Advertisement

Narratives of Industry Responses to Cyberbullying: Perspectives on Self-regulation from and About the Industry

  • Tijana MilosevicEmail author
  • Brian O’Neill
  • Elisabeth Staksrud
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we provide an overview of narratives about online intermediaries’ responses to cyberbullying from the perspectives of policy makers and the companies, as well as children and parents. Relevant self-regulatory and self-organisational efforts are discussed as well as the rationales for their adoption; including how the effectiveness of these efforts is seen from the perspectives of various stakeholders. We draw attention to the relative paucity of data on effectiveness of companies’ mechanisms, particularly from the perspective of any benefits received by children as a result of these interventions and support.

References

  1. Bangemann Report, Europe and The Global Information Society: Recommendations to the European Council. (1994). http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/bangemann.htm.
  2. Bazelon, E. (2013). Sticks and stones: Defeating the culture of bullying and rediscovering the power of character and empathy. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Communications Decency Act of 1996, (CDA), Pub. L. No. 104–104 (Tit. V), 110 Stat. 133 (Feb. 8, 1996), codified at 47 USC 223, 230.Google Scholar
  5. Crawford, K., & Gillespie, T. (2016). What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint. New Media & Society, 18(3), 410–428.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, C. (2014, May 6). Hannah Smith wrote ‘vile’ posts to herself before suicide, say police. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/06/hannah-smith-suicide-teenager-cyber-bullying-inquests.
  7. DeNardis, L. E. (2014). The global war for internet governance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Haan, J., van der Hof, S., Bekkers, W., & Pijpers, R. (2013). Self-regulation. In: B. O’Neill, E. Staksrud, & S. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a better internet for children? Policy pillars, players and paradoxes (pp. 111–129). Göteborg, Nordicom.Google Scholar
  9. Donoso, V. (2011). Results of the assessment of the implementation of the safer social networking principles for the EU. Individual reports of testing of 14 social networking sites. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/458077/1/Individual+Reports+SNS+Phase+A.pdf.
  10. Dormehl, L. (2015, January 28). 300 hours of footage per minute: Google explains why policing YouTube is so tough. Fast Company. http://www.fastcompany.com/3041622/fast-feed/300-hours-of-footage-per-minute-google-explains-why-policing-youtube-is-so-tough.
  11. European Commission. (2009). Safer social networking principles for the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/sites/digital-agenda/files/sn_principles.pdf.
  12. Facebook. (2016). Community standards. Helping to keep you safe. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards#.
  13. Facebook Help Center. (2016). How to report things? https://www.facebook.com/help/181495968648557?helpref=faq_content.
  14. Fingas, J. (2017, May 23). Facebook defends content policy after guidelines leak. Engadget. https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/23/facebook-defends-content-guidelines/.
  15. Gasser, U. & Schulz, W. (2015). Governance of online intermediaries: Observations from a series of national case studies. https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/NoC_Online_Intermediaries_Research_Project_Synthesis.
  16. Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greater Good Science Center. (2015). Greater good. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/.
  18. Greenberg, A. (2016, September 9). Inside Google’s internet justice league and its AI-powered war on trolls. The Wired. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/inside-googles-internet-justice-league-ai-powered-war-trolls/?mbid=social_twitter.
  19. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. Hopkins, N. (2017, May 22). How Facebook allows users to post footage of children being bullied. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/22/how-facebook-allows-users-to-post-footage-of-children-being-bullied.
  21. ICT Coalition. (n.d.). ICT coalition. http://www.ictcoalition.eu/.
  22. Jones, L. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2015). Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media & Society,  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815577797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latzer, M., Just, N., & Saurwein, F. (2013). Self- and co-regulation. Evidence, legitimacy and governance choice. In E. P. Monroe, S. G. Verhulst, & L. Morgan (Eds.), Routledge handbook of media law (pp. 373–397). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Law Reform Commission. (2016). Final Report on Harmful Communications and Digital Safety. Dublin: Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
  25. Lievens, E. (2010). Protecting children in the digital era: The use of alternative regulatory instruments. Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lievens, E. (2016). Is self-regulation failing children and young people? Assessing the use of alternative regulatory instruments in the area of social networks. In S. Simpson, H. Van den Bulck, & M. Puppis (Eds.), European media policy for the twenty-first century: Assessing the past, setting agendas for the future (pp. 77–94). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Lipton, J. D. (2011). Combating cyber-victimization. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 26(2), 1103–1155.Google Scholar
  28. Lipton, J. D. (2013). Cyberbullying and the first amendment. Florida Coastal Law Review, 14(99), 99–130.Google Scholar
  29. Livingstone, S., & Bulger, M. (2014). A global research agenda for children’s rights in the digital age. Journal of Children and Media.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.961496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Livingstone, S., Carr, J. & Byrne, J. (2015). One in three: Internet governance and children’s rights. Global Commission on Internet Governance. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/one-three-internet-governance-and-childrens-rights.
  31. Magid, L. (2014, August 14). IAC’s Ask.com buys Ask.fm and hires a safety officer to stem bullying. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2014/08/14/iacs-ask-com-buys-ask-fm-and-hires-a-safety-officer-to-stem-bullying/.
  32. Marsden, C. T. (2012). Internet co-regulation and constitutionalism: Towards European judicial review. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 26(2–3), 211–228.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2012.698450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matias, J. N., Johnson, A., Boesel, W. E., Keegan, B., Friedman, J., & DeTar, C. (2015). Reporting, reviewing, and responding to harassment on Twitter. Women, Action, & The Media. http://womenactionmedia.org/twitter-report.
  34. McLaughlin, S. (2013). Regulation and legislation. In: B. O’Neill, E. Staksrud & S. McLaughlin (Eds.), Towards a better internet for children? Policy pillars, players and paradoxes (pp. 77–91). Göteborg, Nordicom.Google Scholar
  35. Milosevic, T. (2016). Social media companies’ cyberbullying policies. International Journal of Communication, 10, 22. http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/5320.
  36. Milosevic, T. (2018). Protecting children online? Cyberbullying policies of social media companies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman, A. L. & Bach, D. (2004). Self-regulatory trajectories in the shadow of public power: Resolving digital dilemmas in Europe and the United States. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 7(3), 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. News O2. (2016, April 6). Children reveal riskiest social media sites. http://news.o2.co.uk/?press-release=children-reveal-riskiest-social-media-sites-new-net-aware-guide.
  39. O’Neill, B. (2013). Who cares? Practical ethics and the problem of underage users on social networking sites. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(4), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Neill, B. (2014). First report on the implementation of the ICT principles. http://www.ictcoalition.eu/gallery/75/ICT_REPORT.pdf.
  41. O’Neill, B., & Staksrud, E. (2012). Policy implications and recommendations: Now what? In S. Livingstone, L. Haddon, & A. Görzig (Eds.), Children, risk and safety on the internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective (pp. 339–354). Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parliament of Australia. (n.d.). Parliament of Australia website system maintenance. http://outageaph.aph.gov.au/.
  43. Report of the Round Table on Advertising. (2006). http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/overview/report_advertising_en.pdf.
  44. Sacco, D., Silbaugh, K., Corredor, F., Casey, J., & Doherty, D. (2012). An Overview of state anti-bullying legislation and other related laws. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/State_Anti_bullying_Legislation_Overview_0.pdf.
  45. Schneider, S. K., Smith E., & O’Donnel, L., (2013). Social media and cyberbullying: Implementation of school-based prevention efforts and implications for social media approaches. http://www.promoteprevent.org/sites/www.promoteprevent.org/files/resources/Social_Media_and_Cyberbullying_FinalReport-EDC_0.pdf.
  46. Šléglová, V., & Cerna, A. (2011). Cyberbullying in adolescent victims: Perception and coping. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 5(2), article 4. https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4248/3294.
  47. Snapchat. (n.d.). Safety Center. https://www.snapchat.com/safety.
  48. Staksrud, E. (2013). Children in the online world: risk, regulation and rights. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  49. Staksrud, E., & Lobe, B. (2010). Evaluation of the implementation of the safer social networking principles for the EU, Part 1: General report (Study commissioned by the European Commission), http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/final_report/first_part.pdf.
  50. Staksrud, E., & Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and online risk: Powerless victims or resourceful participants? Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 364–387. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30122/1/Children_and_online_risk_%28LSERO_version%29.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Svantesson, D. J. B. (2005). The characteristics making internet communication challenge traditional models of regulation. What every international jurist should know about the internet. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 13(1), 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Twitter. (2017). Our trusted partners. https://support.twitter.com/groups/57-safety-security/topics/274-handling-issues-online/articles/20171366-trusted-resources. UK Council for Child Internet Safety (n.d.).
  53. van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Royen, K., Poels, K., & Vandebosch, H. (2016a). Help, I am losing control! Examining the reporting of sexual harassment by adolescents to social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 19(1), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Royen, K., Poels, K., & Vandebosch, H. (2016b). Harmonizing freedom and protection: Adolescents’ voices on automatic monitoring of social networking sites. Children and Youth Services Review, 64, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Royen, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., & Adam, P. (2017). Thinking before posting? Reducing cyber harassment on social networking sites through a reflective message. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaas, L. (2014, October 30). Snapchat escapes Australian cyberbullying crackdown, for now. Naked Security. https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/10/30/snapchat-escapes-australian-cyberbullying-crackdown-for-now/.
  58. Wauters, E., Lievens, E., & Valcke, P. (2016). Empowering children through labeling in social networks: Illusion or Solution? In M. Walrave, K. Ponnet, E. Vanderhoven, J. Haers, & B. Segært (Eds.), Youth 2.0: Social Media and Adolescence: Connecting, Sharing & Empowering, (pp. 227–249). Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. (2013). Introducing the facebook bullying prevention hub. http://ei.yale.edu/introducing-the-facebook-bullying-prevention-hub/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tijana Milosevic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian O’Neill
    • 2
  • Elisabeth Staksrud
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Dublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations