SIVACRACY.NET

DOPA or the Deleting Online Predators Act was such a stupid idea that it seemed to require special words that went beyond merely calling it “stupid.” It was maroonic; it was betarded; it was stooptastic.

The basic principle was that it should be mandated by the federal government that schools and libraries block access to online social networking sites, but it was dressed up with a lot of fear-mongering about online predators, and nobody wants to seem soft on child molesters during an election year (or any other year for that matter).

Only fifteen congressional representatives had the courage to vote against it in 2006. In 2008, legislators on either side of the aisle kept reintroducing it, even when digital rights advocates thought it had died a merciful death, when it stalled after being passed by wide margins.

But just because DOPA is dopey, it doesn’t mean that it’s an idea that doesn’t appeal to state and local officials, so here are some talking points for the next time there’s a debate in which DOPA-think starts to emerge (And for more about the “MySpace Moral Panic” go here and here.)

1) People learn more about writing from composing for real-world audiences

Compositionists who specialize in teaching writing embraced a philosophy that emphasizes writing for specific audiences and understanding writing as a public act decades ago. Now good writing assignments often entail writing for online audiences. Although social networking sites often tend to use software architectures that only allow for short posting rather than extended analysis and reflection, blocking access gives young people less of a forum for practicing writing and rewards spectatorship rather than content-creation.

2) Online predators account for a tiny fraction of the sex crimes against children

Those in the social sciences know the grim truth that is shown quite dramatically on these charts. The vast majority of abusers are parents, with other relatives and unmarried partners of parents adding up to another 10% of cases. Online predators account for only a small sliver of reported cases. Patriarchal norms, the idea that children should be seen and not heard, and a frayed social safety net probably represent more significant causal factors.

3) Many cultural and civic organizations have pages on social networking sites to improve outreach to young people.

Government agencies, presidential candidates, and world-renowned museums have profile pages on social networking sites. Even the Republican National Committee has a Facebook page

4) For those for whom long-distance telephone service is a luxury, such sites are a lifeline to out-of-state non-custodial parents and family members

See this story about foster children for more insight about how these sites serve as substitutes for phones among the urban poor.

5) It is difficult to define “social networking” in the rapidly changing Web 2.0 world.

The original legislation defined such sites by using only two characteristics: the ability to build a profile page and a mechanism for communication between participants. Many newspapers now have these functionalities in order to vet content and stimulate readership. Would Wikipedia be considered a social networking site? Editors of Wikipedia entries have pages that describe their edits and interests and a method of communication via "talk" pages.

6) Social networking has economic value, since young people use it as a way to acquire social and cultural capital

In the case of prohibitions on using public dollars and resources for access to social networking sites in Brazil, according to Jeremiah Spence, the standard line from government officials is that social networking is a waste of time for everyone who has a low income background, not just children. It is possible that a similar logic may be playing a role here in the U.S., where using social networking sites is often seen only as a leisure activity. Spence argues that there is a strong correlation to computer literacy in general. Those who have read Mark Granovetter’s “The Strength of Weak Ties” know that the traditional form of social networking between acquaintances is important for getting jobs. And certainly MySpace has been a boon to many in the music industry who are getting independently produced music heard. Now, unfortunately, it is also true that online creators are too often a volunteer labor force, “virtual sharecroppers” who only benefit large media or technology conglomerates, but that is a separate issue from the “waste of learning time” argument.

7) Blocking access represents a missed information literacy opportunity

What better place to teach about appropriate online conventions than a school or library? Some colleges have tried to be more proactive about issues of privacy and the public sphere. For example, Cornell wrote Thoughts on Facebook as a model for stepping in the right direction toward education rather than prohibition.

8) Your kid can do all that stuff with the cell phone that you gave him or her!

Read the manual. Hello, can you say ubiquitous computing? If I can check and update Facebook from my cheapie Samsung, your kid can too.

9) Do we really want to drive young people out of our schools and libraries?

Again, the covert argument is that young people are just lollygagging around when they use computers for these purposes, but if they check out a book or do some homework when they are in the library or after school program, is it really time wasted? Adults are offered a lot of other services (DVD check-out, books on tape, even a coffee shop in the case of the main branch of my own public library) in order to increase foot traffic. Do we really want kids being latchkey children at the houses of parents who aren’t home and thus have no control over what’s happening.

10) It creates more labor for teachers and librarians

Librarians and teachers would rather be facilitators than prison guards. This week we’re hosting my husband’s cousin, who is a school librarian. These people already face liability issues involving CIPA. Do we really want to give these hardworking professionals more work to do updating screening software for every new social networking site that emerges?

11) It depends on screening software

In order to block access, the computer has rules that govern the URLs that it won’t let users visit. Screening software, unlike most human beings, is dumb. Really dumb. In the case of some of the “net nanny” type programs, it may block out valuable information about gay bashing and women’s health and yet allow one of the most viewed hardcore sites from last year, which has a very harmless-sounding name. What makes this software any smarter when it comes to sifting through for social networking sites?

12) There is good intergenerational online communication.

Sometimes young people use their social networking channels to call for help in abusive or other dangerous situations. Sometimes they use these services to find mentors in sports, the arts, political activism, etc.

13) Widened horizons aren’t a bad thing. (This is a baker's dozen.)

This kind of legislation is just plain un-American. It does to our children what authoritarian regimes in China and Iran may do.

For the latest research, check out the bibliography assembled by danah boyd at Research on Social Network Sites.