Myths Workshop Discussion Paper - Your comments needed
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Tim Davies
Sep 8, 2011, 11:59:23 AM9/8/11
to yc...@googlegroups.com
Hello all
For the upcoming workshop on 'Challenging Myths about young people and the Internet' at the IGF in a few weeks time I need to submit a discussion paper.
I've got to send this in by Monday - and I really need your thoughts to help me improve it.
The draft text is based on below. Does this strike the right tone? Is it too confrontational? Or not strong engouh?
Send me comments, or you will find a copy you can edit direct in this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18qUqUWfx0XVO5AViOIDtOy0PZ3LZAYY1vjLqCltQe3M/edit?hl=en_GB
All the best
Tim
Discussion Paper
Claims about children and young people (hereafter ‘youth’ or ‘young people’) are central to many Internet Governance discussions. However, many of the claims made about youth and the Internet are based on myth and misperception rather than on reality.
Myths come in a variety of forms. Some are compelling, but mistaken claims: intuitively plausible, but not backed by evidence and research. Others are based on stereotypes or distorted media coverage given to issues: when media outlets focus on sensational and problem issues they frequently leave a very biased impression of the true magnitude of particular issues in the public consciousness. Other myths are willfully propagated by those with particular agendas, seeking to secure support for their cause by making exaggerated claims. Identifying common myths, and ensuring they are critically addressed in Internet governance debates is vital to developing effective policy that balances the mutually reinforcing rights of children and young people: to provision of services, education and opportunities; to freedom to participate and engage in society; and to protection from abuse. It is also important to avoid claims about young people being used to justify restrictions on Internet freedom, or to ground policies that impoverish the Internet for all by excluding the voices of children and young people from the online public sphere.
This workshop will address a number of myths identified by workshop presenters and participants, and this paper does not pre-empt the exact myths to be explored. We can, however, remark on some common myths, and the way they impact the Internet governance debate.
Social media researcher danah boyd has suggested eight key myths based on analysis of US media reports about young people and the Internet:
#1: The digital is separate from the “real” world;
#2: Social media makes kids deceptive;
#3: Social media is addictive;
#4: Kids don’t care about privacy;
#5: The Internet is a dangerous, dangerous place;
#6: There’s nothing educational about social media;
#7: Kids are digital natives; and
#8: The Internet is the great equalizer.
These are all views that have been expressed as ‘true’ in past IGF workshops, and some have even formed the basis for workshops and discussions. When phrases like “social networking addiction” are used uncritically, or the claim is made and accepted in discussions that all time spent by young people on social networks is wasted, ignoring the wealth of educational and career opportunities that many young people (and adults) gain through these spaces, discussions are unable to work towards constructive proposals based on evidence and effective understanding of young people’s online experiences.
A Youth Roundtable discussion at IGF-USA in July 2011 explored boyd’s myths. Their discussions highlighted the importance of challenging these myths, but doing so in a way that is constructive rather than oppositional. They are not claims to be rejected out-of-hand, but proponents of these claims need to be encouraged to engage in closer examination of the subtleties of how young people experience the digital world. For example, the claim that “Kids don’t care about privacy” can lead to projects being designed that assume they need to instruct young people to care about their privacy, and these often focus on finding campaign messages to ‘tell’ young people how to behave online. However, IGF-USA roundtable participants argued that “young people [do] value privacy, but have generally individual views concerning what content is private or deserving of privacy”. Policy responses that start from the assumption that young people do value their privacy are likely to be very different: they need to understand why different generations make different assumptions about what should or shouldn’t be shared publicly, and to identify existing youth privacy practices to build upon.The evidence suggests that instead of saying ‘Kids don’t care about privacy’, we should say ‘Kids care about privacy, but have some different ideas about what that means in practice’.
A number of other myths that members of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance have raised concerns about are claims about the general capacities of young people. As one coalition member outlined:
“...a myth that exists around young people's sexual and reproductive rights and the net is that people assume young people are too young to begin exploring this aspect of their lives. So, they are told to not access sites, or sites are blocked (in some countries there is almost no access to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, questioning, intersex or asexual (LGBTQIA) sites or content; and general access to information on sex and sexuality is frequently restricted), instead of spaces being created where young people can safely discuss elements of sexual and reproductive life. There is an assumption that to "protect" young people you must hide content from them, instead of enabling them to access it in a way that is healthy and leads to their individual growth.”
Claims that the only way to keep young people save online is through restrictions lack a clear evidence base, and frequently mask either ideological views about the place of young people in society, or unbalanced agendas that do not attempt to balance the participation, protection and provision rights of young people.
Young people have also expressed concern about how certain stereotypes about Internet use is certain countries impacts upon young people. For example, the myth that “Most young Nigerians are cybercriminals”. These myths affect specific youth populations, and whilst perhaps less prevalent in distorting IGF discussions, lead to significant negative consequences for the young people affected by them, who might find their access to opportunities limited. This workshop will explore what role IGF stakeholders have in challenging these myths.
We note that myths come from both Internet ‘pessimist’ and Internet ‘optimists’, and some can be propagated by young people themselves. The idea that all young people are digital natives, or that the Internet is a great equalizer, effortlessly cutting across social and economic boundaries, can also lead to bad policy - when the need that many young people have to education and support to make the most of the opportunities the Internet provides ends up being ignored.
A number of the myths this paper briefly explores, and that the workshop will discuss, are intentionally controversial. However, our aim is for the workshop to make a constructive contribution to Internet Governance debates, strengthening shared understanding about the subtleties of young people’s experience of the Internet, and identifying areas where IGF stakeholders could be more active challenging widely held myths in other arenas (e.g. domestic politics, public debate etc.).
--
http://www.timdavies.org.uk
07834 856 303.
@timdavies
Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk
--------------------------
Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958.
Discussion Paper
Claims about children and young people (hereafter ‘youth’ or ‘young people’) are central to many Internet Governance discussions. However, many of the claims made about youth and the Internet are based on myth and misperception rather than on reality.
Myths come in a variety of forms. Some are compelling, but mistaken claims: intuitively plausible, but not backed by evidence and research. Others are based on stereotypes or distorted media coverage given to issues: when media outlets focus on sensational and problem issues they frequently leave a very biased impression of the true magnitude of particular issues in the public consciousness. Other myths are willfully propagated by those with particular agendas, seeking to secure support for their cause by making exaggerated claims. Identifying common myths, and ensuring they are critically addressed in Internet governance debates is vital to developing effective policy that balances the mutually reinforcing rights of children and young people: to provision of services, education and opportunities; to freedom to participate and engage in society; and to protection from abuse. It is also important to avoid claims about young people being used to justify restrictions on Internet freedom, or to ground policies that impoverish the Internet for all by excluding the voices of children and young people from the online public sphere.
This workshop will address a number of myths identified by workshop presenters and participants, and this paper does not pre-empt the exact myths to be explored. We can, however, remark on some common myths, and the way they impact the Internet governance debate.
Social media researcher danah boyd has suggested eight key myths based on analysis of US media reports about young people and the Internet:
#1: The digital is separate from the “real” world;
#2: Social media makes kids deceptive;
#3: Social media is addictive;
#4: Kids don’t care about privacy;
#5: The Internet is a dangerous, dangerous place;
#6: There’s nothing educational about social media;
#7: Kids are digital natives; and
#8: The Internet is the great equalizer.
These are all views that have been expressed as ‘true’ in past IGF workshops, and some have even formed the basis for workshops and discussions. When phrases like “social networking addiction” are used uncritically, or the claim is made and accepted in discussions that all time spent by young people on social networks is wasted, ignoring the wealth of educational and career opportunities that many young people (and adults) gain through these spaces, discussions are unable to work towards constructive proposals based on evidence and effective understanding of young people’s online experiences.
A Youth Roundtable discussion at IGF-USA in July 2011 explored boyd’s myths. Their discussions highlighted the importance of challenging these myths, but doing so in a way that is constructive rather than oppositional. They are not claims to be rejected out-of-hand, but proponents of these claims need to be encouraged to engage in closer examination of the subtleties of how young people experience the digital world. For example, the claim that “Kids don’t care about privacy” can lead to projects being designed that assume they need to instruct young people to care about their privacy, and these often focus on finding campaign messages to ‘tell’ young people how to behave online. However, IGF-USA roundtable participants argued that “young people [do] value privacy, but have generally individual views concerning what content is private or deserving of privacy”. Policy responses that start from the assumption that young people do value their privacy are likely to be very different: they need to understand why different generations make different assumptions about what should or shouldn’t be shared publicly, and to identify existing youth privacy practices to build upon.The evidence suggests that instead of saying ‘Kids don’t care about privacy’, we should say ‘Kids care about privacy, but have some different ideas about what that means in practice’.
A number of other myths that members of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance have raised concerns about are claims about the general capacities of young people. As one coalition member outlined:
“...a myth that exists around young people's sexual and reproductive rights and the net is that people assume young people are too young to begin exploring this aspect of their lives. So, they are told to not access sites, or sites are blocked (in some countries there is almost no access to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, questioning, intersex or asexual (LGBTQIA) sites or content; and general access to information on sex and sexuality is frequently restricted), instead of spaces being created where young people can safely discuss elements of sexual and reproductive life. There is an assumption that to "protect" young people you must hide content from them, instead of enabling them to access it in a way that is healthy and leads to their individual growth.”
Claims that the only way to keep young people save online is through restrictions lack a clear evidence base, and frequently mask either ideological views about the place of young people in society, or unbalanced agendas that do not attempt to balance the participation, protection and provision rights of young people.
Young people have also expressed concern about how certain stereotypes about Internet use is certain countries impacts upon young people. For example, the myth that “Most young Nigerians are cybercriminals”. These myths affect specific youth populations, and whilst perhaps less prevalent in distorting IGF discussions, lead to significant negative consequences for the young people affected by them, who might find their access to opportunities limited. This workshop will explore what role IGF stakeholders have in challenging these myths.
We note that myths come from both Internet ‘pessimist’ and Internet ‘optimists’, and some can be propagated by young people themselves. The idea that all young people are digital natives, or that the Internet is a great equalizer, effortlessly cutting across social and economic boundaries, can also lead to bad policy - when the need that many young people have to education and support to make the most of the opportunities the Internet provides ends up being ignored.
A number of the myths this paper briefly explores, and that the workshop will discuss, are intentionally controversial. However, our aim is for the workshop to make a constructive contribution to Internet Governance debates, strengthening shared understanding about the subtleties of young people’s experience of the Internet, and identifying areas where IGF stakeholders could be more active challenging widely held myths in other arenas (e.g. domestic politics, public debate etc.).
--
http://www.timdavies.org.uk
07834 856 303.
@timdavies
Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk
--------------------------
Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages