4 ms·

This article is mostly just lazy hypotheticals, but I was surprised that the author thought, "the sexual predator moral panic kicked in in 2005." I'm not LGBT,

• dasil003 15y ago
  It was definitely around when I was a kid in the 80s. It certainly wasn't as hysterical, but "don't talk to strangers" was definitely boilerplate parenting. Of course it's impossible to really get in my own head as a 10-year-old, but I think I internalized the message more or less appropriately as "not everyone is bad, but keep your wits about you". Later when I got on BBSes and then usenet/irc there wasn't really an adult in my life who had a clue what the Internet was (other than something that annoyingly tied up the phone line and induced nerd rage when they picked it up :), but I was talking to all kinds of strangers and rightly felt totally safe because what I was doing was just on the internet. If someone had asked to meet in person it would have been exceedingly weird and triggered all kinds of red flags.
• lkrubner 15y ago
  "So 'stranger danger' seems like it's been around since it became mainstream for minors to use the internet" Yes, but when was that? There is a dramatic change in scale between 1995 and 2005, regarding how many people had easy access to the Internet. When she writes of the moral panic, she is not referring to moments when individual parents expressed concern about what their children were doing online, but rather, she is writing about when the media focused on this story. I agree the media emphasized reasons to be afraid of the Internet ever since the Internet emerged in the 90s, but there was an exaggerated emphasis in the mid 00s when it became the easiest way for lazy journalists to frame a story about the Internet. I'm under the impression boyd is also talking about the period of time when youth in the USA faced increasing restrictions regarding their physical movement, and increased supervision from parents. Consider what boyd writes here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w092y1Y6ut4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=danah+boyd+moral+panic&ots=FCpJMtCNLJ&sig=DGsr53BqPJUI10iH54P_S1IQbnA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w092y1Y6u... She also wrote the following (several paragraphs) about MySpace in 2006: MySpace is in a different position, one far more harrowing. MySpace has grown so large that the needs, values and practices of its users are slamming into each other. It's facing the archetypical clashing of cultures. Yet, interestingly, most users are not that concerned - they're trying to figure out how to live in this super public. The challenge is that outsiders are panicking about a culture that they are not a part of. They want to kill the super public rather than support people in learning how to negotiate it. No one knows how to live in such a super public, but this structure is going to become increasingly a part of our lives. It is no wonder that youth want to figure it out. And it is critical that they do, especially since our physical worlds have become more segregated and walled off, partitioned by age, race, class, religion, values, etc. Yet, it is the older generation that did that segregating and they're not really ready to face collapsed contexts at every turn or to learn how to engage with people who have very different values on a daily basis. Because of their position of power, outsiders are pushing the big red emergency button, screaming danger and creating a complete and utter moral panic. Welcome to a generational divide, where adults are unable to see the practices of their children on kids' terms. If MySpace falters in the next 1-2 years, it will be because of this moral panic. Before all of you competitors get motivated to exacerbate the moral panic, think again. If the moral panic succeeds: Youth will lose (even more) freedom of speech. How far will the curtailment of the First Amendment go? All users will lose the safety and opportunities of pseudonymity, particularly around political speech and particularly internationally. Internet companies will be required to confirm the real life identity of all users. At their own cost. International growth on social communities will be massively curtailed because it is much harder to confirm non-US populations. Internet companies will lose the protections of common carrier which will have ramifications in all sorts of directions. Internet companies will see a massive increase in subpoenas and will be forced to turn over data on their users which will in turn destroy the trust relationship between companies and users. There will be a much greater barrier for new communities to form and for startups to build out new social environments. International companies will be far better positioned to create new social technologies because they won't have to abide by American laws even if American citizens use their technology (assuming the servers are hosted outside of the US). Unless, of course, we decide to block sites on a nation-wide basis.... http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay.html http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay.html