The Internets

1. The Internets Why are they so awesome?

2. The Internet Wait, what is it, actually? • Well, Mr. Stevens, it’s definitely not a big truck. • The Internet is basically three things together: • Computers (many, many computers) • Some method of connecting the computers (phone, optical, wireless..) • The shared language they speak over that connection (Internet Protocols)

3. The Internet Is that important? • In some ways! Mostly in how hard it is to keep the Web out of somewhere, or get rid of it. • Compatibility • Reliability • Size

4. Online Communication Before the “Online” • Hard media – from punch cards to floppy disks • Bulletin board systems – precursor to the modern Internet • Basically the original social network • So many adolescents who are famous hackers today got started with these!

5. Online Communication The Internet • The original purpose of the Internet was rapid communication (military, of course – the ARPANET) • Once computers could ‘talk’ to each other, data transfer can actually begin! • But the original intent of the system remains its primary use for most Internet users.

6. Online Communication Forms of Communication • Original forms were basically fancy telegraphs – computer-to-computer direct messages. • E-mail: killer app of the Internet • USENET: Ever wonder who thought of ‘lol’? • Bulletin boards & mailing lists • IRC and chat rooms • Web applications and social networks

7. Online Communication Hyperpersonal Interaction • Original Internet communication (and, in many ways, today’s Internet communication) lacks almost all the stimuli of face-to-face communication • Socially challenging to handle – “Impoverished social environment” • Think of sarcasm online, for example. • Some researchers call the anonymous Internet “impersonal”, but Walther (1996) termed the idea of 'hyperpersonal interaction' • Trying to explain why online communication was so popular with e.g. socially anxious people • If the Internet is 'impoverished communication', wouldn't it be more difficult for people who are socially unskilled?

8. Online Communication Hyperpersonal Interaction • People can conceal socially undesirable traits (e.g. picking their nose), and the people they meet are likewise presented as more desirable (e.g., can't see them pick their nose) • Positive feedback loop – both more likeable and easier to like others • People develop more intimate relations more quickly with online friends than offline ones! • CMC lends an (arguably false) feeling of safety, anonymity, and ease in accomplishing interpersonal goals • No nonverbal cues = more resources for the remaining social tasks • Asynchronicity provides time to carefully parse messages and construct responses

9. Online Communication Disinhibition Effect • EVERYDAY USERS on the Internet—as well as clinicians and researchers1–7—have noted how people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say and do in the face-to-face world. They loosen up, feel less restrained, and express themselves more openly. (Suler, 2004) • Basically, people do and say things online they wouldn't do in real life. • Especially U.S. Politicians. • Suler further separates this into benign and toxic disinhibition

10. Online Communication Benign vs. Toxic Disinhibition • Benign disinhibition – on the Internet, people are more willing to share, be emotionally honest, and are more likely to show kindness, generosity, or altruism. • Think of things like online fundraisers or charities, popular social movements, etc.

11. Online Communication Benign vs. Toxic Disinhibition • Toxic disinhibition is pretty much exactly what you're thinking of. • Why? Punishments on the internet are (ostensibly) pretty mild for most people. • But sometimes not. See: U.S. politicians.

12. Online Communication Why Disinhibit? • Suler‘s article lists 6 major reasons. • Dissociative anonymity • Invisibility • Asynchronicity • Solipsistic Introjection • Dissociative Imagination • Minimization of Status and Authority

13. Virtual Communities • “…groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or mechanism.” (Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze, 2002). • Message boards, social networks, YouTube channels, IRC (anybody old enough for this?), WoW guilds... • Might be organized around a particular hobby, group/identity (e.g., GLBT, people of colour, etc.), belief (e.g., political affiliation), or real-life connection (club, clique, team, etc.)

14. Virtual Communities • Provides a unique social outlet that provides incredibly rich communication – rivaling face-to-face communication in many ways! Also an excellent way to see the entire spectrum of human horribleness, from 'banal' to 'outright repulsive'

15. Virtual Communities The Good • Why do people like online communities? (Ridings & Gefen, 2006) • Information support: • Current events, gossip, opinions & reviews, downloads, general interest... • Reddit, 4chan, etc. • Social support: • Online communities can provide support for disenfranchised (e.g., young mothers) or rare (e.g., congenital disorders) communities by putting them in touch with each other where it would otherwise be impossible • Friendship: • Spending time with people you like is, itself, rewarding! Strange idea. • Recreation: • People find online communities a fun and enjoyable way to spend time.

16. Virtual Communities The Bad • Misinformation • People are wrong. Sometimes, they're very wrong. Usually, they're online. • e.g., Gold standard, Bitcoins • Tenuousness: • The ease by which you can enter a virtual community is matched only by how easy it is to leave again. • Abnegation: • You can't tell me you've never seen someone looking at Facebook in class.

17. Virtual Communities The Ugly • The Internet is a safe haven for any number of horrible opinions. • Racism, sexism, jingoism... • Children are not particularly good at critically appraising online opinions. • Or teenagers... • Or adults... • Or even doctors and teachers! • Even ordinary users can find themselves using reprehensible material 'ironically'.

18. Virtual Communities The Ugly • Example: Ana/Mia support groups • Eating disorders: a lifestyle? • Example: HIV->AIDS denial. • Think of how much money we spend on health education.

19. Virtual Communities Now what? • The Internet changes its face so quickly that research is almost always a step behind. • Even so, the Internet has enough power that it’s captured the eye of politicians, news media, scientists… • By the time our research on Facebook and Twitter finishes, where will the Internet be?

20. Cyberbullying • Traditional definition of bullying (Hurst, 2005): • “…an imbalance of power that exists over a long period of time between two individuals, two groups, or a group and an individual in which the more powerful intimidate or belittle others.” • Initial research on bullying and the Internet attempted to port the same definition over, but online. • Bill Belsey: • "Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others."

21. Cyberbullying A New Beast • Research Kristen Welker in our lab is doing (right now!) on cyberbullying to see if it’s perceived as such by actual children • It’s not! Some factors are more or less important: • Imbalance of power • Period of time • Method of attack

22. Cyberbullying A…New…Beast? • Cyberbullying has become a hot topic in the news and in politics with some high-profile cases – e.g., Tyler Clementi. • Butdoes it need new laws and policies? Are the old policies just bad at handling all bullying?

23. Video Games The Old New Beast? • Video games have been a bogeyman in the mass media (and, promptly afterwards, the literature) for about 15 years now. • They’ve done pretty much everything: incited violence, failed children out of school, given people heart attacks, and otherwise tormented mothers everywhere. Right?

24. Video Games The Violent Beast? • The link between violent media and violent behaviour is extraordinarily well studied (50+ years). The conclusions: not very clear (Ferguson & Ferguson, 2009) • There is a causal link between violent media and short-term violent behaviour • This link is of very low power. Anybody here remember their statistics? • There is little to no evidence for long-term violent behaviour and violent video games. • Additionally, there is a heavy publication bias in violent media research.

25. Video Games The Stupid Beast? • An article by Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh (2004) found that game-playing 13-14 year-old boys in argued more with teachers, got in more fights in school, and had worse grades. • They interpreted this through the General Aggression Model: • “…a multi-stage process by which personological (e.g. aggressive personality) and situational (e.g. video game play and provocation) input variables lead to aggressive behavior by influencing several related internal states and the outcomes of automatic and controlled appraisal (or decision) processes.” (Anderson & Dill, 2000)” • But more recent research (e.g., Ferguson, 2010) says no effect!

26. Video Games Addiction (to overusing jokes)? • Lots of horror stories about people playing Starcraft in LAN cafes for two weeks and dying of caffeine overdose. • Has been treated in the literature like other addictive behaviours, e.g., drinking, gambling.. • e.g., 2010 study of 9th grade German students measured preoccupation, conflict, loss of control, withdrawal, and tolerance for video games (Rehbein & Rehbein, 2010) • People have even tried treating it with drugs (buproprion)! (Han, Hwang, & Renshaw, 2010) • That said, disorder was proposed and rejected for DSM-V in 2007

27. Wikipedia • Scourge (or saviour) of lab reports, writing assignments, and open book exams...right?

28. Wikipedia The Technology • Anonymous, open, and free encyclopedia. • Well, mostly open. • Locking vandalism-prone pages • Vandalism-scanning bots • Account control - esteemed contributors and moderators • And almost anonymous. • Wikipedia Scanner: tracks IP addresses of people who edit Wiki articles • Democratic National Party headquarters editing Rush Limbaugh • CIA editing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad • And pretty much free. • See above.

29. Wikipedia The Pedagogy • Jim Giles, Nature (2005) • Wikipedia errors comparable to Encyclopedia Britannica • But there are problems with: • Readability and organization • Prominence of radical scientific theories (Fill the atmosphere with ash to stop global warming!) • On the other hand, a Wikipedia article can be made for pretty much any topic of interest (no space concerns) • Errors can be corrected as soon as an error is found, not in the next edition of a book!

30. Wikipedia The Community • Almost all scientists know about Wikipedia, and many of them read Wikipedia, but... • Only 10% have ever edited a Wikipedia article, even to make a correction. • Most prolific Wiki editors are middle-aged IT employees, regardless of topic. • There have been several high-profile Wikipedia contributors with false credentials exposed • e.g., “Essjay”, professed Ph. D. at private university, actual chump • This guy was interviewed by The New Yorker! • Jimmy Wales: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it." • Later retracted & Essjay “fired”.

31. WikiLeaks • Originally a Wikipedia for leaked confidential documents. • Now, it's a more traditional publishing outlet. • Based of Wikipedia's technology, but now... • Information all sent to a central source (the WikiLeaks group) • Information is sent encrypted (PGP, etc.) • Central source decrypts, then publishes the information for the whistleblower to protect their anonymity • Whistleblower's identity is never known

32. WikiLeaks Published Documents • Most famous documents published by WikiLeaks (2009, 2010): • “Collateral Murder”- about a dozen people, including 2 Reuters journalists, being shot by a US helicopter • Cablegate – inter-embassy messages by US embassies for decades • Guantanamo Bay prisoner dossiers • Afghan and Iraq “War Logs” - massive amounts of military documentation • Most of these are allegedly from PFC. Bradley Manning.

33. WikiLeaks Fallout • Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, fingered Bradley Manning as WikiLeaks's source, citing AOL chatlogs • Manning was arrested in Iraq on May 26, 2010 • Manning has been in military prison for almost two years, and only in February was ordered to stand trial (date not set)

34. WikiLeaks Internet Security in 2012 • Modern encryption still requires a ludicrous amount of computing power to break – it’s much easier for a computer to make a lock than break a lock • The U.S. government is constructing a huge computer center ($2 billion dollars!) in Utah for the express purpose of having a computer network strong enough to break encryptions … • And a database to store so much data off the Internet that they haven’t made up the name for that unit of byte yet (highest one is 1024, the yottabyte).

35. WikiLeaks Internet Security in 2012 • Holy crap! 2 billion dollars! • Holy crap! Encrypted data broken! That means banking information, health and education, even online shopping and bills! • Holy crap! All that data, stored forever in some bunker in Utah! • Holy crap! 2 billion dollars!