From research@cmhcsys.com Thu Nov 27 17:33:45 1997
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 05:53:22 -1000
From: research@cmhcsys.com
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RESEARCH digest 416
Dear Colleagues--The discussion on virtual identities is quite interesting. I do have a
concern with the notion that "false" identities are inherently destructive, for
several reasons:
(1) I believe that within us we have a wide variety of aspects of identity which don't always get played out, often to our loss. From a Jungian perspective, if we don't come to terms to understand our gender opposite (anima for the males, animus for the females), that opposite functions as a destructive shadow. This would suggest that trying to learn to understand that contrasting self, trying to look at the world, even if on a limited basis, from that Other within, should be most helpful in reaching psychological maturity.
(2) I suspect that in the case presented of the man who participated as a part of a women's support group that he most definitely would NOT have been accorded the same support had he entered as a male. I have subscribed to an on-line list aimed at looking at issues of battering and providing support for batterees; while this list has nothing in its description that would suggest that only women are welcome, almost without exception the men who have posted have been soundly bashed.
The struggles of males who have been battered have been trivialized; it has often been suggested that they deserved anything they got or that they are lying because "of course, only females are battered and only males are batterers." This suggests to me that in such a forum, a man presenting himself as a man would not be welcome, would not be supported, and likely would be abused--all in all a sad commentary, especially when such earnest attempts to understand our gender other could be most beneficial to an individual and could have positive implications for our society as a whole.
Of course, there are always some people, male or female, who would choose to take on an Other-persona for destructive reasons. This does not mean that all Other-persona attempts are destructive any more than the fact that some people take communication courses to learn to manipulate others means that all people taking communication courses have inherently destructive goals. There are some rich opportunities for growth in exploring our Other(s) within and opening ourselves to these possibilites, and to researching these possibilities, seems important.
The notion that the Internet cannot bring a depth of emotional contact may be true for some users may be true. I know that it is not true for me and would guess from what many net-acquaintances say that it is not true for many others. Face-to-face interactions do not necessarily provide the hugs and touches which can indicate empathy and concern. Americans live in a strongly no-touch society and I find that I am seldom offered touch except by very very close friends. Psychically though I am "touched" in ways on-line that I seldome experience face-to-face. Sometimes this "touching" is quite positive: I have several close friends that I have never met physically who are stalwarts in providing emotional support. Their words to me do not just touch me intellectually, but at a deep emotional level. I feel truly listened to and cared for. Their responses to me suggest that they feel the same as a result of thier interactions with me.
Sometimes this interaction is negative: I have felt (and seen others) flayed alive on-line in ways I have seldom seen happen in face-to-face interactions. Wilbur, who eloquently here has talked of the realness of on-line relatinships, I know has also experienced these extremes of connection and rejection on-line and this is reflected in the power of what he has said here. Getting at such relationship issues is not easy--I don't think traditional research mechanisms will get at it. Ethnomethodological studies to begin to understand the richness possible may be quite important. Another important area will be seeing the relatedness of learning styles--I am a verbal/visual learner.
Print to me is a powerful medium. I can express myself well in print--I don't
experience the keyboard as a limitation, but rather as a device for "flowing" my
ideas, thoughts, emotions into words. I know some people who have similar styles of
learning who find virtual contact rich indeed. I have other friends who are not verbally
oriented (especially folks who have tactile/sensate learning styles) who find virtual
interactions limiting and stilted, missing something crucial in making connections.
Understanding these differences and how they affect our interactions and our perceptions
of these interactions on-line would be a useful addition to the literature.
++++++++++++++++++
I still think however that physical proximity matters a _lot_, and that the only reason
it may not matter so much, for _some_ positive people, is the excess of positivity in
their minds, which transcends physical boundaries. One person's heaven can be another
person's hell, given certain conditions, because, as my rant explained, the nature of Evil
is to be _disembodied_, or dis-connected. "Heaven" is the Union of Mind and Body
and "Hell" is their Separation (at least in some wise "traditions"
which I do believe, or agree with, or live with)...
++++++++++++++++++
The answer is a resounding "yes!" Here we are, talking about serious issues regarding experiences on the computer, and I've never met you. But I can learn from your astute observations, your careful analysis, your insights. Right here and now is a perfect example of the good that online communication can be. The happy ending will be our added knowledge, and the wonder and magic that always accompanies the exchange of minds and souls, as in communicating honestly, whether in person or via E-mail, etc. we also open up to others our very essence and quality.
Also, regarding what was said about touching and its importance in establishing real relationships, I am thinking of the future of the telecommunications world, and am quite sure we will get almost as close as actually "touching" once we have complete, easy accesss to the instant sounds, visuals, etc. to our repertoire of online communication tools.
I wonder, once we see exactly who we're talking to, as if communicating to one another through a TV screen, how will we continue to dress up in our virtual knight/princess costumes and enter Camelot?
There's truly no world like the one right in front of our nose -- the real one. It's
the most treasherous of all, and yet can be the most exciting and exhilarating.
++++++++++++++++++
Out of your four examples, I dispute two of them.
(2) I belong to a parenting group that has had to express compassion too many times for
people who have had miscarriages or who have had adoptions fall through. They often have
said later that the support of the group in their time of trouble meant a lot to them.
(3) Part of the job of internet service providers is to help me verify identity. So the person who sent me a message today is probably the same person who used that name yesterday. Hacking into another person's account can happen, as faking drivers licenses can, but it doesn't happen often enough where I hang out on the net to make me doubt the identity of people I talk to. If your issue is who the person is in real life, I don't really care, if I'm not likely to meet them in real life. AnniesMama@aol.com is enough identification to let me connect the new message with the old messages I've shared with this person, and that's enough identification to allow a continuation of the cyberrelationship.
Verifying the intent of someone is done by talking to the same person over time, same
as is done in person.
++++++++++++++++++
I think an important part of the issue is expectations. Two anecdotes, if you don't mind:
(1) A former roommate of mine told stories of how, in an earlier life, she and a girlfriend would entertain themselves by going to bars and making up stories about themselves. Instead of presenting themselves as the schoolteachers they were, they would tell men that they were stewardesses (this was before we had flight attendants), or whatever. They'd spin the stories as elaborately as they could. My roommate didn't seem to think that she was being evil, cruel, deceptive, or anything bad. She treated it as a kind of harmless entertainment.
(2) When I first went to college, back in the dark ages, someone warned me and my parents that if you go to parties, beware of the brownies because there might be "stuff" in them. (This may still be true today.) My parents reacted in horror. My reaction was blase: of course you have to assume that all brownies at strangers' parties are "magic" until proven otherwise.
What both of these stories have in common is that one's reaction to a situation can be radically different depending on your expectations. If you think a bar is a place for telling tall tales, you'll join in the fun when someone tells of their escapades as a stewardess, and you won't feel deceived if you later find out they're a schoolteacher. But if you think people should always tell the truth about themselves, you'll be horribly disappointed when you learn that this attractive blonde lied to you.
Likewise, if you know the conventions about party stimulants, you can control your intake appropriately. But if you don't know the conventions, you can get into serious trouble and you can feel horribly deceived.
So is that the solution, just being aware of places where you can trust and places where you can't? Dee just sent a follow-up message saying that she now thinks it was "dumb" to have thought she could start a healthy relationship in a chat room.
I hope we don't need to go quite that far. Yes, we need to be street-savvy enough to know when we're in a fantasy zone. But just as it's possible to form an authentic relationship with someone one met originally in a singles bar, it would be nice if it were also possible to form an authentic relationship with someone one met in a singles chatroom. We need to be able to give off and receive cues that say "I'm ready to cut through the fun and get more serious with you."
The next step is the really hard part: deciding whether someone is becoming authentic with you or if they're *really* deceiving you. This is the hard part. There are scam artists in both real life and on the net who are able to home in on what you want to hear in order to get you to do what they want you to do. We all have radar to deal with this. But most of us have probably been suckered a little too far into some situations than we were comfortable with in retrospect. We get a little more cautious for next time, and move on.
I guess that what I'm trying to say here is that there is a difference between
situations (both on the net and IRL) where part of the game is playing around with fantasy
and situations in which people try to deceive. We need to be aware of fantasy environments
and either avoid them or play along with good humor. The existence of fantasy doesn't
necessarily imply that an environment is full of deliberate deception. True deception is
distasteful wherever it occurs. But the same skills that help us spot the oddities in a
good "line" IRL can help us notice incongruities online, too.
++++++++++++++++++
I have 2 years experience in 2 chat programs, both of which have a graphical interface,
obviously the use of avatars that indicate the sex of the user greatly enhances the
expectations of the people with whom they interact. As an "old timer" I observe
the comings and goings of new users and often offer advice when it is sought. A few things
occur to me in reference to this thread.
Fantasy versus reality:
One would imagine in an environment where people go around dressed as fairies, cartoon characters, pin up girls, tigers, dogs, kittens etc, that people take nothing seriously and that the truth regarding ones, age sex, looks and relationship status may not be treated the same way as it is face to face. That was MY expectation when I first began visiting these places (first Worlds Chat then The Palace).
At first I had a ball being whoever or whatever I wanted to be and assumed that others were doing the same, it was only after dealing with the emotional fall out from somebody who had "fallen in love" with my fantasy persona that I realised some people had different expectations. I had also formed an emotional attachment to this person I met online but I thought of my online character almost as a third person "she" was in love with whoever "he" was online but when the computer was switched off at the end of the day I thought of those 2 characters as one does characters in a book. Later, as I became more involved in these online communities I became more myself and also found my online relationships becoming more "real".
I have observed this mismatch of expectations over and over. I could relate many anecdotes of the upset this has caused to peoples lives. In one case the results were particularly traumatic when 2 people who had fallen in love online met face to face, he, having already been left by his wife because of the online relationship decided to go and meet the woman he had been chatting with for several months. On arriving at her home he was presented with 2 children he had not known about, and a woman who was several years and many pounds over what she had led him to believe. He was devestated that she had lied to him about things which he considered important.
She was equally devastated that he cared so much about her real appearance, she beleived that he had fallen in love with her mind/personality etc and had expected him to "accept her for who she is", she had in fact never really expected him to take the fantasy so far as wanting to meet in real life. Neither of these people had "evil" intentions, they simply got swept up in something they had little experience with.
One has to question where some people leave their common sense when heading in to the
chat rooms, yet stories like the above abound. However, I do feel that new users are
becoming more aware of the pitfalls, perhaps due to media coverage of some internet horror
stories and I also see, as the communities mature, that people like myself that have been
around the chat block a few times tend to look out for newer users and will confront
people who appear to have bad intentions.
++++++++++++++++++
Thank you for stepping out of the lurker role to share this story with us. I have heard similar accounts for years now. It highlights the need for real data.
There is a huge consequence to the net's social norms that says it is ok to type to
total strangers. For some, this becomes a titillating adventure in voyeurism. For others,
it represents a real opportunity to expand ones social network.
++++++++++++++++++
One survey I did, back in the stone age of the net, (early 94 :-) showed a similar no
brainier correlation. People who were using online support groups the most were more
likely to say it helped them. Of interest was the percent that said their online
friendships from these groups lead to phone calls and visits. Without looking up that old
study, I believe the numbers were around 40 to 60 percent. ++++++++++++++++++
Internet Population Continues to Grow
A Chilton Research Services study of 1,012 adults concluded that 39.7% of the adults in the US are Internet users. This percentage is up from 29.3% in April. Over twenty percent surf the Internet at work.
A similar survey conducted by IntelliQuest Information Group, Inc. found that 56
million, or about 27% of the US population, were online. Another 16 million intend to
start using the Internet or online services within the next year. Purchases were made
online by 8.7 million people this year, in comparison to 2.6 million in the second quarter
of 1996. In this survey, 46% reported that they use the Internet at work. On the downside,
10 million people who previously were online have dropped out.
++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:28:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Terry Roberts
To: research@cmhcsys.com
Subject: Re: identification of gender on-line
Message-ID:
Some people have disputed the accuracy of the claim here that it's the newbies who are
most prone to flaming and to inappropriate romance. Ok.
But still, it seems to me that the kinds of trouble that newbies get into might be somewhat different than that for experienced folk. That leads me to wonder how much longer the 'Net will be dominated by newbies.
The current rates of growth of 'Net use means that newbies are, and have been for some time, all over the place. This can't go on forever. Someday the only newbies will be the 4-year-olds, and netiquette will be taught by the same mechanisms as other aspects of etiquette. Does anyone have projections for when this will be? Or at least when enough of the population (at least of the "developed" world) is online that the increase ceases being exponential and starts leveling off. 2 years from now? 5? 20? 50? Seems like someone must be doing these projections.
When this happens, I expect the character of the net to change from what it is now. I
hope we're documenting the current state well, since it might not last forever.
++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:14:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "lhooker@sirius.com"
To: Research
Subject: Re: Value of On-Line Relationships
Message-ID: <199711292114.naa25128@mail1.sirius.com>
I subscribed to this list while it was in its recent dormant stage, so it's been
fascinating for me to observe the process of its awakening... reawakening, I guess, for
most. Being intrigued by a number of messages, I can't resist the urge to express my two
cents worth. (BTW, Deanna, I enjoyed your clever verse; does that come fairly easily for
you?)
Terry wrote that she thought expectations were an important part of the issues that come up in online relationships, and I agree. I might assume that the majority of people signing up on match.com, looking for a romantic relationship, would have some thoughts about eventually meeting their match off-line, whereas others who hang out on MOOs, take on personas and become involved in relationships (sexual or otherwise) might often prefer the opportunity for fantasy and projection to play a bigger role. If one were interested in social or professional networking, one's behavior will vary with that of another who is using cyberspace to express frustration and hostility.
Just as in RL, common sense tells that part of what dictates the kind of people we meet is where we choose to hang out, but, as in RL, not everyone in church is honest and upstanding nor is everyone at the bar an alcoholic. So one can use one's judgment to make discriminations about where to hang out, but that doesn't mean there aren't any problems once that choice has been made. Just like Real Life. It doesn't always turn out like it's sposed to, just 'Ccuz we did what we thought was the right thing.
To me, the term newbie is very relative; I don't think there's anyone much over seven years old who can claim to having been online for most of his life. But, unlike our experience, kids growing up now will have the internet as just part of their lives. They'll meet friends online and off for games, friendship and romance, support, jobs, etc.; there will still be the problems of people not being who they say they are, but perhaps, most kids who've grown up online will be more savvy about how to discriminate the poseur from the authentic other.
Just as in RL, there are people whom you can trust and those you can't. People who are
out to con others, and people who wouldn't even think of doing that. I don't think that
people are really that different (tho' they may be trying out different personas); rather,
it's just a new medium, and we're still learning.
++++++++++++++++++
Earl Chachola (G7) last semester, wrote this e-mail message:
This artcle covers some interesting points such as identities on-line and gender roles.
What I am going to comment on is on-line relationships. She said that we live in a mainly
no-touch society. In most respects this is true because any touch from just an aquaintance
could be interpreted wrongly. But living here in Hawaii I feel that we aren't so tied
down. What I mean is hugs and aloha is part of who we are. She also refers to being
touched on-line in ways that she is seldom touched in the physical world. I mean through
thought and kind words stimulating her mind. I feel that this in a way is good. If the
person on the other side is truthful and is actually being themselves instead of playing
as some fantasy part of themselves then it is good. Some people on the other hand play as
a fantasy part of themselves as metioned in topic one of the forward that I read. This too
can be interesting, seeing a side of a person that is seldom seen at all. These are just a
few thoughts of mine blurted out through the computer. Don't mind me if I wrambled on,
sorry.
++++++++++++++++++
Kynan Yonamine (G7) last semester wrote this e-mail message:
Hello all you fellow 409b dudes! My opinion regarding online relationships is that it
has its good and bad points. First of all, I think that there is nothing wrong with
meeting people on the internet. It allows a new and different path to meeting new people.
I myself have met people on the net but the relationships has never been more than
friends. Too me, this kind of interaction is okay, however, I feel that when people start
to get to attached emotionally, it becomes a problem. Especially when meeting the other
person is difficult or even impossible. I have a freind who had a woman propose to him
after he corresponded with her for a few months. That was crazy! I think that it is sad
how desperate some people can get. Oh well, everybody does there own thing right?!
++++++++++++++++++
From: "Kimberly S. Young"
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: IAD alive and well, in South America!
In terms of your questions regarding IAD or pathological Internet use as I like call the
concept, I am in the process of constructing a web page that will include an on-line
database on the topic that will include FAQs. Additionally, the page will include articles
on the topic by myself and other clinical researchers in the field, a resource center to
locate major treatment centers specializing in Computer/Internet Addiction Recovery, order
information and an outline about "Caught in the Net," the first tradebook on
this issue, and lastly details about the consultation services conducted through the
Center for On-Line Addiction (for which I am the founder).
++++++++++++++++++
COMPUTER DEPENDENCY A Central Florida counseling group called LifeStream Behavior Center in Eustis, Florida has begun to offer treatment for people whose compulsive use of the Internet causes them to withdraw from reality and "create a false cyberworld to inhabit." A LifeStream counselor says, "We're going to be learning a lot about this as we go along because there really are very few treatment programs for Internet addiction. The community and some colleagues might be skeptical, but we feel like this is definitely a real problem for some people." (AP 4 Jan 98) ++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 11:28:02 -0500
From: Joe Walther
To: research@cmhcsys.com
Subject: Re: IAD alive and well, in South America!
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971202112802.0095bc80@pop1.rpi.edu>
John, John, John! There ARE published studies documenting the existence of IAD. Well,
IS anyway. But more are ALMOST published! Here's a bibliography for you available here.
++++++++++++++++++
There was also an internet addiction chat room set up (specifically for a few legal reasons, for me) at moo.du.org. Long odd story, which no one seems to believe, so I just dropped out of responding to the i-a-s-g group and the research group here.
A bit like attending an AA meeting in a bar, as one person wrote. shrug. What can I
say, our judicial system told me I had to do it.
++++++++++++++++++
Hello Wilbur
As the founder of Computer Addiction Services at McLean Hospital I guess I can speak to
this topic. I do not know what is happening in South America, but I was also interviewed
by some one in Buenos Aires recently. John makes a very good point. There needs to be a
study which looks at baseline and the only way to do that is offline studies. I treat
people for the symptoms they show at the time. Without exception they have other problems.
These consist of bi-polar disorder, depression, OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) ,
other addictions, social anxiety, shyness, social phobia. Besides those people I treat I
get lots of questions from my Web Page
Co-dependency? Why not. Many of these people meet each other on line. They form common bonds in chat groups and support each other. As is well know, however, they really do not know to whom they are "speaking." I have seen several people who get very disturbed when their contact disappears with no trace. Two of my patients became so disturbed about this that they had to be hospitalized. Why, they trusted what they saw on the Net. They believed what was happening was real. They believed that their basic human needs were being meet. These are need to belong, need for respect, and sexual needs. Ironically, the more they answer these needs by using the computer, the more isolated they become.
People tell me that they are bored and need excitement in their lives. They turn to the fantasy of the Net. They turn to exciting games, either active or interactive. For all these activities they are dealing with a machine which may or may not be giving them true messages.
As to people admitting that they have an addiction, the last people to admit it are those who are addicted. Ask any addict if he or she is addicted. The immediate answer is no. Denial is a major component of any addiction or impulse control disorder..
Ask any person how much time they spend on the chat or game their answer is not much or only a few minutes. Ask a family member how much time that individual spends at games and the answer is too much or several hours. Interview the two together as I have done and it can become a blaming game. In situations like that I try to help them see that someone thinks there is a problem and if so are they ready to change their behavior. If yes, then regardless of what are the contributing factors, the treatment can continue.
I hope some of this is helpful.
Maressa
Computer Addiction Services
McLean Hospital
++++++++++++++++++
Alfred Bsioa (G7) wrote last semester:
In regards to online relationships, I have a friend who met his girlfriend on the internet. He went to Maui Community College and used to spend his time on the internet. Eventually he stumbled on in a chat room and met this girl who also likes to spend her time on the internet. They both seemed interested in each other just by communicating online. However, they had no idea of how each of them looked. But this did not stop them from developing an online relationship that inevitably led them to become boyfriend/girlfriend. Luckily she lived on the same island. Wow, what a story! I wouldn't mind meeting a girl on the internet. A cute one that is! (just kidding) Like most people, I think online relationships have its downside and upside. It depends on the situation. For my friend, he was lucky.
Aloha,
alf@gte.net
++++++++++++++++++
One student wrote:
...And then there are other things like cultural factors which play a strong part in how technology is used. My own unacademic cultural observation (and probably one that is overgeneralized), especially prevalent in Hawai'i, is a strong Asian influence in dealing with the concept of "shame." Just as it is with face-to-face communication, many students in the classroom are deathly afraid of embarrassing themselves in front of others. I'm sure many other instructors of undergraduate courses, like myself, can attest to the struggle it is at times to conduct class discussions or the lack of questions raised in the classroom. To some extent, this same concept of "shame" is carried over into cyberspace, especially when it is known that the "conversation" is scrutinized by your peers and (*oh my gosh*) academicians. Indeed a scary thought sometimes, particularly when the subject of conversation is not your forte.
To: research@cmhcsys.com
Subject: Re: Internet use versus RL
Message-ID: <3489a8e3.f69f4083@concentric.net>
John wrote;
>To go online, however, to meet others, improve one's personality, self- >confience,
and have opened to you a world of social relationships you >may never enjoy in real
life seems quite the opposite.
The difference between a passion and an addiction is that a passion adds value to your life and an addiction takes value away. Most people that are new to the net, or are deeply involved here, or are researching social aspects of the net are passionate, not addicted.
Some people (how many?) are involved in the net at the expense of real life commitments
and are losing a lot due to being unable to moderate their net use. The difference is one
of priorities. If ones net relations continue as a priority above ones spouse, ones job,
or ones important real life commitments and one is not able to moderate their net use
despite the negative consequences, then a compulsion/addiction can be said to exist. I
know this happens. I have heard too many stories of broken marriages, lost jobs and
assorted negative consequences. I heard a story the other day from a herion addict that
had 4 years clean and became compulsive about her involvement in aol chat rooms and blamed
that as part of her relapse back into hard drug use. Did the net cause her to relapse? Of
course not. Did she have a pre-existing addictive personality? Perhaps. Did she get caught
up in the online world of social relationships to her own detriment? Yes, and lots of
people do.
Storm A. King
Online relationships offer all kinds of wonderful things not easily obtainable elsewhere, but investing in them the resources we are obligated to be investing in our families and communities is escapist and at base, immoral. It is for this reason that I strive to do things online which foster the building of community and family offline. The things I have accomplished online are a source of great pride to me, but it's clear that one reason I'm here is that seductive sense of control over the situation.
I don't easily leave my keyboard, but I am obligated to do so. I justify my passion, and the time it takes from my family, in part by doing good works with my online time. But just as the kids of the over-invested hospital volunteer suffer, so do the kids of the avid online volunteer. In the end, there is nothing I can do online which will justify cheating my kids of the time they need. Figuring out how much online time is reasonable is an ongoing struggle in my life, and it's not about addiction. It's about choosing the easy stuff over the harder stuff. The harder stuff is more worthwhile. The harder stuff is why I think I'm here.
Mr. Sumiye (G7) wrote this last semester:
Howzit 409a class,
I also agree that an individual's culture does play a role regarding the concept of
"shame". But I think that applies mostly to face-to-face conversations or public
speaking. Being an Asian myself, I find it easier to communicate my thoughts and feelings
in cyberspace. I also think my speaking is a lot more meaningful and genuine when Online
because my fears of face-to-face communication doesn't exist. I am able to be myself on
the Net, it doesn't matter that my work will be scrutinized by peers or academicians. I
look at it like this: I lack the verbal skills to communicate effectively, and cyberspace
provides me the opportunities to do so. My feelings of "shame" somewhat
dissapate because in the cyberworld, nobody is entirely right or wrong, it's a place for
expression.
Be Happy!
Kevin Stachel (G7) wrote this last semester:
Hey class-
I am also in agreement that cultural practices tend to form one's communication style.
Being a part-Hawaiian you would expect me to be a certain way, yet my own individual
styles are what make me who I am. I think that who a person addresses influences their
styles of speaking.
In cyberspace, one can fabricate his or her own personality, including how they
respond. It's more situational that shame appears in communication. no one wants to sound
like an idiot. I find myself, at this moment, trying to sound like I know a great deal
about "shame", but I don't. I'm just expressing what I feel.
---> Kevin "SHAKA"
Ayada Zeez (G7) wrote this last semester:
I think that people would be more expressive in cyberspace, taking advantage of the
anonimity. Even when your name is included on a site you may post, the chances the large
audience knows who you are are slim. I think people hold back for reasons of pride rather
than shame. I know that when I post I want my words to represent the best that I can
offer. Knowing that your words will remain in cyberspace for years to come, why waste
space on something frivilous.
Ayada
Here is a news item from Edupage Online, December 1997:
LAWSUIT CHALLENGES LIBRARY'S USE OF FILTERING SOFTWARE
A group of individuals in Loudon County, Virginia, have filed a federal lawsuit to block
the county's public library system from using filtering software to prevent library
patrons -- both children and adults -- from using the Internet to access material that is
obscene, contains child pornography, or that is harmful to minors under Virginia statutes.
The suit argues that the requirement is an infringement of the free speech right of
adults, especially insofar as it would prevent access not only to sexually explicit
material but to legitimate material as well. (New York Times Cybertimes 24 Dec 97)
Back to Instructions for Report on Virtual Relationships
Back to
G8 Main Page (Index of All Reports)Cour vrelqq.html ADD_DATE="878717136" LAST_VISIT="0" LAST_MODIFIED="0">cars.htm