-
sponsorship
"Do Social Networks Bring the End of Privacy?" Scientific American asked in September. The answer provided was pretty much "yes." Over at the New York Times,
my friend Tim Lee explains why this question—and the division it
implies, of a privacy-rich pre-social networking past, and a
voyeuristic dystopic present—is hopelessly muddled.
"People are used to dividing the world into broadcast media
(television, newspapers) and point-to-point communication (the
telephone, face-to-face communication)," he explains. Concerned
onlookers tend to put social networking sites in the first category, as
if everyone were sharing their status updates via a major television
network rather than with a vetted group of confidants. Newspapers and
television do not allow you the luxury of selecting your audience,
individual by individual; Facebook does.
In Tim's telling, social networking sites represent the advancement
of Internet-related privacy rather than its demise... (To read the rest of this post, visit our new website DoubleX.com!)
-
sponsorship
The last time I had the misfortune of noticing Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, he was leading an attack on virtual beer pong. Now, in the wake of the (surprisingly well-kempt!) "Craigslist Killer," he has apparently turned his prosecutorial gaze toward Craigslist's "erotic services" section. Tracy Quan, writing in the Daily Beast, thinks Blumenthal is exploiting the public's ignorance about the Internet for a few minutes of airtime:
Craigslist is no more to blame for a homicidal attack on a working woman than is the Marriott hotel where Julissa Brisman was killed, or the BlackBerry her accused killer probably would have used to establish contact with her. Questions arise about whether Markoff's alleged violence is linked to a gambling problem—he was arrested while en route to Foxwoods in Connecticut—but it would be impolitic and irrational to call him "the Foxwoods Killer." Why are we applying a different logic to Craigslist?
The dubbing of Philip Markoff as the "Craigslist Killer" seems as unfair to Craigslist as the term "Swine Flu" is to Iowa pig farmers. Sites like Craigslist may or may not make the practice of sex work more dangerous, but the Internet almost certainly helps law enforcement track violent Johns. Investigators got to Markoff through his IP address, and prosecutors are using Craigslist to try to locate other potential victims. At any rate, Craig himself says the "erotic services" section is staying put, P.R. disaster be damned.
-
sponsorship
An Oxford neuroscientist is suggesting that social networking and the hours kids spend doing it is rewiring their brains so that we are at risk of raising a generation of solipsists. Dr. Susan Greenfield fears this exposure is permanently "infantalizing" young brains, leaving them with truncated attention spans and the inability to interact face-to-face with other human beings. Her conclusions feel instinctively right (as I've found even adult brains can be rewired for such stunting), but then again, isn't this always the cry of the older generation when a new technology comes along? Television, radio, and telephones were all supposed to ruin the generation that grew up glued to these devices. Even the printing press—which allowed people to absorb cultural knowledge privately—was supposed to destroy the group cohesion that was enforced through the oral tradition. Do others feel Greenfield is right? Or is she just the latest adult warning that rock 'n' roll, et. al., is producing degenerate kids?
-
sponsorship
News from the trial of Lori Drew, the mother whose MySpace hoax allegedly led her 13-year-old daughter's friend Megan Meier to commit suicide: Drew was convicted of three misdemeanor charges of accessing computers without authorization but not the more serious charge of conspiracy.
Drew apparently set up the fictional "Josh" profile that became a conduit through which her daughter, a teenage employee, and others sent cruel messages to Megan, including one that said, "The world would be a better place without you." That final message, which apparently directly preceded Megan's suicide, is said to have been typed by Drew's employee Ashley Grills.
I'm not familiar enough with the laws to know whether this trial should have happened in the first place or ended appropriately—though it does seem like a slightly overreaching attempt to wring justice out of a heartbreaking scenario. But Drew is without a doubt guilty of stupendous, mind-boggling stupidity and poor judgment. She was apparently inspired to set up the profile out of a desire to protect her daughter, who had a sometimes-friend, sometimes-enemy relationship with Megan. Though it contradicts the morals of the innumerable trend articles, news segments, and cautionary Law & Order: SVU story lines, maybe it's best to leave the Wild West of social networking to the kids. Obviously, some controls on kids' Internet use are important. But attempting to co-opt their means of communication and socializing without understanding the rules and the potential for abuse can be disastrous. Drew gave her daughter, her daughter's friends, and Grills the means to torture a depressed girl. They could've done it without Drew (I'm sure "Josh" isn't the first fake profile ever set up to toy with targeted girl's emotions), but having a mother involved legitimized behavior that most kids try to hide from the parental units.
I am eternally grateful that the pinnacle of Internet communication was IMing when I was in high school.