4 ms·

Your over-focusing on just the issue of a lack of citations. The entire format of this piece is centred on the use of provocative questions as headings. This i

Your over-focusing on just the issue of a lack of citations. The entire format of this piece is centred on the use of provocative questions as headings. This is a well-known trope in journalism for lazy writers who are more concerned about generating traffic than they are doing their job, i.e., finding answers. See: Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

lkrubner 15y ago
These are 4 important questions that everyone who creates an online social service needs to think about. danah boyd asked: 1. What if the stranger danger / sexual predator moral panic increased LGBT suicide? 2. What if “It Gets Better” increases emotional devastation for some LGBT youth? 3. What if the media spotlight around bullying causes harm to youth? 4. What if us adults are part of the problem? Let's talk about a hypothetical: you have created a new online social service, and now there are media reports that it is being used by some kids to bully and torment other kids? How would you feel? If I was in such a situation, my response would focus on the systematic forces that allow bullying to happen. I would argue to the media that the focus should be on the social pressures that lead to bullying, rather than my online service. I would also reach out to the victims and offer any support I could. I feel that being helpful in such situations is the best course, both morally and for the business. I would not worry about "setting a precedent", as that line of reasoning was a disaster for AirBnB, in its recent scandal. 2 things should be noted: 1.) danah boyd's line of reasoning is convenient for online services trying to protect themselves legally. I'm sure lawyers for online services will be looking at her line of reasoning and considering that she is a PhD who works for Microsoft, and possibly crafting future defenses around such arguments. 2.) danah boyd could be correct, which for some strange reason is a possibility that you are not even willing to consider. I mean, what if the stranger danger / sexual predator moral panic increased LGBT suicide? This is a perfectly valid hypotheses for research. Why are you so quick to dismiss it? If boyd decides she wants to investigate this question further, or she feels other researchers should be investigating this question, then why is it you want the question dismissed without consideration?

lkrubner 15y ago

These are 4 important questions that everyone who creates an online social service needs to think about. danah boyd asked: 1. What if the stranger danger / sexual predator moral panic increased LGBT suicide? 2. What if “It Gets Better” increases emotional devastation for some LGBT youth? 3. What if the media spotlight around bullying causes harm to youth? 4. What if us adults are part of the problem? Let's talk about a hypothetical: you have created a new online social service, and now there are media reports that it is being used by some kids to bully and torment other kids? How would you feel? If I was in such a situation, my response would focus on the systematic forces that allow bullying to happen. I would argue to the media that the focus should be on the social pressures that lead to bullying, rather than my online service. I would also reach out to the victims and offer any support I could. I feel that being helpful in such situations is the best course, both morally and for the business. I would not worry about "setting a precedent", as that line of reasoning was a disaster for AirBnB, in its recent scandal. 2 things should be noted: 1.) danah boyd's line of reasoning is convenient for online services trying to protect themselves legally. I'm sure lawyers for online services will be looking at her line of reasoning and considering that she is a PhD who works for Microsoft, and possibly crafting future defenses around such arguments. 2.) danah boyd could be correct, which for some strange reason is a possibility that you are not even willing to consider. I mean, what if the stranger danger / sexual predator moral panic increased LGBT suicide? This is a perfectly valid hypotheses for research. Why are you so quick to dismiss it? If boyd decides she wants to investigate this question further, or she feels other researchers should be investigating this question, then why is it you want the question dismissed without consideration?