Skip to content

Why not a gazillion ‘likes’?: Getting wise to gamification in social media (& life)

16-May-13

Likes in Facebook and Instagram, +1′s in Google+, (potentially) “HISCORE(s)” in Snapchat are fun to get (though there isn’t much evidence having a HISCORE is a big deal for Snapchat users yet). They’re a great example of gamification, a word that’s increasingly heard in pop culture as much as education. There’s nothing wrong with liking likes and other gamification forms (more on this in minute). What isn’t great is when they become an obsession or a much bigger reason for “playing” in a social app or social site than your friends. Why? Well, in effect, you’re letting the app or whatever play you.

Sameer Hinduja

A Sameer “selfie” in Instagram (reminds me–I need to follow him!)

This is just one way parents can help kids make sure they’re in control of their technology use and not the other way around. “I know you want to gain more and more followers … but amassing more and more followers is a never-ending pursuit,” blogs my friend Sameer Hinduja, professor, researcher and co-founder of the Cyberbullying Research Center, who blogs about a lot of things besides cyberbullying (this post isn’t about that). “First you were so happy when you got a few likes to a picture you uploaded. Then you weren’t happy until you got double-digit likes. Now you want triple-digit likes. And multiple comments. And it kind of bums you out when it doesn’t happen. This is madness, and there is no end to this. It’s never going to be enough, and you are going to waste so much of your life this way.”

Good likes, superficial likes, creepy likes

Why is it such a waste? For one thing, Sameer adds, “people just quickly scroll through hundreds of pictures when they check their phone in moments of boredom (because they are, like you, often following hundreds of people), and just touch each one to like them. Liking a photo on Instagram is a quick, relatively thoughtless piece of interaction that often doesn’t mean much at all.” Of course it also depends on who does the liking, but usually it only marginally suggests actual interest in the photos and – if a young person’s putting a lot of “selfies” (self-portraits) on display – it could lead to the wrong kind of interest, at least as far as parents are concerned. But does the kid himself or herself really want to attract creepy interest? That might be something to stop and think out loud about together. Everybody likes a little attention sometimes, but not the kind that focuses purely on appearance, right? If the answer is yes, there are other things to talk about – see this. If the answer is, “that photo (or comment) isn’t about that, Dad/Mom,” then ask for the context, find out more, because there usually is context people outside the peer group don’t understand. [This kind of reflective communication about an activity is called experiential learning and practices the mindfulness that is protective in social settings online and offline.]

“Please do not get caught up in [leveling up with likes]. It seriously makes me sad when I see so many teens who do,” Sameer writes. “Your identity cannot be wrapped up in the number of times you are noticed, liked or validated in Instagram” or any social media service.

Gamification vs. what’s really rewarding

Ok, so here’s where “gamification” comes in (going a little deeper if parents and educators are interested): What Sameer is saying, basically, is that likes can’t ultimately satisfy us because they create the desire for MORE. They’re about addiction not satisfaction, being controlled not in control (as in games controlling players, not the other way around). This gets to the question people have about whether we or our technologies are in the driver’s seat. Likes, scores, +1′s, badges, etc. are external rewards. Syracuse University media professor Scott Nicholson, who’s been studying motivation and media, makes an important distinction between external (the academic term is “extrinsic”) rewards, the rewards of gamification, and the internal or intrinsic rewards of what he calls “meaningful gamification.” Meaningful is what ultimately satisfies and motivates (meaningful engagement is also a safety factor, as are agency and community – see the last bullet in Related links). Young people, parents, educators, and media companies need to be talking and thinking together more about intrinsic rewards – what constitutes meaningful participation.

Meaningful gamification, Nicholson says, is about agency or autonomy, mastery, and purpose (the words Daniel Pink uses too, in his best-selling book Drive; other words people use are “choice,” “relevance” and “meaningfulness”*). Parents can ask their kids (and themselves): Isn’t THAT what we really want – e.g., meaningful connections, real friendship more than likes, to be appreciated for who we are at least as much as what we look like? An intrinsic reward is very individual, but Pink describes it generally as something that delivers on “the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.”

We see kids working toward that kind of reward all the time – working for causes they care about deeply. They seek it out in games too, sometimes because it’s easier to find “epic meaning,” as game designer Jane McGonigal, PhD, puts it, in game worlds than in classrooms and everyday life. What if it were easier to seek and pursue epic meaning in everyday life? How can parents, educators and media companies help with that? [I think social media, with its allowance of progressive engagement – hanging out, messing around, and geeking out – are making it possible for young people to explore for greater meaning in their lives (see the book of that title from MIT Press).]

Make way for agency, mastery, purpose

Certainly meaning doesn’t always have to be epic. There’s meaningfulness and learning in play, and playfulness is vital too, especially in digital media, which we learn as we go, by messing around with it. It’s just important not to be played – by people, media, or technology – regardless of our age, and for adults not to view youth merely as people who can be played, as potential victims or “game addicts.” Parents, kids, schools, social media companies can think together about how to focus at least as much on what supports autonomy or agency in youth (what empowers them as much as protects them) in programs that are relevant and meaningful to them – rather than just gamifying their lives, education, and digital media use. There’s something inherently disrespectful and unmotivating about believing or sending the message that the only way they’ll engage is if we gamify the experience. If we want kids to have control over their tech and media, we have to start giving them that control – treat them as active agents for their own good and that of their friends, families, communities (online and offline), talk with them about how that happens in their lives, and give them opportunities to define and pursue what’s meaningful to them.

Related links

  • *A word about 21st-century learning (and preparing our kids for life): Daniel Pink says that, “for 21st century work, we need to upgrade to autonomy, mastery and purpose.” I say that’s the main upgrade education needs too – not gamification per se, or flipped classrooms, or any other single “solution,” but agency, competence and meaning/relevance/purpose for students. THIS is what prepares them for learning and working creatively in a rapidly changing environment. This is 21st-century learning.
  • About ed tech: Of course none of the above is to say there shouldn’t be digital games or even extrinsic rewards in school! (Heck, grades are basically extrinsic rewards, though they’ve come to have a lot of meaning for some people.) It’s not either/or. It’s possible there’s an extrinsic-to-intrinsic spectrum, and what’s meaningful for some isn’t for others. And having digital games and environments in school can greatly increase student engagement and learning – we just all need to think about where digital learning tools and games like these fall in the intrinsic-to-extrinsic spectrum (in each context: in your classroom, our family, our school, at this point in time). Meaningful is individual, situational, and contextual.
  • On obsessing about likes, some more perspective
  • Nicholson in long form: The link I gave you above to a video by Prof. Scott Nicholson at Syracuse University is a little 9-min. introduction to the ideas. Here‘s a longer-form version (90 min.)
  • “Challenging the idea that games can’t be fun AND meaningful”
  • Example of meaningful gaming in school (to the students, their teacher, their parents and the school): “Mining Minecraft”: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, guest posts from teacher Marianne Malmstrom in New Jersey
  • On Meaningful gamification and Internet safety
Share
Filed in Parenting, Social Media, social media literacy, social media research, tech parenting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (2) »

TMI for parents in social media – for now, anyway

15-May-13

A lot of unusually thoughtful points about parenting in our collective, global social media environment are made in this recent New York Times article: “Cyberparenting and the Risk of T.M.I.” Pamela Paul writes that, for this generation of teens, it’s not Big Brother so much as Big Mother and/or Big Father. “Yes, we know contemporary parents are hyperinvolved in their children’s lives,” she reports (though I’m not sure that’s common knowledge yet), “but the term ‘helicopter parent,’ with its menacing tones of parental omniscience, has nothing on the intimate reach of the cyberparent. A helicopter hovers above, at a safe distance, with lots of insulating air between. Cyberparents, on the other hand, are squished right up next to their offspring.”

And the squished-ness feeling is mutual, she points out, in a lot of ways. It isn’t just the embarrassing comments of parents when they forget children’s whole peer groups can see them, including peers who could use the embarrassing comments against their kids. The article’s even more about the TMI feeling parents get too – not just about their children’s peers, those sweet little kids they knew 10 years ago but also just typical teenage stuff that we never wanted our parents to see all the time when we were teens – stuff that’s completely normative as well as stuff that tempts parents over and over again to intervene, when there really are some things our children need to work out themselves so they can build resilience. It’s a delicate balance we’re being asked to strike, and it’s not easy to be on a tightrope all the time.

So when is too much information really a problem, you might ask? Well…

  • When we find ourselves increasingly stressed out by what we see in this big “bay window” on our children’s lives
  • When we let it suggest to us that problems are worse than they really are and we overreact (e.g., when we believe news reports that there’s a cyberbullying epidemic and there isn’t by any stretch of the imagination)
  • When we let it suggest that young people, especially our own children, are worse than they really are (see the awful cover of Time’s May 20 issue – awful except for the last line “Why they’ll save us all,” which is probably much more predictive than the rest of it)
  • When the tsunami of information decreases our respect and increases our fears for our children – and it’s the respect that encourages them more than anything to be the human beings they want to be.

Having said all that, the article might actually be TMI about TMI, since this is only the Facebook-on-the-Web phase – one that’s ending. We’re now moving to the mobile phase in which we’ll increasingly feel we don’t know enough (maybe this is some sort of cosmic correction for parental TMI!), where the good news is, we’ll have to keep the lines of face-to-face communication with our children wide-open.

Related links

Share
Filed in Filtering, monitoring, etc., monitoring software, parental controls, Parenting, tech parenting | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (0) »

‘Noodz,’ ‘selfies,’ ‘sexts,’ etc., Part 3: Bias in the news coverage

11-May-13

Sexting is the latest subject of “intersecting panics about technology, youth, sexuality, raunch culture and celebrity,” Australian author and research Nina Funnell wrote me after I heard her speak in Sydney in March. “While these panics all pre-existed the phenomenon of sexting, they have found new life and form” with it.

Along with her qualitative research on sexting among 16-to-25-year-olds, Nina looked at news reporting on the subject. She analyzed coverage in 738 newspaper articles in the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US published during 2009. Here are some of her findings, which she presented in a talk I heard her give in Sydney this past March:

  • Heterosexual bias: “Not one mentioned homosexual sexting. This is despite the fact that taking and sharing nude images is an established courtship practice within many parts of the gay community and that apps such as Grindr have popularized the practice considerably.
  • Gender bias: “Not one specifically mentioned teen boys “‘ruining their reputations,’ although this was a commonly stated concern for girls. Numerous studies show that teen boys are producing images at almost the same rate as teen girls. While it is true that girls’ images get down-streamed (forwarded on) more often than those of boys, the rate of production of boys images is by no means trivial.”
  • Racial bias: “Virtually all the photos associated with these stories featured white teenagers: particularly, slender, white, attractive teen girls.” If you only saw the newspaper photos, Nina said, “you would be forgiven for thinking that sexting was exclusively a “hot white girl phenomenon. This of course is not the case.” As a University of Texas study of sexting among Latino and African American 10-graders found that 20% of black and Hispanic teens have sent a sext and 30% have received one <http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=sexting-habits-of-teens-13-03-07>.
  • “Purity vs. prospects”: The coverage indicated that concerns about sexting “tend to break down along clear gender lines. For girls, the main concerns were that sexting could lead to shame, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of reputation, bullying and regret. For boys, the fears tended to revolve around the belief that sexting could lead to prosecution or sex-offender registration and that this in turn could affect future prospects (particularly in terms of college admission and employment).”

The coverage pointed to a “problematic double standard” whereby “the risks for girls are discussed in relation to privacy and a female’s moral reputation, while the risks around boys are framed in terms of a boy’s legal standing as a public citizen.” Nina added that the sexting coverage reflected an odd blend of “paternalistic concern” for and “prurient interest” in the particular demographic of teenagers featured in photos and cases covered.

All in all, what her analysis indicated to her is that “the panic around sexting is highly scripted and conforms to a predictable narrative where girls are reduced to victims or sluts, boys are assumed to be aggressors, and same sex couples get ignored all together,” she wrote. That resonates with findings in the last decade by researchers Justine Cassell and Meg Kramer, then at Northwestern University, and reported in “High Tech or High Risk: Moral Panics about Girls Online.” In it Cassell and Kramer write, “The myth of girls’ vulnerability online has unfortunate consequences, because it may result in positioning girls as disempowered with respect to technology.” And I would add: disempowered in general. And if girls are simplistically represented as potential victims, what message does that send about boys?

These are the kinds of questions that fuel good media literacy discussions at home and school – discussions that would serve both boys and girls well if they analyze news coverage for assumptions and biases about both sexes, as well as young people in general.

This is the last post of a three-part series on youth sexting. Here are Part 1 on the motivation spectrum and Part 2 on recommendations for sound education around sexual health and ethics.

Share
Filed in Risk, Risk & Safety, sexting | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0) »

‘Noodz,’ ‘selfies,’ ‘sexts,’ etc., Part 2: For better youth education

09-May-13

Social norms – the expectations and cues that govern behavior in a group or a society – are protective. There hasn’t been much reference to them in the Internet safety field, but they’re a pillar of individual and collective wellbeing wherever there is community. You may’ve noticed that, at the end of Part 1 of this series, I quoted Sydney-based researcher and author Nina Funnell where she touched on the social norms young people are developing around sexting – an important safeguard against the violation of trust involved in forwarding someone’s photos without their consent.

Young people she interviewed told her they’d never do such a thing. One invoked the Golden Rule as a reason why she’d never do such a thing, another pointed out the “exploitation” or “cheating” that nonconsensual forwarding would represent. A high school student I spoke with recently said, “Nice kids would never do that.” There is growing evidence that young people already have in place preventive or protective social around digital photography of all kinds, including sexually related imagery.

Advanced moral reasoning among sexters

Going through her interview results, Nina thought of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development because most of the answers from the “non-forwarding group” in her sample “fit somewhere between stages 3-6,” she told me. “No one [emphasis hers] mentioned anything that would actually fit into stage 1 or 2.” A Stage 1 or 2 answer would be the response that virtually all anti-sexting education has been aimed at to date: something like “I don’t want to get prosecuted/charged with child porn offenses” or “She’d never send me another nude again” – responses that are only about consequences for oneself, not the other person(s). Nina’s point, she wrote me, “is to illustrate that the ‘non-forwarders’ are actually highly capable of advanced moral reasoning. We shouldn’t assume that young people are not capable of this and can only be engaged in education around the laws.”

That should be underscored: We shouldn’t assume that young people aren’t capable of caring about the consequences of their actions for their peers. Or at least we shouldn’t build educational campaigns based on such an assumption. What kind of message would such an educational campaign send to young people?

Risky sexting correlates with other risk factors

“I think,” Nina continued, “young people are actually doing a pretty good job most of the time of developing and negotiating what those values are. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule but, very often, when you find that an individual is out to humiliate or hurt others, there are all sorts of other things (and risk factors) going on in that young person’s life.”

Which raises two questions for educators to consider: 1) If there are other risk factors in a person’s life, how effective would education be if aimed strictly at a behavior that is likely more symptomatic than the root problem? 2) How effective is it to develop education that fails to acknowledge the intelligence or wisdom demonstrated by most of the intended recipients of that education?

Sexting as individual as sex

So here are Nina’s own take-aways about young people who engage in sexting from interviews she has conducted so far: They have a wide range of views, values and experiences around sexting; probably parallel to sexuality in general, “their reasons for sexting are highly diverse and individual”; they “have very different views of consensual vs. non-consensual sexting”; and “they are eager, able and willing to discuss the issue provided it is done in a safe, respectful space.”

Respect is key. One of the problems that has hampered digital-risk-prevention education to date is that adults “do not recognize or celebrate the competencies young people bring to these discussions,” Nina wrote. I wholeheartedly agree.

For effective education

Her recommendations on how to talk with young people about “nudes” or “selfies” is that the conversations be…

  • “Pro-active (not reactive)
  • “Evidenced-based
  • “Ongoing, not one-offs (like a single school assembly or class)
  • “Gender-inclusive (not heteronormative)
  • “Free from demonizing technology or young people
  • “Build on young people’s strengths and ethical decisionmaking ability
  • “Developed in consultation with young people”

This is the 2nd part of a series about Nina Funnell’s work. Part 1 is here. Next: Biases in news media coverage of sexting (which distract from the development of sound, evidence-based education around sexual health and ethics)

Related links

For more on ethics in digital media see “Meeting of Minds: Cross-Generational Dialogue on the Ethics of Digital Life” and “Morality and ethics behind the screen: Young people’s perspectives on digital life.”

Share
Filed in Risk, Risk & Safety, sexting | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0) »

‘Noodz,’ ‘selfies,’ ‘sexts,’ etc., Part 1: A spectrum of motivations

07-May-13

Despite what we see in news headlines, there is no single term that people who share nude photos use, according to Australian researcher and author Nina Funnell, who has interviewed some 4 dozen 16-to-25-year-olds about it. Especially not “sexting,” she said in a talk I got to hear in Sydney this spring (their fall). Using the term tends to alienate young people, she said. And there are many more motivations for “sexting,” as adults have come to call it, than there are terms for it. More on that in a moment – first a bit of background….

Until 2011, when Janis Wolak and David Finkelhor at the University of New Hampshire published the first typology of sexting, it was seen and treated as a single undifferentiated and mainly illegal practice. Wolak and Finkelhor significantly advanced understanding of the practice when they created two categories of “youth‐produced sexual images” – “Aggravated” and “Experimental” – based on their review of “550 cases obtained from a national survey of law enforcement agencies” (for more, see this post). The cases all involved “images of minors created by minors that could qualify as child pornography under applicable criminal statutes.”

This was a major step forward because 1) it opened up thought to the idea that sexting isn’t just deviant or criminal behavior and 2) it opened up “experimental” or consensual sexting as an important new area of study. Still, it’s helpful to note that Wolak and Finkelhor’s study was of sexting cases that involved law enforcement, which both makes it all the more significant that the “experimental” category emerged and makes it all the more important to understand that category better (and possibly rename it) by studying it outside the context of criminal law.

Out of the crime context

I’d say the next step in our collective understanding of sexting was psychology professor Elizabeth Englander’s finding that much of the harmful kind of sexting is coercive, and “any discussion of coercive sexting should be made in the context of sexual harassment,” she reported in a study she published last year (see this) – so we need to educate young people about what sexual harassment is in the digital age so they can protect themselves better not just from prosecution or a betrayal of trust but also from sexual harassment and manipulation.

But it’s equally important for parents and educators to understand that not all sexting is harmful – or even experimental. More and more, it’s also just the latest way people of all ages use imagery in consensual sexual activity. So we need to understand sexting better in the context of sexual health and adolescent development, including healthy risk-taking (see this from Lynn Ponton, MD).

Sexual health & healthy risk-taking

So now the vital next phase: Nina is one of the researchers doing the important work of filling in the picture on the “experimental” side (though she found the word to be problematic) through interviews with people who engage in it. She’s talking with teens and adults mostly ages 16-25, but some older (“into their 60s”), she said, “both male and female, and a mix of heterosexual, bisexual and same-sex-attracted.” This qualitative research will go into a book she’s working on.

What she has found is that sexting involves a broad spectrum of motivations. “Based on my interviews with young people, I’ve found that the range of motives around sexting is as complex and multifaceted as you would expect to find in relation to any other sexual activity,” Nina wrote me in an email after her talk, and not all the motivations are sexual, she added.

The motivation spectrum

Among the motivations she’s heard from interviewees are: “pushing boundaries” (in games like “Truth or Dare” [see Related links below]); “group identity bonding (sharing images in a group as a ‘trust game’ in order to develop a sense of group solidarity)”; “testing out one’s desirability or sexual power with either a stranger or a prospective partner”; flirting, foreplay (turned up by Pew Internet in 2009 – see this), or a purely digital sexual activity in its own right [in person or online]; a way for partners in a long-distance relationship to stay connected; safety for LGBT partners who haven’t yet come out; and safety for cultural or religious reasons (when physical contact is not allowed before marriage).

“We shouldn’t ever make assumptions about why a young person might engage in a particular behavior, because their reasons are highly diverse and individual,” Nina wrote. They can also be highly localized.

Why better understanding helps

“In a particular school, you might get one particular group of 8-10 boys who all share nude images of girls without consent as a way of ‘bonding’ [what Wolak and Finkelhor would probably call "aggravated sexting"] and, while that is accepted within their micro group, meanwhile the rest of the students [in their class] are dead opposed to it.” [She's talking about the overall protective social norms of the larger community (which deserve acknowledgment and support from adults) around an anti-social group dynamic).]

“That sort of thing to me demonstrates how values and ‘unwritten rules’ are negotiated at a very, very localized level,” Nina added, pointing to the challenge of educators: that “top-down approaches would be unlikely to generate much behavioral change for those 8-10 individuals.” By “top-down approaches,” she’s referring to general anti-sexting campaigns and directives from authorities. “The spectrum of motivations must be better understood before we can develop meaningful educational resources,” she wrote.

The vast majority of teens already have plenty of positive social norms in place – norms they’ve been exposed to all their lives, starting in their families and practiced at school, online, wherever they interact. The adults in their lives will be much better-equipped to guide them if we understand that practices such as sexting aren’t single undifferentiated new “threats” but rather spectrums of tech-related behaviors just as affected by social norms as social experiences that have nothing to do with technology. And we’ll also be much better able to guide them – and to enlist their help when problems arise – if we acknowledge and support the intelligent norms and values they are already practicing.

A little more on the researcher I feature in this post: Nina Funnell was awarded the Australian Human Rights Commission award in 2010 and was a finalist for Young Australian of The Year for her work in sexual violence prevention. She contributed to the book Big Porn Inc: Exposing the Harms of the Global Pornography Industry and is currently working on a book about sexting.

Next: Some thoughts for better youth education on sexting

Related links

Share
Filed in Risk, Risk & Safety, sexting | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0) »

Kids, Instagram & its new feature ‘Photos of You’

03-May-13

Instagram is nothing if not creative – the app itself and its users. When I’m in it watching how the kids who encouraged me to follow them use it, I can’t help but smile. They are creative in/with all parts of the experience – the photos, the filters for messing around with photography, the emoticons, the hashtags, and the writing of captions and comments – but in a fun, light way.

It’s not all sweetness and light, certainly. Different users have different uses, depending on them, the situation, and the time of day. What I try to get across in talks is that how people use social media is…

  • Individual (like the way we live our lives and relate to others, based on who we are)
  • Situational (the time factor, based on the situation in the moment[s] of use)
  • Contextual (the social and environmental conditions around us and the people with whom we’re interacting)

…but Instagram has opened my eyes to how fun and artful social media can be (social media that weren’t specifically designed as games, anyway).

More conversation than story

Ok, so why am I talking about the fun and creativity? Because, in keeping with the nature of the app, Instagram is handling this new feature announcement in a creative way. It’s all about story, the company says in its blog about “Photos of You” – Instagram is about “bringing the stories behind your photos to life. Your captions and hashtags capture the ‘what?’,” your Photo Map the “where?” and now tagging (which Instagram just calls “adding” someone) the “who?”

I think that makes sense, and it’s a creative product developer’s narrative but, from watching kids in Instagram, I don’t actually think it’s the whole story, if you will. Because for young people, there aren’t just stories behind photos, as in photography as a way of documenting something. Sure, it does that, but for teens the photos are also parts of conversations. They’re not just documenting a relationship or the process of growing up, for example; they’re more a part of those things, part of the process, than ever before – part of relationship creation, artistic creation, self-creation, narrative creation, etc. They’re also part of a mix-media mashup of expression sometimes.

What “Photos of You” is

So about the “Photos of You” feature. It’s tagging (like on Facebook, which owns Instagram), and it’s also a new section of one’s Instagram profile that just has, well, photos of you, posted by you or others. So it’s also a convenient way to see how one is represented on Instagram – unless someone with a private profile posts a photo of you and you’re not following that person. But, as on Twitter, private profiles are rare among young Instagram users because it’s also kind of a game to see how many followers one can amass and how many likes one’s photos can get (where that lightness comes in). Some parents insist on their kids keeping their accounts private as a kind of trial or first phase. That’s not a bad idea, but it could also defeat the whole purpose of Instagram for some peer groups and create conditions for the digital version of social marginalization, so it’s good to really listen to our kids about why and how they and their friends use digital social tools.

Some good privacy features that come with “Photos of You” are: you can untag yourself, you can hide photos of you from your profile, and you can approve photos of you before they appear in your profile by choosing “Add manually” after tapping on the little gear icon (Instagram users will show you how). For much more on how it all works, see my ConnectSafely co-director Larry Magid’s description at Forbes.com.

4th- and 5th-graders in Instagram

As for the “why” of telling you all this, well, Instagram is so fun that it’s aging down. But don’t take it from me. Take if from my friend Trudy Ludwig the award-winning children’s author who talks to a lot of kids in a lot of schools. She told some colleagues in an email, “It’s amazing, really, how many elementary school kids are using Instagram. When I ask 3rd-to-5th graders how many use it, there is literally a collective and loud ‘Oh yeah!!!’ from the audience, with at least 50% of the hands instantly shooting up when I ask this” – more 4th and 5th graders than 3rd-graders, she later told me on the phone. “And while they’re raising their hands in the air,” she added, “they’re chatting out loud with one another about how much they love the app. You should see the looks on the teachers’ faces when they see the kids’ responses to this question.”

It’s good for parents and educators of kids under 13 to know about kids’ favorite social and creative tools. Instagram was not designed for and officially does not allow people under 13, but there’s nothing inherently inappropriate about the app for children. It’s just that not all kids (or adults, for that matter) are developmentally ready to use the app in a consistently fun, creative, and civil way that’s appropriate for them and their peers. Whether your kids are is up to you and them, but have a little fun as you figure it out together!

Related links

Share
Filed in apps, cell phones, cellphones, Digital Tech, kid tech, Kids, Mobile, smart phones, Social Media, Youth | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0) »

Ask.fm: Correction from UK hotline

02-May-13

Last week I focused on the widely reported story about the Q&A-format social site Ask.fm in a post about the whack-a-mole tendency that surfaces whenever social cruelty shows up in Web sites young people use. My position on that hasn’t changed, but I do want to publish this correction about one point: In that post, I quoted a statement by a reporter at the UK-based Daily Mail that turns out to be inaccurate. The reporter wrote that “there is no way to report offensive comments” at Ask.fm. Laura Higgins, manager of the UK’s Safer Internet Helpline thoughtfully emailed me about the Helpline’s experience with Ask.fm (I doubt there’s a more credible source on this subject):

“I have been liaising with child protection practitioners in the UK to raise awareness of this issue, unfortunately the media have been spreading serious mistruths about the site, which is really unhelpful!! You CAN report abuse on the site, and you can also turn off the anonymous element. I have a direct contact with Mark Terebin and his team, and despite dozens of calls from concerned parents, I have not seen one example of the moderators not responding appropriately. They also work proactively with the cyber-crime department in Latvia who have no concerns about their handling of abuse. I am not in any way endorsing the site, it is a total breeding ground for hate speak, bullying and highly sexualized content … but I think it is really important that we are spreading the positive safety messages rather than the negative media version.” I agree with Laura and thank her for reaching out.

Share
Filed in Social Media | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (0) »

Stickers, emoji & other social-media conversation add-ons

01-May-13

You may’ve noticed this too: Online and on-phone conversations have gotten very mixed-media – very artful, in a sense. Have you noticed that our children are among the most creative mixed-media conversationalists now? It’s delightful to see the fun they have with this. Take stickers, for example. Because they’re now part of Version 3 of the Path app, as I mentioned in my last post, and Path’s popularity is growing fast, stickers – little pictograph-like images the size of a character of text – may be a phenomenon to watch in the youth-tech space.

But not everybody’s sure they’ll take off in the West. These little images that come out of the emoticon “tradition” are even more complex and diverse than the “emoji” so popular in Japan going back to the ’90s – which may make them too much work for the average text message or comment in a photo-sharing app. “Even though I’m in the target audience for these sticker apps – always looking for new ways to spice up my text messages – I have found some of the stickers a bit too gimmicky,” writes the New York Times’s Jenna Wortham, “at least when compared with their less fussy, emoji predecessors. I found it hard to imagine the images gaining conversational traction among my friends, which is half the fun of using visual icons in the first place.” But Jenna proves the point that conversations – whether in texts or messenger or media-sharing apps – have gotten more visual. Communicators are expressing themselves in a multitude of visual ways: with clever ways of using text (such as hashtags in Instagram comments as much as Twitter tweets) and with pictures-worth-a-thousand-word ways, whether in personal statements through photos (singly or in montages) or by grabbing a tiny graphic to make a point (sometimes a little heart).

Social media users are hackers, in a way (the cool, creative kind). Give them a media tool or feature, and they’ll make it their own in a myriad ways. It happens with entire apps as well as with features in them – they add favorite tweaks and tools and adapt features in them, and they also use different apps for different purposes and different friends and social circles. Socializing on the mobile platform (where most digital socializing is for teens now, it seems) is very creative. [For more on emoji, see Jenna Wortham's December 2011 piece on them.]

Share
Filed in apps, cellphones, Digital Tech, Mobile, mobile socializing, Social Media | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (0) »

App ambition: Fun media-sharing for small social circles, planet-wide

30-Apr-13

Path, the mixed-media app for more intimate phone-based social networking, really illustrates how very borderless but cultural social media is. Growing by about 1 million users a month and now one of the Top 20 apps for Android phones, according to the Wall Street Journal, this app that limits your social network to 150 friends started growing fast in Asia first, its CEO David Morin told the Journal: “Japan, Korea, China, even Indonesia.” That was the first couple of years, Morin said. Now on its version 3, with the addition of messaging and stickers, Path seems to be taking off in the US, starting with our Spanish speakers. It got its start in this hemisphere in Venezuela, “where Path added around 500,000 users in a weekend, and then spread up through Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean,” especially the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.

Path says it’s aimed at making the sharing of media – text, tunes, photos, stickers, videos – less public and therefore lighter, more meaningful (because among a tight group of family and friends). Morin told the Journal that, when he left Facebook, he saw that as an untapped opportunity in socializing on the mobile platform. He said Path allows people to “goof around” more with media. “You have a lot of fun with your friends,” he told the Journal. “We wanted to make messaging really fun.” That sounds a little like the sense of emotional safety that teens feel they have with perishable photo-sharing (see this) – a relief from all the self-presentation of “traditional,” it’s-there-forever social media on the Web. Maybe Path falls somewhere in the middle between Snapchat and Facebook. That it’s growing fast in many languages and cultures suggests two things: that spare and focused means versatile (and universally appealing) and that there is indeed a niche for more private, mobile social media-sharing LITE.

Related links

Share
Filed in apps, Digital Tech, Mobile, Social Media | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (0) »

‘Healthy divas & divos’ good for social media culture too

30-Apr-13

They’re “healthy divas,” not drama queens, people. Two very different things, the Wall Street Journal points out. The distinction and the reported emergence of this positive kind of diva in media culture might be a positive for kids who, when they have time for entertainment, lean toward the celebrity-watch variety – not to mention for online and school communities.

“Divas (and their male counterparts, divos) are everywhere today: at work, in social groups, in public spaces,” the Journal reports, and the list should include school and social media. Drama queens and “unhealthy divas” are narcissistic, high-visibility, and high-maintenance, “and the source of their narcissism usually is low self-esteem,” the Journal reports. “They are constantly trying to pump themselves up” and generate drama because its gives them a sense of power or recognition to be the source or center of the drama. Good for our kids to know, right? They probably already do, but it wouldn’t hurt for parents and kids to talk about it in the context of digital media and technology and help turn things around with a little social literacy.

As for healthy divas, they share the limelight and their gratitude and stand up for others, Journal reporter Elizabeth Bernstein says in this video conversation. They may get more attention than the average person, but it’s based on substance and merit. They’re “bringing a lot to the table” – talented, yes, and probably because they’ve worked hard (I’m remembering Malcolm Gladwell’s account of all the people who we thought “came out of nowhere” but who, before the spotlight lit them up, put in the 10,000 hours of hard work that mastery requires).

Pulling them all together, here are the characteristics of healthy divas and divos, according to the Journal:

  • Stands up for others
  • Has “charismatic intelligence” (not “Machiavellian intelligence”)
  • Shares the limelight (and their gratitude)
  • Is spirited, fun and positive

Look at that first one. Does that sound like an “upstander” – the bystander who makes all the difference by standing up for targets of social aggression? This is where “healthy divas and divos” can make a huge difference, by co-creating a culture of respect online and at school.

So here’s what I’d add to this subject besides the school and social media parts: Few people are or can be full-time divas like Beyoncé (who probably herself appreciates occasional breaks from it). But lots of people can be divas at times. Being a divo can be situational – really shining in a particular class or club, at an event or on a team or special project. Those, too, are opportunities for standing up for others, sharing attention, using charisma to get things done or promote a cause that benefits many people. Sometimes the charisma comes later, after we’ve done a little acting and strung together a few leadership situations, gotten a little practice. We can help our kids see that they can take the right kind of advantage of opportunities and situations online and offline – be “healthy divas and divos” at school, and co-create positive norms in social-media communities.

Share
Filed in Parenting, Social Media, social media literacy, tech parenting | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (0) »