How much sexting? It all depends on who you ask

A recent study published in the esteemed journal Pediatrics reports that 9.6% of young people have sent a nude or semi-nude picture of themselves. This percentage is half of the often-reported statistic of 20% that was generated by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. So, what gives? Which number is closer to the truth? CORRECTION: In the Pediatrics study, the number of young people who report having actually sent a picture is only 2.5% -- the other 7.1% received an image! Thanks to Larry Magid for pointing out the correction! Additional corrections will appear in bold.

Sampling gives some clue. The Pediatrics figure was generated from a sample of over 1500 10-17 year-old internet users, using random-digit dialing. They tried to get a good proportion of cellphone users only, but instead ended up relying disproportionately on land-line users. The Campaign figure was generated from a sample of 650+ 13-19 year-olds that come from a base of survey takers through an online marketing group. Results from the Campaign were weighted according to US Census numbers. The Pediatrics study did not weight data, though it attempted to create a representative sample. A quick look at the data shows that Hispanic and African-American youth are slightly over-represented. The two studies essentially asked the same question, so I don't think the methodology is to blame for the difference.

So, an easy spot to see differences is in age. The Pediatrics study surveyed younger participants, so it makes sense that their percentage of sexters is going to be lower. And indeed, looking at the older ages in Pediatrics reveals that 2 of the 10-12 year-olds said they had sent or received a sext (constituting less than 1% of this subgroup), 11% of 13-14 year-olds have, and the number of 15, 16, and 17 year-olds who report sending or receiving sexts -- 17%, 28%, and 21%, respectively (Note: The Campaign does not provide a specific breakdown of behavior by age). Now the data are starting to look similar, no?

There are other possibilities for the differences -- a closer look at the racial composition of the surveys, for example, but that may lend itself to predicting slightly higher numbers for the Pediatrics study, as it appears Hispanic youth are more likely to sext than the other racial/ethinc groups (I would love to know more about this, but it doesn't look as though there is enough detail to better understand this finding). The use of a group of teens willing to partake in online surveys may also skew the numbers of The Campaign findings higher -- it's easier to hide responses from parents, get permission to respond to the survey, etc.

But I think the first thing to do is focus on this age issue. Combining the results from these two surveys gives us an important message that we can act on. Going by the numbers from BOTH surveys, it looks like age 13 is when we should start to be concerned about sexting, and serious alarm bells should go off by the time the young person reaches 16. So, from a prevention mindset, we should start talking about sexting two years before it occurs. Health educators and prevention experts state that discussions about behaviors should begin at least two years before the behavior begins in order to get a healthy message across effectively and on time. Therefore, true prevention folks would target 11-year-olds in their anti-sexting messages. More tentative people better start the conversation by age 13 or 14, but even then that approach misses a lot of youth.

Curriculum designers take note! Sexting conversations should start around the 5th grade, and most certainly by 6th (the start of middle school). Parents be mindful! Sexting conversations can be woven into conversations about other sexual matters, or even be the springboard for conversations about healthy and unhealthy relationships. I hope more studies are done, but I love the fact that these two seemingly similar findings (despite media coverage stating the opposite), give us a solid direction and course of action towards better understanding this phenomenon that simply did not exist when I was younger.

Naughty or Nice? Teens on social networking sites

I am woefully behind, and therefore just now reading the report from Pew released November 9th: How American teens navigate the new world of "digital citizenship." Some things that strike me:

• While I am glad that majority of young people (69%) say that their peers are "mostly nice to each other" on social networking sites, I am disturbed that 1 in 5 state that young people are mostly mean and another 11% stating that "it depends." In other words, almost 1 in 3 teens can't say that young people are mostly nice. That is a problem.
• Almost all (90-95%) of teens say they ignore online cruelty when they see it. And 21% say that they "join in" when witnessing it.

I guess I am not surprised by that second bullet point -- at least when it comes to ignoring. It's what happens with other forms of bullying. In face-to-face environments, bullying/name calling/exclusion are seen every day at school, and youth just turn their heads, hoping it goes away, hoping it doesn't happen to them. And the joining in? That saddens me more for sure, but I can see similar motivations that drive people to ignore fueling those who are just a little more insecure, a little more scared, to jump into the fray. After all, if you are mean to someone, then perhaps the attention is directed away from you as the potential next target. Given that bullies are often bullied, there is some support for this argument.

And while it can be shocking to think of the passivity that supports (and condones?) cruelty, it's also understandable. A young person's desire to fit in is strong and developmentally appropriate. And right now, adults certainly don't provide good role models for speaking out against those who exude power inappropriately. Celebrities fights, demeaning radio show hosts, a divided Congress, and the way in which Occupy Wall Street protests are being handled, are all examples of how those in power matter and are listened to. And in all these instances, power is equivalent to putting someone else down.

If we don't redefine power and what it means to be important, how can we expect youth to do it for those of us who supposedly know better?

Why is it so easy to hurt someone?

A recent poll co-sponsored by the AP and MTV reveals some disturbing, though perhaps not surprising figures. Over half (55%) of the teens and 20-somethings surveyed say they have seen people being mean to each other on social networking sites, and half see discriminatory words (e.g. "slut" or a racial slur) or images on those sites.

Yet 41% of these young women are offended by the word "slut" -- 65% are offended if the word is used to describe themselves -- 60% of African American youth would be offended if they saw the N-word being used against other people. Put another way, young people commonly engage in, and witness, behavior that hurts and offends their peers.

So what gives? Good old basic psychological theory which includes the disinhibition effect and dissociative anonymity, both described extremely well here by researcher John Suler, explains a lot of this phenomenon. In a nutshell, these theories explain the ease of name-calling online this way: it's easier to type words than say them out loud because writing is a more indirect form of communication than speaking. It's especially easier to write words on a computer screen than to say them out loud right in front of another human being. This is because I don't see the emotional response to the person. I don't have to defend myself in a physical environment if people disapprove of my actions. In short, I am shielded from the immediate effects of my actions, so it's easier to perform them.

And then enter the bystander effect.  This is when a bunch of people witness something horrible and/or dangerous (an assault, a burning building, a car accident), yet no one does anything to intervene, figuring that others will do it instead -- this is diffusion of responsibility. In short, the larger the audience, the less likely intervention will occur. Given the potentially hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses to name calling on a social networking site, who are also influenced by the disinhibition effect, it's no wonder cyberbullying runs rampant and no one does anything to stop it!

Cyberbullying is so toxic because it feeds off of human nature, so in order to stop it we have to be more deliberate in our approach and address it head-on. We have to teach people about our inclinations and how to fight them. We need to focus on empathy, understanding, and our circles of influence -- we need to think outside of ourselves. Because our instincts are going to lead us to be just another bystander in cyberspace.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/09/20/national/w000539D79.DTL#ixzz1Ybj8Nj1s

Do we really know how social networking impacts youth?

A plenary presentation at this year's American Psychological Association's convention is getting a lot of press (in part due to the APA's own press release). The talk, entitled “Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids,” highlights of the talk, at least according to the press release, include findings such as:

1. Teens who use Facebook more often show more narcissistic tendencies while young adults who have a strong Facebook presence show more signs of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies.  
2. Daily overuse of media and technology has a negative effect on the health of all children, preteens and teenagers by making them more prone to anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders.

 The research nerd in me sees the first statement as more "mild" than the second for one main reason: The first statement simply shows associations.  An association, in teens, between being full of oneself and being on Facebook more often. In young adults, hanging out on Facebook more is associated with being anti-social and having mania. Those statements make sense to me -- you can see how those characteristics go together, but there is no indication that being on Facebook causes narcissism, mania (which can result in not being able to sleep and thus being online more), and/or anti-social behavior.

Then, there is that second bullet -- the one that makes me nervous and even angry. First of all, what is "overuse"? How many hours constitute that concept? Second, the phrase “has a negative effect” implies that the researcher studied young people over time – and if that happened, how long a time? I would love to see that actual study so I can answer those questions for myself.

Finally, the word “all” – really? Every single child, tween, and teen is going to be prone to anxiety, depression, and other mental health concerns by “overusing” Facebook? Wow. Never in my life have I heard a researcher claim that a phenomenon impacts every single person. Think of all those chain smokers that manage to not get lung cancer, for example.

Most of you will probably think that I am being a little too picky here, but I think it’s important to point out how these phrases can mislead reporters. I understand that most reporters are not trained in research – that’s OK. But, to feed them such broad generalizations is nothing short of dangerous and irresponsible. Which, in turn, misleads the public. I will take back everything I say here if somehow “overusing” Facebook causes every single young person mental harm, but until then, shame on you APA.

Readin', Writin', and...Sex?

Nice article in Salon challenging the "alarmist" findings that over half of young adult novels have sexually explicit content in them -- which ranges from Rated G kissing to sexual intercourse. And, according to Salon columnist Tracy Clark-Flory, the study authors seem to find this problematic (note: I was not able to locate the study or even the abstract, so I am commenting on something through hearsay in this post).

I can only scratch my head in wonder over their concerns. Let's see, what was I reading when I was a young adult? Oh yeah. There was the 1975 classic Forever, by Judy Blume, which told the story of a teen losing her virginity. Tame stuff. Then there were the VC Andrews books that made the rounds in my school -- these lovely tales featured sexual exploration among siblings locked in an attic. Finally, there were Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, telling sexual tales of all sorts, including a relationship between two vampires -- one of whom was embodied in a 8-year-old girl. While I admittedly have not read many of the young adult novels that are reviewed for this recent study, I cannot imagine the current sexual exploits are more fringe than the ones I read growing up. But correct me if I'm wrong.

And let's not forget what teens are writing themselves. I wrote this post  sometime back about youth-authored fanfiction. If we shield teens from sexual content, then they are going to just make their own. Or find it somewhere else. So, let's not be too concerned when a young person buries their nose in a book. At least their vocabulary might increase.

I wanna live forever...

Fame! The biggest priority among youth these days? Take the New York Times article on how some young teens are becoming cultural phenomenon within a matter of days. Or 23-year-old "internet sensation" Dia Frampton, who originally got her fan base through You Tube, but then gained even more popularity by being the runner-up on NBC's The Voice. I'm sure there are many other examples, but I, alas, am not all that great when it comes to pop-culture savvy.

And then there's the research. Recent work out of the Children's Digital Media Center at UCLA finds that "fame" is the number one value conveyed in television shows targeting 9-11 year olds in 2007. This is in sharp contrast to the top value of "community feeling," which topped the list from 1967 all the way through 2006. And a survey of adults by Dr. Jean Twenge revealed that 10% of young adults (in their 20s) had experienced symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as compared to only 3% of Seniors.

So, why all the focus on the self? It's possible that the simple answer is "because we can." The internet (especially social networking) can cause an individual to reach a vast number of people exponentially, something that probably couldn't be done a decade ago, and most certainly was unobtainable a generation ago. Pair that with the normative developmental stage of egocentrism often found in teens and young adults, and their tech-savvy, and the recipe is perfect for this storm.

The question I have is, "is this focus on fame inherently a problem?" Part of me says no, simply because to some extent, as I stated above, such focus on the self is pretty typical of youth. Plus, this focus could help increase self-esteem, sense of well-being, and maybe even a sense of purpose and obligation. For example, 14-year-old Benni Cinkle has used her new-found fame to help non-profit organizations. Where's the harm in that?

On the other hand, not having such notoriety -- despite, perhaps, trying hard to achieve it through a clever blog or video -- could backfire on a young person and threaten their sense of self. "After all, if all these peers I hear about on the news can gain such followings, why can't I?" goes the thought process.

It all comes back to a basic reality: There is always someone out there who is "cooler" than you. They have more friends, a better voice, nicer hair, a more impressive jump shot, a more noble cause. If we can convey that basic fact to youth (and heck, to people of all ages), perhaps there would be less focus on fame. And, it would probably help if the media catering to the tweens didn't think it was so great, either.

Do Teens Trust the Internet or Not?

No sooner do I post the results of a study that state most teens are "wary" of the sexual health information they find online, than a new study from north of the border comes out that states 40% of teens find the internet a more useful source than their parents. But beware, parents! Also from Canada is this finding -- that 45% of respondents to an online survey consider their parents to be their sexuality role model compare to 32% who looked to their friends and 15% who use celebrities (at least we can take solace in that statistic!).

About 25% of respondents say the internet is a better source of information than their sex ed classes.

These studies may not be that contradictory, however. Both highlight the strong trust youth have in their school-based sex ed programs, and both do ultimately point to skepticism about the helpfulness and trustworthiness of the sexual health information found online. And the commonalities don't end there -- both report on relatively small sample sizes (though one is from the US and one from Canada).

As more evidence appears the picture may become less foggy.

Who can you trust?

A study of 58 teens found that about a third of them look up information about contraception online, and "most"  were "wary" of the accuracy of the information. Incidentally, these teens also said they get a lot of information about contraception from friends, but they are just as unreliable a source.

In contrast, teens said that they felt the information they received at school could be trusted. This is too bad, because many abstinence until marriage sex ed programs contain inaccurate information about condoms. And while parents are often cited as a source teens want to hear from, conversations between parents and their children can be awkward, few, and far-between. Also, it's not really safe to assume parents have the information -- after all, their parents probably did a poor job of talking to them and that ignorance is passed down from generation to generation.

So, where do we turn as parents or youth? Oh yeah, to the internet. It has all the information one needs. Or, you could always ask a friend.

The internet just "is"

Nice summary of research by academics Patti M. Valkenburg and Jochen Pete, who have written numerous articles about youth online. In their current research, these two scholars conducted a review of all research done to date on teens online and concluded that the Internet isn't necessarily a positive or negative influence. It is just a tool to use -- for good or evil. They write ""Instant messaging can help them exchange intimate information with their close friends, thereby stimulating the quality of these friendships. However, it is also widely used for cyberbullying and online harassment. Likewise, online social support groups can help adolescents with social or health problems, but at the same time they can also result in dangerous interactions with strangers."

"Nuff said. As I and many others have been positing for years, we cannot portray the internet as this scary world from which we need to protect our youth. Instead, we need to work with our youth to provide them with positive environments and good role models so that they are more prone to use technology (and their lives) to promote themselves and others, not bring each other down.

The Internet May Reach Those Who Others Simply Can't

I Want the Kit, a website that offers free chlamydia tests is only available in a few select areas (Alaska, Denver, CO, Maryland, West Virginia, Philadelphia, PA, Washington, DC and parts of Illinois), but it seems to make a big impact. About half its users are under 23 -- not surprising since this is the demographic that is most at-risk for STIs, most likely to go online, and most likely to lack access to insurance and have no other place to go for health care.

A study out of Johns Hopkins found that women who sent tests into I Want the Kit had infection rates between 4-15% -- positive tests mostly came from those who rarely get health check-ups and have limited or no health insurance. For comparison, 3-6% of women who get tested at family planning clinics test positive for Chlamydia infections. So, rates are higher for those who choose the online test. But that simply could be due to the age bracket -- or is it something else?

Another study out of UCLA looked at the internet habits of homeless youth. They were surprised to find that almost 80% of these young people use social networking at least weekly. The potential downside of this usage is that over 20% percent of sexually active participants reported having found a sex partner online in the past  three months, and more than 10% engaged in "exchange sex" — trading sex for food, drugs or a place to stay.

However, those who used social networking to meet sexual partners were also more likely to discuss safer sex practices. And homeless youth who used social networking in general were more likely to have been tested for HIV and STIs.

So, maybe there is something else about the people who go online to get information about sexual health. They might simply be the people who know they need resources, but aren't sure where else to go to get them. And that's not such a bad finding after all.

Defining "Vulnerable" Children

A report from EU Kids Online (a research group which studies the online behaviors of youth from 25 different European countries) finds that about half of 11-16 year olds at least somewhat agree with the idea that it is easier to be oneself online than it is in a face-to-face environment; 12% say the statement is "very true."

This finding is interesting in and of itself, though in some sense not that surprising. Behind a screen, it can be easier to share feelings, disclose information about oneself -- the computer provides somewhat of a protective shield (at least temporarily) from the potentially negative reactions of peers. In a nutshell, this is what the disinhibition effect of social psychology is all about. In the long term, however, with the prevalence of cyberbullying (and online communication in general), this apparent protection can break down quite easily as one's disclosures in the form of posts, texts, and pictures can more easily and quickly be spread, making a secret public knowledge in no time.

The study's researchers frame their findings in a somewhat fear-based framework. They state that the 12% who more strongly believe they can be themselves online are:

• "more likely to have problems with their peers, suggesting that they are seeking online relationships to compensate for offline ones;
• more likely to look for new friends online, to‘add’ people or send personal information to people that they haven’t met face to face, or to pretend to be a different kind of person."

What is not known, however, is why those youth have difficulty with their peers in the first place, which I believe is the key to all of this. And the researchers acknowledge their own uncertainties:
"Is it because they have personal or social difficulties in relating to people face-to-face, so the internet compensates in some way? Or is it because they spend a lot of time online and this leads them to feel more at home in an online environment?"

My own hunches lean me towards the former possibility -- there is something about their social environments that drives them to seek acceptance online. After all, it isn't hard to believe that 12% of youth find it difficult to be accepted in the social circles they encounter on a regular basis. In fact, that number might even be low if we are simply looking at feeling included as a youth, possibly demonstrating the resilience of young people.

Yet, this publication makes the assumption that stronger connections online are not to be desired and tries to further examine what is special about the youth who are more comfortable being themselves online than offline. Age and gender aren't huge factors. But peer problems are -- those youth who report more problems with peers are more likely to "find it easier to be myself on the internet."

Solutions? None that are easy. Promoting acceptance of all youth regardless of their attractiveness, "coolness," sexual orientation, gender identity, mental and/or physical challenges, would be ideal. But is it possible? As much as I want to say "yes," I fear the immediate answer is "no." But that should not stop us from working towards that goal -- ever. In the meantime, let's not assume that youth who find it easier to express their true selves online as opposed to offline are "vulnerable." Perhaps, given their social environments, they are being resilient and finding communities and persons who welcome them as they are with open arms and monitors.

Note: To access the report, look for the link on "Risky Communication Online" published 2/8/11.

School-based Social Workers Unsure about Dealing with Cyberbullying

A recent study reports that almost half of school-based social workers do not feel prepared to handle cases of cyberbullying, even though they recognize it as a problem.

I read this, and felt sad -- mostly because dealing with cases of cyberbullying should not be all that different from dealing with cases of face-to-face bullying. Sure, technology-based bullying may be harder to discover because it's not overhead in the hallways, but the interventions should be the same -- support the youth being bullied, identify perpetrators and decide on adequate consequences for their actions (interesting idea coming out of the UK -- have bullied students help decide punishment). But maybe the fact that 20% of the respondents believed that their school's policy on cyberbullying was inadequate had something to do with them feeling ill-prepared? I honestly don't know how much school personnel rely on policy to back up their actions. Anyone out there want to speak out on that?

Huge increases in media use reported

A recent article in the New York Times highlights that teens are spending more time with media than ever before -- an average of 7.5 hours a day. And, given that they can use several different types of media at once (listen to music while playing a video game or posting on Facebook), teens actually manage to bend time and get in nearly 11 hours of media content into that seven and a half hours.

Heavy media use (defined as more than 16 hours a day!) was found to be associated with several negatives, including behavior problems and lower grades. So, the increase in media, at least in its extreme, may be cause for concern.

The study was conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, who has a strong history of researching media use and content. KFF is also known for its thorough analysis of the sexual content on television (the Sex on TV series). Major findings there include that the amount of sexual content on TV continues to increase, and that references to safer sex or sexual risks and responsibilities are rare (about 14% of sexual content alludes to them). The last Sex on TV report I could find was from 2005.

But maybe KFF realizes that those studies are outdated, and it's time to look more closely at the sexual content of the digital media teens consume instead. I look forward to it!

MTV's Take on Online Safety

MTV has released its A Thin Line campaign to stop the spread of digital abuse. Interestingly, in the "about us" section, it specifically mentions "forced sexting" as opposed to sexting in general. An interesting distinction considering even voluntary sexting covers its own risks such as unwanted forwarding of the picture (more than a third of teens report getting pictures meant for someone else according to the infamous sexting study by CosmoGirl) and even charges of child pornography.

Meanwhile, MTV has released its own data about digital abuse in youth and young adults through age 24. While I wish they reported the age categories separately, some interesting findings include:

• 1/4 of respondents state they know about an incident where somone took a picture or video of another doing "embarrassing or private things without that person knowing" and then shared them without permission.
• 18% received naked images of another on their cell or over email
• 11% were "pressured" to send a naked pic or video of themselves
• 3% reported posting naked pictures of themselves

While interesting, I look forward to a more thorough analysis of the data. Stay tuned!

Sexting -- get the facts right!

This article from a smaller Minnesota paper highlights the same sexting research that all other news stories cover. However, I am calling this one out because of the inaccuracies of its reporting.

For example, the article quotes the following statistics:

• One in five teen girls ages 13 to 16 say they have electronically sent or posted nude or semi-nude photos of themselves online
• 33 percent of teenage boys ages 13 to 16 and 25 percent of teenage girls have had nude or semi-nude images – that were meant to be private – shared with them

Looking more closely at the survey itself, the numbers in this article are flat-out misreported. According to the actual report, 11% of 13-16 year-old girls have electronically sent or posted nude or semi-nude photos of themselves online. I can't find within the report the parallel number for boys, but for all teen boys, the rate is 18% (compared to 22% of all teen girls, not just the younger ones).

The 33% of boys and 25% of girls who are sharing pictures is for all teens, aged 13-19, not for those aged 13-16. I could not find a separate statistic for the younger teens.

So, once again, news trumps accuracy in its attempts to send readers into panics. While I am not saying that the true numbers are to be ignored, I am saying that honest reporting of the issue would be a helpful step towards framing our approach to working constructively with youth to encourage safe and smart technology use.

Causing Panic Down Under

An uninspiring "study" out of Australia states that more than half of teens lie about their age online. As if teens trying to pass as older than they really are is some new phenomenon (C'mon, readers, when did you get your first fake ID?).

What I find especially disconcerting about this newspaper article is the lead: "TEENS are using the internet to lead double lives..." it states. I mean really -- you read the rest of the article and it simply states that teens lie about their age and use pictures to make them selves look better and more "cool." Is this really something to get in a panic about? I think not.


Interesting note: The study was conducted by a "skin products manufacturer." And we wonder why teens struggle to look better all the time...

The Law is Still Catching Predators -- Just Not on TV

A new report finds that more people are being arrested for sexually soliciting youth online than they were six years ago. However, this is mostly due to "sting" operations, where the number of arrests for soliciting undercover investigators who posed as juveniles increased almost 500%. In contrast, arrests for solicitation of actual children increased 21% from 2000-2006. Although it should be alarming that those crimes involving actual children are increasing, it is important to remember that internet use overall during this time has increased much more than 21%. So, proportionally, these solicitations are on the decline.

According to the report, arrests of online predators comprised only 1% of all sex crimes against minors. By far, the vast majority of sex crimes against minors are within the family or local community -- not by online strangers. On a similar note, the report also noted that there is little to no evidence that minors were being "lured" by adults or found by predators based on personal information they post. Instead, youths were the ones reaching out to people whom they knew to be adults and seeking relationships with them. Unfortunately, some of these adults take advantage of such situations.

Bottom line is that online predation remains a rare occurrence. Minors are more often abused by someone close to them (either a family or local community member), and when they are sexually involved with someone online, it is someone whom they already know to be an adult, and actively have formed a relationship with.

Internet: Friend or Foe?

A brief editorial Coming of Age on the Internet by the Association for Psychological Science challenges the still-prevalent notion that the internet is more about isolation than connection. It looks back into the internet dark ages (read: mid to late 90s) to recall how initial studies on the phenomenon focused on how spending time online detracted from "real" relationships and sent our youth into cyber isolation.

Has our mindset changed 10-15 years later? Given that in the United States, online communication among young persons is pretty much universal (up to 97% according to Pew), researchers might have been forced into doing so, but are indeed looking more at the positives. According to the editorial, more recent research findings indicate that online networking is associated with greater happiness and well-being; surfing alone does not have such benefits, and may be related to some psychological risks. This finding isn't any different than face-to-face findings which show that socially connected people are happier.

Is this just evidence that the internet doesn't create problems, but is simply an example of how current human interactions work?

Reminding Youth about Public Access to Information

I thought this study, featured in the New York Daily News, was quite clever. The beginning of the research is simple enough: Author Dr. Megan Moreno analyzed 190 public profiles of young persons aged 18-20. Not too surprisingly, she found that all of their pages included three or more references to sex, drinking, drug use or smoking. Ho-hum. Most research stops there and sounds out the alarm.

What happened next was simple, neat, and full of useful implications. After seeing the profiles, "Dr. Meg" sent each of the MySpace subscribers an email which read "You seemed to be quite open about sexual issues or other behaviors such as drinking or smoking. Are you sure that's a good idea? ... You might consider revising your page to better protect your privacy." And guess what? After three months, 42% of those receiving the message either removed the material or changed their profile setting to "private" so that only their friends could see their information.

Neat, huh? This just shows that with a little nudge, young people can understand how their private information posted in a public forum can and is seen by unwanted parties. And a simple reminder, they will change their behavior.

Internet Safety Technical Task Force Carries a Strong Message

It takes great news like this to awaken me from my holiday slumber. The Internet Safety Technical Task Force is releasing their report which concludes that ""actual threats that youth [online] may face appear to be different than the threats most people imagine." The New York Times headline reads: Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown.

I feel both happy and vindicated. Happy, because this is an accurate assessment of the experiences of youth online. Vindicated because I set up this blog and have been making presentations with this message for several years now.

Larry Magid, who served on the Task Force, summed it up beautifully by saying: "While the task force found that youth risk from predators is a concern, the overwhelming majority of youth are not in danger of being harmed by an adult predator they meet online."

Instead, according to the Task Force report, the focus of our online safety efforts should lean towards better understanding -- and preventing -- cyberbullying.