No more lies please. We're not fake online.

A recent ruling in the United States makes it illegal to lie about your identity on the interweb.

The case: The suicide of Megan Meier, a 16-year old girl (no, a child) who, after falling out with her best friend was approached by that friends mother Lori Drew on the SNSs MySpace. Ms Drew was posing as a 16-year old boy under the name 'Josh Evans' and sought to pursue the 16-year with a barrage of communication. Eventually earning her trust and her friendship.

How exactly will this order play out?...
Daily, we face a constant barrage of real and unreal connections across the web. Some spaces such as SecondLife even encourage the use of multiple identities and play. Others choose to live out what they uphold as very real lives and lifestyles.

The 'real' is dependent not only on context, but the ideals (and manipulations) on the part of the individual. Real profiles on SNSs such as MySpace, Facebook and friends require time to solidify within networks of connections, in order to gel and become stronger. Perhaps what really lies at the heart of the above case is not whether the identity created by Ms Drew to taunt Megan was real or fake, but the fact that it was real to Megan.Which , in this instance, meant that the accumulated actions had very real consequences. The abuse of trust that is at the centre of the case reveals a heartless, if not very disturbed adult deliberately preying on a vulnerable and exposed child.

iPhones, MySpace, friending, Google - how odd these concepts were only a short time ago? Now they are commonplace. In fact, to be 'off' or not present on at least one web platform stands out as unusual and even anti-social. In five years from now the treatment of fake profiles might become commonplace too, when users (young and old) are used to the new social parameters of such technology. What this case represents is a lack in the provision of care, trust and knowledge of the individuals that we invest time and emotional attachment to through our Status Updates, Tweets, etc. To say nothing of the longer-term effects of the broadcast of (too much?) personal information to our known and unknown others.

The case represents not just what makes us who we are, or at least who we say we are. Here, there are a lot of answers. Certainly one possible answer is to 'ban' all those who pretend to be our friends, who pretend to be 'someone' when they are really a no-one trying to be an everyone. However, it is inevitable that those who want will find ways around this.

In a way, this is a form of social control, but meant on the best possible of terms - to safeguard 'real' people's interests. Perhaps in time we will be savvy enough to safeguard our own interests and not be left vulnerable or exposed to those who intend malice. I am hoping that the likes of Ms Drew are the exception 'out there'. After all, what social media offer, to be connected, to enjoy meeting, socialising etc. with others is precisely why so many of us signed up to Facebook et al. in the first place.

Un/Happy Slapping: A call for communications decency

Are you familiar with America's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? If you're not here's a précis; it expressly protects the web-based platforms from any defamation of liability that may be related to any data/updates/social information etc. that are posted to their sites. So if you, or someone else, uploads something to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. it is NOT the provider's issues. But yours.

Yes, primarily a United States led legal ramification, but with significant consequences for all...

Think of it. We all (I am sure) have experienced a potentially awkward situation. Traditionally we have been relatively free to live down these mortification's in the now of the moment and within a specific context - whether workplace, pub, street, supermarket etc. BUT with the advent of the constant streams of publicly broadcast social information we may (inadvertently) share our moments (whatever we are doing) with everyone.

This does not just relate to potentially embarrassing episodic moments, but also to mundane activities, professional events, and so on and so forth. My point is that with the nowness of innovative technology (e.g. instant video uploads to YouTube) the (to)day has come when we have to be prepared to be socially aware at all times. Whether welcomed or not. And this is not just on a personal level, but shared across the globe simultaneously with unknown as well as known others. Who may, or may not, be your friends.

Rather than have debate on whether such uploads are an infringement into individual privacy, I (like socially mediated others) am mindful that we live in a of-the-moment world of nowness where everyone via the social web can be a potential distributor of content. Ironic when you consider that whatever one uploads you effectively give up all ownership to it. To follow this path of thought, perhaps current legislation needs updating. Certainly current measures offer no remedy for those who find invasions into what they are doing, when, where and with whom as, at best, an intrusion and, at worse, a personal and unacceptable impingement.

Covered in the press by incidence such as Happy Slapping
(described by Wikipedia as 'a fad' in which typically 'young people' choose to assault a victim while recording the assault for instant upload to YouTube or other filesharing sites), in the same week there is a report on Cyber Bullying which describes an increased anxiety caused by negative social situations due to the immediacy of increasingly social technologies.

So, do these situations point to a need for a rethink of individual visibility across various platforms and/or the ways in which we behave and have expectations of others?...

As a footnote, I think the best advice is to remember that whenever 'on' the web you are effectively out and in public - as much as you would be in the street. In one way this makes us 'fair game'. In another it strikes me such social visibility can only ever be unfair.