Are Cyberbullying and Public Shaming the Same Thing on Social Media - Case Study Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: Essay 1 & 2 Course: Are cyberbullying and public shaming the same thing on social media? Overall impression/thesis Cyberbulling is a form of bullying that happens via communication technologies like the smart phones or the internet. Cyberbulling is the deliberate use of digital media to spread false, hostile, embarrassing or false information about another person. Cyberbulling can take the form of posting gossips or rumours concerning a certain individual on social media hence causing hatred in other’s minds; or it can be going to the level of personally identifying target victims and sharing materials that defames and humiliates them. The essence of bullying is to render the victim devoid of emotional strength (Smith et al, 2008). The increasingly connected world through spread of internet has raised a new platform for bullies to harass their target victims. On the other hand social media has offered voice to the disenfranchised making them able to bypass the power’s gatekeepers and publicize injustices that could otherwise remain unknown. Public shaming is common anyone has to be careful so that it does not cross into cyberbulling (Snider & Borel, 2004). Public shaming seem to be acceptable as a way of condemning evils done by people on social media in order to discourage other people in engaging in the same behavior. However, public shaming can have serious consequences that make it appear like cyberbulling. This essay explores the thin line between cyberbulling and public shaming looking at the differences and similarities in terms of victims, perpetrators and consequences on either side. Argument Cyber bulling on social media can happen to anyone any given time. Social networks are meant to help people connect with friends hence it can be traumatizing to be bullied on social media. Cyber bulling can have a lasting impression on young people. Statistics gathered show that cyber bulling is a very serious challenge among the teenagers. Cyber bulling is directed to many adolescents and teens on an everyday basis (Solove, 2007). Cyber-bulling can consist of sending threatening or mean messages to a person’s cellphone or email, spreading rumours through text or online, posting threatening or hurtful messages using social networking sites, accessing information from the person’s account and sending damaging messages; pretending to be someone else on social media in order to hurt that person by posting derogative messages that ridicules the person. Cyber bulling can be very devastating to adolescents and teens. It results into depressing, anxiety and even suicidal thoughts. Things shared online cannot disappear forever and can resurface to renew the pain of cyber bulling (Tunick, 2014). Cyber bullies find fun in bullying other people online. Whereas cyberbulling cannot physically hurt a person, it leaves the person feeling very upset and mentally vulnerable. A victim of bullying should begin by reporting anything that he feels is hurting or abusive on social media. Staying involved in a child’s cyber world just like in the real world is important in helping parents guard their children from the dangers posed by cyberbulling. A certain woman publicly shamed some two men on Twitter. The woman listened keenly to the men talking an organized technical conference and was very outraged at their sexist and degrading conversation. She uploaded a photo of them on Twitter and added an explanation that divulged their conversation (Petley, 2013). The tweet was re-tweeted and spread widely until a supervisor of one of them came across it. The man was promptly terminated from his workplace. Could the woman have expressed her feelings in person to the men? Did the anonymity play a role in correcting the behavior of the two men? There is a thin line between cyberbullying and public shaming. When someone posts someone else’s photo on social media with a comment in an effort to correct, ridicule or embarrass them it difficult whether to regard it as public shaming or cyberbullying. It can be either way (Ronson, 2015). The main objective in either public shaming or cyber-bulling is to bring dishonor, hurt the dignity and pride and humiliate the person. The main difference is that public shaming appears to be accepted in most circumstances while cyberbullying is not abhorred. It is not easy to address cyber bulling menace following the many forms that it can take like online chatting, traditional computing, cellular devices, and any other form of communication that uses information technology. Some parents have resorted to public shaming in order to cyber discipline their children by exposing their actions at home on social media. There is divided public opinion about this trend (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). People can be ashamed when they believe that they have done something wrong and they regret it. People say things or do things that they wish they could take back or undo. It happens to anybody. Some people take advantage of such situations of guilty conscious people to reveal in public their actions. Shame refers to an emotion that triggered a strong sense of guilt, unworthiness, embarrassment, or disgrace. Shaming people publicly make them to feel disgraced and condemned particularly when it is done publicly. Public shaming just like cyberbulling should not be used particularly on minors. Evidence In a survey conducted 61.9% of youth from Missouri admitted to making fun of other people and some admitted to have done it more than forty times in the last three months (Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Lamis 2008). About 30% of students who took part in the survey reported that they had been victims of cyber bulling on school property. About 12 million students went through cyberbulling in 2011. Suicide is the second ranking cause of death in individuals from 15 to 24 years of age. One suicide is completed for every fifteen attempted suicides among the young adults. Cyberbulling can cause victims to entertain suicidal thoughts particularly where they have not shared their experiences in the hands of bullies with anyone else and choose to suffer in silence (Campbell et al, 2011) It is only one out of ten victims that will inform a trusted adult or parent of their abuse. Victims of bullying are two to nine times more likely to entrain suicidal thoughts. In survey conducted among 20,000 students from Australia indicated that girls are more likely to bully in more covert ways, hurtful teasing was a common type of bullying as well as concocted lies, and bullying was more common among Year 5 and Year 8 students. Students who bully others in the real would perpetual the same act in the cyberspace. Public shaming has a long history and was used in the 16th century in America as a form of punishment. Some people were whipped publicly in order to shame and humiliate them. Many people have lost their job as a result of public shaming. A 13-year old girl in Tacoma Washington committed suicide after her father shamed her publicly by posting her video on social media (Harbison, 2015). Public shaming can end up tragically as the case of this girl. Counter-evidence Public shaming can be considered bad behavior because of its intention of getting vengeance or punishing. It is common to feel that the perpetrator deserves to be humiliated and shamed. It is not true that shaming will automatically isolate the misbehavior of a person and correct it. Shaming can result into grave misconduct when the perpetrators turn on the person aimed at shaming him (Petley, 2013). There are also threats that can be directed to the shamed person as result of his actions. Naming a person publicly to express outrage at their behavior is not effective and can result in more harm the initiation misconduct. Shaming is regarded by some as self-righteousness masquerading as social justice. The anonymity behind cyberbulling and public shaming is widespread. Public shaming is not good. Public shaming should not be used just like cyber bulling. It is better to confront a person face-to-face that resorting to public shaming that can expose him to more danger. The target of both cyberbulling and public shaming is to hurt, humiliate and embarrass the target victim (Campbell, 2005). The consequences can be the same and victims of public shaming can also contemplate suicide and some people use the opportunity to settle personal scores. In the incidents where a man was fired for the derogatory dialogue it caused public outrage hence causing the employer of the woman who exposed the act online to also be fired. Her intentions were counterproductive since they led to her firing. The aggrieved party can seek ways for revenging. Cyberbullies enjoy when they victims hurt and in the same way the people who shame others publicly enjoy when action is taken against the perpetrators. Some parents cyberbully their children in order to punish them in form that they consider as public shaming (Ronson, 2015). Confronting the issue face-to-face is more suitable that resorting to the internet platform to cyberdiscipline them. Many people have been fired as a result of public shaming but did the act do anything into correcting their behavior? Certainly not! People who engage in public shaming are just like cyberbullies seeking revenge or to humiliate the other person. There is a very thin line between cyberbulling and public shaming. Whereas cyberbulling targets innocent people, public shaming targets perpetrators but with the same aim of humiliating or embarrassing them like the cyberbullies (Holtam, 2012). Victims in both cases are left emotionally vulnerable. Public shaming can be used by some people to target people they do not agree with in other forums. It is often said that Facebook the user is not the customer they are the product Thesis Everywhere around the world people use Facebook in connecting with friends and family, expressing themselves and sharing information. The conversation that transpire embody above 1 billion people for are users of Facebook where people discuss anything from politics to pets. The vision of Facebook is to provide people with a place to connect and share openly and freely, in a secure and safe setting. Facebook brings traffic in case of viral news more than any other social network platform (McKean 2014). A user sometimes is not a customer and a customer likewise may not be a user. However considering the Facebook users as products and not customers relates to who has influence over the other. While Facebook customizes its settings to control users, the users have power of venting their anger through the marketplace by shifting to other social media platforms that regard their views as important. The regard of Facebook users as either the product or customers is confusing and requires keen consideration. This paper looks at the delicate balance of the term customer and product when it comes to Facebook users. Argument It is a common saying that the Facebook users are not customers but the product. Usually the people who are paying for the use of Facebook are customers and not necessarily the users who are there to have a look and connect with friends on social media (Geyer-Schulz & Meyer-Waarden, 2014). Advertisers are the ones who pay to use Facebook while the users use the social platform to get acquainted with new friends and catch up with latest news from individual blogs. The term customer, considering its history, sets a bar higher on the level of service to be provided or risk losing the attention or business. In Facebook the customers are also the target users because if Facebook neglects them they can opt to other social platform like Twitter, Istagram and Google hangouts (Cooper & Vlaskovits, 2013). The advertisers target the users of Facebook as their primary audience. The ease use of application makes it possible for the customers/users to remain on Facebook, if Facebook fails to meet their demands they can resort to using other social media platform. The relationship that Facebook has with its users is very unique. The executives of a social media company are not elected by the users. There is no information about what transpires in the Facebook boardroom and users have no control on anything about that (Dunay, P. & Krueger, 2011). The power of the Facebook customer is the pressure that can be exerted in the market place. If Facebook does something that is sinister it will face customers’ revolt in the market as a result of such actions. Nevertheless, there is a limit of how much pressure can be exerted by the users. Facebook is a big company nowadays that it can engage in whatever it pleases. The chance of social media discontent knocking it off are pretty much slim or close to none at all since Facebook has bought off its rivals or copied their innovations or applied both tactics (Marshall, Krance, & Meloche, 2014). It is important to note that Facebook’s revenue comes from their advertisers and not users. It is often reiterated that users are a product and not customers, a collection of choices and likes and preferences to be sold to corporations and retailers. Whether a person likes the manner in which the interface has been designed matters only when they do to them. The users are customers to retailers and corporations but products to Facebook where they are targeted by these corporations. Evidence Facebook offers its users to corporations and retailers as audience that the target. To corporations and retailers the users are customers but to Facebook the users are the product that is sold to the corporations. Facebook offers a platform that the corporations can use to reach its target customers or consumers. Apple CEO, Tim Cook, claimed that companies that basically made their money from advertising turn the customer into the product. Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, definitely refuted this claims and termed the sentiments as ridiculous (Solon, 2015). Cook’s comments came following the hacking of the company’s website where nude photos of female celebrities were share online. Cook was worried about the collection of private information of users by social media companies from their sites. Cook may have targeted Google and Facebook in his attack since they culpable of collecting personal data to share with marketing agencies among other companies (de Looper, 2014). Facebook make most of its money through advertising and the users are the target customers of corporations that turn to Facebook as an advertising platform. The users are provided free services by Facebook and its effort is paid up by the advertisers who the users as potential customers. Although it may be refuted, the users are the product that is sold to advertisers hence Facebook making its money from advertising. The users of Facebook are shaped by Facebook and there is little input that they put in the company’s decisions. Facebook as a social media company decides what it wants and convinces the users to like the new features. The timeline feature replaced the personal wall on Facebook and users were compelled to upgrade slowly by slowly until the last bunch was automatically upgraded by the company (Meyer, 2014). The users are the product since Facebook designs features that are appealing to advertisers in order to attract more of them and does not consider the views of the users as important. Facebook gives more space and value to advertisers while maintaining a cordial relationship with its users whom Zuckerberg refers to as customers and avoids the label of product as suggested by Tim Cook. A critical look at the Facebook users can reveal that they can both be technically regarded as customers and the product. The instance depends on the context of application. Counter-evidence Nevertheless total disregard of the users as a product and not a customer can be misleading and dangerous. In order for the users to spend more time online and particularly on Facebook, they have to like the features of the company. Inasmuch as expert claim users of Facebook are the product, the users have to be treated as customers in order to maintain them on the social media platform (Meyer, 2013). Otherwise there are plenty of social media platforms that the users can turn to if they are disgruntled as Facebook. Facebook designs features that users can easily access and often carryout online surveys to determine the satisfaction of users with some of the features. This demonstrates that Facebook cares about what the users think and considers them as customers who can chance allegiance to other competitive social media platforms. The interfaces used on Facebook have to be understood by the users and in case of any changes Facebook explains the need for the changes to users before they are implemented. The implementation begins by trial versions that enable users to try out the new interfaces. Consequently the users can be the customers since it is through them that Facebook gets its revenue from advertisers (Michael, 2013). If Facebook loses these users, there will be no need for advertisers to troop to Facebook. They will to other social media companies to advertise on their platform. In this sense, Facebook has to make sure that the customers who are users are satisfied in order to attract revenue from advertisers. The over one billion users of Facebook are a source of revenue for the company, without them advertisers would not troop to this social media network. The advertisers would find an alternative like Google or Yahoo! Facebook treats the customers as important since it understands without them there will be no revenue for the company. The users are the customers who attract revenue to the company (Hutchison, Lyons, & Rodriguez, 2014). The numbers of users plays a critical role in determining the traffic of advertisers to Facebook. While Facebook considers advertisers as important, it does not fail to recognize the important role played by the users whom it regards as customers. It is polite treatment for Facebook to regard the users as customers so that they do not feel mortgaged to a third party as mere products being sold off. The users are customers to Facebook and customers to the corporations and retailers who make the advertisements. The users of Facebook have to be valued and their worth appreciated regardless of the fact that Facebook target other corporations for its revenue. References Essay 1 Campbell, M.A., Spears, B., Slee, P., Kift, S., & Butler, D. 2011,The prevalence of cyberbullying in Australia, 5th World conference and IV Iberoamerican congress on violence in school. Investigations, interventions, evaluations and public policies Mendoza, Argentina. Campbell, M.A. 2005, Cyberbullying: An old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling 15(1):68-76. Harbison, C. 2015, 13-Year-Old Girl Suicide Death Caused By Public Shaming Video? Internet Blames Isabel Laxamana’s Father For Tragic Bridge Jump, iDigitalTimes, retrieved on 6th June, 2015 from: http://www.idigitaltimes.com/13-year-old-girl-suicide-death-caused-public-shaming-video-internet-blames-isabel-447274 Holtam, B. W. 2012, Let’s Call it what it is: A Matter of Conscience: A New Vocabulary for Moral Education, Springer Science & Business Media, New Mexico. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J. & Lamis DA. 2008, Current Suicide Proneness and Past Suicidal Behavior in Adjudicated Adolescents, Suicide and Life-threatening Behavior, 38(4):415-426. Patchin, J.W. & Hinduja, S. 2010, Cyberbullying and Self-Esteem, Journal of School Health 80 (12): 614–621, Petley, J. 2013, Media and Public Shaming: Drawing the Boundaries of Disclosure, I.B.Tauris, London. Ronson, J. Feb. 12, 2015, How one stupid tweet blew up justice Sacco’s life, The New York Times Magazine, retrieved on 6th June, 2015 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0 Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49: 376–385. Snider, M., & Borel, K. 2004, Stalked by a cyberbully, Maclean’s, 117(21/22), 76-77 Solove, D.J. 2007, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet, Yale University Press. Tunick, M. 2014, Balancing Privacy and Free Speech: Unwanted Attention in the Age of Social Media, Routledge, London. Essay 2 Cooper, B. & Vlaskovits, P. 2013, The Lean Entrepreneur: How Visionaries Create Products, Innovate with New Ventures, and Disrupt Markets, John Wiley & Sons, New York. de Looper, C. 2014, Mark Zuckerberg Calls Tim Cook Comment 'Ridiculous' for Suggesting Facebook Sees Customers as Products, Tech Times. Retrieved on 6th June 2015 from: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/21673/20141208/mark-zuckerberg-calls-tim-cook-ridiculous-suggesting-facebook-sees-customers.htm Dunay, P. & Krueger, R. 2011, Facebook Marketing For Dummies®, John Wiley & Sons, Melbourne. Geyer-Schulz, A. & Meyer-Waarden, L. 2014, Customer & Service Systems, KIT Scientific Publishing, New York. Hutchison, T., Lyons, C., & Rodriguez, G. 2014, Humanistic Business: Profit through People with Passion and Purpose, A&C Black, Melbourne. Marshall, P., Krance, K. Meloche, T. 2014, Ultimate Guide to Facebook Advertising: How to Access 1 Billion Potential Customers in 10 Minutes, Entrepreneur Press, New Jersey. McKean J.S. 2014, Customer's New Voice: Extreme Relevancy and Experience through Volunteered Customer Information, John Wiley & Sons, London. Meyer, M. M. 2013, The Innovator's Path: How Individuals, Teams, and Organizations Can Make Innovation Business-as-Usual, John Wiley & Sons, London. Meyer, R. Dec 11, 2014, Facebook No Longer Likes the Word 'Users', The Atlantic, retrieved on 6th June 2015 from: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/12/facebook-doesnt-call-them-users-anymore/383638/ Michael, M.G. 2013, Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies: Emerging Technologies, IGI Global. Solon, O. 2015, You are Facebook's product, not customer, Condé Nast UK, retrieved on 6th June 2015 from: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-09/21/doug-rushkoff-hello-etsy Read More