Cyberbullying Detection and Schools
Social
media is extremely popular among today’s youth and while social media can
provide great ways to keep in touch with people it also provides the
opportunity for the emergence of cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying can be anything like messages, images or videos that are
intended to make someone feel negatively about themselves and/or embarrass them
in some way. Cyberbullying is very
harmful to for the victims increasing their risk for anxiety, depression,
substance abuse and mental illness. It
can also lead to violent behaviors such as carrying weapons to school, physical
fighting, and even school shootings (Dredze).
Through the technology that is available today it is possible to detect
and potentially prevent cyberbullying, however this is hindered due to privacy
concerns and free speech rights of the students.
Today’s
technology has allowed for the creation of certain programs that can aid in
detecting cyberbullying. These programs
generally work by examining language with the objective of detecting “sensitive
topics, such as sexuality, race/culture, intelligence and physical attributes,
flagging negative comments that contain profanity and insults, and general
identification of offensive language.” (Dredze). Additionally, the use of algorithms to look
for more subtle bullying or taking gender into consideration can help improve
the results of these programs even further (Dredze). Programs such as this can help schools to
more easily identify when cyberbullying is occurring among students since it is
rarely reported by students.
Furthermore, the technology can be used to set up a system in which
empathy is promoted and victims are provided with the necessary resources to
cope with cyberbullying.
Despite
the existence of this technology many schools question whether or not they can
use it or other methods to detect cyberbullying without violating the free
speech or privacy of students. In some
schools the law agrees that they are within their legal rights to take action
against what students do online outside of school such as in a September 2013
case where a student was suspended for writing threatening messages on Myspace
(Sengupta). However, there are also
cases where the law has denied that schools were in the legal right such as in a
2011 Indiana court case that stated that the school was in the wrong when they
disciplined a group of girls for posting lewd pictures on Facebook
(Sengupta). This ambiguity in what
actions they are and are not allowed to take against student’s online activity
often seems to hinder what they schools are willing to do in monitoring and disciplining
of this activity.
If
schools are not given the legal right to take action against student’s online
activity then the development of the detection software may not have the
desired effect of helping to end cyberbullying.
As previously mentioned victims of cyberbullying are often more prone to
violent behavior and by allowing schools to intervene in bullying they could
possibly also be avoiding future incidents with the victims acting out
violently as a result of their bullying.
Reader: "Understanding Factors of Youth Violence Through the Study of Cyberbullying" by Mark Dredze
I really liked Gabriela Hernandez’s essay pointing out the limitation of preventing the cyber bullying. She approached from legal perspective that privacy concerns and free speech rights of the students. I completely agree with the argument that there is an ambiguity to how schools can act upon their students outside school. I think the difficulty with bullying is continuity and spontaneity. It could happen anywhere, and anytime with the help of the Internet. It would have been a stronger essay if she could delve further into how students, more importantly victims, could act against cyber bullying. When reading both the article and her essay, they reminded me of Amanda Todd, who unfortunately killed herself after insistent cyber bullying. While watching her video on YouTube, I came across Savanna Roby video inspired by Amanda Todd video. Savanna went through almost exactly the same situation as Amanda, except she pulled through bullying. I think nowadays schools, institutions, or parents should put more importance on teaching children that they are not alone, and they should learn how to “cope with” the situation. If nothing can prevent cyber bullying and does occur, then children must face it. From Savanna’s example, she learned through her experience that her school life, or bullying is just a tiny part of her life, there is more to her life in the future, nobody can disrespect her, and she should not feel worthless. Of course, she might have been lucky because she had supportive friends, but in my opinion, she earned something more; time does solve some things, it is more important to have courage to leave the problems away, because they will get better at some point and there is no worse thing than ending a life.
ReplyDeleteIt’s really interesting that we get to discuss this topic of cyberbulling when we are in the midst of a new debate relating to that very same issue. Congress is currently trying to pass a law that would increase penalties for cyberbullying offenders, and would finally permit courts to try juveniles as adults in cases of sexual assault of defenseless/ incapacitated victims. This law is meant to protect victims like Audrie Pott, who got intoxicated at a party, and while unconscious she was then repeatedly raped. The attackers then wrote messages over her naked body and photographed her, and then sent the pictures to their friends. Eight days after the incident, thanks to technology, the pictures were all around school, and Audrie at 15 years of age decided to commit suicide. Because she was unconscious the perpetrators were able to claim that they didn’t use any force, therefore avoiding being tried as adults. This law would completely change that. Furthermore, it would allow for juveniles to be tried as adults in cases where they electronically share sexual pictures to intimidate, embarrass, or harass minors.
ReplyDeleteI connected this case with Gabriela Hernandez’s post on Dredze, which considers the possible benefits of using technology to prevent and stop cyberbullying. As much as I defend and stand by privacy rights, I deeply believe that losing your right harass someone online is worthless when weighted against the life of a young girl like Audrey. We need all the help we can get to stop cyberbullying, and if these programs can help prevent another suicide then we should utilize them immediately.
Gabriela succinctly summarizes the article and makes interesting connections, such as the possibility of cyber-bully victims becoming aggressive themselves. Claudia also mentioned that the ambiguity surrounding cyber-bullying causes confusion. Further problems are likely to arise due to the subjective nature of what is deemed inappropriate out of school behavior. State-funded schools should follow a set national standard of what constitutes cyber-bullying and how it is dealt with.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue is that if schools are legally permitted to punish students for their online behavior, where should the line be drawn on what else a school can punish a student for? Across America students can already be expelled from universities for behavior that did not even occur on campus; for example two Berkeley students were expelled for committing animal cruelty in Las Vegas. Many universities and schools claim the right to expel students who breach their stated code of conduct, whether they did so online or even in another state or country. While I agree with Berkeley’s decision to expel the aforementioned students, there is a risk of universities and schools overstepping their boundaries with regards to students’ behavior; this risk is worsened by the subjective nature of appropriateness.
I like that Gabriele’s post gave two sides to the issues of online surveillance. With the rise of advanced technology and social media, more and more youth have access to means of potential danger. Given that most youth these days have smart phones, laptops, tablets, or even desktops still, they are able to access the web at any time of the day. As stated in the Dredze article, it allows for youth to come into contact with any online predators or even succumb to external bullying outside the classroom. However as stated in the New York Times article, it does cause a major issue with privacy. It is a breach of privacy to be continuously monitored so given that fact it is hard to say whether or not that much amount of surveillance is a good thing or bad thing yet.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the article made a good summary of the Dredze article and brought about key points correlating possible solutions for preventing cyber bullying and the sensitive issues that come about. I think a good point brought up that was included in the Dredze article is the possible solutions that could be used to prevent cyber bullying like flagging racist comments or a computer interfaces that could aid as a resource for teachers to prevent cyber bullying, and the possibility of increasing violent behavior in school. Nevertheless, this becomes controversial when it touches sensitive issues like that of free speech or privacy concerns like Gabriela mentioned in her essay. I thought the issue of anonymity also expands a major concern to the study of cyber bullying. I think the issue of cyber bullying is an interesting topic as I come think that a lot of the cyber bullying that takes place online tends to transfer to school territory. I also think it becomes a major issue when people post very personal stuff online, that may never be taken back if it becomes viral and a foundation for cyber bullying.
ReplyDeleteI believe the author of this article down-played the privacy and First Amendment free speech concerns. The implementation by schools (the government) of technology that analyzes the content of every message, post, and private communication has huge implications. The first implication regarding privacy would be that this technology would have access to all material that is disseminated by one user to another online. The second implication regarding free speech, is that this imperfect technology could potentially censor speech that is satirical, parodies, opinions etc. and more importantly, have a chilling effect on what student's believe they can post privately and publicly. Additionally, this technology, if only limited to internet communications, would not target a large portion of the problem, i.e. text messages and other telephone communications. In order to effectively implement this technology, it would have to have a broad scope and subject to the technology's subjective interpretation of the content. Although cyber-bulling is reprehensible and greater efforts need to be made to prevent it, broad sweeping technology that violates so gravely our privacy and our First Amendment free speech rights is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do understand the argument that expecting students to speak up about cyber-bullying and seek adult help is often not the course of action that youth will take. During lecture, we learned that youth often take extra-legal actions to solve conflict such as confrontation or ignore the issue all together. Another problem is that often parental and adult remedies, speaking to the student directly and taking disciplinary action, to cyber-bullying may worsen the situation. These are the two places where reform would be best suited without compromising privacy and free speech concerns. Such reform would need to understand and address the reluctance of youth to speak with adults, why youth cyber-bully others, and how adults can better implement disciplinary action to prevent cyber-bullying, such as easier avenues to report incidents and swift punishment within appropriate procedures.
Dredze’s article on cyberbullying and the New York times article present two opposing viewpoints concerning the role of educators in monitoring students online activity. On the one hand, Dredze cites the correlation of bullying with increased behavior as a reason for educators active role in the prevention of bullying, online and offline, through natural language processing technologies. On the other side of the spectrum, the issue of surveillance of students off-campus activities, the New York article points out, raises concern over the infringement of privacy and youths free speech right. Not surprisingly, public difference concerning the issue of student off-campus surveillance is reflected in the legal realm with state courts offering contrasting rulings.
ReplyDeleteBefore technology the law was primarily concerned over matters of real life, not with wired life (that is virtual life). Yet the more society moves forward into a tech savvy society, it is interesting to see how the creation of a new branch of law which addresses this virtual life is progressively being demanded. I agree with Gabriela in her point that schools limitation in preventing cyberbullying is reflective of youth’s liminal category. Adult monitoring of youth activity goes back to this idea of youth having diminished capacity, implicating youth are not capable of making conscientious decisions; therefore, adults have the right to limit both their privacy and freedom of speech. By the same token, the monitoring of individuals online life is not a recent phenomena employers are known to look at potential employees online profiles to determine whether or not to hire them.
While I understand the arguments against the use of new technological mechanisms to monitor online activity it can’t be denied the problem of cyberbullying is in fact an extension of school bullying. Students spend half of their life in school, thus it is only logical that the problems they face outside be they online bullying or domestic abuse will eventually seep into the school gates. Thus similar to the ethos of parens patriae, if the parent fails to address this issue at home then the state, in the form of the school, should be able to intervene.
Very well presentation Gabriela. I have to agree the point Gabriela brings about social media is among the most activity of today’s children and adolescents. Cyberbullying is a form of bullying which has in recent years become more apparent, as the use of electronic devices such as computers and mobile phones by young people has increased. Any Web site that allows social interaction is considered a social media, including social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter; video sites such as YoutTube; and blogs. Such sites offer today’s youth a portal for entertainment and communication and have grown exponentially in recent years. For this reason, it is important that parents become aware of the nature of social media sites, given that not all of them are healthy environments for adolescents. Dredze brings the point of today’s technology have certain programs that detect cyberbulling. It’s interesting how Grabriela brings the point of social media in the school system whether cyberbulling is a free speech or privacy of students. A point that should be presented in the student’s online activity that often times hinder in the school system. Overall, great analysis and reference to 2011 Indian court case.
ReplyDeleteOf course both my mom and dad told me about cyberbullying because of some late night news special. They stressed how horrible some people took the bullying and that many school had started to crack down on any behavior of this type. I never knew that cyberbullying was an actual issue to be worried about because I had never heard of any instances like the ones my parents described. It was not until I just read this response that I can actually imagine the detrimental effects of this type of bullying. It is nice to know that schools are taking the initiative to try and stop cyberbullying before it gets out of hand. The issues of free speech and privacy both bring in a giant opposition to schools stoping bullying at the pre-emptive level that they are attempting. If it was my child that was being the bully or the child that was being bullied I would want to know about it and would hope if I was not aware an institution like a school would help my child out and keep them safe. This issue of cyberbullying has continued to grow with they use of technology. I just hope that there can be a continued effort to stop cyberbullying whether of not an sort of legal action needs to be involved.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this essay as I feel it was a good analysis of the readings. I think its very important to stress that the law has such a difficulty addressing youth with the constant dilemma that has risen from the various classifications of youth. We want to protect them, "dependents," from any harm from their potential "dangerous" peers while still maintaining their position as youth as rights holders. These constant contradictions are still issues that we face today and as stated in the essay they make it very difficult to address issues such as cyber-bullying.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Gabriella's conceptualization of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is definitely emerging as a new source of victimization due to new technology and social media apps. I think Gabriella's piece presents an interesting question: should schools get involved in the private lives of students to prevent cyberbulling? I think the extent of surveillance already occurring both by the school during class time and private companies online should be considered. The school already has huge regulatory over a student's life by controlling class time, attendance, a dress code, behavior, and even diet. I think tracking students on the internet is an extension of controlling student's behavior--who are not entirely citizens, but have some rights-holding capabilities. Furthermore, private companies such as facebook and twitter already use algorithms to find out more information about students: what they talk about, how long they spend on a page. This type of monitoring is already happening at the private level for the sake of advertising, so I think it would be interesting for schools to use it as a means of social control. Afterall, Anonymous can't take down all the cyberbullies by themselves.
ReplyDeleteGabriela’s blog post makes very good points concerning the debate of how to approach cyber-bullying. Dredze’s article points out the relationship between cyber-bullying and the increase of violent behaviors, especially in shooting spree cases. However, as Gabriela mentioned, measures to control cyber-bullying, such as monitoring what youth say on the internet, can also be seen as control measures that infringe on the rights of the student. The debate between the student’s rights to use the internet and the student’s right to be protected is an ongoing issue that is based on two often conflicting concepts: protection and privacy. These two ideas are often at odds at each other and they frequently show up, not just in cyber-bullying, but in a variety of different issues, such as stop and frisk. Stop and frisk is a policing method in which anyone who seems suspicious can be stopped and checked to see if they are doing anything against the law, such as carrying a weapon or drugs. This method was used until very recently in places such as New York City where primarily young Latino and black males were being stopped simply for the way that they looked. Stop and Frisk has led to countless searches of people who have fit the description of looking “suspicious”. Although stop and frisk is obviously a violation of privacy and the individual’s rights, many have also argued that it is for the safety of the community. Supporters of stop and frisk commonly point out that this policing method is used in low-income communities in order to protect them from future crimes. It is a similar train of thought in which the benefits are thought to outweigh the bad.
ReplyDeleteThe author does a great job of summarizing Dredze’s article and explaining the necessity of having programs that can filter inappropriate and offensive language. The author does a good job of mentioning that there is still a jurisdiction issue. More specifically, I really liked that the author mentions the ambiguity of the courts when allowing or denying schools the right to monitor their students online. The ambiguity might come from the fact that the Internet is still fairly young. However, the number of incidents revolving cyber-bulling and the Internet seems to be increasing, and becoming more heinous. For example, in 2010 Tyler Clementi, a college student from New Jersey died after jumping from the George Washington bridge. He committed suicide after his roommate Dharun Ravi videotaped him being intimate with another man. In this particular case the roommate was not charge with Clementi’s death; however, I do think that in the next couple of years as youth continue to make use of Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram etc. the court will have to be less ambiguous about the role schools play, or even how cyber-bullying is punished.
ReplyDeleteGabriela’s essay highlighted a lot of the points made in Dredze’s article and she elaborated on other interesting points as well. Gabriela effectively described programs that could detect cyberbullying. However, her main argument addresses that implementing these programs can be a lot trickier. These programs can violate a student’s First Amendment rights, their freedom of speech. Yet, there have been cases where its been decided that schools can take necessary steps to protect those entrusted to their care without violating their First Amendment rights (Morse v. Frederick). As we learned previously, youth can be seen as “not-quite-adults” therefore, not having all the rights adults have. Sometimes youth partially give up their rights in school. In that case, schools might be able to punish their students for their online behavior as well.
ReplyDeleteI think Gabriella did a great job explaining cyber bullying in terms of schools today as well as the technology and social media sites students have access too. She also brings up a great point when she states that the confusion and unequal punishment when it comes to laws in different areas and schools causing a larger problem of dealing with cyber bullying. However, the one point that hasn't been mentioned would be the idea that cyber bullying in some cases aren't even sent student to student, but in some cases have been sent from bully school mom to daughter's friends. This situation also doesn't look at the fact that just because cyber bully programs on social media can filter and identify bullying, it doesn't mean that the bullying will stop. It is the same argument that if the government bans violent movies and games that there will be no more shooting and youth violence. This idea of adults taking charge of youth (back to the youth-as-dependents idea and youth-as-objects-of-saving-and-study), that they will finally be able to save youth from the ideas of violence, inappropriate behavior, etc. This issue also reminds me of the pro-school versus pro-court climate in terms of how the law interprets the schools rights in the matter of cyber bullying. Because the law isn't uniformly enforced, many schools are hesitant to act because of the fear they will be in trouble for encroaching on the youth's freedom of speech and amendment rights. I think that the intention of blocking cyber bullying is good in theory, but the reality is that even without social media to bully another kid, there will still be hundreds of other ways. That rather than trying to censor what youth say, they should rather be teaching about conflict resolution and other ways to work out problems within the school.
ReplyDelete