 So good morning. I guess since we last met, I'm going to give you two different things. Since we last met, we were focusing really heavily on contact, the last thing in terms of research. And I've been going through and working out all of the various literature on what's going on in content. Many of you will be interested to know that there is actually not a lot of new research happening in this space at all. And a lot of the research out there is dated 2003 and before. The exception are sort of the cast of characters that you got to see the last time. And so Michelle has kindly come back. She has the most recent data in this space, which is why she's come back to sort of give you a perspective of it and give you some fleshed out understanding of how it relates to broader data sets that we know both in the US and the UK. In terms of the research advisory board, there's a couple of different things that's going to happen. I'm going to get you all by the next time we meet in September a crib of a literature review of this entire space. So if there are questions that are coming up or things that you're sort of going, well, is there anything on X, Y, Z? The sooner you can get that to me, the better. This literature review will help you with as we go through and see some of the presentations in the public and private meetings in the fall to get some context of what kinds of problems they're actually addressing and what we know about that problem space. But hopefully that will flesh things out. So what we're going to do today is really focus heavily on content. And we're going to sort of play a nice little team game. Michelle's going to present a lot of the different information on content access issues. Most notably, of course, is porn, but there's also questions of violent content access. I'm going to then switch focus and talk more about what happens when we're talking about youth-generated production of problematic content. And the thing to know is that there's not a lot of quantitative data in this space yet. So I'm going to basically give some topology and give you a sense of what actually is going on. But I would first sort of introduce Michelle. I think many of you got to meet Michelle the last time. She's with the Internet Solutions for Kids. She does a lot of research in this space, primarily doing quantitative survey research and some of the best and most important research out there. It would help a ton just for the people who are not here, if it is possible for you to speak into the mic. Is it possible for one of us to be your tabber to press along? I'm sorry, it's inelegant, but I think for a logistical reason. Thanks, everyone, for having me back. It's great to see everyone again. And as Dana said, I'll be focusing much more on content exposure. Dana will be talking about content creation. And so we'll be talking a lot about our data and then also acknowledging that our data is really building on, at this point, 10 years' worth of research, really looking at especially pornography exposure and a little bit also about violent websites, certainly the folks at the University of New Hampshire have always been on the forefront of this and then folks that in the UK. So just to give you a roadmap for where we're going, what we're going to be talking about today. First, we'll talk about exposure to x-raying material, looking at unwanted as well as wanted because there is a difference. And I think it's important to talk about that. We'll also look at online versus offline. I think it really helps to give us a context. X percent of kids are looking at it online, well, compared to what. And then we'll talk about exposure to violence online. We don't talk a lot about this yet, but it's important to recognize and understand that there are different types of websites that are out there. And the question is how many kids are actually accessing them. So just to remind you about the methodology for the Growing Up with Media Survey, we talked to 1,588 kids in 2006 and then we followed up with them in 2007. So these data are from October and December of last year. We're talking about six month old data at this point. We did have a 76% follow-up rate, which means that about 1,200 of our kids came back and gave us more information. Young people were between the ages of 10 and 15 when we first talked to them then 11 and 16 at the most recent data collection point. We are funded by the Centers for Disease Control. The Youth Internet Safety Surveys, as you know, one was conducted in 1999, 2000. The second one was conducted in 2005. Both included 1,500 young people. They were replication surveys. They were not a longitudinal survey of the same young people, but they did in many ways ask exactly the same question so that they could really get at trends, what was going on, what had changed, what had stayed the same. The main difference between this survey and the Growing Up with Media Survey, this is a telephone survey, and the young people were 10 to 17 years of age, ours were 10 to 15. That's important because we're seeing a lot of these things kind of increase as age increases. So we would expect to see a lot of the frequencies that we talked about today to be slightly higher in the Youth Internet Safety Surveys. All right. So let's talk about unintentional exposure to X-rated material. I think this is really the space that we end up talking quite a bit about because researchers and adolescent health professionals are very concerned about kind of what does it mean, what a young person not intentionally is exposed to X-rated material on the internet. So as I mentioned, the folks at the University of New Hampshire, the Youth Internet Safety Surveys have really kind of been the ones that have been looking at this in the United States. They define it as one of two things in the last 12 months. Have you been on a website that showed pictures of naked people or people having sex when you did not want to be on such a site? So we're talking about naked people, we're talking about people having sex when you didn't want to be there, okay? The second possibility is whether or not you opened an email or an instant message with advertisements or links to an X-rated website. So the second one's a little bit different, one, because it's being pushed to you, but also two, because we're talking about links not necessarily pictures, okay? So what are they fine? Well, in 2005, among the 1,500 kids that they talked to, about 34% reported an unwanted exposure. So about one in three young people said yes, I've been exposed to X-rated material at least once, I've been exposed to sexual pictures at least once, and the last year when I didn't want to. I'd like to point out that when we compare unwanted and wanted, we're talking about 40% of young people in that sample. So there's obviously quite a bit of overlap, okay? Okay, so about half of the kids are boys, this is for unintentional exposure. Half are boys, three quarters of them are older, 14 to 17 years of age, okay? So you've got an age group of 10 to 17, you split it in half, 10 to 13, 14 to 17, three quarters of them are in this older age group. Okay, so it's very age-defined, where did it happen? Well, about four in five said it happened while they were surfing on the web, and then one in five said it happened with an email or an IM that I didn't anticipate. Among those that said it happened while they were surfing, 40% happened when they were doing online searches, so you're searching for something, and other sorts of web pages pop up, clicking on links within websites, and then 12% misspelling addresses, website addresses. So Livingstone and Boeber, yes, absolutely. Was that, Danny, can you please press your button? Oh, again, actually you should be teleported. Hi, Danny Weitzner, MIT. Was there a measure of how many such exposures there were over what period of time any exposure happened? Yeah, so it's ever in the last 12 months, so ever, never. The UK, Livingstone and Boeber really are the ones that have the national data in the UK. They published their data in 2005. They're reporting slightly higher rates. Remember, we had 40% that we were seeing in 2005 among our kids. They're saying 57% had intentional or unintentional exposure. Similar to what we were seeing in the United States, they're seeing that the majority of exposure is unwanted. Right? And age increases, so they're also seeing age effects among those who are nine to 11 years of age, one in five are exposed. Between those who are 12 to 15, that jumps up to four in four and five, and then it jumps up to three and four young people 16 to 17. A lot of unintentional exposures happening the same in the UK, which is good. Good just because it kind of helps us see that the trends that we're seeing are not kind of wacky data but we're really beginning to see some trends across studies as well as across nations. So about 40% said the unintentional exposure happened from a pop-up. 36% said they accidentally found themselves on a website. Certainly that could include mistyping a website that could include doing a search and finding yourself where you didn't mean to be. And then 25% received junk mail. So as many of you know, the Youth Internet Safety Survey participants were asked a follow-up question about whether or not they knew it was x-rated when they clicked on the link. And we had it, the UNH folks had a pretty significant number, 21% said, well, yeah, I knew. And so there's been this whole discussion about what does it mean to be unwanted if you knew that the website was x-rated? Well, we don't really know, is the quick answer. But some hypotheses are, you know, maybe they didn't really understand what it meant to be x-rated. Sometimes we have this assumption that young people know a lot more than they really do and maybe they've heard the word x-rated but didn't really have a good sense of what it meant till they actually got to the website and they thought, oh, wow, okay, not what I was expecting. Another possibility is that perhaps they really were seeking out sexual pictures but they weren't seeking out these sexual pictures, okay? So again, we don't really know but in both cases they could have intentionally clicked on the link and it would still be an unwanted sort of exposure. It's important also to point out, as we noted earlier, that there is a significant overlap between unwanted kids who say that they have had at least one unwanted exposure in the last year or almost three times as likely to also report that they had a wanted exposure in the last year. So we've got a lot of overlap there. But in terms of unwanted exposures, there's some concern about in terms of sexual development, there's a lot going on in adolescence. For those who have unintentional exposures, does something happen? Do we kind of create curiosity or are we kind of then creating intentional exposure? Well, at least based on the youth internet safety surveys, it doesn't appear so only 2% report going back to the website as a result of the unintentional exposure. So just as a quick synopsis, more unwanted than wanted, more older youth and younger youth. When we talk about web searches versus email IM, we've got a four to one ratio there. Web searching is much more common for the way people are being exposed in unwanted fashion. And so just a quick pit stop and any questions, comments, reactions. One thing I just want to point out is that, we're covering some stuff that's outside of the necessary scope of the task force at this point because most of the research at this point is on email and spam and random websites and search. We don't see a lot of it so far in terms of data, in terms of what we know within the sites that are specific to the task force. Okay, let's talk about intentional exposure. So we just talked about unintentional exposure, all these pictures coming when young people didn't expect it. What about young people intentionally seeking out some of these exposures? How often does it happen and what do these kids look like? So we defined it in three ways. We tried to make it as parallel as possible so that we really could get some useful data about online as well as offline exposure. We asked young people whether or not they'd gone to or seen an X-rated or adult website where the main topic was sex online, whether or not they'd watched an X-rated movie or whether or not they've looked at an X-rated magazine. In all three cases, the definition is X-rated where you knew the topic was going to be sex. So in 2006, remember this is a longitudinal survey, so 2006, 2007 we're beginning to see a little bit of trend, we're also just beginning to see a little bit of the age effects, right? Because as young people get older we expect to have them opt in a little bit more. Lighter blue is internet, yellow is movies, darker blue is magazines. What we see is that the internet is not often the most common place that young people are seeking out pornography, at least X-rated material, they're not. And what's interesting also is we've got a spike in 2007 with movies, I don't really know what that's about. But the most important thing here is I want to dispel the myth that the internet is really this huge access point for kids in X-rated material. It doesn't seem to be consistent with our data. It's Hamu from MySpace. How much do you think kids are distinguishing internet from an online video they see on YouTube or MySpace or any website that shows videos versus the internet quote unquote? What I'm seeing is that we're only starting to see the idea of movies online as being a constitutive of movies. Qualitatively that's only been happening recently. I think one of the things that's missed in a lot of those pictures is that most of the country and particularly kids are far behind and they're seeing YouTube but they think of it as YouTube. They're not yet seeing movies online, they're only really starting to do that so that that lending is starting to happen. It'll be interesting to see if we see a spike in internet when we field again this summer that might be part of what we're seeing. Okay, so the question is this wacky data, maybe it's just the growing up with media survey. No, the youth internet safety surveys also saw similar stuff. In 2008% reported looking at X-rated material online, they also asked about offline stuff and so 8%, 7%, 8% again. The percentages are very similar across so it doesn't look like the internet really is a specific and increased access point for kids. In 2005 they didn't ask about offline but they did ask about online exposure, it's 13% which is well within what we're seeing with growing up with media. So similar to the graphs that we looked at last time so what this allows us to do is kind of look at, now that we've basically got four different data sets, what's going on, can we see trends or are we beginning to see replication? That's what we want. We want to start seeing replication so that we have confidence that what we're seeing is true. So you've got the youth internet safety survey one and two and then the growing up with media survey. Remember growing up with media, same kids, youth internet safety surveys, different kids but what we're seeing is pretty nice trend line at this point, right? I mean not a whole lot going on at age 10, spiking at 15, 16, 17 across all four data sets, you're beginning to see a pattern. So based upon the wave two so that the data that we just finished collecting in December are 11 to 16 year olds, we're seeing 80% male which is what you probably would expect. The majority of young kids, of young people who are seeking out pornography are male and older among our 11 to 16 year olds average age is 14.4, okay? How did they hear about the website? Well, most of them found out from a friend. They also use search engines, another website, one of them that I like a lot, they typed in the website just to see what would happen and then pop up ads. I want to talk about the psychosocial profile. This may look very similar for those of you who listen to our other talk. These kids have a lot going on in their lives and the way to read this graph, the OR means odds ratio, what are the odds? Given that a young person has said yes, I intentionally looked for x-rayed material in the last year compared to those who said no, I didn't. Those who said yes, I've looked at x-rayed material on the internet are almost three times as likely to be also physically bullying. They're two times as likely to be getting into fights. They're almost three times as likely to have poor academic performance. They're six, almost seven times as likely to be carrying a weapon to school in the last 30 days. Poor relationships with their caregiver. They're significantly more likely to be using substances and also engaging in seriously violent behavior. And when I say seriously violent, I mean seriously violent, like stabbing, shooting, getting into group fights. So these kids have a lot going on. And this is all cross-sectional data we haven't looked at it longitudinally yet. So I'm not saying that pornography is causing these. And I don't think many of us would really believe it. And I don't think these things are causing x-rayed material seeking. So what does that mean? It probably means that there's a lot of concomitant stuff going on in these kids' lives. Quick synopsis, when we talk about intentional seeking of x-rayed material, we're talking about older youth and typically we're talking about boys. The internet is not the most common access point for x-rayed material. And this seems to be the case not just with our data but also with the youth internet safety survey data. Youth reporting exposure to x-rayed material are reporting a myriad of other issues also. It's possible that x-rayed material may be a marker for concern because it may be a great sort of identification way to identify kids that actually need more intensive psychosocial follow-up. Quick pit stop. Yeah, Stephen Balkam with the Family Online Safety Institute. At a round table that we held in Oxford last week, we heard quite a different story which was from the Southwest Grid for Learning. They came across so-called nice middle-class kids living out in the country with both parents out working. They didn't have a lot going on and therefore they seemed to be the ones who were getting into the risky behavior, which is almost the opposite of what you were just describing. In other words, they were affluent. They had computers in their bedrooms. Moms and dads both out working probably to afford all the computers in the bedrooms. And they were getting into and acting up in ways that you've just described quite different from that sort of profile. Have you come across this at all? Well, we do look at rates by income and by race and socioeconomic status. We haven't yet looked at it by geographic area. And I don't know the methods that were used to collect these data, but I would still ask what else is going on in these kids' lives. Because you could be white and affluent and be bullying and be engaged in fights and going to get drunk on the weekends and stuff. And so a lot of this sort of acting out, I would suspect that even among those kids that kind of don't fit the typical profile that the media has built of an at-risk kid, still are demonstrating externalizing behaviors. Dana, do you mind actually just stepping up this? Because people can't hear it well, but it is. I think that's one of the things that really, to point that out, which I think is really heavy, is that often when we don't demarcate what's going on in terms of their lives, we assume that class or geographic location are going to be the clean markers. When in fact, that's often not the case. And often parents are not even aware of the other various psychosocial profile material that's going on in these kids' lives, where they're actually acting out in all sorts of different ways. And we're seeing that bubble up. One of the things that I found qualitatively, which has been bothering me, and I'm trying to find some quantitative data to start looking at it, is I'm seeing a workaholic parents basically being a really bad marker for a whole variety of these things. So when both parents are working and they're not just working like a... You don't know about math. Yeah? I would love that, that'd be great. But literally like a lack of presence of parents until like seven, eight, nine o'clock on both sides of the parents, being a huge implication. And so again, we see that normally as upper class behavior or middle upper class behavior, when in fact it's actually starting, like the kids are acting out to say, hey, I want some attention. And so it's been interesting to see, and qualitatively, where in the United States I'm starting to see those markers. But so it makes a very complex image when you see data like this, because it's really easy to take data like this and assume it's working class kids, when in fact, often it's not. And we didn't present these data, but we did look at it by race and by ethnicity. And the kids who are looking at porn look exactly the same as everybody else in terms of race and ethnicity. What seems to really differentiate them from other kids is kind of everything else that's going on in their lives. You're recording Craig Alley. Larry, can you please press your microphone? I'm sorry, we're hearing in the back channel you really can hear if you're on the mic. Okay, sorry about that. LarryMagidConnectSafely.org. You're so far talking about looking at pornography, but we've also talked a lot in the last couple of meetings and I'm sure we'll be talking further about other risks in terms of putting yourself at risk of predation and sexual exploitation, bullying. Do you have any data on that? You know, how that correlates with, you're showing these sort of non-Internet risk factors in pornography. Do you have the same non-Internet risk factors versus these other Internet risk factors that we're gonna be talking about? We do. I haven't looked at them like that. We, the close, what you're talking about reminds me of what we did for our archives paper that was based on the Youth International Survey data. And that was really focused on unwanted sexual solicitation and Internet harassment and really kind of looking at, A, what's going else on in their lives offline, but then also let's look at some of what we typically think of as risky behaviors online, sending information, posting information, talking to people online that you don't know. And when you look at all of that, and even, I mean, so that it's a complex picture, certainly. Okay. Because I want them to go through all of our data, so unless it's like clarifications again. Okay, let me try to bring it back to the topic then. Mike McKinnon from Verizon. So a lot of the characteristics of these risk-taking youth seem to be kind of antisocial. So do you have any sense whether these kids are using social networking sites or do they have fewer friends and therefore less likely to be on MySpace or Facebook or Zango or Bebo or any of those? What's your sense of that? I don't know, that's a good question. We didn't ask whether or not, where online did you look for pornography? So we can certainly cross it with, are you using social networking sites? Is it one of your most common activities online? We're talking about one in five kids here that are intentionally seeking out pornography. We're not talking about four in five kids, right? 80%, but we're talking about 20%. So we're not talking about such a small percentage that these kids are really wacky, right? I mean, we're talking about one in five. So I think, and we're seeing it online as well as offline. So I think it's important to kind of think about how much of this is somewhat normative in terms of kind of normal healthy sexual development. Are some of these kids kind of seeking out extroverted material just as part of their sexual curiosity? And I think that's the case, but also then you're kind of seeing it side by side. So I think probably some of these kids are engaging in normative sexual curious behavior with online and offline. And then I think some kids, it's a marker for challenge, both online and offline. So Michelle, I think- I have a follow-up question. I need one to get through this, and then we'll come back for Q&A for as you see the whole picture. So let's transition into violent websites and see what's going on there. These definitions are from the Youth Internet Safety Survey. And so we took them and used them in our survey. We asked about four different types of websites. These two are from Youth Internet Safety Survey, a hate site, is one that tells you to hate a group of people because of who they are, how they look and what they believe. A death site is a website that shows pictures of dead people or people dying. Sometimes people call these snuff sites. We also asked about two different new types of websites, certainly with the political situation, the United States young people are exposed to pictures of war, death, terrorism, quite a bit more than in a non-war era. We also, when we were doing focus groups, especially among the boys, they were talking about these websites that showed violent cartoons. They mentioned stickdeath.com, which is literally of stick people engaged in violent behavior and they're chopping off arms and there's blood everywhere. And they thought it was hilarious. And it's not a game. So we're not talking about online games. We're talking about violent cartoons online. So how often is it happening? The other thing that we noticed in focus groups, especially among the girls, when we ask them about these things, really wide-eyed, right? They're like, oh, what are you talking about? So we decided to ask, have you been to one? And then for those who, we gave two options for no. No, I know what you're talking about, but I've never gone and no, I have no idea what you're talking about, okay? First thing to notice, the yellow is yes, it's really low, right? 2% for hate sites, 4% for death sites. Not a lot of kids seeking out these websites. For new sites and for violent cartoon sites, however, we've got about one in five. The new sites make sense. My homepage is a new site, so if your parent's homepage is a new site, you're actually being exposed to this kind of stuff practically every day. So one in five. The violent cartoon two sites in terms of one in five is a little bit concerning. There is some suggestion that when you mix violence and humor, especially with young people, it actually has a greater effect in terms of affecting behavior. So one in five being exposed to humorous violence. So again, let's look at trends over time and across age. We now have three waves of data. The Youth Internet Safety Survey, one in 2,000. And then we have two waves of data. And it's not as clean, and I think part that's for two reasons. This is death and hate sites together, okay? It's not as clean one because the rates are just lower. There's just not that many kids opting into these sites no matter what age they are. So you're not going to see a whole lot of movement, but you do see somewhat of an upwards trend a little bit, right? Two to 5% of 10 year olds. So when you're 10, you're not really going to these sites. When you're 16 and 17, you're not necessarily going to these sites either, but it's now around 10% of young people that are seeking a mount. What do these kids look like? Well, about half male, actually. So half male, half female. Again, tend to be older in terms of what we were talking about for the X-ray material. It's very similar here for the violent websites. In terms of race and ethnicity at least, they look like the rest of our sample. They're just as likely to be white. They're just as likely to be Hispanic. Odds ratio, so that's what that means. So all of these are not significant except for age. So as age increases, the odds of seeking out violent websites increases 20%, 1.2, 20%. How did they hear about these websites? Well, for hate sites, 50%, they heard from friends, death sites, 71% from friends. This is a peer-to-peer sort of thing. Do you prefer to use this kind of mic? I can. Apparently it will work if it's easier for you. Oh, okay. And if those on the phone are actually not hearing after this switch, please just email the back channel or let us know. Great, thanks, okay. All right, so friends are a huge source of information. 50% of hate site visitors found out from a friend and 70% of death site visitors found out from a friend. Search engines, emails, links from another site. For hate sites, 17% just typed it in to see what would happen. This is beginning to look a little bit familiar, right? Wow, huh. Okay, so we look at what's going on with these kids offline. Physical bullying. Kids who are looking at violent websites online are three times as likely to be bullying offline. Almost four times as likely to be getting into fights. Six times as likely to be carrying a weapon. We also see poor relationships with their caregiver. We see serious substance use, seriously violent behavior. They're almost eight times as likely to be engaging in. These kids have a lot going on in their lives. Okay, so when we talk about violent websites, we're talking about older youth. However, no significant differences between boys and girls. When your prevalence rates are low, these websites are concerning obviously, but in terms of how many kids are actually opting in, not that many. In addition to exposure to violent websites, these kids have a lot going on in their lives. So if it's built, will they come, right? I mean, kind of underlying a lot of these assumptions are, and we've all done it. We think about, we hear about all these horrible stories about all of these really concerning websites. So we go online and we search for them and we look at them and we think, oh my God, what if my kid looked at this thing? This is horrible. The good news is that just because it's there doesn't mean young people are gonna seek it out, okay? Remember how we had those three options? The yes, I've been to this website, no, I haven't been to this website, but I know what you're talking about and no, I have no idea what you're talking about. Well, what happened was, we kind of walked into an unintentional experiment. We didn't mean to, but it happened with, it raises the question, well, what happens, what about those kids who didn't know about this website and then we ask them about it, therefore telling them about it, right? Have we unintentionally kind of caused exposure to violent websites? No. We went back and we looked at the Wave 2 data and very similar percentages. We've got 60% of the kids who at Wave 1 said, I have no idea what you're talking about. 60% of them again at Wave 2 said, I have no idea what you're talking about. They don't know about it, they don't want to know about it and they're moving on with their lives, you know? When you compare the percentage of kids among those who didn't know at Wave 1 and among those who did know at Wave 1 kind of Wave 2, how about those that didn't know and we told them, do we create a curiosity? So do we see a spike in terms of those kids opting into these websites versus the other kids? No. And in the case of hate sites, we actually see one third, 2% of kids who didn't know about it at Wave 1 and at Wave 2, 7% who did know about it went at Wave 2. So just because these websites exist on the internet doesn't mean that young people are seeking them out. We see that for pornography, we're seeing it in this circumstance when we tell kids about it, it's good news. So I would suggest that more, because just knowing about the website is not enough, that there's probably other factors that are going on that are causing these young people to seek this out, right? We kind of think about the psychosocial profile. Again, who knows what the causality is, but it's likely based upon what we're seeing, there's more going on than just knowing about the website, there's more going on than just being able to type in the address. There's a reason why some kids are going to death sites and hate sites and other kids are not. This is good news for us. It's bad news for researchers who are putting together health websites and trying to get the kids to go and we just figured if we uploaded it, they would totally wanna know about how to not drink, but they don't. But for us, it's really good news, right? I mean, just because there are these really, really scary websites out there that we all wanna protect our kids from, which is great, we don't need to assume that just because it's there, all our young people are intentionally exposing themselves to it. So quick final thoughts, within that vein, efforts spent on kind of preventing youth from anticipated scary exposures then, may be missing the mark, right? Because we're kind of focused on the exposure and assuming that if everybody has the opportunity that they'll opt in. And instead, maybe we should be focusing on the young kid and using this as an opportunity to really identify young people who might be experiencing significant challenge that need more intensive intervention. I also do wanna point out that the numbers from the national data seem to consistently suggest across datasets that exposures to pornography, exposures to violent websites are not as high as we sometimes assume. I'm gonna be terrible and hold off questions because we simply have to get through the time wise and we'll try to do it together. I know I'm the mean one. So what I wanna talk about when it decides to come up, I wanna talk about youth-generated content. Do you have a warning for those who are maybe watching the video when posted online? I will get to the warning. Okay, good. The warning will be, whoa, what happened here? Let's see here, come back, there we go. All right, so I wanna talk about youth-generated content and I'll get to the warning sign in a moment. But what we wanna talk about is we came into this conversation last time where we started thinking about when and where are youth generating some of this really problematic content? What we know is that youth are already engaged in certain kinds of user-generated content practices online. They're posting videos, they're posting photos. This is material from the Pew study. It's just increasing over time. When and where are they posting problematic content? The first thing to keep in mind is that the vast, vast, vast majority of kids are not posting problematic content. We do not have quantitative material on what I'm about to cover for you, so I'm going to be doing things qualitatively. It is really easy to get scared by what it is that I'm going to cover, but let me tell you this is not necessarily normative in any way, shape, and form. We don't have quantitative material and I cannot find any researchers who are doing strong quantitative on this. We have some in correlation to bullying. If there's anybody in the room that wants to fund a study to look at the quantitative, I will happily connect you with researchers to do this. I think it would be great for all of us. But what I'm going to cover is more of a topology of what exactly is going on that is extremely problematic, what we should be really concerned about and what the implications are. Most likely, given other research, we're going to see a lining up of other problematic behavior online with what I see. I'm going to head up a big, nice warning. I use pictures. I refrain from using some of the most problematic pictures, but I use pictures. So some of this may not be exactly what you want to see. I'm going to start by talking about sexual content. For anybody who's curious, none of these photos actually come from Myspace, which I think is shock to everybody who I've showed this slide deck to. Youth are producing all sorts of sexual content online. This is actually relatively calm in the range of potential problematic sexual content. You've heard the mainstream media reported in a dozen or so cases of kids being arrested for creating child porn and distributing to their peers and beyond. That is indeed occurring in some ways. We don't know what the frequency rate of it is. At the same time, sexual content being produced online is increasing. I'm hearing it more and more from the kids qualitatively. It tends to fall into four key categories. The first are sexy pictures. This is anything from the bathing suit picture, the things which is just strutting your stuff. The vast majority of these photos are girls or the boys are participating in different ways. The second key category that I'm seeing are dance videos that may or may not include some form of stripping. These are usually set to a very popular song. Whatever the media is saying is really, really popular. And they often are mimicking and emulating the images set forth by MTV, the types of video content that you see, which at this point is no longer just MTV, but that kind of video style. And some of them take the full strip style and you will see bars of strip, like Justin strip clubs, et cetera, et cetera. Clearly they're emulating things that they see often from video in some form or another. The third category that you see of sexual content is pornographic or naked photos. And these are, if distributed by an adult would be considered a child point if they were taken in a context that was hurting the children. There's questions of why they're being produced and what not. The fourth category, which all the kids call the Paris Hilton videos, otherwise sex videos. And these are full videos of almost always heterosexual sex between minors. The intended audience for all of this kind of sexual content is other youth. There was one exception that I found, which I find interesting and again problematic, which are kids who want attention by modeling agencies and think that they will have a better chance of getting a modeling agency if they're half naked. That says something about our modeling industry. The vast majority of the kids that were talking to me about doing this kind of content are girls and the intended audience is boys. It is framed in a heterosexual context and it comes in line with the heterosexual awakening. There are young gay boys also involved and that's a whole separate category of things. There are examples of lesbian imagery but I have yet to find a case where the intended audience was actually a girl. It's almost more lesbian imagery for boys. Youth posts this content for various reasons. One is to attract sexual attention from the peers that they desire, validation, attention, whether it's a form of flirting or attempt to get the boys to date them. One is to look to cool or sexy, to risky, to achieve status often amongst girls. Whereas girls are saying that by looking like these images and often these poses will act. I don't know how many of you follow Paris Hilton and Paris Hilton's escapades but she actually has a style every season of how she takes a photograph and it's a particular pose every season. One of the things you see with these girls and what their pictures they're doing is that they are literally mimicking the poses of Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, et cetera, each season and you can see the season change happening. So they're trying to look cool, they're trying to achieve status within the girl's peer group and a sexual imagery is often seen as a way to do that. A third which is sort of one that makes me a little bit more curious when I would like to actually see some information, more information and quantitative work on is the goal of entertainment, boredom or a dare. Producing sexy content just cuz. And I'd really like to sort of get some time to work out what that's about. And the fourth which gets aligned with bullying is often to embarrass another person. So getting somebody to take a picture and being able to take that picture and spread it to embarrass them. The sexual content is often created outside of the context of mass sharing and then can be shared which becomes a whole separate thing. So in other words, people will take a cam phone picture because they think it's fun and then it's not expected to be shared and of course once a fight happens, bullying happens, off it goes into sharing La La Land. One of the things that I found which I thought was really, really interesting is the number of teenage couples who do not see each other very often in person, heterosexual couples, but will take pornographic images and send them back and forth to one another as a form of flirting and dating. Again, breakups don't turn this material into being kept private. There are also youth who are surreptitiously capturing content, right? This is how bad can the locker room go game. There's also a whole culture within or subculture within some of these boys of status marchers, i.e. I scored her to be a motivation for taking pictures and then sharing them as a way of harassment. The practice of capturing all these images is not actually that new. It's interesting to hear you see these images happen before. At the same time, the combination of accessible, easy accessible cameras often in the form of cam phones and the easy ways of sharing this content through social media mean that they spread a lot further and can be a lot more damaging. Now, this exists, this is probably the most extreme of what we're seeing out there or most of the most common of what we're seeing out there is not across all kids. It's very interesting to see that I see a lot more Jesus commentary on a daily basis when I search these sites than I do this, but often this is what gets more attention. So one of the things we do know from Michelle's work, we have some data on this in connection with bullying that we're seeing any form of sexual and this may not be sexual of particular peers existing in a relatively small numbers, but we don't have a good marker of exactly getting at youth generated content. Next kind of content that we have is problematic which are those depicting illegal acts, which this is from a college but you're seeing it all the way across through high school as well. Drinking is the most common although you're seeing some form of drugs as a depiction of act. Again, this is meant to mark status, it's meant to look cool, look ha ha ha, we had a kegger, a lot of people came. This is often, kids are actually getting much more cautious about this kind of imagery because they're getting in trouble for this kind of imagery, i.e. kids are getting kicked off of sports teams, losing their scholarships, et cetera. We know that team drinking is extremely common and the question is how much are they actually capturing it and sharing it? When and where are they using it for embarrassment? When and where are they using it as a way of marking status? Another big chunk is aggressive videos. There are hundreds of sites dedicated purely to fight videos out there. Fight videos are across all of the major sites but then there's, this is PS Fights, which is all videos. It's a very popular genre of youth-generated content and again, this is actually almost all boys, although there are girl fight videos as well. The interesting thing is that some of these are genuinely real and some of these are actually mock videos meant for production for these sites. Things that are supposed to look real. There's discussions of how to do fake blood, the whole nine yards. At the same time, gangs are actually using this to actually prove who won at a particular brawl. You have two totally different extreme behaviors around it. Some people just think it's funny for boys to get together and make these videos. Some are actually capturing real videos that are really violent and depicting what's going on in violence within schools. It's considered to be a proof and event of an event, fun and entertainment, or to embarrass the losers is some of the reasons that that's going on. So within some of this kind of content, again, we have very little data about actually what's going on in this but we have some as it connects to different kinds of bullying. Again, this comes from the research we saw before. Numbers are relatively low in terms of kicked or hurt. And again, it's hard to really mark or people actually marking, for example, when they make foe videos in this particular space. Cell phones are where we're starting to see some of this especially as they have more and more video capturing opportunities but also pictures are already where that's happening. And again, people taking video and text messages of picture or video of people sharing. Internet shock sites. How many of you know internet shock sites? Perry figures. Okay, so internet, I was kind and did not bring any of the pictures that really do that. Some of this is just simply gross stuff. Some of this is illegal. It's all over the place. A lot of it is meant to be disturbing. It is meant to be shocking. You have sexual driven content. For those of you who wanna see this upon recording or look this up, go have fun with Goat C and Two Girls in One Cup. I don't encourage you to look at these. These are very, very popular kinds of sexual content that is meant to be gross, meant to be disturbing. Think of it as like all sorts of bodily fluid humor and grossed out humor. You also have a whole segment of the shock sites that involve car crashes, murders, accidents. Some of what we talk about is violent content. Interestingly, these sites are now starting to mix pictures from Iraq with pictures of other kinds of car accidents. For example, if you go through some of these sites, you will find pictures of decapitated soldiers and you will find pictures from Abu Ghraib, including those that were not shown in the media in our last round of it. So you will see a whole variety of things that we consider to be newsworthy and some of this actually is footage of accidents that are for news, really blended in with things that are much more shocking and gross. Interestingly, from what I was seeing qualitatively, young boys love this stuff and they love it as a form of sharing. They'll send links to one another and they have a whole variety of different potty humors around this. It gets in line and it's part of demarcating masculinity, seeing oneself as a sort of masculine being, being able to handle any of the most shocking sites on the web as seen as a marker of strength. Being able to stomach what goes on and you're starting to see more and more kids contribute content to this and try to devise or imagine what they could do to be gross out images, what they could do to be total shock content. There's also a whole culture within this to take videos of people reacting to shock culture. This is a whole variety of stuff for Tubgirl and Goatsey. Literally video upon video of showing it to friends and video capturing their emotional reactions to it, which would never be like, oh, God, what not. But that has become a performance in and of itself. Next sort of disturbing content. This was a freely fun thing to sit and go through for you guys. It was all sorts of eating disorder related material. This is anorexia, bulimia. You will hear this as notions of pro-ana, promia kinds of cultures. This is a site for Thinspiration or Thinspo. Thinspiration is people taking videos of themselves losing weight, trying to get as thin as possible and to use it as markers of proving that exciting other people to get thinner and thinner. This is almost always mixed in with user generated content and images of celebrities. Mary, Kate and Ashley Olson are particularly popular in this space right now. Anybody who's celebrity who looks super, super skinny who can be discussed about whether or not they've been losing weight. It will often include also strategies for how to lose weight. And a lot of UGC and YGC related content comes into here. This is one of the more interesting things because it's spread across the web. It is illegal now in France. And at the same time, what that illegalness is doing is just putting it further and further underground. For those who don't know the history of pro-ana, promia, part of it was that pro-ana, pro-anarexia, people weren't able to mention anorexia sites. We're actually scripting out that term. So people started to talk about their friend Anna and started to create a whole culture of talking about their friend Anna. So all of this stuff, as it's been attempt to control within these sites has just gone to be more invisible, but it's still extremely there. Here's where you wanna close your eyes if you get really grossed out. The worst of this is actually cutting and self-harm. Self-harm is where you have a whole culture of kids now putting up pictures of themselves with the worst of cutting images, trying to outdo one another. And it's one of the worst of the self-harm and self-injury type spaces out there. And it's really disturbing, and I will give you happy kitties as a positive version of this. I figure happy kitties are much more pension. Okay, so now I've just whipped through a sense of what some of that youth-generated content that is extremely problematic are. Now, as I said with the pro-ana, promia, which has some of the longest of history, what we're seeing is that as it gets kicked off of sites and it is continuously getting kicked off of sites, it is finding new homes throughout the web and it is existing more and more. Most of the major sites out there that we concern ourselves with are trying to eliminate pornography, they're trying to eliminate self-harm, they're trying to eliminate all of this content. At the same time, it's a cat and mouse game with it. It's certainly not desired, but it is going more and more underground, it is going more and more outside of the country as I've been tracking it and seeing what's happening. My concern is that those kids that are doing this kind of extreme behavior desperately need help. And so there's a lot of questions out there about what is the best approach for this because stopping it from some of these things is not actually working. All right, I am at 10 o'clock and I've whipped through this. Am I allowed to go for questions? I think we have to do some questions, but we're gonna cut into Dana's time a little bit and then we'll figure out, but we will start the next session at 10.45 sharp, so it's gonna be tight. Hi, Drew Weaver from AOL. A lot of the pictures you showed there didn't have their faces like the initial sexy shots, for example. What are we finding in terms of concerns around privacy? I'm afraid I know the answer to this, but are the shots you're finding, are they actually showing their faces in a lot of these videos and pictures they're posting themselves? Well, one, I wasn't going to show stuff here, nor was I going to show child porn. I figured that would probably be over the limit of inappropriateness for me. The kids that are posting pictures that include, in general, in this space are doing so with the intended audience of their friends. Their friends assume that they know who they are. They do include photos of faces. They do include information like that. They don't expect these photos to go much further than their friends when they're producing this kind of content. A lot of this content is produced literally for one or two friends. It's not meant to even go up to Facebook or MySpace. So it's really shocking when it does, and you hear a lot of reactions because of being like, what, that wasn't supposed to be there. Yes, there are huge privacy implications for a lot of this content, both the sexy side of things and the whole way to pornographic material. Things that we definitely should be concerned about. A lot of it is also just staying within the phone, and you will see, I mean, kids' phones have some really problematic content on them on a regular basis that we aren't even seeing on these sites. So I'm pulling up for you what is visible publicly. There's going to be more that's visible in various layers of private. Frank Torres with Microsoft. I mean, not to diminish the problematic nature of some of the content, but both with the kids accessing the pornographic sites, the violence sites, and some of the sites that you just shown. How much of it is, and you alluded to the fact that some of it may just be curiosity, is there any numbers around or are kids kind of accessing it for a while and then kind of saying, okay, I'm over it, I've grown out of it, and then moving on to something else, or how much is it kind of persistent? And then the second question, for things like the cutting sites and numbers around. So in terms of persistence of behavior over time, we've started to look at the longitudinal data from 06 and 07. And I really expected strong persistence, right? I mean, if you're going to do it one year, the likelihood is that you're going to do it the next year. And that's somewhat the case, but the persistence is not, to make a gross generalization, it's about, I'm seeing about a third, a third, a third. So a third, so at wave two, a third of those kids, we're also doing it at wave one. A third of those kids did it at wave one, but didn't do it at wave two. And then a third of those kids didn't do it at wave one and did it newly at wave two, if that makes sense. So that only about one, one-third of young people seem to be doing it over time. I'm not aware of national data in terms of cutting. We do have some data on self-harm, which is a much broader sort of, so I think at this point. So unrelated to my role on this, I actually am also in the process of doing a broader scope on self-harm, anorexia, bulimia, self-injury cutting, and suicide-type sites. So if anybody that's interested, as I get that out, I will happily share it with you guys. I've been tracking all of the different people doing qualitative sites. To my knowledge, there are no really good in-depth quantitative sites. Again, I can happily connect funders to researchers who would love to study the space. The last qualitative study that I've seen, which was done last year, but is not yet published on techniques for self-injury, anorexia and bulimia, is still finding that the kids are more likely to learn the techniques from being put in clinics than they are from the websites. That's where things currently stand. I suspect that that may change over time. In other words, parents sending them to try to get help and the kids all sit together and teach each other because they end up back in these clinics over and over again. We don't have really good numbers on these websites. Many of the most problematic websites are not even housed in the US. I've tried to work with some of the sites to try to get some data. They're not willing to share anything. So we simply don't even know what numbers are like. So I think there's a lot of just confusion as to what's going on. I've talked to some psychiatrists that are working within the space of self-injury, i.e. cutting, and they're finding that it's sort of hit or miss as to whether the kids are using the online sites that they're seeing in their offices. These are the kids trying to come help, get help. And so it's been pretty hit or miss on that. But again, we're still patching it together. For those who don't know how I work, I try to get some of this qualitative material to quantitative researchers to start asking some of these questions. I think we're now at enough qualitative detail that it's time for some quantitative studies to actually get a measure of that, but we simply don't have that yet. Oh, hey. Jeff Schmidt, quick question. With respect, I think you're a point to me. I'm sorry, Anna. That's okay. Have there been any research about the actual or perceived future impacts of this type of content to dating spouses, jobs, colleges, et cetera, perceived or actual? I mean, I think that there's been studies looking at problems of anorexia, bulimia, and other, those issues, but internet? I don't know of any that's internet specific to you. I think that honestly, we're missing a lot of longitudinal a bit. I mean, the stuff that's longitudinal is really just starting up, so we just don't, and we're not tracking, like we don't have the funds to track these kids that far. Even qualitatively, I don't have the funds to track the kids that I interviewed to see how things are changing over time, so I don't really know of anything good that's looking at that yet. Hey, Dana, not to intervene too much, but could we maybe go two more questions and maybe three more minutes or so, so I do want to get Dana up and we've got a tight day. Okay, I think I know how to do it now. John Dansu with ideology. First of all, from a task force standpoint, I think we need to be careful for us defining what material is inappropriate for parents. I mean, some parents, I think probably most parents would consider profanity inappropriate for their children to go look on the internet for. So my question relates to differing types of material. Clearly, this stuff is highly inappropriate. Have we done any studies relative to 14-year-olds looking at R-rated material? We don't let our kids go see R-rated movies. I mean, can they access, do we have any studies relative to what percentage of those people are accessing material that we wouldn't let them go see in the physical world? You know, the closest we know is some of the R-rated video games, but I don't know that there's been a lot of studies. I mean, most of it's looking at more of the extreme stuff. I mean, so I don't know what to tell you on that. In terms of definitions, it's like, yes, it's all over the place. And one of the reasons we did this presentation, the way we did it is we wanted to at least give you a scope of what is known in research, but I don't know of anything that's really looking head-on at the R stuff. Yeah, up there. Well, I just wanted to give a quick, well, I just wanted to answer that because ComScore tracks it. Well, ComScore tracks visiting of certain kinds of sites, but it's not actually, there's, we can talk more about that afterwards. Hi, Dan and Michelle, it's Blair Richardson from Aristotle. I had a question as to whether you had examined any data on how adult predators may have used some of these highly sexualized images or profiles on social network sites to target underage victims for sex or creation of child porn, anything like that. The quick answer is we don't know a whole lot about that. The experts would be the folks at the University of New Hampshire and they're beginning to look at it. But when you talk about kind of online sexual predators, we tend to think about, we tend to mean pedophiles. Pedophiles target 10 to 12 year olds. So they're not targeting teens by definition, they're targeting children. And there tends, so then that gets into child pornography, which is different in some ways, many ways to what we're talking about. There was a case I sent around recently there was the man, a 33 year old man, he poses a 19 year old, and I think he hooked up with 14, 15, 16 year olds. He had sex with them, he created child porn. So I don't know if that falls within the definition of pedophile, but that was kind of the area I was getting into. Right, okay, yeah, that would actually probably fall more closely into statutory rape. And we talked a little bit about that last time, but just kind of in terms of the online and offline sort of dynamic and statutory rape, as you know, is not a new thing. But understanding kind of how the internet plays into that is something that we're looking into. I'm sorry, I was gonna say that might be a good segue into that. It will be, I wanna ask one question from Donna Rice Hughes just because, from afar. How are social network sites dealing with problematic groups on their sites, i.e. cutters, pro-anna drug groups? That may not be something for you guys to answer, but. I don't think that I should speak to that. I mean, I think that's a question really for the sites themselves, I think. To my knowledge, the sites have been dealing with it all different ways. A lot of people are sitting there with trying to block this material, trying to stop all of it. Some of it, for example, a lot of the pro-anna, pro-mia material, the images are being stopped, the images are not appearing on the social network sites in the way that they're appearing elsewhere. That said, most of the sites don't have any good way for the conversations between my friend Anna, my friend Mia, and I to really be sussed out and all of that. And that's actually where I see the most problematic content on the social network sites is a deep discussion in very coded terms that I can show it to technologists and they have no idea that that's even what it's about. So I have not seen any stopping of that because they're often not aware of it. But the groups themselves, they've been trying to stop a lot of it, or a huge chunk of the sites are. Different sites have been dealing with this in different problems. Live Journal, for example, wants me to actually, that's one of the reasons that I'm looking at some of this data is Live Journal's trying to figure out what to do because each time they try to suppress it, it comes back to haunt them. And they're just trying to figure out how they can actually be more effective at it. But I don't, I think the question for the major social network sites, they have that answer. Great, so I think what I'll suggest to Donna who can probably hear us, but not speak back, would be I'll invite the social network sites on the task force to respond on the list if they'd care to. So we can do that back channel and let everybody know the answer to that to the extent that you want to opt in to reply. But for now, please join me in thanking Dana and Michelle. Thank you.