Slashdot Mirror

Going further, there's a cause for why more of this flirting is happening remotely instead of in-person: helicopter parents. Teens spend a lot less time in the physical presence of their friends than they did a few decades ago.

This and other interesting analysis of how young people use social media can be found in danah boyd's It's Complicated (free ebook at that link).

I mostly agree with you, but since you went off on a jeremiad about how young people don't value privacy, I recommend reading danah boyd's It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (available free online at that link). The short version is that young people do value privacy, just they, like most adults, don't comprehend the privacy concerns of social media and therefore make poor choices.

Her name is danah boyd (or danah michele boyd if you want to be completist). It seems ironic that an article on "real" names doesn't use danah's real name.

Ian

I highly recommend this link on why transparency is not enough.

That reminds me of this rather interesting document: basically, the US Army decides to ban Myspace, but not Facebook. Who uses Myspace? The grunts. Who uses Facebook? The officers....

There are always going to be regional trends. As any social site will have to spread by word of mouth and the internet.

I read an analysis relating areas where college is expected vs. areas where HS reunions are all-the-rage that you might be interested in.

I *think* this is it:
http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

> She's a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley. This paper here is a better representation of her work: http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf. In it, she discusses her methods for data collection and capitalizes 'I' - because it is actually a published paper/article.

I used to be just a /little/ scared I wouldn't be able to get a job as a CS professor, since there's 5-10% unemployment even among sciences Ph. D. holders. Then I remember the existence of the entirely worthless "social sciences" like "ethnographics", and I realize I have nothing to worry about.

The author is just some run of the mill freaky-deaky spacecadet from Berkeley.

Example: "...many people on the web know me because of my deep appreciation for the words of Ani Difranco and her power to make us all reflect on our identity and impact on this world."

Proving once again, "You can major in gameboy if you know how to Bullsh-t".

This is a whole bunch of speculation and personal value divisions presented as if it were a research paper.

It's not a research paper, it's an essay. The citation at the top of the page even says so. Also, the author has done research (see "Methodological Background"), but this article isn't meant to be a presentation of that research. If you want research papers, she's written a few.

Then my suggestion to you is to gather data, study said data, and report on it in a straightforward manner.

The author of this article is a PhD student specializing on this topic with quite a few publications that meet this standard. This is not presented as one of them. Do not hold up a self-described "blog essay" to the standards of an academic publication.

Context matters too. danah published this as a self proclaimed "blog essay." She's actually done lots of interesting research into social networks and youth, and has many published articles. Having read some of her other work, she can "play the game" and write with an academic voice, following standard formats, and citing as appropriate. Mainly since I've read that she's been an Intel fellow at MIT, interened for Google/Blogger, worked for V-Day, doing her PhD at Berkley after being heavily recruited/encouraged, etc, I'll bear with the fact that it's a blog essay, and not a "professional" paper.

She's also got some interesting view points - there's reasons why she doesn't capitalize i and her name. Some what socialistic, but it's a well reasoned decision, and it's a personal one she's chosen to make, and she seems intelligent enough to deal with the consequences (she'll keep her name in lowercase even for publication, where I'd imagine many may see her as pretentious for doing so, or imitating e.e. cummings or something else). She's even got it legally changed to lowercase.

Anyway, back to my original point - context matters, and in this case, this is a blog essay. Reading it, it seems apparent to me that she's clearly just exploring the ideas (constantly pointing out her bias), and hoping for some feedback. She knows this isn't going to be published in Nature or Science, and arguably some of the attitudes expressed throughout this thread could be extensions of her ideas about "class" and social networks (or in this case forums).

In any case, I understand your viewpoint, and respect your decision - but I appreciate the fact she's willing to write up her thoughts and ideas, so that others can read and ponder. Not everything I read has to be a scientific paper or suitable for publication in the NY Times, and blogs and similar venues provide a great tool to make information accessible to the masses. I think the other appeal to me is that a significant amount of "coherent, professional" work is highly filtered and processed - essays like the one being discussed work at the point when the idea hasn't been refined, when it's not ready for print publication, but is still something you want to think about . . .

Context matters too. danah published this as a self proclaimed "blog essay." She's actually done lots of interesting research into social networks and youth, and has many published articles. Having read some of her other work, she can "play the game" and write with an academic voice, following standard formats, and citing as appropriate. Mainly since I've read that she's been an Intel fellow at MIT, interened for Google/Blogger, worked for V-Day, doing her PhD at Berkley after being heavily recruited/encouraged, etc, I'll bear with the fact that it's a blog essay, and not a "professional" paper.

She's also got some interesting view points - there's reasons why she doesn't capitalize i and her name. Some what socialistic, but it's a well reasoned decision, and it's a personal one she's chosen to make, and she seems intelligent enough to deal with the consequences (she'll keep her name in lowercase even for publication, where I'd imagine many may see her as pretentious for doing so, or imitating e.e. cummings or something else). She's even got it legally changed to lowercase.

Anyway, back to my original point - context matters, and in this case, this is a blog essay. Reading it, it seems apparent to me that she's clearly just exploring the ideas (constantly pointing out her bias), and hoping for some feedback. She knows this isn't going to be published in Nature or Science, and arguably some of the attitudes expressed throughout this thread could be extensions of her ideas about "class" and social networks (or in this case forums).

In any case, I understand your viewpoint, and respect your decision - but I appreciate the fact she's willing to write up her thoughts and ideas, so that others can read and ponder. Not everything I read has to be a scientific paper or suitable for publication in the NY Times, and blogs and similar venues provide a great tool to make information accessible to the masses. I think the other appeal to me is that a significant amount of "coherent, professional" work is highly filtered and processed - essays like the one being discussed work at the point when the idea hasn't been refined, when it's not ready for print publication, but is still something you want to think about . . .

Context matters too. danah published this as a self proclaimed "blog essay." She's actually done lots of interesting research into social networks and youth, and has many published articles. Having read some of her other work, she can "play the game" and write with an academic voice, following standard formats, and citing as appropriate. Mainly since I've read that she's been an Intel fellow at MIT, interened for Google/Blogger, worked for V-Day, doing her PhD at Berkley after being heavily recruited/encouraged, etc, I'll bear with the fact that it's a blog essay, and not a "professional" paper.

She's also got some interesting view points - there's reasons why she doesn't capitalize i and her name. Some what socialistic, but it's a well reasoned decision, and it's a personal one she's chosen to make, and she seems intelligent enough to deal with the consequences (she'll keep her name in lowercase even for publication, where I'd imagine many may see her as pretentious for doing so, or imitating e.e. cummings or something else). She's even got it legally changed to lowercase.

Anyway, back to my original point - context matters, and in this case, this is a blog essay. Reading it, it seems apparent to me that she's clearly just exploring the ideas (constantly pointing out her bias), and hoping for some feedback. She knows this isn't going to be published in Nature or Science, and arguably some of the attitudes expressed throughout this thread could be extensions of her ideas about "class" and social networks (or in this case forums).

In any case, I understand your viewpoint, and respect your decision - but I appreciate the fact she's willing to write up her thoughts and ideas, so that others can read and ponder. Not everything I read has to be a scientific paper or suitable for publication in the NY Times, and blogs and similar venues provide a great tool to make information accessible to the masses. I think the other appeal to me is that a significant amount of "coherent, professional" work is highly filtered and processed - essays like the one being discussed work at the point when the idea hasn't been refined, when it's not ready for print publication, but is still something you want to think about . . .

Context matters too. danah published this as a self proclaimed "blog essay." She's actually done lots of interesting research into social networks and youth, and has many published articles. Having read some of her other work, she can "play the game" and write with an academic voice, following standard formats, and citing as appropriate. Mainly since I've read that she's been an Intel fellow at MIT, interened for Google/Blogger, worked for V-Day, doing her PhD at Berkley after being heavily recruited/encouraged, etc, I'll bear with the fact that it's a blog essay, and not a "professional" paper.

She's also got some interesting view points - there's reasons why she doesn't capitalize i and her name. Some what socialistic, but it's a well reasoned decision, and it's a personal one she's chosen to make, and she seems intelligent enough to deal with the consequences (she'll keep her name in lowercase even for publication, where I'd imagine many may see her as pretentious for doing so, or imitating e.e. cummings or something else). She's even got it legally changed to lowercase.

Anyway, back to my original point - context matters, and in this case, this is a blog essay. Reading it, it seems apparent to me that she's clearly just exploring the ideas (constantly pointing out her bias), and hoping for some feedback. She knows this isn't going to be published in Nature or Science, and arguably some of the attitudes expressed throughout this thread could be extensions of her ideas about "class" and social networks (or in this case forums).

In any case, I understand your viewpoint, and respect your decision - but I appreciate the fact she's willing to write up her thoughts and ideas, so that others can read and ponder. Not everything I read has to be a scientific paper or suitable for publication in the NY Times, and blogs and similar venues provide a great tool to make information accessible to the masses. I think the other appeal to me is that a significant amount of "coherent, professional" work is highly filtered and processed - essays like the one being discussed work at the point when the idea hasn't been refined, when it's not ready for print publication, but is still something you want to think about . . .

In a serious scientific discussion, yes.

To be fair, I saw this earlier this morning when danah (the author) first linked it off her blog (which I read); the announcement there was along the lines of "here's this thing I've been looking into, I don't have anything formal or rigorous yet but I wanted to throw out some thoughts on it real quick", not "this is a serious, finalized paper on the topic".

Her actual (formally) published work is, as one would expect, of much higher quality.

"It's an asinine argument and if that paper was written for course credit, I hope they didn't get a decent grade. If it was written as a professional document for a publication then "ethnographic research " is either a joke science or someone needs to read articles submitted for publication more carefully."

She's a doctoral candidate at UC Berkeley. This paper here is a better representation of her work: http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf. In it, she discusses her methods for data collection and capitalizes 'I' - because it is actually a published paper/article.

The slashdot link is not to a 'paper' -- it's a 'blog essay'. Whoever wrote this summary did her a disservice by calling it otherwise, because now she looks like an unprofessional idiot.

"Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life" is actually a very good explanation of why kids like MySpace and Facebook and what they are trying to accomplish there. It also outlines why they put up public information that should be 'private' like those illicit pictures, as well as describes the battle against adults for unregulated time. If you don't 'get' social networking, that pdf is a much better read.

The author posted this paper to a mailing list yesterday, here is what she said:

"I've been trying to write an essay for a while about the class
dynamics around Facebook and MySpace. I finally gave up and realized
that I didn't have the proper words for talking about this issue so I
wrote an essay with caveats. I offer it to you to tear to shreds in
the hopes that maybe some good can come out of it. (I didn't include
the full text here because it's long - i hope the link doesn't
discourage folks from checking it out.) Feedback is *very* welcome.

Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions. html "

choosing to cast his comments in that light is mindless polemicism. Wasting Taxpayer Money is something every governmental organization should Try Not To Do. . . . blocking websites with no educational value is keeping in line both with not wasting taxpayer money, and with education for its own sake . . . Neither interest is served by letting school kids waste time on myspace.

The language we use when talking about these things very much matters. If we frame schooling in terms of taxpayers, then education is sidelined. The first question we will always ask is whether tax dollars are being "wasted", not whether students are being educated. I place "wasted" in quotes because it is the taxpayers' understanding of waste that matters, which may be very different from the opinions of citizens, parents, and students (even when we're talking about the same people, someone's opinion in the role of taxpayer is formed differently from that same person's opinion in the role of citizen).

Furthermore, as I suggested in my final paragraph, it is quite difficult to judge waste. I'm certain it is quite possible to use MySpace educationally, or to educate kids about MySpace. Both would be valuable, though they may or may not be the best uses of public education, which must be judged in the context of other possible topics of education (and that probably varies by student and my school). By calling this activity "waste", you shut down thoughtful discussion of these matters before it even starts.

Questions of "educational value" are often also political and social, as "creation science", sex education, and diversity education have clearly demonstrated. Is it more worthwhile to teach longhand than effective online discourse and socialization, or is handwriting prized for being "high" culture to MySpace's "low"? Take a look at some of danah boyd's discussion of the role of MySpace as a place for kids to be free of adult surveillance, for example. Maybe today this is an essential aspect of how kids grow up to being adults. Should school turn its back on that? Again, I don't know. But I wouldn't simply dismiss it as a waste of time. And I would start my questions by asking about education and students, not taxpayers and waste.

that would be nice, but this is america

By the way, I'm Canadian - not that that means we have the answers. As for America, don't take for granted that it cannot change - for better and for worse (my country sure has).

danah boyd, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a well-known expert on social networking and adolescent identity development, spoke at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2006 annual meeting a few months ago about the critical role social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook play in the socialization and identity development of adolescents. In a nutshell, she argues that social networking sites are areas where young people can experiment with their identity in a venue frequented by their peers but (erroroneously) perceived to be sheltered from the prying eyes of authority figures. Thoughtlessly banning social networking sites and environments from public schools and libraries without input from psychologists and others who can testify why and how students actually use these sites would be foolhardy.

danah boyd, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a well-known expert on social networking and adolescent identity development, spoke at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2006 annual meeting a few months ago about the critical role social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook play in the socialization and identity development of adolescents. In a nutshell, she argues that social networking sites are areas where young people can experiment with their identity in a venue frequented by their peers but (erroroneously) perceived to be sheltered from the prying eyes of authority figures. Thoughtlessly banning social networking sites and environments from public schools and libraries without input from psychologists and others who can testify why and how students actually use these sites would be foolhardy.

But seriously, a lot of people fail to realize just how powerful a large social networks like MySpace can be. I do web mining research for a professor at my university, and wow, MySpace just contains a HUGE wealth of data to play with..

Anyway, I came across this article a while ago, and I thought it was really interesting. It basically talks about how society has clamped down on public and social space for youth, and how online space is really all youth have now..

"Identity Production in a Networked Culture: Why Youth Heart MySpace"
Danah Boyd
American Association for the Advancement of Science
February 19, 2006

http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html a thought, at any rate.

If you've suffered the consequences of this aggregation and are willing to anonymously tell your story, i am really interested in hearing it. Personally, i would like to encourage Google to change its decision, something that can only be done collectively through people's voices.

If you've suffered the consequences of this aggregation and are willing to anonymously tell your story, i am really interested in hearing it. Personally, i would like to encourage Google to change its decision, something that can only be done collectively through people's voices.

Tell the kid that these phrases spark fear in a "post columbine world". If the kid is reasonable, he will stop or watch how he expresses himself. If he is not, then you start with detention, then suspension, then expulsion, THEN involve the law.

However, every attempt has to be made to educate the administrators, the parents AND the kids about what effect words have on people.