessadvertisingspaceoftheCommitteeof
    48 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    AdvertisingPractice’smembers.TheASAandCAPmayrequirepersistentoffenderstohavesomeor
    alloftheirmarketingcommunicationsvettedbytheCAPCopyAdviceteam,untiltheASAandCAP
    aresatisfiedthatfuturecommunicationswillcomplywiththeCode.
    TheCodeworksinsofarastheinterestsofindustryandgovernmentpolicyarealigned:theadvertising
    industrywouldprefertoescapeformalregulation,astheworkoftheASAismuchswifterandmore
    flexible.Likewise,thesanctionsthattheASAcanhandout–includingexclusionfromadvertising
    space–havefinancialramificationsthataresufficientlyseveretopreventcontinualoffending.
    Finally,thereisafurtherconsiderationthatappliestosomeinternetservices:theextenttowhich
    usersthemselvesarewillingtocomplywithrulesandregulationsonline.Commitmentstogood
    behaviourarehardtocomeby,asweexploredinthepreviouschapter.Therehavebeensome
    attemptstodevelopcodesofethics(BBC2007b)butthesehaveoftenbeenridiculedorignored.
    Simplyimposingacodeisnotenoughiftheredonotexistincentivestosticktoitornormsto
    encouragecompliance.

    eBay
    Perhapsthemostsuccessfulexampleofself-regulationinthiscontextiseBay.eBayisanonline
    marketplacethatusesareputationsystemtoestablishtrustbetweenusers,andtoprovideincentives
    forgoodbehaviourwithinthemarketplace.
    Forexample,buyersandsellersareratedontheirperformanceinactingswiftlyandthequalityofthe
    goodssold.Buyersleavecommentsandapositive,negativeorneutralratingfortheseller,andthe
    sellerdoesthesameforthebuyer.Thenumberofpositivetransactionsoverthelifetimeoftheusers
    eBaymembershipiscalculatedtogivethebuyerorsellerastarrating,indicatinghowreliablethey
    are.
    eBayencouragesuserstoleavehonestandfairfeedbackbecauseofthereciprocalnatureofthe
    system.Whereasmanyinternetsitesseemtoencouragenegativebehaviourandresponsesfromthose
    involved,aneBayuserisunlikelytoleavenegativefeedbackwhereitisunwarrantedasthisislikelyto
    resultintheythemselvesreceivingnegativefeedbackinreturn.Anegativeorlowapprovalratinghas
    aneffectonusersexperienceofthesite.Forexample,peoplewithlowapprovalratingsareoften
    excludedfromtransactions,withsellersrefusingtodobusinesswithbuyerswhoseratingislow.
    Likewise,buyersareunlikelytointeractwithsellerswhosesellinghistoryshowsexamplesoflow-
    qualitygoodsorbadcustomerservice.
    Becausebuyersandsellersbuildupreputationovertime,theyarealsodiscouragedfromdiscarding
    theireBaypersonaandstartingagain:todosowouldbetobeginwithoutagoodreputationand
    thereforebelittletrustedintheonlinemarketplace.
    WhileeBayhaslongbeenseenasaworkablesolutionforenablingtrustonline,thegrowthofthesite,
    andinparticularitsusebyestablishedbusiness,hasrecentlyledittochangeitssystemandtodeny
    sellersthechancetoleavenegativefeedbackforbuyersinorderthatthebalanceofpowermaynot
    beunfairlydistributedinthesellers’favour(Schofield2008).
    Technologicalsolutions
    Therehavebeenanumberofattemptstoprovidetechnicalsolutionstotheproblemsposedbythe
    internet,andtoprovidegreatercontroltoparentsinlimitingthecontentthattheirchildrenareableto
    see.Filteringsystemsaretypicallysetbytheparentorguardian,andenableself-regulationoftheir
    child’sexperience.Alternatively,therehaverecentlybeenmovementsinnetwork-levelblocking–for
    exampleBT’sCleanFeed–whichblockcertainsitesforawholerangeofusers,orevenentire
    countries.

    Filtering
    Filteringcanrangefrombeingveryrestrictive–forexamplebylimitinguseto‘walledgardens’,which
    allowaccessonlytoanumberofpre-screenedsites,tobeinglessso–forexample,byusing‘key
    word’filtersthatsearchforkeywordsconsideredunacceptableandblockingsitesaccordingly.
    49 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Keywordfiltersmayseemausefulsolution,buttheyarealsosubjecttotheproblemof‘false-
    positives’–inotherwords,theyblock‘innocent’sitescontainingoffendingwordsinalegitimate
    context.Ironically,thiswasexperiencedbymembersoftheHouseofCommons,whenParliament’s
    ownfilteringsystemblockedcontentreferringtotheSexualOffencesBill.
    Filteringsystemsareavailablefairlycheaply,butparents’knowledgeofthemissparse.Thishasledto
    callsfromchildsafetycampaignersthatfilteringsystemsshouldbeinstalledintoeachnewcomputer
    asstandard,andsetatthehighestlevel(CHIS2004).Criticsarguethatthisisnotnecessary,andsay
    thatlimitingfunctionalityanduseabilitytosuchadegreerisksreturningtheinternettothe‘dark
    ages’(Sweney2008).Filteringsystemscanalsovaryinquality.TheHomeOfficehasbeenworking
    withtheBritishStandardsAssociation(BSA)todevelopa‘kitemark’forfilteringsystemssothat
    parentsknowtheyliveuptocertainstandards.

    Labelling
    Afurtherenhancementtofilteringsystemsiscombiningthemwithlabellingsystemsthatindicatethe
    ‘type’ofcontentthatusersareattemptingtoaccess.Perhapsthebest-knownlabellingsystemisthat
    providedbytheUSFamilyOnlineSafetyInstitute(FOSI),whichcontinuestodeveloplabelsystems
    offeredbytheInternetContentRationAssociation(ICRA).Thisinitiativewasfirstlaunchedin1999,
    andisafree-of-chargelabellingsystemthatseekstobeinternationallyapplicablebyusing‘cross-
    culturallanguage’.
    ItworksbyinvitingwebsiteownerstovisittheICRAwebsiteandcompleteaquestionnaireaboutthe
    contentontheirsite.Allthequestionsareofthe‘yes/no’varietyandcoverthepresenceofnudity,
    sexualcontent,inappropriatelanguageandsoon.Oncethequestionnairehasbeencompleted,the
    ICRAsystemgeneratesalabelthatcanbeaddedtothemeta-tagofthewebsite.Thisessentiallyacts
    asacomputer-readabledescriptionofthecontentcontainedbythesite.
    ParentsareabletosetaccessrestrictionsinaccordancewiththeICRAlabellingquestionnaireandfilter
    contentonthisbasis.Forinstance,theycanspecifythatallcontentcontainingnudityorinappropriate
    languageshouldbeblocked.Thefilterwillonlyblockaccesstocontentthathasactuallybeen
    labelled,sothesystemreliesonwebsitepublishersvolunteeringtheirsiteforratingandundertaking
    thistask.Parentsarealsogiventheoptionoffilteringallnon-labelledcontent,thoughthisislikelyto
    vastlyrestricttheamountofcontenttowhichayoungpersoncangainaccess.

    Network-levelblocking
    Severalcountrieshaveengagedinblockingatanetworklevel.Forinstance,Pakistanrecentlybanned
    YouTubeduetothepresenceofcontentdeemedoffensive.Chinablocksanumberofsitesona
    country-widebasis.
    TheUKinternetindustrydoesengageinnetwork-levelblockingprimarilytostopaccesstosites
    knowntoregularlycontainchild-abuseimages.TheCleanFeedsystem,developedbyBT,was
    introducedin2004andworksagainstalistofrepeatoffenderwebsitesdrawnupbytheIWF.Whena
    userattemptstoaccessasiteonthislist,anerrormessageisreturnedsayingthatthepagecannotbe
    found.Whilethesystemrecordshowmanytimesaccessisattempted,nofurtherlegalorinvestigatory
    actionistaken.
    ThreeweeksafterlaunchingCleanfeed,BTreported250,000accessattemptshadbeenblocked.The
    systemhasnonethelessbeenthesubjectofsomecriticism.Onitsintroduction,therewereconcerns
    thatcontentwouldjustmoveelsewhereandthatultimatelytheIWFwouldbeforeverinvolvedina
    gameof‘catandmouse’intryingtoensurethataccesstoillegalcontentofthiskindiscutoff.There
    werealsoconcernsthatcontentwouldinsteadbysharedincreasinglyoverpeer-to-peernetworks,
    makingitultimatelymoredifficulttodiscoverandtrace.
    Themostrecentsuggestiontoimprovethesafetyoftheinternetwhileengaginginnetwork-level
    blockingorfilteringwasraisedinaparliamentarydebate.ConservativeMPHugoSwiresuggestedthe
    creationofan‘internetclearinghouse’,whichitselfwould‘buildadynamicfilterandcreateablacklist
    databasewhichwouldbeupdatedhourly’(Hansard2008).Thisblacklistwouldworkalongthesame
    50 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    linesasBT’sCleanFeedbutwouldhaveanexpandedremittoincludesitesthatglorifiedviolenceand
    terrorism,pornography,cyberbullying,suicide,internetgamblingandanorexiawebsites.
    Thefiltercouldthenbeusedtooffertwochoicesofcontent:oneforadultsandoneforchildren,with
    thedefaultsettingbeingthechildoffering.
    Thisisnotthefirsttimesuchasolutionhasbeenoffered,anditisnotlikelytobethelast.Butasour
    explorationoftheeffectivenessoflawenforcementonlineshows,solutionsthatmayseemsimplein
    offlinecontextsarenoteasilyoreffectivelytransferredonline,foranumberreasons.
    Inthefirstplace,theinternetclearinghousewouldlikelyhavetobeanorganisationofmammoth
    proportionsinorderthattheblacklistcouldbekeptanywaynearuptodate.Itwouldalsohaveto
    takeafairlyblanketapproach,banningwholesitesratherthanindividualpiecesofcontentwithin
    sites.Ifitsremitdidincludesitesthatglorifiedviolenceorcyberbullying,YouTubewouldcertainly
    havetobeblacklisted,duetothefactthatsomevideospostedonlinebreachcommunityguidelinesin
    thismanner.
    Moreover,thisoptionwouldseemtoofferaverybluntdistinctionbetweencontentsuitablefor
    ‘children’–inotherwords,thosebelow16or18–andthatsuitableforadults.Ourresearch
    highlightsthedifficultiesinjudgingwhatcontentissuitableornotfordifferentagegroupsupto18.
    Suchanapproachrisksmakingtheinternetessentiallyunappealingtoyoungpeopleandminimising
    riskstotheextentthatopportunitiesarealsoheavilyquashed.
    Finally,suchanapproachagainfocusesontheregulationofcontentasthemostpressingissuein
    seekingtoprotectyoungpeopleonline.Again,itisimperativethatwemovebeyondthislimited
    thinking,towardsabetterunderstandingofhowwemayinfluencemorepositiveexperiencesof
    engagement.Thisisthemorechallenging,butarguablymoreimportant,areathatpublicpolicymust
    considerhowtotackle.

    Summary
    Therearecleardifficultiesinsimplyattemptingtotransfertodigitaltechnologiesaformofregulation
    designedforanofflineoranaloguecontext–particularlyinthecaseoftheinternet.Thisisespecially
    truewhenwerememberthatbroadcastregulationhaslongbeensetalongnationalboundaries,
    whereastheinternetisaglobalphenomenon,withcontentandopportunitiesemergingfromaround
    theworld.Whilethelawcanprovideaframework,thejobof‘regulating’theinternet–thatis,
    minimisingthepresenceofillegal,harmfuloroffensivecontentandthelevelsofillegal,harmfulor
    offensiveactivityonline–cannotbeleftsolelytogovernmentandlawenforcement.Foronething,
    thecostwouldbeprohibitive.Foranother,suchanapproachwouldrarelybesuccessful.
    Self-andco-regulationcanbeeffectiveinsomecontexts,ascanfilteringsystemsadoptedbyparents,
    andtheresponsibilitymustbesharedbetweenindustry,government,parentsandusersthemselves.
    Wemustalsoaskourselveswhetherthisbalanceiscurrentlyfairlydistributed,andwhethereachparty
    hastakenontheirfairshare.Insomeareaswhereyoungpeopleareconcerned,therightbalanceis
    currentlymissing.
    Oneofthelargestgapsinprovisionisthefactthatthereiscurrentlynogovernmentbodythathas
    clearresponsibilityforthisagenda.Instead,severalgovernmentdepartmentshaveaninterestin
    differentareas,andworkcontinuesalongthesedepartmentallines.Thishasanimpactonmonitoring
    standards,onsuggestingactionfromindustry,andonbuildingcapacityofusersandparents.Thereis
    alsosomeconfusionregardingthenumberofbodiesthatcoverinternetcontentinsomeformor
    other–forexample,thePressComplaintsCommission(PCC)fornewscontentonline,theASAfor
    advertisingonline,theBBCTrustforBBCcontent–andsomesensethatthepiecemealsystemweare
    busybuildingupisbecomingfartoocomplexandlacksasinglebodytooverseeallthisactivity.
    Therealitiesoftheinternet’stechnologicalstructuremeanthattheresponsibilitytoprovideasafe
    environmentmustbeextendedbeyondlawenforcementandformalregulatorybodies.Industryhasa
    significantroletoplayinpromotinggoodpracticeandhelpingdesignandenforceworkable
    guidelines.Ontheotherhand,industrycannotdoitall.Thefactisthattheinternetisatechnology
    51 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    affordingtheuseragreatdealofchoiceandfreedom.Users,ortheguardiansofusers,musttake
    someresponsibilityforthechoicestheymakeandtheactionstheytake.
    Overall,wheretheinternetisconcerned,itisimportanttomaintainrealisticexpectationsofwhatwe
    canandcannotdo.Theinternetisnevergoingtobeanentirelyrisk-freeenvironment.Justassome
    preyonvulnerablepeopleinreallife,soaretheresomepeoplewhowillseektodosoonline.No
    youngpersoncanbeentirelyprotectedfromcontentorpeoplewhomaydothemharm,buttherisks
    canbeminimised.
    Thesuccessofself-andco-regulationreliesonusersthemselvesbeingabletomakeinformed
    decisions:being‘medialiterate’inthewaytheyaccessandusecontentandinformation.Inthe
    followingchapter,welookathowmedia-literacyeducationandtrainingisprogressingintheUK,and
    outlineareasinwhichitmaybefurtherdevelopedstill.
    52 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    4.Learningbydoing:empoweringyoungpeoplethroughmedia
    practice
    Regulationcannotsolveallofthechallengeswecurrentlyface.Themedialandscapeinadigitalerais
    soradicallydifferenttothatofanaloguetimesthatthelevelsofcontrolandsupervisionwehave
    cometoexpectmaynotsurvivemuchlonger.Asdiscussedinpreviouschapters,thelevelsofeditorial
    controlthatcouldonceservetopreventyoungpeoplefromaccessingcontentdeemedunsuitableor
    age-inappropriatecannolongerbeeffectivelyapplied.Thetechnologicalrestrictionsthatare
    sometimesputinplacecanoftenpresentlittlemorethan‘speedbumps’whichcanbeovercomeif
    someoneseekingmaterialisdeterminedenough.
    Thechangesinautonomyandsupervisionofaccessmeanthatthelevelsandresponsibilityof
    regulationareshifting.Thelackofacentralpointofcontrolshiftsresponsibilitytoindustryplayers,
    butthenatureoftheinternet–andtheautonomythatusersexerciseovertheirownexperience–
    meansthatthisresponsibilityissharedfurtherdownthesupplychain,withusersthemselves.This
    meansthatparentsandeducatorsalikehaveanextendeddutytoenableyoungpeopletobuildtheir
    skillsetsothattheycanmanagetheirownexperienceeffectively.Thissetofskillsisoftengrouped
    undertheheadingof‘medialiteracy’.
    Meanwhile,whileyoungpeopleareabletomanagetheirexperiencesonlinetoacertainextent,there
    aresomeareasinwhichtheirexperienceisnotenough.Ourresearchshowsthereareclearlygapsthat
    couldbefilledbymediaeducationofoneformoranother.
    Inthischapterweconsiderhowthemedia-literacyagendahasbeenprogressingintheUK,lookingat
    thecurrentapproachemployedbyOfcom.Wethenmoveontolookatwheremedialiteracystill
    needstobeimproved,consideringwhatkindsofskillsneedtobelearnedandthebestplacefor
    teachingthem.

    Thecurrentapproachtomedialiteracy
    UndertheCommunicationsAct2003,Ofcomisgivenadutytopromotemedialiteracy.Thereisno
    singleagreeddefinitionofwhatmedialiteracyactuallyis,butOfcomdefinesitas‘theabilityto
    access,understandandcreatecommunicationsinavarietyofcontexts’(Ofcom2004:2).
    Wewilllookatthecurrentapproachtomedialiteracyintermsofaccess,understandingandcreating
    media.
    Access
    AsdiscussedinChapter1,almosttwothirdsof8-to15-year-oldsnowhaveaccesstotheinternetat
    home.Outsideofthehome,99percentofschoolshaveinternetconnections.Accessisalsoavailable
    atlibraries,communitycentresandinternetcafés.
    TheUKhaslongbeenheadingintherightdirectionasfarasuniversalaccesstotheinternetis
    concerned.Butthisdoesnotmeanthatthedigitaldivideisathingofthepast.
    Recentresearchshowsthataroundonethirdofthepopulationaredigitallyexcluded(Duttonand
    Helsper2007).Itisoftenassumedthatthisfigurelargelyrelatestoolderpopulationgroups.However,
    11percentof16-to24-year-oldsdonotusetheinternet(UKOnline2007).Clearly,digitalexclusion
    isnotjustaboutaccess,instead‘itencompassesawidersetofissuessurroundingcontent,skills,and
    thewidersocialconsequencesoftheincreasinguseofICTinallaspectsoflife’(SocialExclusionUnit
    2005:11).
    Digitalexclusionfollowsdistributionalpatternsofwideraspectsofsocialexclusion.Forinstance,over
    halfofunemployedpeoplearedigitallyexcluded,asare44percentofsingleparents(OXIS2007).
    Researchshowsthatmiddle-classchildrenarefarmorelikelytohavehomeaccess(Livingstoneetal
    2005).
    Toovercomethis,someschoolshaveexperimentedwithlaptop-leasingschemes,enablingaccessto
    technologyatlowercost.Theseschemeshavebeenlargelysuccessful(CabinetOffice2005)and,in
    53 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    response,theGovernmenthasannouncedatwo-year,£60million‘computerforpupils’programmeto
    enablethemostdisadvantagepupilstohaveacomputerathome.
    Theothersideofthe‘access’equationisaccesstoinformationitself,ratherthansimplythe
    technology.Justoveronefifthof9-to19-year-oldswhogoonlineatleastweeklysaytheyalways
    findwhattheyarelookingfor.Themajority(68percent)saytheycanusuallyfindtheinformation
    theyneed,9percentsaytheycannotalwaysfindit,and1percentsaytheyoftencannotfind
    informationrelevanttotheirneeds(LivingstoneandBober2005).
    Olderchildren,thosefrommiddle-classbackgroundsandthosewhosaytheyhavehigherskilllevels
    aremorelikelytoreportbeingabletofindtheinformationtheyarelookingforonline(ibid).
    Understanding
    Aswehavepreviouslynoted,youngpeople’scriticalinterpretationsofinternetcontentarelimited.
    Researchshowsthattheytendtoacceptinformationonfacevalue,withtwointhree12-to15-year-
    oldswhohavetheinternetathometrustingmostofwhattheyfindonline(Ofcom2006a).Lessthan
    onethird(31percent)of12-15swhousetheinternetathomesaytheymakeanychecksonnew
    websites(fromapromptedlistofchecks,includinghowuptodatetheinformationis,cross-
    referencingacrossotherwebsitestocheckiftheinformationiscorrect,andlookingintowhohas
    createdthewebsiteandforwhatpurpose)(ibid).
    Atadeeperlevel,ourresearchshowscleargapsinyoungpeople’sunderstandingofthe
    consequencesoftheironlineactivities.Thisgenerationisindangerofbecomingthemosttransparent
    andopeninhistory:youthfulindiscretionscanberecordedeasily,andmaybestoredandmade
    availableforseveralyearstocome.Thereisverylittleunderstandingofwhocoulduseinformationin
    thefuture,andforwhatpurpose.
    Wherebullyingonlineisconcerned,alackofawarenessofthecompoundingimpactofonline
    distributionontheextentofanindividual’shumiliationissomethingthatshouldbeaddressed.Some
    youngpeopleseemtooverlooktheadditionalharmcausedtoapersonbyhavingtheirhumiliation
    playedoutrepeatedlyonsitessuchasYouTube,tohundredsifnotthousandsofspectators.
    Thereisanurgentneedtoencouragewithinyoungpeopleagreaterunderstandingofhowandwhen
    informationisinterpretedbyaudiences–anotionofan‘imaginedaudience’–inordertoenable
    youngpeopletotakewiderresponsibilityfortheirpersonalprivacyonline.
    Creatingmedia
    Perhapsthelargestgapinyoungpeople’smedialiteracyasdefinedbyOfcomistheextenttowhich
    theyareinvolvedincreatingmediathemselves.
    Theopportunitiesforcreatingmediaarenowreadilyavailable.Toolsarecheapandeasilyaccessible
    and,indeed,wherevideo-recordingequipmentorinternetaccessandsoftwareisconcerned,currently
    inthehandsofmanyyoungpeople(Ofcom2006a).Yet,atpresent,levelsofcreativityarelow.While
    youngpeoplewillregularlyengageindevelopingtheirMySpacepage–makingitattractive,adding
    contentandsoon–veryfewyoungpeoplegobeyondthis.Onlyonethirdofyoungpeoplereport
    havingtriedtosetupawebpage(LivingstoneandBober2005).
    Ourresearchshowedthatacrossallagegroups,participantsdidnotcreatecontentontheinternet
    apartfromwhencreatingandmaintainingsocialnetworkingsite(SNS)profiles.Creatingand
    maintainingwebsiteswasconsideredtobetoocomplicatedandinvolvingtoomucheffort.
    Participantsalsoreportedthatfriendswhohadsetupwebsiteshadreceivednegative,abusive
    feedback,andsaidthatthisputthemoff:
    [Oncreatingwebsites]‘Ittakestoomuchtime.’(Boy,14,C2DE)
    ‘Myfriend…hasone[awebsite]andsheleavespicturesofherfriendsandpeople
    postcommentslike“Thisone’sugly”,andit’sjustlike–whywouldyouwanttodo
    that?’(Girl,15,C2DE)
    54 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    ‘Ifpeopledon’tlikeit…they’llstartmuggingitandtheywon’tleaveitalone.’(Boy,
    15,ABC1)
    Whiledigitalevangelistshaveoftenheraldedthedigitalageinwhichanyonecancaptureavideoon
    theirmobilephoneandquicklypostittovideo-sharingwebsitessuchasYouTube,wefoundthatit
    wasstillfarmorecommonforparticipantstoviewvideosthantocreatecontent.While17-18year
    oldsweremostlikelytohavecreatedtheirownvideos,thesewereoftenforsocialpurposes,suchas
    sharingjokeswithinfriendshipgroups:
    ‘Ithinkyoucandoit[putavideoonYouTube]yourself,butIdon’tknowhow.’(Boy,
    14,ABC1)
    ‘Ifyouweregoingtodoiteveryday[puttingyourownvideosonline]youwouldn’t
    reallyhavemuchofalife.’(Girl,14,ABC1)
    Itisclear,then,thatyoungpeoplearenotlikelytotakeuptheopportunitiesaffordedbydigital
    mediatobecreativewithoutsomedegreeofguidanceandencouragement.Muchofyoungpeople’s
    lackofenthusiasmforundertakingsuchworkisduetothefactthattheysimplyconsideritfartoo
    difficult.Faceretal describesettingupwebpagesasan‘exoticactivity’,withonly9percentof
    youngpeoplehavingengagedinweb-designactivities(Faceretal 2003).Incomparison,modifying
    pagesonSNSsismucheasier,anditistothistaskthatyoungpeopledevotealargeproportionof
    theironlinetime.

    Improvingmedialiteracy
    Havingexaminedthecurrentsituation,itisclearthatthereisstillscopetoimproveyoungpeople’s
    medialiteracy.Partofthisincludesensuringuniversalaccesstotechnologyandgovernmentinitiatives
    shouldbepromotedaswidelyaspossibletomakesurethattheopportunitiesaretakenup.
    Butifwearegoingtopromoteuniversalaccess,itmustbeaccompaniedbythoroughmedia-literacy
    education.Attemptstoteachmedialiteracycanvarygreatlyinpractice.Atitsleastambitious,
    educationcanrevolvearoundsimpleICTskills.Atthemoreambitiousandinnovativerangeofthe
    scale,itisrecognisedthatthethreecomponentsofOfcom’smedia-literacydefinitionareclosely
    linkedandthat‘inprinciple,creativeactivitynecessarilyinvolvesthekindofskillsandunderstandings
    [featuredinthemedia-literacydefinition];anditmightalsobeexpectedtoassistintheirfurther
    development’(Buckingham2005b).
    Welookatwhatcanbedonefirstatconsideringtheimportanceoflearningthroughdoing.Wethen
    examineanumberoffactorsthathaveanimpactonyoungpeopleandconsidertherolesthatthey
    couldplaytostrengthenyoungpeople’smedialiteracy:schools,thevoluntaryandcommunitysector,
    governmentactivities,andinformalroutessuchasviaparentsandpeers.
    Learningthroughdoing
    Researchshowsthatcreatingmediaiseffectiveinenablingyoungpeopletodevelopmedia-literacy
    skills,andcanbemoresuccessfulthanattemptingtosimplyteachconceptsthatareimportanttofull
    understanding.AsdeBlocketal (2004:4)explain:
    ‘Throughmakingmediathemselveschildrenalsodevelopagreaterunderstandingof
    mediagenerally.Theirperceptionsofthemediaintheireverydaylivestakesadifferent
    light.Whattheywatch,playorreadisnolongerdistantandelevatedbuttheydevelop
    astrongsenseofaudienceandofcritique.’
    Asenseofthe‘imaginedaudience’isimportantparticularlywhenweconsideryoungpeople’slackof
    reflexivityintheironlinebehaviours–particularlywhereissuessuchasbullyingandprotectingone’s
    privacyareconcerned.Thissenseprovidesanopportunityforyoungpeopleto‘workthrough’certain
    issuesthatareimportantformoraldevelopmentandunderstanding.Makingmediacanalsohelp
    youngpeopleunderstandhowmediaiscreated,andhowmessagesaredevelopedandtailoredtothe
    audienceinquestion.Indoingso,thepracticecanhelptodevelopcriticalskills.Thesebecomemore
    importantwhenyoungpeoplearefacedwithanabundanceofinformationandwiththechallengeof
    knowingwhattotrust,whattotakeasfactandwhattotakeasexpressedopinion.
    55 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Thisapproachoflearningbydoinghasothersignificantbenefits–forexample,thepromotionofself-
    esteemandanopportunityforincreasingthevoiceofyoungpeople(Goodman2003).Thiscanbe
    particularlyimportantwheredisadvantagedyoungpeopleareconcerned–forexample,opportunities
    forcreatingmediahavebeenshowntohelpimprovemotivationfordisaffectedyoungboys(Kirwinet
    al 2003).
    Thisapproachcanalsohelpyoungpeoplestrengthentheirvoicewithregardtothingsthatmatterto
    them.Thereiscurrentlyagreatdealofconcernattheapparentapatheticnatureofyoungpeople.
    Youngpeoplearenowlesslikelytovotethaneverbefore(KeaneyandRogers2006),anddeep
    cynicismisnowtheprevailingattitudeamongmanyyoungpeopleintheUK(LewisandGreenberg
    2007).Thereisalsofirmevidenceofmanyyoungpeople’sdisengagementfrommainstreamnews.The
    numberofyoungpeoplewhosaytheyonlyfollowthenewswhensomethingimportantishappening
    hasleaptfrom33to50percentinthepastfiveyears(Ofcom2007a).Twothirdsofyoungpeople
    alsoagreewiththeviewthat‘muchofthenewsonTVisnotrelevanttome’(ibid),andactively
    distancethemselvesfromit.
    Engagementwithnewsmediaisacrucialpartofactivecitizenship:evidenceshowsthatvotingis
    positivelycorrelatedwithnewsviewing(Norris1996),whilethemassmediaremainsthekeychannel
    throughwhichpeoplecanaccessthepublicrealmandpoliticaldebate(seeDahlgren1996forafull
    discussion).
    Itisimperativethatweseeknewwaystoengageyoungpeopleindebateanddiscussioninorderto
    haltdeclinesinpoliticalparticipationandcivicengagement.Increasingtheirvoicehasbeenapolicy
    concernforseveralyearsandnewinitiativesareseekingtoensurethatchildrencaninfluencethe
    decisionsthataffectthem,forexamplethroughdistributingyouthbudgetsdevolvedfromlocal
    authorities.
    Now,wearenotattemptingtoclaimthatinvolvementincreatingmediacanresolvetheentrenched
    problemofyoungpeople’sdisaffectionwithpolitics,norbethesolewayinwhichyoungpeople
    shouldmaketheirvoiceheard.Butthereareclearopportunitiestohelpyoungpeoplecreatecontent
    whichisrelevanttotheirlivesandcommunitiesandtoengageyoungpeopleintheworldaround
    themandcapturetheirviewsandideas.
    Inshort,media-literacytrainingofthiskindcanempowerchildrenascitizens,notsimplyasmore
    informedconsumers.Butwhilethiskindofcreativeactivityhappensinsomeareas,itisfarfroma
    universalopportunityextendedtoallyoungpeople.Sincetheconceptofmedialiteracywas
    introducedintolawthroughtheCommunicationsAct(2003),therehavebeenrepeateddiscussionsas
    towheremedialiteracy‘fits’.Thereareanumberofprovidersthatcouldpotentiallydeliveramedia-
    literacyagendaofthiskind,buttherehasbeenlittledirectionofwherewouldbemostsuitable.
    Theroleofschools
    TheQualificationsandCurriculumAuthority(QCA)developsthenationalcurriculum,which‘defines
    theknowledge,understandingandskillstowhichchildrenandyoungpeopleareentitled’(from
    www.qca.org.uk).Medialiteracyhasnoformalplaceinthecurriculum,butthereareopportunities
    acrosssubjectareastoincludeaspectsofmedialiteracy.Inthefirstplace,useofICTisarequirement
    inthesecondarycurriculumandremainsarequiredsubjectthroughKeyStage4.
    ICT,CitizenshipandEnglishprovidethemostobviousopportunitiesformedia-literacyeducation.For
    example:
    • TheICTsyllabus expectspupilstobechargedwith‘exploringthewaysthatICTcanbeusedto
    communicate,collaborateandshareideasonaglobalscale’aswellas,‘recognisingissuesofrisk,
    safetyandresponsibilitysurroundingtheuseofICTand‘recognisingthatinformationmustnot
    betakenatfacevalue,butmustbeanalysedandevaluatedtotakeaccountofitspurpose,
    author,currencyandcontext’.
    • Thecitizenshipsyllabus statesthatstudyshouldinclude‘theroleofthemediaininforming
    andinfluencingpublicopinionandholdingthoseinpowertoaccount’(KeyStage3).Inthisarea,
    56 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    thecurriculumshouldalsoprovideopportunitiesforpupilstoworkwitharangeofcommunity
    partnersandto‘useandinterpretdifferentmediaandICTbothassourcesofinformationandasa
    meansofcommunicatingideas’.
    • Englishteaching hasalonghistoryofdrawingonavarietyofmediatexts,andthisapproach
    continuestoformpartofthecurriculum.
    Alongsidethis,mediaeducationcantakeplaceexplicitlywithinmediastudiescoursestakenatGCSE
    orALevel.
    Nevertheless,thescopeforincreasingthelevelsofmedia-literacyteachingwithinschoolsislimited.
    Thecurriculumisalreadynotedasbeingfairlycrowded,anddespitethepossibilityforincludingthese
    skillsincitizenshipeducation,therearealsoagreatmanyotheraspectsofcitizenshiptocover.Across
    therangeofagenciesthatmayhavearoleinpromotingmedialiteracyintheformaleducationarena
    –theQCA,localeducationauthorities(LEAs),theBritishEducationCommunicationsTechnology
    Agency(Becta)andtheTeacherDevelopmentAgency–nonehavemedialiteracyastheirprimary
    focus.Eachofthesebodiesclearlyhashigherpriorities.
    Whiletherearerecognisedareasofgoodpractice,teachingisnowherenearuniversal.Itcanoften
    dependontheskillsandcapabilitiesofteacherexpertise,aswellasthelevelofaccesstosuitable
    resources(Kirwanetal 2003).And,while8-to11-year-oldsarehappytolearnmediaskillsfrom
    teachersorparents,nearlyhalfof12-to15-year-oldsprefertolearnaboutthemediafromtheirpeers
    (Ofcom2006a).
    Thecapacityforyoungpeopletobuildtheirmedialiteracyatschoolisalsoimpactedbythelevelof
    restrictionsthatschoolsplaceontechnologyuse.Severalschoolsbanaccesstosocialnetworking
    sites,orplacesignificantrestrictionsonuseofequipmentoutsideofaformaleducationprogramme.
    Suchpracticesarguablyhampertheextenttowhichschoolsthemselvescanassistinbridgingthe
    digitaldivide,byprovidingaccessforthosewhodonothaveitathome,andallowingtheseyoung
    peopletoexplorethesocialaspectsofthistechnology(HollowayandValentine2003).
    Theroleofthevoluntaryandcommunitysector
    Anumberoforganisationshavearoleinpromotingmedialiteracyacrosstheinformalsector.Manyof
    theseareincludedassignatoriestotheMediaLiteracyCharter(at
    www.medialiteracy.org.uk/taskforce/)developedbytheMediaLiteracyTaskForce–anorganisation
    thatbringstogethertheBBC,theBritishBoardofFilmClassification,theBritishFilmInstitute,
    Channel4,ITV,theMediaEducationAssociation,TheUKFilmCouncilandSkillset.
    TheMediaLiteracyCharterisarelativelyshortdocumentoutlininganumberofprinciplestowhich
    signatoriescommitthemselves.Theseinclude‘supportingtheprinciplethateveryUKcitizenofany
    ageshouldhaveopportunities,inbothformalandinformaleducation,todeveloptheskillsand
    knowledgenecessarytoincreasetheirenjoyment,understandingandexplorationofthemedia’and
    ‘encouraging,enablingorofferingopportunitiesforpeople’todeveloptheirskillssetwheremediais
    concerned,includingbeingableto‘identify,andavoidorchallenge,mediacontentandservicesthat
    maybeunsolicited,offensiveorharmful’.
    Signatoriestothecharterincludespecialistmediaorganisations,mediacollegesandyouth
    organisations,allofwhichhavearoleindeliveringmedialiteracyintheinformalsector.
    Acrossthepiece,theinformalsectorhasahandindeliveringout-of-schoolmedia-relatedactivities.
    Themajorityhaveacommitmenttoencouragingthedevelopmentofyoungpeople’sskills,primarily
    throughlearningbydoing.Inaddition,thereisalargecommunitymediasectorintheUK
    encompassingorganisationsthatproduceradioandtelevisionprogrammingandinternetcontent.Still,
    provisionisfarfromuniversal.
    Communitymediaandyouthmediaprojectsoftensharemanyfeaturesincommon,butperhapsthe
    mostprominentisaninsecure,andoftenhaphazard,fundingbase.Ininterviewswitharangeof
    mediapractitionersfromSouthwestEngland,manyexpressedfrustrationsthatagreatdealoftheir
    timewasspentseekingfunding,andthattheshort-termnatureoffundingreceivedoftenmeantthey
    57 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    wereunabletoprovideacontinualordevelopmentalprogrammefortheyoungpeopleinvolved.
    Instead,projectswereepisodicanddiscrete.Otherresearchreportsconcurthatacrossthesectorthere
    isalackofstrategic,long-termfunding.Therearealsofewforumsforsharingexpertiseand
    experienceandestablishingbestpractice(Kirwinetal 2003).
    ThereisarangeofbodiesthatfundactivitiesintheUK.TheseincludetheArtsCouncil,Creative
    Partnerships,theUKFilmCouncil(throughitsRegionalScreenAgencies)andgrant-makingbodies,
    suchasFirstLight.In2006,theGovernmentlaunchedMediaBox–a£6millionfundaimedat
    fundingmediaactivitiesamongyoungpeople.Butthemajorityofthismoneyishotlycontested,or
    canoftenbefocusedtowardsoutcomesorprojectsthatdonotspecificallyinvolveteachingmedia
    literacy.
    Forexample,MediaBoxexplicitlystipulatesthatgrantmoneycannotbedirectedtowardsfunding
    adultsupervisionoryouthworkers’involvementinmediaprojects:theprojectsmustbeled,managed
    anddeliveredbyyoungpeoplethemselves.Whilethiscanoffermanybenefits,itmissesoutonthe
    opportunitiesthatcanbegainedfromadultsupervision–particularlyfrommediapractitioners,who
    mayhavesignificantexpertisetoshare.Ourevidencesuggeststhatmostyoungpeoplerequiresome
    degreeofencouragementandguidanceinordertosuccessfullydelivermediaprojectsandtobecome
    active‘creators’,ratherthanjustconsumersofmedia.
    Theroleofgovernment
    Ifanewmedia-literacyagendaistohaveimpact,itwillneedgreatercoordinationanddirection,with
    adegreeofassurancethatmedia-literacyteachingwillbeapriorityatsomelevel.Currently,Ofcomis
    responsiblefor‘promoting’themedia-literacyagenda.Thismayhavemadesensewhenthe
    CommunicationsActfirstmaterialisedas,sinceinternetcontentwasexcludedfromtheAct,some
    systemwasneededtoensurethattheneedsofcitizensinanewmediaenvironmentwereatthevery
    leastbeingconsidered.ButOfcomhaslittlepowertobebold,ortomakesubstantialcommitmentsto
    deliveringonthisagenda.
    Medialiteracyshouldnotsolelybeconcernedwithyoungpeople,butitisyoungpeoplewhoare
    thoughttobemostvulnerablewhererisksposedbytheinternetareconcerned.Ifwearegoingto
    provideyoungpeoplewiththeskillstoensuretheironlineexperiencesarepositive,medialiteracy
    musthaveaplaceinyoungpeople’sformativeyears–particularlyduringperiodsofadolescence,
    whentheyaremostlikelytopursuerisksforsocialgain,andwherethemediaisincreasinglybecoming
    thetoolofchoice.Medialiteracyshouldbegivenhigherprioritywithingovernmentandplaced
    directlywithinthedepartmentwiththewherewithaltoensurerelevantpartiesaredeliveringonthe
    agenda–theDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF).
    Theroleofparents
    Ofcourse,itisnotonlyexternalorganisationsthathavearoleindevelopingchildren’scapabilitiesin
    thisarea.Parentscontinuetohavearoleinmaintainingthesafetyoftheirchildrenwheremediais
    concerned,justasinotheraspectsoftheirchild’slife.
    Threequartersofparentswithchildrenagedbetween8and11reportfeelingworriedabouttheir
    childseeinginappropriatethingsontheinternet.Forparentsof12-to15-year-olds,thisfigurefalls
    justslightlyto72percent(Ofcom2006a).However,parentsarelikelytounderstateinternetrisksfor
    theirchild,withonly16percentbelievingthattheirchildhascomeintocontactwithonline
    pornography,comparedto57percentofyoungpeoplewhosaythattheyhave(Livingstoneand
    Bober2005).Meanwhile,twothirdsofparentsofchildrenwithinthisagegroupsaythattheirchild
    knowsmoreaboutusingtheinternetthantheydo.
    Theabilityofparentstodealwithyoungpeople’sexperiencesandprovideinstructionandguidanceis
    fairlylimited.Whilemorethanhalfhavesomeformoffilteringsysteminstalled,fewparentshave
    specificrulesastohowtheirchildrenshouldusetheinternet(ibid).Thisreflectstheresultsofour
    research,inwhichyoungpeoplereportedveryfewparentalrestrictionsandverylittleparental
    awarenessoftheironlineactivities.
    58 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Table4.1:Parentalrulesandpracticestorestrictyoungpeople’sinternetuse
    Typeofrule Activity Percentageofparents
    whoundertakeactivity
    Privacyrestrictions Tellchildnotto:
    •giveoutpersonalinformationonline 86%
    •buyanythingonline 77%
    •usechatrooms 62%
    •filloutonlineformsorquizzes 57%
    •downloadthings 24%
    Peer-to-peerrestrictions Tellchildnotto:
    •useinstantmessaging 24%
    •playgamesonline 10%
    •useemail 11%
    Supportivepractices(overt •Askchildwhathe/shedidorisdoingontheinternet 81%
    monitoringorco-using) •Keepaneyeonthescreenwhenthechildisontheinternet 63%
    •Helpchildwhenhe/sheisontheinternet 57%
    •Stayinthesameroomaschildusingtheinternet 50%
    •Sitwithchildandgoonlinetogether 32%
    Checkingup(covert •Checkthecomputerlatertoseewhatthechildvisited 41%
    monitoring) •Checkthemessagesinthechild’semailaccount 25%
    Source:AdaptedfromLivingstoneandBober2005

    Table4.1illustratesthetypesandfrequencyofparentalrulesandpractices,showingthatparentsare
    morelikelytoengageinprivacyrestrictionsalthoughsomesupportivepractices,suchasusingthe
    internetalongwiththeirchild,arealsocommon.
    ThepracticesshowninTable4.1aremorelikelytobeputinplacefor9-to11-year-oldsthanfor
    olderagegroups.Therewasnodifferenceinregulationappliedtogirlsandboys,noranydifferences
    onthebasisofsocio-economicstatus(ibid).
    Whilethereappearstobenodirectrelationshipbetweenimplementingmoreorlessregulationand
    theopportunitiesandrisksthatchildrenencounteronline,anindirectrelationshipisapparent.
    Parentalregulationisshowntobepositivelyrelatedtochildren’sinternetskills:childrenwhoseparents
    havemorerulesinplacetendtousetheinternetmoreandgainmoreskills(Livingstoneetal 2005).
    Intermsofthetypesofregulationinplace,supportivepracticesareshowntoincreasetheonline
    opportunitiesofchildren,whilelimitsinpeer-to-peeractivityminimisebothopportunitiesandrisks
    (ibid).Supportivepracticesmaybedependentonparents’owninternetskills,andherea‘digital
    divide’stemmingfromparents’workandeducationalexperiencescanhaveaneffect(Faceretal
    2003).
    Therearesignificantdiscrepanciesbetweenwhatregulationsparentssaytheyhaveinplaceregarding
    mediauseinthehome,andwhatchildrenactuallyreport(Buckingham2005b).Asourevidence
    shows,youngpeopleareproficientinside-steppingtechnicalregulations,andareunawareofany
    specificregulatorypracticesinplace.Whatismore,parentalregulationsareshowntobecomeless
    effectivewithage,withinterventionin9-11-year-oldshavingthemostsignificantimpact(Livingstone
    etal 2005).
    Clearly,parentscanhavearoleinheighteningtheirchild’smedialiteracy–particularlyatyounger
    ages–butthisisrelatedtotheparents’ownskilllevel:wherethisislacking,morerestrictivepractices
    maybeputinplacethatcanlimitthebenefitsthatyoungpeoplecanreapfrominternetaccess.
    Evidenceshowsthatinsomekeyareasofconcern,suchasbullying,parentshavelittleideaofhowto
    dealwithproblemswhenreported(Livingstoneetal 2004),andatendencytooveract(forinstance,
    byremovinginternetaccessaltogether)maydecreasethelikelihoodofthechildreportingissueswhen
    andwheretheydoarise.
    59 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Itisimportant,then,thatwedonotneglectparentswhendevisinginformationcampaignstoincrease
    medialiteracyandminimiserisks.Thisdoesnotmeanheighteningawarenessoftherangeoffiltering
    mechanismsavailable,butratherconcentratingonbuildingparents’capacitytodeliverasupportive
    onlineexperience–particularlyforyoungerchildren.Thisisinpartpredicatedbyparents’ownlevelof
    ICTskill,sosupportinthisareashouldalsofocusonhelpingparentsdevelopusefulskillsindealing
    withinnovationsinnewmediasotheycanunderstandandreacttotheirchildren’sexperiencesand
    behavioursonline.
    Theroleofpeers
    Evidenceshowsthatyoungpeoplearemostlikelytogotoafriendiftheyhaveaproblemtheyneed
    todiscuss(DCSF2007).Wehaveseenalsothatwheredigitalmediaisconcerned,youngpeopleare
    mostlikelytowanttolearnfromtheirpeers.
    Thepotentialroleofyoungpeopleinbuildingeachother’smedialiteracy,andinsupportingeach
    otherwhenproblemsarise,tendstobeneglectedinfavourofanemphasisoncyberbullying,happy
    slappinganduser-generatedcontent.Butpeersformanimportantpartofyoungpeople’s
    socialisation,andbecomemoresoduringthetransitiontoadulthood.
    TheGovernmenthasrecentlyannouncedfurtherfundingforpilotsexploringtheroleofpeer
    mentoringforyoungpeopleexperiencingbullying.Suchpilotscouldbeextendedtoanonline
    context,withtrainingprovidedforolderpupilsandolderwebsiteuserstoprovideadvice.Youth
    servicesalsohavearoleinhelpingpeerstosupporteachother.Youthservicescanprovidean
    importantframeworkthroughwhichsupportivepracticesmaybedelivered,providedthattheyouth
    workersthemselveshaveadequateunderstandingofthetechnologiesandtheexperiencesofyoung
    people.
    Peersareextremelyimportantgiventhattheveryessenceofmany‘Web2.0’innovations(thatis,
    servicesthatfacilitatecreativityandinformation-sharingamongusers)isthecollaborationthattakes
    placebetweenusersthemselves.Bebo,MySpace,YouTube,Facebookandotherpopularsitesshould
    agreetoprovidematerialrelatedtopeersupport,andofferopportunitiesforqualifiedadvicefor
    youngpeopleexperiencingproblemsonline.Ofcourse,gettingthisrightwillnotbeeasy,andour
    researchfoundthatyoungpeoplewereveryawareofwhenadviceorinformationwebsiteswere
    ‘talkingdown’tothemorwereaimedatpeopleyoungerthanthem.Nonetheless,somesitesdogetit
    right:ourworkshopparticipantshighlyratedboththeYouthInformationwebsite
    (www.youthinformation.com)andFrank(www.talktofrank.com).Thesesitesshouldbeusedasmodels
    forextendingadviceprovisionforproblemsexperiencedbyyoungpeopleintheonlineworld.

    Summary
    Becauseformalregulationaloneisnotfullyeffective,theinternetrequiresadifferentapproach:one
    thatinvolvesparents,guardians,educatorsandusersjustasitinvolvesindustryandgovernment.
    Medialiteracyisacrucialpartofthiscollaborativesolution.
    Thereisacommonviewthatyoungpeople’sunderstandingfarexceedsthatofadults.Often,where
    technicalproficiencyisconcerned,thismaywellbetrue.However,thereareclearexampleswherethe
    opportunitiesofferedbydigitaltechnologies,whencoupledwithyoungpeople’stechnicalexpertise,
    farexceedyoungpeople’sconceptualunderstanding.
    Increasingyoungpeople’sawarenesstoenablethemtobemorereflectiveabouttheironline
    behaviour,anditsimpact,shouldbeapriorityofmedialiteracy.Encouragingyoungpeopletocreate
    mediathemselveswillenablethemtodevelopthenecessaryskills,aswellasdeliveringotherbenefits
    suchasincreasedself-esteemandmotivation.
    Ourcurrentmedia-literacyframeworkisnotambitiousenough.Thereiscurrentlynoguaranteethat
    media-literacyteachinginschoolsisreachingyoungpeople,andtheschoolcurriculumisalreadyso
    crowdedanyexpectationofformaleducationofthiskindisunrealistic.However,ourattemptat
    ‘promoting’medialiteracydoesnotmakebestuseoftheexpertisethatisalreadyavailable–
    particularlyamongthevoluntaryandcommunitysector.Arangeoforganisationsexistthatwouldbe
    60 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    abletodeliveradynamicmedia-literacyprogrammethatwouldbebothattractiveandusefultoyoung
    people.Itisimportantthatwetakestepstoexploitthepotentialofthosebodiesmostreadyto
    providethisfacility.
    Finally,theroleofparentsandpeersshouldnotbeoverlooked.Theseindividualsaremostlikelytobe
    usefulatdifferentdevelopmentalstagesofyoungpeople’smediause(parentsforyoungerchildren
    andpeersforolderteenagers),andsafetyandempowermentcampaignsshouldmakesuretheyare
    factoredintoanysuccessfuldeliveryprogramme.
    Inthefinalchapter,weoutlinewhereamoreambitiousmedia-literacyprogrammewouldfitintoa
    newstrategy,alongsidebroaderrecommendationsforgovernmentandindustry.
    61 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    5.Conclusionandrecommendations
    TheGovernmenthaslongbeenconcernedabouttheplaceofmediaineverydaylife,andits
    impact.Theseconcernshavetendedtobefocusedonitseffectofyoungpeople,whoareseenas
    themostimpressionableandvulnerablepeopleinsociety.Tosomeextent,theinternetpresents
    merelythenextstageinanongoingcycleofpanicabouttheinfluenceofthemedia,whichhas
    encompassedcomicbooks,films,televisionprogrammes,andcomputergames,eachofwhichhas
    atsomestagebeenaccusedofhavingthepotentialtoharmormorallycorruptchildrenandyoung
    people.
    Therehasneverbeenanyfirmevidencethatthemediacanhavethelevelofpowerthatwe
    attributetoit.Butdespitethis,regulatorymethodshavetendedtoerronthesideofcautionand
    restrictaccesstosomecontentonthebasisofprotection.Thisapproachissofirmlyingrainedin
    oursocietythatprotectionistinterventionssuchasthewatershedcontinuetogainwidespread
    support–notleastfromparentsbutalsofromyoungpeoplethemselves.
    Whileweshouldnottreattheinternetassodramaticallydifferentatechnologythatwethrowout
    allexperienceandresearchthathasgonebefore,itdoes,arguably,requireadifferentapproach.
    Thegreatestchallengeistomovefromthepreviousmodel,whichchieflyconsideredtheimpactof
    contenttoanewonethatconsiderstheimpactofengagementthroughmedia,andtoseekto
    influencethisinawaythatleadstopositiveexperiencesforyoungpeople.
    Ashiftofthisnaturedemandsthatregulationcannotbedevisedanddirectedinascentralaway
    asithasbeenbefore:thereisnoone,clearbodytowhichwecanattributeresponsibilityandthat
    wecansimpleleavetogetonwithit.Instead,weneedapartnershipapproachthatencompasses
    allrelevantparties:includingusersthemselves,parents,thecommercialsector,thevoluntaryand
    communitysectorandnationalgovernmentsandbeyond,tointernationalstandardsand
    cooperation.
    Theprocessiscertainlymorecomplicatedthantheexistingsystem,butaresponsibilitysharedin
    thismannershouldnotsolelybeseenasanextraandundesiredburden.Itisalsosymbolicofone
    ofthegreatestfeaturesoftheinternet:thefactthatitisademocratictool,enablinguserstogain
    suchcontrolovertheirmediaexperiencethattheycannotonlychoosewhattoconsume,and
    whenandwheretoconsumeit,butcanalsoaddtheirvoiceandopiniontothemassof
    informationandentertainmentthatisoutthere.
    Theapproachadvocatedinthisreportistorespectthisgreat,liberatingfeatureoftheinternet
    andnottocurtailopportunitiesinthepursuitofremovingrisksentirely.Usingtheinternetwill
    alwaysprovideacertainlevelofrisk,justasdoescrossingthestreetoranynumberofotherdaily
    activities.Itisimportantthatgovernmentisrealisticinitsexpectations,andintheexpectations
    thatittransferstoparentsconcernedfortheirchildren.
    Itisalsoimportantthatthesebenefitscontinuetobehighlighted.Thisiswheremedialiteracy
    shouldtakeanempoweringapproach,encouragingyoungpeopletotrulyengagewiththewealth
    ofopportunitiesdigitaltechnologiespresent,butwithadultguidanceandexpertadvicetoensure
    thattheirunderstandingcancatchupwithexpertise.
    Ourrecommendationsarebrokendownintothosethatapplytogovernment,industry,educators,
    parentsandusersrespectively.Takenacrossthepiece,theywillenhanceyoungpeople’sonline
    experienceswhileenablingriskstobeminimised.However,theseresponsesshouldalsobeseenas
    aworkinprogress:thedemands,experiencesandbehavioursofaudienceswillchangeintime.In
    thefirstplace,itisimportantthatwetakethenecessarysteps,outlinedabove,toestablisha
    frameworkthatcanreactinasensible,appropriateandtimelyfashiontothesechanges.Without
    thisframework,wewillcontinuallybeinreactivemode,swayedbymedia-drivenmoralpanics,and
    neglectingtoprotectandprepareyoungpeoplesufficientlyforthedigitalworldtheyareleftto
    navigate.
    62 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Recommendationsforgovernment
    1.Ofcomshouldbechargedwithproducinganannualreportdetailingtheeffectiveness
    ofexistingself-andco-regulatoryregimes.
    Ofcomcurrentlyhasadutytopromoteself-andco-regulatoryschemes.Inordertomakesure
    actionwhereinternetcontentanduseisconcernediscoordinatedandcomprehensive,Ofcom
    shouldproduceadedicatedannualreportdetailingtheeffectivenessofschemesandidentifying
    wheretherearegapsinprovision.Governmentcanthentakeaviewofwhereindustryshouldtake
    furtheraction.Ifthisisnotforthcoming,governmentshouldconsideralternativeregulatory
    approaches.
    2.ResponsibilityformedialiteracyshouldbegiventotheDepartmentforSchools,
    ChildrenandFamilies.
    Responsibilityforthemedia-literacyagenda–andforidentifyingthewaysinwhichyoungpeople
    engagethroughmedia–shouldbemovedtotheDepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies
    (DCSF).Medialiteracyhassofarsufferedfromalackofengagementinthisquarter,butitisthis
    departmentthathastodealwiththeeffectsofalackofmedialiteracy–includingbullyingonline,
    childsafetyandsoon.ProvidingtheDCSFwiththisnewresponsibilitywillenableittoengage
    schools,aswellasteachertrainingcolleges,youthservicesandfamilies,inbuildingthecapacityof
    youngpeopletogetthebestoutoftheironlineexperience.
    TheDCSFshouldalsosetupanadvisorygroup,consistingofyoungpeopleandtheChildren’s
    Commissioner,toprovideadviceandguidanceinthisarea.Thiswouldemphasisetheimportance
    ofyoungpeople’sparticipationasactivecitizensinthemediaspace,andwouldprovideauseful
    opportunityforyoungpeoplethemselvesprovidinginputandadvicetothepolicyprocess.
    3.Consultationshouldbedrivenforwardontheextentofcorporatesocialresponsibility
    toyouthinonlineenvironments.
    TheDCSFneedstoleadtheagendaintermsofunderstandingtheroleofcorporatesocial
    responsibilitywhereraisingyouthisconcerned.ThismeansconsideringtherolesnotonlyofISPs,
    mobileoperatorsandotherstowhomweregularlyattachtheterm‘industry’,butalsoofawider
    rangeofcommercialintereststhatseektoengagewithyoungpeopleinsocialspaceslargely
    unmediatedbyadults.TheDCSFshouldseektodriveforwardpolicyinthisarea,inconsultation
    withthecorporatesector,consumerorganisationsandrepresentatives,alongsideparentsand,
    mostimportantly,youngpeoplethemselves,andtaskthecorporatesectorwithdrawingupa
    definitionofcorporatesocialresponsibilitythatcanthenbeappliedtoengagementwithyoung
    peopleinthedigitalmediaspace.

    Recommendationsforindustry
    Webelievetherearegroundstoaskindustrytodomoretoprotectyoungpeopleandenhance
    theirexperienceonline.Industryhasalreadyrecogniseditsroleinsettingstandardsforuser
    behaviourintheformofacceptableusepoliciesorcommunityguidelines.However,thesearenot
    largelyrecognisedbymanyusers.
    1.Providersofinternetservicespopularwithyoungpeopleshoulddevelopapan-
    industrycodeofrightsandresponsibilities.ThisshouldbereviewedbyOfcom.
    Thereisarangeofshortandlong-termactionsthatindustryshouldtake,andthatgovernment
    shouldencourage.Intheshortterm,werecommendthatprovidersofservicesregularlyusedby
    youngpeople(forinstancesocialnetworkingsites)bebroughttogetherundertheauspicesof
    Ofcom,theDepartmentforCulture,MediaANandSport(DCMS)andDCSF,todevelopapan-
    industrycodeforsocialnetworkingsitesanduser-generatedcontentwebsites,outliningtherights
    andresponsibilitiesofusersandindustry.Theyshouldtakeadvicefromconsumerbodies,
    academicsandotherrelevantorganisations.Oncetheprincipleshavebeendrawnupandagreed,
    theyshouldbereviewedbyOfcomtoensureproperscrutiny.
    63 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    2.Industryshouldco-sponsorabodyresponsibleformonitoringcodecomplianceand
    commissioningfurtherresearch.
    Industryshouldco-sponsorabodyresponsibleformonitoringcodecompliance.Thisbodyshould
    collatedataontherateandnatureofcontentcomplaintsandtheextenttowhichthesewere
    satisfactorilydealtwithbytheorganisationconcerned.Whilethisbodyshouldnotencourage
    unrealisticexpectations–forinstance,wewouldnotexpectittobea‘clearinghouse’forall
    complaints,nortoensurethatcodebreacheswerestoppedpre-emptively–itcouldnonetheless
    conductusefulresearch,particularlyinunderstandingwhere,whenandwhycontinualbreachesofthe
    codetookplaceandensuringthatnecessaryactionwastaken.
    3.Age-restrictionmechanismsshouldbemorerobustandusedmorewidely.
    Industryandgovernmentneedtoworktogethertoconsiderwhenandwheremoreeffectiveage-
    restrictionmechanismsshouldbeintroducedtoonlinecontent.Solongasweacceptthataccessto
    somecontentshouldberestrictedtoyoungpeople,onthebasisofthepotentialharmordistressit
    maycause,mechanismstoenforcethisshouldbemorewidelydeployed,orthecontentremoved.This
    isparticularlyapplicableforwebsitessuchasYouTube,whichoftenrestrictsaccessonthebasisofage
    butverifiesthisonthebasisofaself-reportedbirthdate.
    Onlineage-verificationschemesaregrowinginnumber.Itisnottheremitofthisreportto
    recommendoneaboveanother,ortorecommendthattheGovernmentbeinvolvedinprovidinga
    standardwherethereisanevolvingmarket.Nonetheless,thereisastrongargumentthatage
    verificationhasnotbeentakenasseriouslyforadultcontentthatsitswithinpopularsitesasithasfor
    gamblingsites,forinstance.Suchcontent,wheremarked,shouldeitherberemovedorarelevant
    verificationprocedureshouldbeintroduced.
    Beyondthis,socialnetworkingsitesshouldtakegreatercaretobuildanunderstandingofthe
    practicesoftheirusers,andthedisincentivestocomplyingwithageverificationprocedures.
    4.Advertisingshouldberestrictedonthebasisoftheproportionofyoungusersofasite.
    Wherethereisevidencetosuggestthatasizeableportionofasites’usersareunder16,advertising
    shouldberestrictedacrossthesite.ThusonsocialnetworksitessuchasBebo,junkfoodadvertising
    shouldbecurtailed,justasitisinabroadcastenvironment.
    5.Industrymembersshouldworktogethertodevelopacodeofpracticeforsocial
    networkingsitesinrelationtoadvertisingandyoungpeople.
    Providersofsocialnetworkingsitesaimedatyoungpeople,andotherenvironmentsthatarepopular
    amongunder-16sshouldworkwiththeAdvertisingStandardsAgencytodeviseanextensiontothe
    currentCodeofPracticeinordertoprotectyoungpeopleinthesespaces.Inparticular,itshouldseek
    toprovidestrictguidelinesondistinguishingbetweenadvertisingandeditorialcontentandon
    engagingyoungpeopletofurthercirculatepromotionalmaterialandcontent.Thedemarcation
    betweenadvertisingmaterialandeditorialisextremelyweak,andanewbalancemustbestruck
    betweentheneedsofsitestogenerateincomethroughadvertisingandtheprotectionofyoung
    peoplefromexcessiveconsumerism.
    Therangeofnewwaysinwhichadvertiserscanengagewithyoungpeopleusingsocialnetworking
    sitesraisestheimportanceofunderstandingthecorporatesector’sroleinprovidingaresponsibleand
    positiveexperienceofconsumerismforyoungpeople.Inthelongterm,providersofsocialnetworking
    sitesandbrandswhoseektoadvertiseonlineshouldengagewithgovernmentdiscussionsregarding
    theroleofthecorporatesectorinrelationtotheextentofitsinfluenceonyoungpeople–again,with
    theaimofdevelopinganewdoctrineofcorporatesocialresponsibilitythatappliestothisarea.
    6.NewsocialnetworkingservicesjointheInternetWatchFoundation.
    Allprovidersofservicesthatareregularlyusedbyyoungpeopleshouldbecomemembersofthe
    InternetWatchFoundationandcontributefinanciallytoitswork.Currently,somesocialnetworking
    sitesarenotmembersandthuscontributenothingtotheworkoftheorganisation,althoughthey
    continuetobenefitimmenselyfromtheimportantroleitplays.
    64 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Recommendationsforeducation
    1.TheDepartmentforSchools,ChildrenandFamiliesshouldseektorevitalisethemedia
    literacyprogrammeanddelivereducationthroughtheExtendedSchoolsprogrammeand
    theten-yearYouthStrategy.
    Thecurrentmedia-literacyagendalacksasenseofpurposeandambition.Itneedsbothgreater
    fundingandagreatersenseofdirectiontopushitthroughandbuildwithinparentsandusersthe
    skillstheyneedinordertobeabletotakefulladvantageoftheopportunitiesofferedinadigitalage.
    Thereiscurrentlylittlescopeorappetiteforintroducingformalmedia-literacyteachingintotheschool
    curriculum.Neitherisitclearthatthiswouldbeasuccess:sofar,teachinginthisareahasverymuch
    dependedontheskillsoftheteachersthemselves–whichcanbevariable.TheExtendedSchool
    programme,whichaimstoenableeveryschooltoofferafter-schoolactivitiestochildrenandyoung
    peopleby2010,offersanopportunitytobridgesomeofthesegapsbyprovidingafter-school
    activitiesthatenableyoungpeopletocreatemedia.
    Inaddition,theten-yearYouthStrategyprovidesopportunitiesforsimilaractivitiestobedelivered
    throughyouthclubs,withthesupportofyouthworkerswithexperienceinthisfield.Whencombined,
    thesetwoinitiativeswillprovideampleopportunityforyoungpeopletobesupportedindeveloping
    media-literacyskillsinwaysthatareattractiveandinterestingtothem.
    2.Governmentshouldcoordinatetheexpertiseofexistingcommunitymediaandinformal
    mediawithschoolstoprovidemedia-literacyteaching.
    Theexistingcommunitymediaandinformalsectorsalreadyprovidethepotentialexpertiseneeded,
    butcoordinationwithschoolshas,uptonow,beenlacking,despitethefactthatsomecommunity
    mediaisjustasimportanttoyoungpeopleasitistoadultcounterparts.Resourcesshouldbedirected
    towardscoordinatingthesometimesdisparateactivitiesoftheinformalmedia,communitymediaand
    after-schoolinitiatives.
    Thereisevidencetosuggestthatthisapproachwillbebothpopularandattractivetoyoungpeopleas
    wellasenablingthemtobuildskillsinsomeoftheareasinwhichtheyarecurrentlylacking–in
    particular,encouragingyoungpeopletobecomemorereflectiveoftheactionstheyundertakeonline.
    3.Projectsshouldbecarefullyevaluatedandbestpracticewidelyshared.
    Anationalbody(reportingtotheDCSF)shouldbeputinplacetobuildtheevidencebaseforbest
    practice,assessprojectsonarangeofcriteria(notsimplyheadcounts)andrewardsuccess.Thereis
    currentlynoevaluativecriterionforsuccessfulmedia-literacyinitiatives,noranysystemforrewarding
    excellenceamongschoolsandschoolpupils.TheGovernment’screativelearningprogrammeCreative
    Partnershipsshouldbeinvestedwiththeresourcesitneedstoestablishaframeworkofthisnatureon
    anationalbasis.
    4.Governmentshouldnotoverlooktheneedsofparents.
    Particularlywhereyoungerchildrenareconcerned,parentsplayanimportantroleinsupportingyoung
    people’searlyexperiencesonline.Itisimportantthattheyfeelconfidentintheirskillsetinorderto
    providethesupportandadvicethattheirchildrenmayneed.Parentalinformationcampaignsshould
    notfocussolelyonthenegativesthatinternetaccesscanoccasionallybring,butshouldalsoprovide
    examplesofpositiveexercisesthatyoungpeoplecanundertakewiththeirparentsinordertoexplore
    notionsofrisk,privacyandpersonalsafetyinabalancedandpracticalway.
    5.Informationandlearningopportunitiesforparentsshouldbeavailablethroughexisting
    initiativessuchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsProgramme.
    Reachingparentsremainsadifficultchallenge.However,theGovernment’sagendaforsupporting
    parents,outlinedinTheChildren’sPlan(DCSF2007),providesanopportunitytoensurethat
    informationisavailableforparentswhenandwheretheywantit.Medialiteracyinitiativesaimedat
    encouragingparentstoengageinsupportiveonlineactivitiesalongsideyoungpeopleshouldbe
    deliveredthroughexistinginitiatives,suchasSureStartandtheExtendedSchoolsprogramme.
    65 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    6.Traditionalbroadcastersshouldtakearoleindeliveringpositivemedia-literacy
    information.
    Theroleofthosetraditionalbroadcastersthatareincreasinglyprominentinonlineenvironments
    shouldnotbeoverlooked.TheBBCandChannel4arestillhighlytrustedbrands,andcertainlyhavea
    roletoplayindeliveringeducationalcontenttoenableparentsandyoungpeopletobettercopewith
    navigatingadigitalenvironment.Ratherthanfocusingonthenegativesofinternetuse–inparticular,
    concernsaroundchildsafety–theyshouldbecomefullyinvolvedindeliveringmedia-literacy
    initiativesandinformationtoparents,tohelpthembettersupportyoungpeopleonline.
    7.Peersshouldbeencouragedandsupportedinprovidingadviceandinformationonline.
    WesupporttheGovernment’spilotingofschemesinvolvingpeersinsupportingyoungpeoplewho
    arebeingbullied,andrecommendthatindustry,educatorsandgovernmentseektoexplorewherethe
    adviceandsupport-givingroleofpeerscanbefurtherexploredinanonlinecontextandtheroleof
    youthservicesinenablingthis.
    Theroleofonlineadvicecentreshasnotbeenfullyexploredinthisreport.However,wehaveseen
    evidencethat,particularlywherehealthandsexualhealthisconcerned,theinternetcanbeauseful
    toolforyoungpeople.Giventherangeofinformationoutthere,andthefactthatnotallofitmaybe
    reliable,werecommendthattheGovernmentconsidersexpandingtheremitofFrank,thedrugs
    advicehelpline(abrandthatispopularandtrustedbyyoungpeople)inotherareas–mosturgently,
    insexualhealth.

    Summary
    Theserecommendations,ifimplemented,wouldgosomewayinrespondingnotonlytosubstantive
    concernsaboutyouthengagementwiththeinternet,butalsotowiderpublicconcernsabouttherole
    ofthisentityinsociety.
    Assuggestedintheopeninglinesofthischapter,itissomethingofatraditioninoursocietyto
    bemoantheharmfuleffectsonmediaconsumptionontheyoung.Thisconcernisnotdifficultto
    understand.Mediainallforms–butperhapsespeciallytheinternet–isinonesensenothingmore
    thanatwistedmirror,whichreflectsbackatus,inconcentratedform,theaspectsofoursocietythat
    wemostdetestandreject:anobsessionwithpornography,voyeurism,bitchinessandgossip,violence
    andcruelty–and,worse,thepassiveacceptanceofallthesethings.
    Therealityisthatwewillneversucceedinremovingallthesedistastefulelementsfrommedia,
    becausetheyoriginateinsocietyitself.Butwecanensurethatchildrenandyoungpeopleare
    protectedfromthem,untiltheyarereadytonavigatethemostdistastefulaspectsoftheonlineworld
    forthemselves,andmaketheirowninformeddecisionsaboutwhattheyfindusefulandenjoyableor
    damagingandunpleasant.
    66 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    References
    AhlertC,MarsdenCandYungC(2004)HowLibertyfromCyberspace:TheMysteryShopperTestsin
    InternetContentSelf-Regulation Oxford:ProgrammeforComparativeMediaLawandPolicy
    BanduraA(1977)SocialLearningTheory,NewYork:GeneralLearningPress
    BanduraA(1991)‘Socialcognitivetheoryofmoralthoughtandaction’inKurtinesWMandGewirtz
    JL(eds)HandbookofMoralBehaviorandDevelopment, vol1:45-103,Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence
    Erlbaum
    BanduraAandWaltersR(1963)SocialLearningandPersonalityDevelopment,NewYork:Holt,
    RinehartandWinston
    BBC(2008)‘Pro-anorexiasiteclampdownurged’,onlinenewsstory,24February2008,availableat:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7259143.stm
    BBC(2007a)‘Unrulystudents’Facebooksearch’,onlinenewsstory,17July,availableat
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6902333.stm
    BBC(2007b)‘Callforbloggingcodeofconduct’,onlinenewsstory,28March,availableat
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6502643.stm
    BehrR(2008)‘Backpackers,bulliesandinternetmyths’,blog,17February,availableat:
    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rafael_behr/2008/02/backpackers_bullies_and_intern.html
    BelsenW(1978)Televisionviolenceandtheadolescentboy. Farnborough:SaxonHouse
    BevortEandBredaI(2001)LesJeunesetl’Internet, Paris:CLEMI
    BlairT(1999)SpeechtotheConfederationofBritishIndustryconference,Brighton,2November1999
    BonevaB,QuinnA,KrautR,KieslerS,CummingsJ,ShklovskiI(2003)‘Teenagecommunicationinthe
    instantmessagingera’inKrautR,BryninMandKieslerS(eds)DomesticatingInformation
    Technology,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress
    BoydD(2006)‘Friends,friendsters,andfop8:writingcommunityintobeingonsocialnetworksites’,
    FirstMonday,vol11,no12
    BradleyK(2006)InternetLives:Socialcontextandmoraldomaininadolescentdevelopment,New
    DirectionsforYouthDevelopment,no.108:57-76
    BraggSandBuckinghamD(2002)YoungPeopleandSexualContentonTelevision:Areviewofthe
    research,London:BroadcastingStandardsCommission
    BrownJD,Tucker-HalpernCandLadinL’EngleK(2005)‘Massmediaasasexualsuperpeerforearly
    maturinggirls’,JournalofAdolescentHealth,vol36:420–427
    BrucksM,ArmstrongGMandGoldbergME(1988)‘Children’suseofcognitivedefensesagainst
    televisionadvertising:acognitiveresponseapproach’,JournalofConsumerResearch, vol14:471-
    482
    BuchholzESandChinlundC(1994)‘Enroutetoaharmonyofbeing:viewingalonenessasaneedin
    developmentandchildanalyticwork’,PsychoanalyticPsychology,vol4:354-374
    BuckinghamD(2000)AftertheDeathofChildhood:Growingupintheageofelectronicmedia,
    Cambridge:PolityPress
    BuckinghamD(2002)‘Theelectronicgeneration?Childrenandnewmedia’inLievrouwLand
    LivingstoneS(eds)TheHandbookofNewMedia:Socialshapingandsocialconsequences,
    London:Sage
    BuckinghamD(2005a)ConstructingtheMediaCompetentChild,MedienPadagogik
    BuckinghamD(2005b)TheMediaLiteracyofChildrenandYoungPeople:Areviewoftheresearch
    literature.London:Ofcom
    67 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    ChildExploitationandOnlineProtectionCentre(CEOP)(2006)UnderstandingOnlineSocialNetwork
    ServicesandRiskstoYouth:ApreliminaryreportonthefindingsofCEOP’sSocialNetwork
    SeminarSeries, London:CEOP
    ChaM,KwakH,RodriguezP,AhnYYandMoonS(2007)‘Itube,youtube,everybodytubes:
    analyzingtheworld’slargestusergeneratedcontentvideosystem’,proceedingsoftheseventh
    ACMSIGCOMMconferenceonInternetmeasurement,October24-26,SanDiego,CA
    Children’sCharitiesCoalitionforInternetSafety(CHIS)(2004)ChildSafetyOnline:Adigitalmanifesto,
    London:CHIS
    Childwise(2005)ChildWiseMonitorTrendsReport2005,Norwich:Childwise
    ChouCandHsiaoMC(2000)‘Internetaddiction,usage,gratificationandpleasureexperience:the
    Taiwancollegestudent’scase’,ComputersandEducation Vol35,Issue1:65-80
    ColbyA,KohlbergL,GibbsJandLiebermanM(1983)‘Alongitudinalstudyofmoraljudgment’,
    MonographoftheSocietyforChildDevelopment,vol48:1-2
    CorporationforPublicBroadcasting(2003)ConnectedtotheFuture:Areportonchildren’sinternet
    use,WashingtonDC:CPB,availableat:
    www.cpb.org/stations/reports/connected/connected_report.pdf
    CrainWC(1985)TheoriesofDevelopment,NewJersey:PrenticeHall
    CsikszentmihalyiM,RathundeKandWhalenS(1993)TalentedTeenagers:Therootsofsuccessand
    failure.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress
    DahlgrenP(1996)TelevisionandthePublicSphere, London:Sage
    deBlockL,BuckinghamD,HolzwarthPandNiesytoH(2004) VisionsAcrossCultures:Migrant
    childrenusingvisualimagestocommunicate,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,availableat:
    www.chicam.net
    DealDandSharplesJ(2007)Theinfluenceofvirtualtechnologiesonattentionandcognitivecontrol
    inyoungpeople,Oxford:InstituteoftheMind
    Denegri-KnottJ(2003)ConsumersBehavingBadly:Innovationordeviation?Consumerproducer
    relationshipsaspowerstrugglesontheweb(HOIT)‘Thenetworkedhomeandthehomeofthe
    future’,conference,Irvine,California,April
    DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2005)HarnessingTechnology:Transforming
    learningandchildren’sservices,e-strategy, London:HMSO
    DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2007a)EveryChildMatters,London:HMSO
    DepartmentforChildren,SchoolsandFamilies(DCSF)(2007b)TheChildren’sPlan:BuildingBrighter
    Futures, London:HMSO
    DepartmentforEducationandSkills(DfES)(2003)‘Digitallearningrevolutionforschools’,press
    release,London:DfES,availableat:www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0003
    DevittKandRokerD(2007)TheRoleofMobilePhonesinFamilyCommunication,Brighton:Trustfor
    theStudyofAdolescence
    EuropeanResearchIntoConsumerAffairs(ERICA)(2001)Children’sUseoftheInternet,EC/European
    researchintoconsumeraffairs, availableat:www.net-consumers.org
    EriksonEH(1950) ChildhoodandSociety, NewYork:Norton
    EriksonEH(1958)YoungMan Luther, NewYork:Norton
    EriksonEH(1964)InsightandResponsibility, NewYork:Norton
    EriksonEH(1968)Identity:Youthandcrisis, NewYork:Norton
    68 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    FacerK,FurlongJ,FurlongRandSutherlandR(2003) ScreenPlay:Childrenandcomputinginthe
    home,London:RoutledgeFalmer
    FosterR(2007) SelfandCo-regulationinadigitalmediaworld,Adiscussionpaperpresentedtothe
    EuropeanPolicyForum,availableatwww.london.edu/assets/documents/PDF/EPF_final_paper-
    _Robin_Foster_30_Oct.pdf
    FunkhouserG(1973)‘Theissuesofthesixties:anexploratorystudyofthedynamicsofpublic
    opinion’,PublicOpinionQuarterly, vol37:62-75
    GaviriaAandRaphaelS(1997)SchoolBasedPeerEffectsandJuvenileBehaviour,EconomicsWorking
    PaperSeries97-21,SanDiego:DepartmentofEconomics,UniversityofCalifornia
    GerbnerG,GrossL,MorganMandSignorielliN(1980)‘The“mainstreaming”ofAmerica:violence
    profileNo.11’,JournalofCommunication,vol30,10-29:14
    GibbsJ,SchnellS,BerkowitzMandGoldsteinD(1983)‘Relationsbetweenformaloperationsand
    logicalconflictresolutions’,paperpresentedatthebiennialmeetingoftheSocietyforResearchin
    ChildDevelopment,Detroit
    GoodmanS(2003)TeachingYouthMedia, NewYork:TeachersCollegePress
    GoswickRAandJonesWH(1982)‘Componentsoflonelinessduringadolescence’,JournalofYouth
    andAdolescence, vol11:373-383
    GranovetterM(1973)‘Thestrengthofweakties’, AmericanJournalofSociology,vol78,issue6:
    1360-80
    GreenfieldPM,GrossEF,SubrahmanyamK,SuzukiLandTynesB(2006)‘Teensontheinternet:
    interpersonalconnection,identity,andinformation’inKrautR,BryninM,andKieslerS(eds)
    Computers,Phones,andtheInternet:Domesticatinginformationtechnology:185-200,Oxford:
    OxfordUniversityPress
    GrossEF,JuvonenJandGableSL(2002)‘Internetuseandwell-beinginadolescence’,Journalof
    SocialIssues,vol58(1):75-90
    Hansard(2004)HouseofLordsDebates1March2004vol658,London:HMSO
    Hansard(2006)HouseofLordsDebates26April2006Volume680,Col1219,London:HMSO
    Hansard(2008)HouseofCommonsDebates6February2008,vol471,col1089,London:HMSO
    HarrisonA(2007)‘Whenonlinefriendsspelldanger’,onlinenewsstory,22October,availableat:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7046986.stm
    HartupWWandStevens,N(1997)‘Friendshipsandadaptationinthelifecourse’,Psychological
    Bulletin,vol121:355-370
    HermanEandChomskyN(1988)ManufacturingConsent:Thepoliticaleconomyofthemassmedia,
    NewYork:PantheonBooks
    HoffmanML(1991)‘Empathy,socialcognitionandmoralaction’inKurtinesWMandJGewirtzJL
    (eds)HandbookofMoralBehaviorandDevelopment, Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum,vol1:
    275-299
    HollowaySandValentineG(2003)Cyberkids:Childrenintheinformationage, London:Routledge
    InternetCrimeForum(2001)Chatwise,Streetwise–childrenandInternetchatservices:Apaper
    preparedbytheInternetCrimeForumIRCsub-group,availableat
    www.internetcrimeforum.org.uk/chatwise_streetwise.pdf
    InternetWatchFoundation(IWF)(2006)AnnualandCharityReport, Cambridge:IWF
    IyengarSandMcGradyJ(2005)‘Massmediaandpoliticalpersuasion’inBrockTCandGreenMC
    (eds) Persuasion:Psychologicalinsightsandperspectives, secondedition,ThousandsOaks,CA:
    Sage
    69 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    JowellT(2006)SpeechtotheOxfordMediaConvention,19January
    KaiserFamilyFoundation(2001)GenerationRX.com:Howyoungpeopleusetheinternetforhealth
    information,MenloPark,CA:TheFoundation
    Kandel,DB(1978)‘Homophily,selectionandsocialisationinadolescentfriendships’, American
    JournalofSociology,vol84:427-436
    KatzEandLazarsfeldP(1955)PersonalInfluence,NewYork:TheFreePress
    KeaneyEandRogersB(2006)ACitizen’sDuty.Voterinequalityandthecaseforcompulsoryturnout,
    London:ippr
    KirwanT,LearmonthJ,SayerMandWilliamsR(2003)MappingMediaLiteracy, London:BFI,BSC,
    ITC
    KoC,YenC,LinH,andYangM(2007)‘FactorspredictiveforincidenceandremissionofInternet
    addictioninyoungadolescents:Aprospectivestudy’,CyberPsychology&Behavior,10(4),545-
    551
    KohlbergL(1958)TheDevelopmentofModesofThinkingandChoicesinYears10to16,PhD
    dissertation,Chicago:UniversityofChicago
    KohlbergL(1981)EssaysonMoralDevelopment,VolI:Thephilosophyofmoraldevelopment,New
    York:HarperandRow
    KrackhardtD(1992)‘Thestrengthofstrongties:Theimportanceofphilosinorganizations’inNohria
    NandEcclesRG(eds)NetworksandOrganizations:Structure,form,andaction, Boston,MA:
    HarvardUniversityPress:216-239
    KrautR,LundmarkV,PattersonM,KieslerS,MukoopadhyayT,andScherlisM(1998)‘Internet
    paradox:asocialtechnologythatreducessocialinvolvementandpsychologicalwell-being?’,
    AmericanPsychologist,vol53(9):1017-31
    LazarsfeldP,BerelsonBandGaudetH(1968)ThePeople’sChoice,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity
    Press
    LeeSJandChaeY(2007)‘Children’sinternetuseinafamilycontext:influenceonfamilyrelationships
    andparentalmediation’,CyberPsychologyandBehaviorvol10(5):640-644
    LenhardtAandMaddenM(2007)Teens,PrivacyandOnlineSocialNetworks, WashingtonDC:Pew
    InternetandAmericanLifeProject
    LenhardtA,MaddenM,MacgillAR,SmithA(2007)TeensandSocialMedia, WashingtonDC:Pew
    InternetandAmericanLifeProject
    LewisMandGreenbergS(2007)‘Winningheartsandminds:prospectsforprogressivism’inPearceN
    andMargoJ(eds)PoliticsforaNewGeneration:Theprogressivemoment, Hampshire:Palgrave
    Macmillan
    LeydenJ(2007)‘“WildWest”’internetneedsasheriff’,onlinenewsstory,10August,availableat:
    www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/10/lords_net_security_report/
    LisbergA(2008)‘Employersmaybesearchingapplicants’Facebookprofiles,expertswarn’,online
    newsstory,10March,availableatwww.nydailynews.com/money/2008/03/10/2008-03-
    10_employers_may_be_searching_applicants_fa.html
    LivingstoneS(2002) YoungPeopleandNewMedia, London:Sage
    LivingstoneSandBoberM(2005)UKChildrenGoOnline:FinalreporttotheEconomicandSocial
    ResearchCouncil,Swindon:EconomicandSocialResearchCouncil
    LivingstoneSandMillwoodHargraveA(2006)HarmandOffenceinMediaContent:Areviewofthe
    empiricalliterature, London:IntellectPress
    70 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    MacKenzieJM(1984) PropagandaandEmpire:ThemanipulationofBritishpublicopinion1880-
    1960, Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress
    MadellDEandMuncerSJ(2007)‘Controloversocialinteractions:Animportantreasonforyoung
    people’suseoftheInternetandmobilephonesforcommunication?’Cyberpsychology&Behavior
    Vol.10,No.1,Pp137-140
    MahoneyJL,LarsonRW,EcclesJS(eds)(2005)OrganisedActivitiesasContextsforDevelopment,
    London:LawrenceElbaum
    MargoJandDixonMwithPearceNandReedH(2006)Freedom’sOrphans,London:Institutefor
    PublicPolicyResearch
    MargoJandSodhaS(2007)GetHappy:ChildrenandYoungPeople’sEmotionalWell-Being,London:
    NCH
    MayoE(2004)‘Shoppinggeneration’,YoungConsumers,vol6(4):43-49,Oxford:WorldAdvertising
    ResearchCentre
    MayoE(2005)ShoppingGeneration,London:NationalConsumerCouncil
    McKennaKYAandBarghJA(2000)‘Plan9fromcyberspace:TheimplicationsoftheInternetfor
    personalityandsocialpsychology’,PersonalityandSocialPsychologyReview,vol4:57-75
    MeerkerkG-J(2007)Pwned*byInternet:Explorativeresearchintothecausesandconsequencesof
    compulsiveinternetuse,Rotterdam:ErasmusUniversity
    MeschG(2003)‘Thefamilyandtheinternet:theIsraelicase’, SocialScienceQuarterly 84(4):1038-
    1050
    MesureS(2008)‘Bridgenddeaths:policewarnofBebo“internetsuicidecult”’,Independenton
    Sunday,27January,availableat:www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bridgend-
    deaths-police-warn-of-bebo-internet-suicide-cult-774532.html
    MonkeL(1998)‘Computersinschools:movingeducationoutofthechildintothemachine’,The
    InternetandHigherEducation,vol1(2):147-155
    MoustakasCE(1989)Loneliness, NewYork:PrenticeHall
    NieNH,HillygusDandErbringL(2002)‘Internetuse,interpersonalrelationsandsocialiability’in
    WellmanBandHoythornwaiteC(eds) TheInternetinEverydayLife,Oxford:Blackwell:215-243
    NorrisP(2001) DigitalDivide:CivicEngagement,InformationPovertyandtheInternetWorldwide,
    NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress
    NussbaumE(2007)‘Sayanything’,NewYorkMagazine,12February
    NybergAK(1988)SealofApproval:Thehistoryofthecomicscode, Mississippi:UniversityPressof
    Mississippi
    Ofcom(2004) Ofcom’sStrategyandPrioritiesforthePromotionofMediaLiteracy–Astatement,
    London:Ofcom
    Ofcom(2006a)MediaLiteracyAudit:Reportonmedialiteracyamongstchildren, London:Ofcom
    Ofcom(2006b) TheCommunicationsMarket2006,London:Ofcom
    Ofcom(2007a)NewNews,FutureNews, London:Ofcom
    Ofcom(2007b)TheCommunicationsMarket2007,London:Ofcom
    PapchararissiZandRubinAM(2000)‘Predictorsofinternetuse’,JournalofBroadcastingand
    ElectronicMedia,vol44:175-196
    PardunCJ,L’EngleKL,BrownJD(2005)‘Linkingexposuretooutcomes:earlyadolescents’
    consumptionofsexualcontentinsixmedia’, MassCommunicationandSociety,vol8(2):75-91
    71 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Pascoe-WatsonG(2008)‘GordonBrown’sblitzonblades’,TheSun, 14Jaunary,availableat:
    www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article684784.ece
    PeterJandValkenburgPM(2007)‘Adolescents’exposuretoasexualizedmediaenvironmentand
    notionsofwomenassexobjects’,SexRoles, vol56:381-395
    PiagetJ(1932)TheMoralJudgmentoftheChild, London:KeganPaul,Trench,TrubnerandCo
    PinquartMandSorensonS(2000)‘Influencesofsocioeconomicstatus,socialnetworkand
    competenceonsubjectivewell-beinginlaterlife:ameta-analysis’,PsychologyandAging,vol15:
    187-224
    PrenskyM(2007)‘Howtoteachwithtechnology:keepingbothteachersandstudentscomfortablein
    aneraofexponentialchange’,EmergingTechnologiesforLearning,vol2,London:Becta
    PutnamR(2000)BowlingAloneNewYork:Simon&Schuster
    Register,The(2006)‘MySpacethreatensrecordlabels’,onlinenewsstory,8September,availableat:
    www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/08/myspace_threatens_record_labels/
    RideoutV,VandewaterEandWartellaE(2003)ZerotoSix:Electronicmediainthelivesofinfants,
    toddlersandpreschoolers, MenloPark,CA:TheFoundation
    RobertsonTSandRossiterJ(1974)‘Childrenandcommercialpersuasion:anattributionaltheory
    analysis’,JournalofConsumerResearch, vol1:13-20
    RoedderJD(1999)‘Consumersocializationofchildren:aretrospectivelookattwenty-fiveyearsof
    research’, JournalofConsumerResearch, vol183:183-213
    RosenLD(2006)AdolescentsinMySpace:IdentityFormation,FriendshipandSexualPredators,
    DominguezHills:CaliforniaStateUniversity,availableat:
    www.csudh.edu/psych/Adolescents%20in%20MySpace%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
    SafferHandChaloupkaF(1999)TobaccoAdvertising:EconomictheoryandInternationalEvidence,6,
    NationalBureauofEconomicResearchWorkingPaperNo.6958
    SafferHandDaveD(2003)AlcoholAdvertisingandAlcoholConsumptionbyAdolescents,working
    paperno9676,Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch
    SainsburyM(2004)‘Children’sattitudestoreading’, LiteracyToday, issue38:16-17
    SandvigC(2006)‘TheInternetatplay:childusersofpublicInternetconnections’,Journalof
    Computer-MediatedCommunication, vol11(4),article3:932-956
    SavageJ(1988)‘Theenemywithin:sex,rock,andidentity’inSavageJ(ed)FacingtheMusic:Essays
    onpop,rockandculture, London:Mandarin
    SchofieldJ(2008)‘SellersnegativeoneBayfeedbackchange’,TheGuardian, 21February,available
    at:www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/ebay.consumeraffairs
    SchorJ(2004) BorntoBuy:Thecommercializedchildandthenewconsumerculture, NewYork:
    Scribner
    SchorJ(2006)‘Whenchildhoodgetscommercialised:canchildhoodbeprotected?’inUllsonC(ed)
    Regulation,Awareness,Empowerment:Youngpeopleandharmfulmediacontentinthedigital
    age,Gothenburg:TheInternationalClearinghouseonChildren,YouthandMedia
    SeiterE(2004)‘Childrenreportingonline:theculturalpoliticsofthecomputerlab’,Televisionand
    NewMedia, vol5(2):87-107
    SelwynN(2003)‘DoingITforthekids:reexaminingchildren,computersandthe“information
    society”’, Media,CultureandSociety, vol25(3):351-378
    SennettR(1977)TheFallofPublicMan,London:FaberandFaber
    72 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    ShirkyC(2008)HereComesEverybody,London:Penguin
    SleepCouncil(2007)‘JunkSleep’,pressrelease,August,availableat:www.sleepcouncil.com
    SocialExclusionUnit(2005) InclusionThroughInnovation:Tacklingsocialexclusionthroughnew
    technologies,London:HMSO
    StorrA(1988)Solitude:areturntotheself,NewYork:TheFreePress
    SutherlandR,FacerK,FurlongRandFurlongJ(1999)‘Anewenvironmentforeducation?The
    computerinthehome’,ComputersandEducation, specialedition34(3-4):167-183
    SweneyM(2008)‘MPsgetwebfilter“DarkAges”warning’, TheGuardian, 26February,availableat:
    www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/26/microsoft.digitalmedia?gusrc=rss&feed=media
    TurielE(1983)TheDevelopmentofSocialKnowledge:Moralityandconvention, Cambridge:
    CambridgeUniversityPress
    UKOnlineCentres(2007)UnderstandingDigitalInclusion:Aresearchsummary, Sheffield:UKOnline
    Centres
    Unicef(2007)ChildPovertyinPerspective:Anoverviewofchildwell-beinginrichcountries, report
    card7,Florence:TheUnitedNationsChildren’sFund
    ValkenburgPMandPeterJ(2007)‘Onlinecommunicationandadolescentwell-being:testingthe
    stimulationversusthedisplacementhypothesis’,JournalofComputer-MediatedCommunication,
    vol12(4),1169-1182
    ValkenburgPMandSoetersKE(2001)‘Children’spositiveandnegativeexperienceswiththeinternet:
    anexploratorysurvey’, CommunicationResearch,vol28(5):652-675
    VirtueG(2002)‘I’mwithstupid’,TheSundayHerald,17February,availableat
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20020217/ai_n12574175
    WardL(2008)‘Lifethroughalens:howBritain’schildreneat,sleepandbreatheTV’,TheGuardian,
    16January,availableat:www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/16/television.socialnetworking
    WellmanBandFrankK(2001)‘Networkcapitalinamulti-levelworld:gettingsupportfrompersonal
    communities’inLinN,BurtRandCookK(eds),SocialCapital:Theoryandresearch,NewYork:
    AldinedeGruyter:233-274
    WoodM(2005)PerceptionsandExperienceofAnti-SocialBehaviour:Findingsfromthe2003/4
    BritishCrimeSurvey,HomeOfficeonlinereport49/04,London:TSO
    WrightCR(1964)‘Functionalanalysisandmasscommunication’inDexterLandWhiteDM(eds)
    People,SocietyandMassCommunications, Glencoe,Ill:FreePress:91-109
    YouGov(2006)MobileLifeYouthReport,London:YouGovavailableat:
    www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/CPW060101004_2.pdf
    73 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Appendix1:Researchmethodology–deliberativeworkshops
    WeconductedthreedeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopleinthreeareasofLondon:Southwark
    andCamdenininnerLondonandTwickenhaminouterLondon.Eachworkshopwasheldwitha
    differentagegroup:years8-9(aged13-14),years10-11(aged15-16)andyears12-13(aged17-
    18).Twelveyoungpeopleparticipatedineachgroup.Theworkshopswereeachthreehourslong,and
    wereheldinJuly2007.Eachparticipantwaspaidasanincentivetoattend.

    Recruitment
    Participantswererecruitedusingareputablemarketresearchrecruitmentagency.Participantswere
    recruitedinfriendshippairs,toincreasetheirconfidencewithinthegroupsandtoincreasethe
    likelihoodthattheywouldattend.
    Alltheparticipantshadbroadbandaccessandmobilephones.Thiswaspartlytoensurethatno
    participantfeltexcluded,butalsobecausethefocusoftheresearchwasonuseoftheinternetrather
    thanaccesstoit.
    Deliberativetechniquesbringtogetherabroadlydemographicallyrepresentativesampleofthe
    population.Thethreeworkshopswererecruitedtoincludethefullrangeofsocio-economicgroups.
    Socio-economicgroupsweredeterminedbytheoccupationofthechiefincomeearnerinthe
    participants’household.Werecognisethatthismethodfordeterminingsocio-economicgroupis
    simplistic.However,becausethisresearchinvolvedarelativelysmallnumberofdeliberativegroupswe
    wereclearfromtheoutsetthattherewouldbelimitedscopefordrawingcomparativeconclusions
    betweensocio-economicgroups.Wethereforemadeapragmaticdecisionthatthismethodwas
    sufficientforthisproject.
    Theworkshopswerealsorecruitedtobebroadlyrepresentativeoftheethnicmake-upofeach
    borough,andtohavea50/50splitofboysandgirls.

    Deliberativeworkshops
    Deliberativeworkshopsareheldoveralongerperiodoftimethanfocusgroups.Thishasanumberof
    advantages.Thelongerlengthoftimeprovidesgreateropportunityfordifferentparticipantsto
    expresstheirviewsfully,withconfidence,anditprovidesagreateropportunityfordiscussionand
    debatewithpeers.
    Eachworkshopincludedlargegroupdiscussions,smallbreak-outgroupdiscussions,asessioninwhich
    groupmemberswereaskedtheiropinionofparticularwebsites,andasessioninwhichthebreak-out
    groupswerepresentedwithvariousfictionalscenariosandaskedtocompareandcommentonthem.
    Thismethodologyenabledustounderstandhowparticipantsarticulatetheirattitudesanduseofthe
    internetwithintheirpeergroup,andhowtheirviewschangewhenpresentedwithinformationand
    challengedbypeers.
    Byusingfictionalscenarios,wewereabletointroducearangeofsensitiveissuesaroundrisk,privacy
    andsafetyinawaythatdidnotfeeltoopersonal.Wefoundthatoncetheseissueshadbeen
    introducedinthisway,manyparticipantsdidsharesensitivepersonalexperiences.
    Theuseofdeliberativeworkshopswithyoungpeopledoesraisespecificmethodologicalissues.In
    analysingthesefindings,itisimportanttoacknowledgethatpeer-groupdynamicsinfluencedtheway
    thatparticipantspresentedtheirviewsandattitudeswithintheworkshops.However,whiletheway
    thatparticipantsdiscussedissuesmightdifferfromthekindofdatageneratedinaone-to-one
    setting,suchasaninterview,deliberativeworkshopsspecificallyenabledustoanalysetheshared
    normsthatgovernyoungpeople’suseoftheinternet–includingtheprocessesbywhichthesenorms
    arenegotiatedandinterpreted.
    Asmentionedabove,thisresearchaimedtounderstandinternetusefromtheperspectiveofyoung
    peoplethemselvesand,assuch,itwasimportanttoavoidintroducingdistinctlyadultterminologyand
    frameworksintothegroupdiscussions.Whendevelopingandusingthediscussionguidesforthe
    74 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    groups,wewereparticularlycarefultoavoidintroducinganytermscarryingparticularmoralor
    politicalconnotationsforadults,unlesstheparticipantsthemselveshadusedthislanguage.For
    example,wespecificallyavoidedusingthelanguageof‘risk’or‘cyberbullying’unlessparticipants
    introducedthetermsthemselves.Wheretheydid,wewerecarefultoexploreanddrawoutwhatthey
    meantbytheseterms.
    Wedo,however,recognisethatthereisaninherentandinevitablecontradictioninourattemptnotto
    imposeparticularframeworksonthediscussions,giventhatmanyofourinitialresearchquestions
    (suchasthoserelatingtoattitudestorisk)weredeterminedby‘adult’-drivenpolicyconcerns.
    75 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Appendix2:Groupprofiles
    Thisappendixsetsouttheprofilesofthevariousgroupsofparticipants,listedbylocation.
    LondonBoroughofSouthwark(years8-9/ages12–14)
    Thereweresixmalesandsixfemalesinthisgroup.Allsocio-economicgroupswererepresented,split
    between50percentABC1and50percentC2DE.(Forabreakdownofthesegroupings,see
    Appendix3.)Thegroupwasalsorecruitedtoberoughlyrepresentativeoftheethnicmake-upofthe
    borough,so50percentofparticipantsinthisgroupwerefromminorityethnicbackgrounds.
    LondonBoroughofCamden(years10-11/ages14–16)
    Thereweresixmalesandsixfemalesinthisgroup,andallsocio-economicgroupswererepresented
    apartfromSEGA.WehadanticipatedthatitmightbeproblematictorecruitparticipantsfromSEGA
    inthisborough,soweensuredthatthegroupwasbalancedbetween50percentofparticipantsfrom
    ABC1and50percentofparticipantsC2DEinthegroup.Theethnicmake-upofthegroupwas
    roughlyrepresentativeoftheborough,so50percentofparticipantswerefromminorityethnic
    backgrounds.
    Participantsinthissessionappearedtohavebeenrecruitedinfriendshipgroupsratherthanin
    friendshippairs.Thefactthatanumberofparticipantsseemedtoknoweachothermaywellhave
    influencedthenatureandcontentofthelargegroupdiscussions,althoughitisdifficulttojudgethe
    extentoftheeffect.
    Twickenham,GreaterLondon(years12-13/ages16–18)
    Thereweresixmalesandsixfemalesinthisgroup.Allsocio-economicgroupswererepresented,split
    between50percentABC1and50percentC2DE.Thegroupwasalsorecruitedtoberoughly
    representativeoftheethnicmake-upofthetown,so25percentofparticipantsinthisgroupwere
    fromminorityethnicbackgrounds.
    76 ippr|BehindtheScreen:Thehiddenlifeofyouthonline

    Appendix3:Socialclasses
    Socialgrade Socialstatus Occupation
    A Uppermiddleclass Highermanagerial,administrativeorprofessional
    B Middleclass Intermediatemanagerial,administrativeorprofessional
    C1 Lowermiddleclass Supervisoryorclerical,juniormanagerial,administrativeor
    professional
    C2 Skilledworkingclass Skilledmanualworkers
    D Workingclass Semiandunskilledmanualworkers
    E Thoseatlowestlevelofsubsistence Statepensionersorwidows(nootherearner),casualor
    lowest-gradeworkers

    You might also like