Ethics Post 5: A New Frontier of Bullying

This week's topic is pretty interesting: it involves privacy and the growing epidemic of cyber-bullying. The irony about the word itself is that it's fairly new (although two suggestions came up in spell check for this post) and that it puts a whole new spin on the bullying mythos. 15 years ago, people would have asked you "What's a cyber-bully?" Now, it's almost common knowledge as to what cyber bully is, and what the general nature/behavior of a cyber bully entails. A cyber-bully is basically someone who threatens or harasses another person or people using the internet (specifically but not limited to social media). In the past 3 years, there's been an escalation of  focus on cyber-bulling in the media as in the most extreme cases, intense cyber-bullying has lead to suicide.

It's perfectly safe to say that due to human nature, the cyber-bullies themselves most likely never think that their antics would result in suicide or physical complications. The article that was partnered with this assignment involves a young girl named Megan Meier. She was only 13 years old when she committed suicide due to cyber-bully over Myspace (another reason to hate Myspace). The culprits were a former friend, her mother, and a co-worker of the mother who created a fake account to heckle Meier; she had a falling out with the friend prior to the bullying. That in itself is a shame. Something that started with a trivial situation lead to a horrifying result. The newspaper that covered the story (Suburban Journals) decided not to release the identities of the three offenders until there were charges. However, there were no arrests, charges, or civil suits. Interestingly enough, when the story was released (with the anonymity of the responsible culprits), the writer (Steve Pokin) and his fellow staff recieved flack for not bringing forth names. Readers flocked to the internet to protest and ask for justice. Another paper (St. Louis Post Dispatch) did a little snooping and acquired the identities of the culprits and released the information. Pokin gave in and confirmed.

Personally, I think the Journals staff was ethical in not releasing the names of the neighbors responsible for the suicide. It's a horrible situation and I DO believe they should've been reprimanded in some way, but at the end of the day there were no major court charges and their anonymity could be preserved. In a way, I think Pokin was trying to protect the neighbors from being subjected to random acts of vigilantism. In a way, the Journal covered it's own tracks from backlash by keeping the neighbors anonymous; who knows what kind of lawsuits would be thrown at them for releasing information and the results that would follow. While there is an issue of upholding the community, the Journal was honoring the ethics of privacy.

On the flip side though, I think the Post was ethically justified in identifying the neighbors. In this situation, they were honoring the codes of transparency/accountability and community. People had a right to know who was responsible, no matter what their motives were for wanting to know. In releasing/confirming the identities, awareness was also raised further for cyber-bullying. They were ethically justified, but I have to say I don't completely agree with them releasing the names; the damage was already done. The culprits were getting away basically scott-free.

On a final note, I will say that cyber-bullying happens on a more watered down level across the internet. This doesn't just pertain to social media, but to forums and sites where content can be posted and rated. The irony of these environments is that people can (more times than not) expect to be subjected to teasing or ridicule for expressing views. On internet forums, phrases such as "Kill yourself" or "You're a derogatory term" flow almost as freely as water. Ironically, many of these people that sling these slanderous terms don't mean them, they simply mean to incite anger or confusion in the target. These aggressors are called "Trolls".

A Troll in front of a computer, ready to cause confusion and hurt feelings.

But on that note, the neighbors of the Meier girl were probably attempting to "troll" her; make her feel bad or remorseful for ending the friendship with the neighbor girl. The article in the assignment was not specific in details of who did what to whom first, but it's indicated that the neighbors' side was enraged enough to spark action. I think social media should have a disclaimer that the opinions found on the web are not theirs and should be interpreted as such. Furthermore, parents and teachers should be educating younger internet goers on the potential dangers of the internet. Not just illegal activity and information stealing, but the potential of being bullied online. Unfortunately, since the internet can only be seen through access (smartphones, computers, tablets), evidence of cyber-bullying is naturally narrowed down to the victims' words and behaviors. Hopefully as the awareness of cyber-bullying increases, so do the ways in which one can defend themselves and prevent horrible aftermath.

Assignment #2: Google's Branding

The 2nd assignment for class is to cover the branding for my chosen company, Google. Given Google's intricate approach to simplicity (I know, it sounds like an oxymoron), branding plays a BIG role in how they present themselves as on online presence and a rapidly growing company. I'm going to run down a list of aspects in Google's branding. But first, here's my drawn interpretation of Google downloading the internet (inspired by sci-fi depictions of infectious diseases).

A little upside down. but you get the picture.

Anyway, here we go:

• Uniqueness: If being unique were a superpower, I'm pretty sure Google would be either Superman, or Thor. Given Google's original purpose when it started, the company has come a long way into making it's own identity and atmosphere. Going from search engine, provider to a full blown company within 10 years of it's inception (no relation to the movie) makes it unique without a doubt
• Authenticity: Google's pretty damn authentic; they have their own brand of smartphones and tablets running under the "Android" division, as well as services such as GoogleTalk, (phone, chat) GoogleMaps (navigation/listings) & GoogleMail/Gmail (email). There's no "copy/paste" about the user experience in these services. Not to mention if you have a Gmail account to start with, virtually all their services are available to you.
• Likeability: I think Google has always advertised itself as a tool first and a corporate identity second (sometimes on the same level). From its commercials, promos, and products you don't receive a "conglomerate/factory" feeling. Despite the power Google really does possess (it's always growing), it doesn't let that power take over the overall feel of the company.
• The name "Google" can be viewed as unique, whimsical, or even silly. But truth be told, "Google" is derived from the word "Googol", which is actually a mathematical term. It is "the figure 1 followed by 100 zeros equal to 10^100". Interesting since Google features seemingly limitless results in specific searches.
• Google also has many spokespeople who announce (most of the time through conferences or blog/video posts) new developments with Google's services & products. This gives the company the feeling of an even employee structure. Of course there's a CEO, Larry Page (co-founder of Google), but he's not making all the announcements himself from a glorified platform.
• Overall Personality: The overall personality is that of a laid back, yet hard working company. If you personified Apple, they'd be more of the "techno-nerd who is social, and always looks for new ways to dazzle their friends". Google is that new guy who "sees what his competition is creating, and succeeds in doing his own work and giving it his own flair while still being friendly about it". Google presents a simple, yet layered experience for its fans, users, & employees.

Introductions

Greetings, Bienvenido, Salutations....Hi!
I'm Avery, and welcome to a blog that has been created primarily for a Graduate Communications class (Professional Communications in the Digital Age). The title is "Aviator's Airspace", because of three specific reasons:

1. I have a couple of nicknames (I originally never thought it would be easy for someone to give me one).
2. One of these nicknames was "The Aviator". Basically, it was a slick attempt at glorifying my name, but it stuck in my head; my mind is in the clouds very often. It's unique from my other nicknames.
3. My twitter & tumblr handles are "The Aviator", and in that respect I'm following through with that trend to this blog.

So as I mentioned before, this is a blog that will primarily reflect my graduate assignments along with some thoughts on social media or graphic design thrown in. I guess this post is the christening champagne bottle!