Object Dart

I was sent a very interesting journal article today that addresses the issue of online solicitation of teenagers. There’s a lot of speculation and fear-mongering in the media around this issue, with the conventional wisdom being that minors are at extreme risk of solicitation from predators. And as it turns out, this is not the case.

The first time I heard someone state that most teenagers were actually only talking to people they know, and not strangers, was when presented at the Great Blend last year. It seemed to make more sense than the ‘endemic internet predator’ meme, because most teens seem smart enough to not be victims waiting to happen.

And it turns out that some published research supports this. In a journal called Child Abuse and Neglect Mitchel, Wolak and Finkelhor present some really interesting findings about internet behaviour among teens, and relate that behaviour to incidences of two types of dangerous internet activity, solicitation and harassment.

The article is here for you to read yourself, but the gist is this. Online solicitation is not likely to increase if your teen (or, if you’re a teen, you or one of your friends) uses social media like blogs. However, if the same person engages with strangers then they’re statistically likely to experience attempts at solicitation and predation. I doubt that anyone would find that surprising.

Further in the “not surprising” category is that 73% of solicitors are male, and 39% were over 18. The vast majority (86%) were people the internet user didn’t know in person. But, the indicator of risk for these users wasn’t exposure to solicitation, it was the willingness to engage with strangers. In other words, if your internet user is the sort who’s willing to talk to strangers, they’re also likely to be the sort who are at risk of being lured into predation.

What this suggests is that if you have some kind of influence over an internet user, i.e. if you’re their parent, don’t worry about what they’re doing online. Worry about them being uncomfortably friendly with strangers, a behaviour you might be able to see in the real world. Also worry if they display other risk factors like isolation from their peers, or you, their parents (this wasn’t strongly stated in the article, but it was implied).

The surprising finding to me was about harassment. Apparently 9% of youths in the study had experienced online harassment. But, 50% of the harassers were female, and 58% were 17 or younger! That ran against my assumption that males were more aggressive online… Furthermore, 45% of the harassers were known to the internet user. This suggests that real world bullying translates online.

Overall, the study is probably good proof that what’s needed isn’t scare stories about the dangers of the internet, but better instruction in how to deal with unwanted attention. Kids, and people in general, probably just need to learn how to switch off particular types of bad behaviour.

Despite not liking my first attempt at a Vandermeer book, I decided to give him another try when there wasn’t anything to read at the library.

And it’s probably a good thing. Shriek is a highly interesting “biography” written by a Janice Shriek about her brother Duncan. The story covers the length of their lives, and is set in a fictional city called Ambergris, on the banks of the River Moth.

It’s the setting that really took me. The city is magical and mystical, with the spores of a thousand types of fungus permeating the environment, the people and the underworld. Duncan Shriek is obsessed with a competitor race called the ‘Gray Caps’, and spends his spare time travelling underground to discover their mysteries.

Great premise.

What’s fascinating about the biography is that it pretends to be annotated and edited by Duncan, with at times hilarious additions placed in brackets. It was so convincing that for a day or two I thought everything I read in brackets was written by Duncan!).

Although I was concerned that the action was haphazardly explained, often out of sequence, and disjointed, by the end of the novel the reasons for this become apparent. It’s an interesting read (if not always highly engaging).

Well, Sunday afternoon was a bit tough so I decided to go switch off brain and enjoy a little pointless entertainment.

And I wasn’t disappointed. Although, the Raquel Welch version will always be better.

10,000 BC is about a tribe of mammoth hunters who are attacked by “evil 4-legged devils”, and it’s up to our heroes to rescue the people enslaved and stolen. You can see where we’re going from here.

All in all not a bad film. The bad critters are particularly bad, the good guys particularly good. There are ‘meaningful things said’ about manhood and responsibility (“some men draw a circle about themselves and bring as many into it as possible…”), and there are all the moral lessons you expect from this genre. Mind you, their one cliché was to make all the really bad guys…. yup. Arabs.

Once again a bit of a roller-coaster, and there’s nothing wrong with that, right?

Despite reading that didn’t like this film so much, I’m going out on a limb and saying it wasn’t too bad.

Moliere is a famous French satirist, and the film tells the story of he and his troupe returning to Paris after 13 years touring the provinces. They’ve been honing their art, and are preparing to entertain the brother of the King. Mysteriously, Moliere is summoned away to speak with a sick someone, and the story flash-backs to the years before the troupe leaves Paris.

I think what made me enjoy this film the most was the expectation of something very lite. I thought I’d been indulging in some quite intense entertainment and needed a bit of a laugh. And Moliere is that. I’ve heard a few criticisms now, but the film left me with an overall positive impression.

It is a farce, but the writer is able to introduce just enough seriousness to the plot to ensure that some  lessons are learned, and the characters are all forced to resolve a potentially fatal flaw. Pretty formulaic stuff, but light on it’s feet, often laugh-out-loud funny, and a leading lady who is, without doubt, ravishing.

Is it possible for a film to be both vapid and turgid?

As many films have demonstrated in the past, sumptuous costumes cannot compensate for bad acting, bad script, bad and clichéd directing, cheesy devices, and outright lame photography.

Finn, barely got to know you.

Who says the internet doesn’t connect people.

1. I’m a Tolkien fan.
2. This was like trying to read the Old Testament. But boring.

PS. I’m giving it a second chance. Thus far, not great, but curious. You can see how the characters of the book are prototypes of the Lord of the Rings.

Left work early yesterday to head up to Otaki (and hour and a half drive if you’re making good time) before the traffic got crazy. The event? Strange Resting Places was playing in the local school hall.

This is a play about a Maori from the 28th Battalion encountering an Italian man during the imminent bombing of the Cassino abbey during WW2. If you’re not familiar with the history, the New Zealand division was given the opportunity to try to take the town of Cassino, Italy in early 1944. Our main man at the time was one General Freyberg, and as part of the assault he had a 1400 year old Abbey pounded into dust by the biggest air bombardment of the Second World War…

Strange Resting Places not only tells the story of the bombardment well, it tells it excellently, with humour, song, three languages, and grace. The actors, Paolo Rotondo, Rob Mokaraka and Maaka Pohatu are superb, and the characters at times so convincing you’ll find yourself shocked to realise what you’re watching.

The play has been touring for fair while now, and I think is in Palmerston North next? If you’re with a couple of hours drive I strongly suggest you attend. Missing this is downright foolish.

I haven’t heard if there are any repercussions to the DomPost story, broken by The Standard and picked up Russell B, about the extensive editing of wikipedia by someone behind the parliamentary IP address. I know that there are some questions about the censoring of explicitly political (or more accurately, politically sensitive information), but I won’t be broaching them here.

What I’m interested in is the use of social media by public servants.

While some might of the opinion that public servants should not use social media, this opinion is usually held by persons who don’t like the idea of having public servants at all. The old, “cut the public service to the quick” types. And frankly, if you’re of this opinion then stop reading in a little bit, because you’ll never be convinced. I think all I can say is that I don’t hear you people complaining about the guys at the bank, or at the insurance company using the net. And, they’re employed by your dollar as well…

However, I am of the type that prefers to see people around him actually working. There’s nothing like a couple of decades in service and manufacturing to get you used to putting in hours of hard labour. When I first started in white-collar work I thought that every single person I saw was basically… lazy. I soon came round when I saw people putting the 12-hour days, and understood better when I did a few myself.

The thing about the internet is, not being a smoker, it’s hard to get away from the desk and stretch the legs without bothering my colleagues. If there’s anything I hate it’s some numnut walking up for a chat when I’m concentrating hard on trying to get some wording right. So, instead I browse the web when I need to “micropause”. That or go get another cup of tea/coffee.

This is probably the right time to introduce you to a story. After I’d been a former employer about 9 months I was hauled into my manager’s Офис . There was also an HR person. They both looked a little serious. I, naturally, became wary.

During this meeting I was told that there were some concerns about my internet usage. I was shocked! What the hell! How much internet had I been using? Did that one page on some English daily featuring Shane Warne and two topless young ladies someone get reported? (I had closed the window as soon as I realised it was NSFW).

Well, it turns out that my internet usage had topped the allowable limit for my unit in the Department. Again, shocked. How much had I been using to warrant a meeting with manager and HR?!

An average of twenty minutes a day.

Yup, you read that right, twenty minutes.

What this meant is that if I got up and walked away from my computer for an hour and left stuff.co.nz open, it counted against my usage. In management’s defence, a lot of employees would go over the limit, but I guessed that I was probably one of the worst, so got brought in for a chat.

And during that chat I was told to find something to do to distract myself when I needed a break… something that couldn’t be measured by the second. Maybe take up smoking?

So, how does this relate to social media? A man’s got to have something to look at on the net during that twenty minutes!

But seriously. If you’re plonked in front of a computer all day you will, inevitably, use the internet. The proviso is that you use it responsibly, as warrants your occupation as professional. Moreover, there are voices that encourage the appropriate use of the internet and social media as tools for the public service.

To balance the expectation that you use the resource reasonably, you need to maintain transparency at all times. To do that, you need to use your own name when you’re using social media like blogs or wikis. Never, ever hide behind an “anonymous” (or worse, anonymouse) IP address or pseudonym. Some people have good reasons for using them, but I can’t imagine a single situation in which a public servant would need to. If you’re up to something dodgy at work, and trying to be sneaky, you will get caught, and spanked.

Doubtless the ICT department up at parliament has already trawled their records, and the exact persons who resulted in the DomPost article have been spoken to already, if not only for bringing their workplace into (minor) disrepute.

And would using real names have prevented this? Probably not. But then, if you’re thinking of editing a wiki about tanks and your favourite band on work time? You should think again. If you still think it’s a good idea, then using your real name is better for your workmates…