Children, Young People and Online Harms: Conceptualisations, Experiences and Responses 3031460529, 9783031460524

Table of contents :
Contents
Notes on Contributors
1: Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms
Children’s and Young People’s Online Lives
Current Policy and Legislative Landscape in the UK
Children and Young People’s Digital Rights
Theorising Children’s and Young People’s Online Lives
Supporting Participation and Provision Rights Alongside Protection Rights
Individualistic vs. Systems Approaches to Risk and Resilience Online
Youth-Led Research and Conceptualisations of Children and Young People’s Online Lives
References
Part I: Understanding Children’s and Young People’s Experiences of Being Online
2: A Real Virtual Self
Introduction
Fake or Real Online Existence
Self-Sharing as Play
Social Media as Storytelling
Ephemeral Content
Role Play and “As If”
Conclusion: The Real Virtual or the Virtually Real?
Summary
References
3: Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces
Introduction
Social Media and Identity Portrayal
Methodology
Findings and Discussion
Conclusion
Summary
References
4: A “Post-digital” Continuum of Young People’s Experiences of Online Harms
Introduction
Methodological Note
Experiences of Online Harms
Experiencing and Seeing Harmful Online Content
Personal Experiences of Online Harms Compared to Any Exposure
Responding to Online Harms
Platform Affordances and Social Contexts
Continuums of Risk and Harm
Post-digital Conceptualisations of a Continuum of Harm
Risks and Opportunities in Online–Offline Networks
(Post-)Digital Citizenship
Conclusion
Summary
References
5: Dark Patterns of Cuteness: Popular Learning App Design as a Risk to Children’s Autonomy
Introduction
Dark Patterns
Evolving Definitions
Regulatory Frameworks
The Potential Harm of Dark Patterns
Normative Perspectives
Educational Frameworks
Cuteness in Consumer Design
Discussion of Learning Apps
Implications of Cuteness in Dark Design
Summary
References
Part II: Responding to Children’s and Young People’s Experiences of Being Online
6: Regulating to Minimise Harm to Children and Young People
Introduction
The Online Safety Act
Protection of Children
Focus on Content
Illegal Content Duties
Nature of Harm for Content Harmful to Children
Age Gating the Internet?
Protection of Young Adults
Illegal Content Duties
The Triple Shield and Content that Is Not Criminal
Conclusion
Summary
7: Age as a Gatekeeper in the UK Online Safety Agenda
Introduction
Let’s Start with Definitions: What Do Age Verification and Age Assurance Mean?
Context: Questions of Age Verification in Practice Before the UK Online Safety Act?
Case Study: Report Remove and Retain?
Outcomes: Age Verification Online for Children is the End of Online Anonymity for All
End Game: Age Verification Online to What End? Will It Work?
The Future of Online Safety and User Control: A Global Agenda
Open Questions over Practice, Rights, Purposes, and Outcomes
References
8: A Sociotechnical Anthropology of Online Safeguarding
Introduction
The Cycle of Online Harms Policy and Practice
It Is Possible to Stamp Out These Harms
Some Recent Cases in Prohibitive Online Harms Policy
The 2019 Momo “Online Suicide Game”
COVID Lockdowns and Online Harms
Everyone’s Invited
Learning from History
Resetting Online Safeguarding
Summary
References
9: Practice Vignette: Headstart Kernow’s Digital Resilience Project
Reference
10: Parental Approaches to Protecting Children from Online Harm: Trust, Protectionism or Dialogue?
Introduction
Family Privacy
State Non-interventionism
Parents Educate and Protect
Children Need Protecting
Children’s Online Engagement: The Risks and Benefits
Methodology
Findings
A Responsibility for Protection and Education
Parents Lack the Knowledge to Protect and Advise
Children’s Characteristics Influence Parental Decision-Making
Parental Responses to the Challenge of Protecting Children Online
The Laissez-Faire Approach: Trusting Children to Be ‘OK’
Parental Protectionism
Education and Dialogue
Discussion
Tensions Between Protection and Agency
More Parental Guidance Is Needed
An Enhanced Role for the State
Concluding Comments
Summary
References
11: The Significance of Digital Siblingship for Children Navigating Online Harms and in Accessing Justice
Introduction
‘Digital by Default’
Methodology and Empirical Data
Theorising Siblingship and a New ‘Digital Siblingship’
Older Siblings’ Perceptions of Harms Online
Access to Justice in Digital Spaces and the Role of Older Siblings
Conclusion
Summary
References
12: Pornography Is Not the Answer (It Isn’t Even the Right Question …): Reflections from Practice in Tackling Sexual Harassment and Harmful Sexualised Behaviours in Response to Everyone’s Invited and the Online Safety Bill
1 in 8: Positioning Porn as the Problem
#Nofap and the Third Person Effect
Porn as Pedagogy
Denial of Sexual Citizenship
Asking Different Questions
Summary
References
13: Practice Vignette: Relationships and Sex Education for the “Digital Age”
14: Conclusion
References
Index

Citation preview

Children, Young People and Online Harms Conceptualisations, Experiences and Responses Edited by Emily Setty · Faith Gordon · Emma Nottingham

Children, Young People and Online Harms

Emily Setty  •  Faith Gordon Emma Nottingham Editors

Children, Young People and Online Harms Conceptualisations, Experiences and Responses

Editors Emily Setty University of Surrey Guildford, UK

Faith Gordon Australian National University Canberra, ACT, Australia

Emma Nottingham University of Winchester Winchester, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-46052-4    ISBN 978-3-031-46053-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46053-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Contents

1 Introduction:  Children, Young People, and Online Harms  1 Emily Setty, Faith Gordon, and Emma Nottingham Part I Understanding Children’s and Young People’s Experiences of Being Online  33 2 A  Real Virtual Self 35 Rebecca Mace 3 Self-Presentation  Within Children’s Digital Spaces 61 Claire Pescott 4 A  “Post-digital” Continuum of Young People’s Experiences of Online Harms 85 Emily Setty 5 Dark  Patterns of Cuteness: Popular Learning App Design as a Risk to Children’s Autonomy113 Caroline Stockman and Emma Nottingham

v

vi Contents

Part II Responding to Children’s and Young People’s Experiences of Being Online 139 6 Regulating  to Minimise Harm to Children and Young People141 Lorna Woods 7 Age  as a Gatekeeper in the UK Online Safety Agenda169 Jen Persson 8 A  Sociotechnical Anthropology of Online Safeguarding183 Andy Phippen and Emma Bond 9 Practice  Vignette: Headstart Kernow’s Digital Resilience Project213 Andy Phippen and Louisa Street 10 Parental  Approaches to Protecting Children from Online Harm: Trust, Protectionism or Dialogue?217 Claire Bessant 11 The  Significance of Digital Siblingship for Children Navigating Online Harms and in Accessing Justice247 Faith Gordon 12 Pornography  Is Not the Answer (It Isn’t Even the Right Question …): Reflections from Practice in Tackling Sexual Harassment and Harmful Sexualised Behaviours in Response to Everyone’s Invited and the Online Safety Bill271 Jonny Hunt

 Contents 

vii

13 Practice  Vignette: Relationships and Sex Education for the “Digital Age”297 Emilie Cousins 14 C  onclusion301 Emily Setty, Faith Gordon, and Emma Nottingham I ndex313

Notes on Contributors

Claire Bessant is an Associate Professor in the Law School at Northumbria

University, UK. Claire joined Northumbria in 2002 from private practice where she worked as a solicitor specialising in family law. Since then, her work has been published in the fields of family law, privacy law, information sharing, and human rights, and has contributed to government and parliamentary consultations, on both domestic violence and online privacy. Claire’s recent research focuses particularly on two aspects of privacy: family privacy and children’s privacy. Claire’s research also explores the interaction between family privacy and children’s privacy when parents share children’s information online (when they ‘sharent’), and the role that external actors play in encouraging sharenting. Claire has recently completed research as a co-investigator for the Observatory for the Monitoring for Data-Driven Approaches to COVID-19 (OMDDAC) leading on OMDDAC’s research with young people which asked, ‘Are young people aware of how data (including their own personal data) has been used during the pandemic and if so, what views do they hold about its use?’ She is now leading a project investigating the advice provided by local authorities to assist schools to understand their data protection obligations when using children’s images and biometric data. Claire is also currently working on a monograph Family Privacy, Law and Ideology to be published by Routledge. Emma Bond  is Director of Research, Head of the Graduate School, and Professor of Socio-Technical Research at the University of Suffolk, UK. Emma’s research interests focus on the everyday interactions between people, society, and technology, and she is especially interested in developing both innovative and accessible methodologies in research which foster meaningful participation with marginalised groups. She is internationally renowned for her work on online and social media environments, ix

x 

Notes on Contributors

sexting, revenge pornography, and online safeguarding. Her recent research includes an extensive body of work on online harassment in UK universities including the Catalyst Funded Digital Civility of University Students for the Office for Students which informed the Higher Education Online Safeguarding Self-Review Tool and was included in UUK’s Tackling Online Harassment and Promoting Online Welfare Report and Online Harassment and Hate Crime in HEIs. She has also completed an extensive research project for the Better Policing Collaborative and the College of Policing on a review of domestic violence and abuse which included Police Force knowledge of revenge pornography legislation and the role of everyday technologies in cases of domestic abuse. Emilie Cousins,  Fumble’s Programme Manager (they/them), is a sex education specialist, with a background in young people’s education and gender studies. They also have extensive experience in advocating for sex education that is both accessible and relevant for LGBTQ+ young people. Before this role, they had volunteered for Fumble since its beginning, in 2017. Fumble is an award-­winning youth charity, leading the way in supporting young people with their mental health, sexual health and relationships in the digital age. Fumble is created with young people, for young people, to make a non-judgemental and trustworthy place for all young people to find safe and quality answers. (www.fumble.org.uk) Faith Gordon  is Associate Professor of Law and Deputy Associate Dean of Research at the Australian National University (ANU) College of Law, the Australian National University, Australia. Faith is the Director of the Interdisciplinary International Youth Justice Network and co-founder of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology’s Thematic Group on children, young people, and the criminal justice system. Faith is an Associate Research Fellow at the Information Law and Policy Centre, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. In 2022, Faith was awarded the ViceChancellor’s Award for Influential Impact and Engagement and a Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning at the Excellence in Education Awards. Faith’s current research is funded by the Australian Research Council, the Australasian Institute for Judicial Administration and the Society of Legal Scholars (UK). Partnering with UK non-profit organisation, Catch 22 and The Social Switch Project—funded by the London Mayor’s Office, Faith led a large study and authored a report entitled: ‘Online Harms Experienced by Children and Young People: ‘Acceptable Use’ and Regulation’. She was a consultant on a report commissioned by the UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS)—working with ECORYS on producing a report entitled ‘Qualitative research project to investigate the impact of online harms on children’ (authored by Valdeep Gill, Lilly Monk and Laurie Day).

  Notes on Contributors 

xi

Jonny Hunt  is an independent Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) Consultant and is Lecturer in Applied Social Sciences at the University of Bedfordshire, UK, teaching on childhood and youth courses. Jonny has spent his career working face to face with children and young people of various ages (from four years upwards), and training the professionals who work with them around all aspects of sex and relationships. Jonny specialises in delivering inclusive RSE, with a rights-based approach, encouraging both adults and young people to explore their attitudes and values to sex and relationships. Jonny Hunt is currently researching his PhD at Bournemouth University, entitled ‘Pleasure, Policy and Pornography: An Ethnography of Young people & RSE Provision’. Jonny Hunt has recently written a book entitled Sex Ed for Grown Ups. It is a book designed to support adults, both parents and professionals, to have difficult conversations about sex and relationships with the children and young people in their lives (either as parents or as professionals). It pulls together the latest research, as well as practical experience from the classroom and the voice of young people. Rebecca Mace  has nearly two decades of teaching experience, working in a range of state, independent, day, boarding, single sexed, and mixed schools. However, following a year as a research associate at the Oxford Internet Institute, Digital Ethics Lab, University of Oxford, she decided to undertake full-time doctoral study and is currently a third-year PhD candidate at University College London, Institute of Education. Her research considers the ways that a culture dominated by social media is impacting upon teenage life. Emma Nottingham  is Reader in Law at the University of Winchester, UK. She researches the legal and ethical aspects of children’s rights within a range of contexts. Jen Persson  As founder of the not-for-profit organisation, Defend Digital Me, Jen campaigns for children’s privacy and digital rights in the field of UK education and the wider public sector. She has researched the applications of technology including age-based tools, biometrics, Edtech, encryption, and Safety Tech with a focus on the education sector. Defend Digital Me’s recent publications include Privacy and Protection: A Children’s Rights Approach to Encryption (2023) written in collaboration with Child Rights International Network (CRIN). Reports are available at https:// defenddigitalme.org/research/Jen is a contributor to the Council of Europe digital citizenship working group on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and education, and she supported the Committee of Convention 108 in the drafting of Council of Europe Guidelines for Data Protection in Education Settings, adopted in 2020. Claire Pescott  is Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of South Wales. She has taught and researched in the field of education and childhood and is passionate about using creative methodology in her research to allow children’s voices

xii 

Notes on Contributors

to be heard in a participatory way. Her current work is around children’s identity portrayal and subjectivity in relation to their social media use. Andy Phippen  is Professor of Digital Rights at Bournemouth University, UK, and is a visiting professor at the University of Suffolk. He has specialised in the use of ICTs in social contexts and the intersection with legislation for over 15 years, carrying out a large amount of grassroots research on issues such as attitudes towards privacy and data protection, internet safety, and contemporary issues such as sexting, peer abuse, and the impact of digital technology on well-­being. He has presented written and oral evidence to parliamentary enquiries related to the use and regulation of ICTs in society, is widely published in the area, and is a frequent media commentator on these issues. Emily Setty is Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Surrey, UK. Emily is also a research fellow at the Institute of Criminal Policy Research, Birkbeck. Caroline Stockman  is Senior Lecturer in Education Studies at the University of Winchester, UK, and has over a decade of experience in schooling as well as the industry of educational technology, as educator herself, project manager, and e-learning trainer. Her research centres on the human-technology relationship, with a cultural-political focus. She is also a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy and research fellow in the Department of Digital Cultural Studies at the University of Leuven. She became a JISC Leader in 2019 and was Principal Investigator for the ‘Opt Out’ Project—funded by HDI, an ESPRC network. Louisa Street  is a PhD student at Keele University, exploring young people’s views on the law and policy around sexting. This comes after ten years of experience working with young people around issues including mental health, sexual health, drug and alcohol awareness and digital resilience, where Louisa developed a passion for promoting youth voice within services which young people access. Lorna Woods  is Professor of Internet Law at the University of Essex, UK, and a member of the Human Rights Centre there. She has taught and researched in the field of law and communications technologies. Her current research project with Carnegie UK Trust is on reducing harm arising on social media and she was awarded an OBE in recognition of her work.

1 Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms Emily Setty, Faith Gordon, and Emma Nottingham

We have compiled this edited collection to provide an evidence-based perspective on what it means to protect children and young people from harm online, while also upholding their participatory and provision rights. We focus specifically on the UK context, given claims by the UK government that they are introducing tough new measures to make the country ‘the safest place in the world to be online’ (Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2017). Online harms are, of course, of global concern, and we hope this collection stimulates further intellectual and

E. Setty (*) University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] F. Gordon Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia e-mail: [email protected] E. Nottingham University of Winchester, Winchester, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 E. Setty et al. (eds.), Children, Young People and Online Harms, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46053-1_1

1

2 

E. Setty et al.

applied engagement with the topic, including comparative analyses of how online harms are being addressed across jurisdictions and transnationally. In the UK, there are gaps, grey areas, and contested issues in the current online harms legislative and policy agenda, as Lorna Woods details in Chap. 6. Gaps include the need to address and promote the positive opportunities of being online, as well as address the risks and harms, while also not unduly curtailing children and young people’s participatory and provision rights in the pursuit of protecting them from harm. As outlined in this introductory chapter, this balancing act has ramifications for distinguishing ‘risk’ from ‘harm’ online, due to existing evidence suggesting that encountering risk does not always lead to harm (e.g., Slavtcheva-Petkova et al., 2015; Smahel et al., 2020). Also, the evidence demonstrates that risks and opportunities co-exist and ultimately the former cannot be eradicated without jeopardising the latter, including vis-à-­ vis the development of resilience (Throuvala et  al., 2021). Formal legislation may have limited capacity to address the complexities of online life for children and for young people (see Nash, 2019). Instead, tackling online harms must be part of a broader agenda that accounts for the diverse and socially contingent nature of children and young people’s experiences online, as evidenced by studies conducted with children and young people. The chapters in this collection draw upon this evidence base to explore conceptualisations of online harms, children’s and young people’s experiences and accounts of online harms, and their perspectives on interventions to educate society about online harms and ultimately to address and prevent online harms. The collection also contains shorter vignettes that describe examples of policy and practice models directly from those who design, implement, or are impacted by them. Further, the vignettes demonstrate how these models reflect and support children and young people’s voices and active participation in understanding and addressing online harms. Through bringing together research, policy, and practice in this way, this edited collection aims to help shape and inform unfolding contemporary practice and the implementation of policy in practice settings. We hope it helps minimise the disparities between practice, policy, and research by providing a platform for those working at the

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

3

cutting-edge of the interface between these fields in the UK context to share insight and expert knowledge. In this introductory chapter, we outline the current legislative, policy, and practice agenda in the UK on children, young people, and online harms. We locate this agenda within the wider international context regarding relevant codes and instruments designed to uphold children’s and young people’s protection, participation, and provision rights online. Our core aim for the collection is to listen to and centre children’s and young people’s voices, in all their complexity and heterogeneity, when conceptualising and responding to online harms. This introduction also, therefore, includes the theoretical and conceptual rationale and the basis for foregrounding children and young people’s perspectives and lived experiences, albeit in ways that critically address the wider socio-­structural contexts that they inhabit and navigate both online and offline. We contend that current approaches to understanding and responding to online harms over-emphasise the individual user, are overly deterministic and reductionist, and focus on the extent of children’s and young people’s digital literacy and resilience, placing attention at the level of the individual rather than systems. This arguably reflects a neoliberal agenda in the UK and other Global North contexts that decontextualises the lived experiences and realities of children’s and young people’s lives. It also reflects a longstanding disavowal of children and young people’s agency and a pathologisation of new and emerging technologies, evident since the introduction of the radio through to more contemporary forms of media (e.g., see Newman, 2010). As a result, there has been a narrow conceptualisation of online harms in mainstream policy and practice, and the types of harms that children and young people describe encountering and experiencing online can be more extensive than what is currently captured. Children and young people are often left to navigate and negotiate changing digital spaces without meaningful guidance, support, or intervention, which has created a need for ‘resilience’ in absence of sufficient adult support. Digital literacy and resilience online are then judged in accordance with adult-centric attitudes, with less focus on the evidence about children and young people’s needs and perspectives. Our aim with this collection is to disrupt these assumptions. The chapters contained within the collection address how online harms should be

4 

E. Setty et al.

conceptualised and responded to, based on the voices of children and young people as gleaned through primary research studies.

Children’s and Young People’s Online Lives Smartphone and internet access and use is high among children and young people in the UK and around the world, with social media platforms and video and image sharing sites being particularly popular and commonly used (Ofcom, 2022; Lenhart, 2015; Livingstone et al., 2014). Successive waves of the EU Kids Online survey1 have attested to how embedded mobile devices and the internet have become in children and young people’s lives. Based on an analysis of the survey data, Smahel et al. (2020) report that children and young people are going online via their devices ‘anywhere, anytime’ and most do so ‘daily or all of the time’. They identify few gender differences in rates of ownership and use of devices, but propensity to go online increases with age. They found that social media consumption and content creation is popular, with children and young people typically engaging in activities such as watching videos, listening to music, communicating with family and friends, and playing online games. The authors identify variation, however, and suggest that there is no ‘uniform’ child or young person when it comes to the internet. The term ‘triple revolution’ is used by González-Larrea and Hernández-­ Serrano (2020) to refer to three main axes: the Internet, social networks, and mobile communication. They argue that within the online environment, ‘these three axes allow the person to be part of an infinite information flow chain’ that enables ‘leisure, socialization, education and entertainment…’ (p. 942). There ensues a pressure for ‘constant interaction’ within social media spaces that ‘allow the creation and exchange of usergenerated content’ (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). The active and participatory nature of social media and the networked publics that result enable interaction and communication and have re-shaped ‘political,  The EU Kids Online Survey has been administered since 2006 as part of the work of the EU Kids Online research network. The network investigates children and young people’s experiences of being online across European countries. See here: http://www.eukidsonline.net/ 1

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

5

economic, social, and educational decision-making at a global level’ (Andrade-Vargas et al., 2021, p. 81). The ‘impacts’ of these processes and developments upon children and young people continue to be debated and agonised over. There may ensue deleterious effects on physical and mental health and well-being, for example, regarding links between internet/social media use and depression, anxiety, self-harm/suicide, impaired sleep, poor body image, and other effects (e.g., Burnette et  al., 2017; Kelly et  al., 2019; Shakya & Christakis, 2017). Yet, empirical data varies, and longitudinal evidence of the causal direction of harm remains unclear (Boers et al., 2019; Coyne et al., 2020; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017; Stockdale & Coyne, 2020; Twenge et al., 2018; Twigg et al., 2020). Children’s and young people’s experiences online vary, and risk and harm are not equally or identically experienced across different children and young people, with impacts typically shaped by socio-structural factors and characteristics (Livingstone & Bober, 2004). It remains not entirely clear for whom and in what ways content and activity online is harmful, especially that deemed ‘legal but harmful’, which the UK online safety legislation seeks to address, particularly when it comes to children and young people online (Nash, 2019). Stavropoulos, Motti-Stefandi, and Griffiths (2021, p. 12) argue that what is needed is a nuanced and contextualised understanding of the impacts and effects of the internet, asking, ‘who’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘where digitally’, ‘by doing what digitally’, and ‘by being who digitally’? Our aim in this collection is to provide some evidence-based perspectives on these questions that identify the wider social contexts and interplays between agency, structure, and platform design that shape experiences, meanings, and patterns of risk and opportunity across children and young people, who are a diverse social group.

6 

E. Setty et al.

 urrent Policy and Legislative Landscape C in the UK The stated aim of the UK’s online safety legislation is to protect minors and other ‘vulnerable’ groups from harmful content and activity online. Proposals include a duty of care on platforms to protect users from harmful content and measures to address illegal content (e.g., child sexual abuse imagery). The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is responsible for the Government’s digital policy, including regarding online safety, and it published the Online Safety Bill in May 2021.2 This Bill has been in the pipeline since 2019, and initially, terminology referred to online harms rather than safety. It aims to make the UK the ‘safest place in the world to be online’.3 Existing legislation relevant to this aim includes the Children Act 19894 and 2004,5 which places local authorities under a duty to promote the welfare of children and protect them from harm, including online. The Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation6 also include provisions for protecting children’s personal data online. DCMS has already issued guidance and resources for protecting children online, for example UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) (comprising the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), ChildNet, and the Southwest Grid for Learning) provides guidance for schools, parents, and others.7 IWF tackles illicit imagery of minors online, including through working with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and others to remove such imagery, hosting a mechanism for reporting images, and working internationally to address the problem.8 ChildNet provides tools and resources to keep children safe online, including educational resources, training for practitioners and  The Online Safety Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/making-britain-the-safest-place-in-the-world-to-be-online 4  Children Act 1989: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents 5  Children Act 2005: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/contents 6  Data Protection Act 1998 and GDPR: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted 7  See: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-council-for-internet-safety 8  IWF: https://www.iwf.org.uk/ 2 3

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

7

professionals,9 a ‘hotline’ for reporting illegal content (e.g., child sexual abuse material, grooming),10 and its ‘Children’s Digital Leaders Programme’11 (peer-to-peer online safety programme for schools is designed to enable children to take an active role in promoting online safety in their school communities). The Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC) took effect in September 2021 and placed duties on online platforms and service providers to protect the privacy and safety of children and young people online. It comprises a set of guidelines and standards issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK, which apply to all websites, apps, and online services that are likely to be accessed by children and young people under the age of 18. The AADC requires platforms and provides to take account of the age of their users and design their services with age-appropriate features and safeguards, for example providing clear privacy notices and obtaining parental consent before collecting personal information from minors. It also requires that the data collected from minors and the sharing of personal information be minimised and that robust data protection measures are in place. Platforms and providers must also account for potential risks to young people from online bullying, grooming, and other harmful behaviours. The aim of the AADC is to enable children and young people to participate in online spaces safely and securely, while protecting their privacy and personal data. In Chap. 6, Woods and Defend Digital Me’s vignette illustrate, however, the nature, implementation, and potential effectiveness of the AADC are difficult to ascertain. In terms of education for children and young people about online safety, in 2017, the Children’s Commissioner’s Growing Up Digital Taskforce recommended mandatory digital citizenship programmes for schools in the UK for 4–14-year-olds (Children’s Commissioner, 2017). It has since become mandatory, from September 2020, for most schools in England to deliver a Relationships, Sex, and Health Education (RSHE) curriculum that includes content on ‘online safety’. Analysis of the  ChildNet resources: https://www.childnet.com/resources  ChildNet hotline: https://www.childnet.com/teachers-and-professionals/get-help/ 11  ChildNet Digital Leadership Programme: https://digital-leaders.childnet.com/ 9

10

8 

E. Setty et al.

curriculum guidance identified a predominantly negative and risk-averse framing of online topics, however, notwithstanding statements recognising how embedded and potentially beneficial being online is for young people (Setty & Dobson, 2023). There are, furthermore, different messages regarding online rights and expectations compared to offline, for example that anything shared online cannot be assumed to be private, which, arguably, would not be the expectation or message regarding privacy rights in offline interactions and, moreover, is contradicted by the above-mentioned privacy- and data protection-related legislation. The Online Safety Bill extends the current landscape of online safety law and policy and has attracted some controversy and concern. For example, the ‘harmful but legal’ provisions have been criticised because of issues around censorship and free speech and the feasibility of enforcement (e.g., Dittel, 2022). There are also ongoing debates regarding the responsibility and accountability of platforms (should they be asked to do more? Are they going to over-reach and be given too much power?); enforcement and implementation (how will illegal content be identified? How to ensure that platforms adhere to the regulations? How to protect users’ privacy?). Essentially, questions relate to proportionality and likely effectiveness. More broadly, Nash (2019, p. 9, italics in original) criticises the proposed legislation for advancing technical solutions to ‘the technological manifestation of social ills’. From this perspective, proportionality and effectiveness are constrained by the underlying conceptualisation of the problem. Recognising the social nature of online safety/harms would, Nash (2019) contends, lead to different, or additional, policy formations that may enable a more holistic approach.

Children and Young People’s Digital Rights There are several human rights instruments pertaining to young people’s rights online, including:

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

9

• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC)12: sets out the rights of children, including their right to freedom of expression and their right to protection from all forms of violence and exploitation, including online exploitation. • Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography 200213: requires states to take measures to prevent the sale and sexual exploitation of children, including online sexual exploitation. • Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR)14: includes the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy. • Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse 2007 (Lanzarote Convention)15: aims to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, including online. • General Comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment produced by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child16: provides guidance on how the CRC applies in the context of the digital environment, including regarding online safety, privacy, and access to information. The ‘5 Rights’ agenda, meanwhile, is a framework for promoting young people’s digital rights developed by the organisation 5Rights.17 It focuses on five key principles: • The ‘right to remove’ content and information from online platforms. • The ‘right to know’ and have access to clear and concise information about the terms and conditions of online platforms, as well as how their data is being used.  UNCRC: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rightschild 13  UNCRC Optional Protocol: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/ optional-protocol-convention-rights-child-sale-children-child 14  UDHR: https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/2021/03/udhr.pdf 15  Lanzarote Convention: https://rm.coe.int/1680084822 16   General Comment No. 25: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-­ recommendations/general-comment-no-25-2021-childrens-rights-relation 17  5Rights Framework https://5rightsframework.com/the-5-rights/ 12

10 

E. Setty et al.

• The ‘right to safety and support’ through access to effective safeguards and support mechanisms to protect them from harm in the digital environment. • The ‘right to informed and conscious use’ whereby they are empowered to make informed decisions about their online activities and to use digital technology in a conscious and responsible way. • The ‘right to digital literacy’ in terms of the knowledge and skills they need to navigate the digital environment safely and confidently. These rights-based formulations of children’s and young people’s online lives and experiences pertain namely to protection, provision, and participatory rights. Participatory rights online refer to rights to participate in online spaces and to have their voices heard in decisions that affect their lives, underpinned by the UNCRC. These rights can be facilitated online. For example, forums and social media provide opportunities for expressing views, engaging in discussion, and connecting with like-­ minded and similar others. Participatory rights may also be supported by involving children and young people in the design and development of products and services intended for them or in policy-making processes related to their rights and online safety. Provision rights relate to the right to receive, be provided with, and access online resources and services. The online environment also presents challenges to participation rights, for example pertaining to harassment and bullying, privacy and data protection, and the potential for amplification of existing power imbalances. Ensuring that participatory rights are respected thus requires careful consideration and ongoing efforts to create safe, supportive, and inclusive online spaces that enable and encourage children’s and young people’s voices to be heard. Participation and protection are, therefore, different sides to the same coin and must be promoted and upheld in tandem. Examples of doing so in practice include: • Work by organisations such as Childnet International and the European Youth Forum18 to give children and young people a voice in  European Youth Forum—Digitisation: https://www.youthforum.org/topics/digitalisation

18

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

11

policy discussions and decision-making processes related to the digital environment. • Provision of resources and support by organisations like MediaSmarts19 to help children and young people develop digital literacy and skills, and the UK Safer Internet Centre to support them to stay safe online.20 • Age-appropriate versions of services tailored to the needs and interests of children and young people of different ages, by platforms such as YouTube21 and Netflix.22 • Policies and programmes in place to protect children’s and young people’s rights, including measures to combat online child sexual abuse by technology companies like Google23 and Microsoft.24 Challenges remain, however, for example related to: • Different levels of digital literacy and skills online, including critical evaluative skills, and therefore vulnerability to harm, among children and young people. • Risks of online bullying, grooming, and exposure to harmful content. • Improper or insufficiently transparent collection and use of personal data by online platforms and digital services. • Digital divides in access to and use of digital technology and the internet, which may exacerbate existing inequalities. • Cross-border and transnational online contexts, requiring international cooperation and coordination. • Lack of skills, awareness, and knowledge among adults, e.g., parents, teachers, and others concerned and/or responsible for supporting children and young people’s rights online.  MediaSmarts—Digital Literacy: https://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy  Safer Internet Centre—Children and Young People: https://saferinternet.org.uk/guide-and-­ resource/young-people 21  See YouTube ‘Terms of Service’: https://kids.youtube.com/t/terms 22  See Netflix ‘Maturity Ratings’: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/2064#:~:text=To%20set%20 a%20maturity%20rating,and%20movies%20from%20individual%20profiles 23  Google—‘Giving kids and teens a safer experience online’: https://blog.google/technology/families/giving-kids-and-teens-safer-experience-online/ 24   Microsoft—‘Fighting child sexual exploitation’: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-­ issues/2020/06/12/fighting-child-exploitation-project-protect/ 19 20

12 

E. Setty et al.

Conceptually, upholding children’s and young people’s rights online may be hampered by overly protectionist discourses that position children and young people as passive rather than active agents online and, in turn, as being ‘vulnerable’ and lacking in ‘resilience’ (Binford, 2015). Livingstone and O’Neill (2014) suggest that it has been easier to advance protection rights online than participation and provision rights, but that each must be balanced because, they contend, ‘the more one seeks to protect, the more one risks undermining participation’ (p. 8). They identify how what is deemed inappropriate and harmful for children and young people is contested and an over-emphasis on digital literacy, skills, and resilience obscures differential patterning of risk among young people and the links between online risks and offline factors and circumstances. They in turn argue that a rights-based framework must be holistic, resourced, and supported, and inclusive of children’s and young people’s voices. Importantly, it needs to address different rights as interlinked rather than mutually exclusive.

 heorising Children’s and Young People’s T Online Lives Theoretical perspectives on children’s and young people’s online lives offer various ways of understanding and explaining their experiences online and accord different levels and forms of agency to children and young people as they navigate and participate in online spaces. Children and young people have, for example, been designated ‘digital natives’, distinguishable from older generations of ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky, 2011) regarding their comfort and skill in online environments. This perspective may, however, homogenise children and young people and, in turn, fail to address differences in their access to, and use of technology, as well as their digital literacy skills. Technological determinist and media effects models accord children and young people relatively less agency online compared to more constructionist, (sub)cultural, and citizenship-based theorising. Technological determinism refers to the idea that technology is driving changes in how

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

13

young people think, communicate, and interact with others and learn about themselves and the world around them. Its typically one-­directional understanding of causation has been critiqued for oversimplifying how children and young people engage with technology and the human-­ society-­technology interfaces shaping how technology use unfolds in context and through human agency (Jandric, 2019; Wood, 2021). The media effects model likewise suggests that exposure to digital media has a direct and measurable impact on children’s and young people’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour, which, again, simplifies the relationship between users/audiences and media (Buckingham & Willett, 2013). In contrast, social constructionist approaches highlight how technology is socially constructed, and experiences online are shaped by cultural, economic, and political factors. It places children’s and young people’s use of technology within a broader context. Also taking a contextualised approach, (sub)cultural theoretical perspectives attend to how children and young people, as active agents, use technology to construct and express personal and interpersonal identities and affiliations. Finally, digital citizenship perspectives emphasise that due to their active and agentic use of technology, children and young people need to act, and be enabled and supported to act, as responsible, ethical, and critical users of technology. Constructionist, (sub)cultural, and citizenship approaches all seek to avoid over-emphasising individual agency, however, and instead locate individuals within micro and macro networks and structures spanning online and offline. Also needing to be addressed is the role of platform design and regulatory and educational discourses in shaping experiences and meanings given to experiences online. McCosker (2016), for example, takes a three-­ pronged approach to digital citizenship and argues that digital literacy must encompass the ‘laws of state regulation, alongside platform controls in the form of technical codes and monitoring and flagging tools, and the application of social norms through educational programs.’ (p. 21, italics in original). He argues that the outcomes sought through ‘cyber-safety’ initiatives involve ‘the prescription of a social good oriented around desirable behaviours and sanctioned use of digital communication technologies’. He counters, however, that the ‘socio-technical, political and economic context’ to cyber safety ‘is itself far from neutral or value and

14 

E. Setty et al.

conflict free’ (p. 31) and that cyber-safety initiatives should address the ‘ecology in which digital acts and interactions take place’ (p.  34) and conceive of rights as mediated by technology and as structured through and enacted within the interests of platforms, ‘global forces, state regulation, and local experiences and points of intervention’ (p. 34–5). This conceptualisation of children’s and young people’s online lives and rights means their agency and active participation is not over-­ determined and can be supported with an awareness and recognition of the systems and structures in place within or as affect online spaces. It entails considering how online harms unfold through user action and behaviour, shaped and enabled by platform affordances. These affordances include, for example, anonymity and lack of physical proximity, which have been linked to disinhibition and, in turn, aggressive or abusive interactions online (e.g., ‘cyberbullying’ and deception (Heirman & Walrave, 2008; Patchin & Hinduja, 2018)). Collapsing and invisible contexts/audiences and the ‘searchability, persistence, replicability, and spreadability’ of content shared online create risks of privacy violations and losses (boyd, 2008). Ease of access to content and material and speed of interactions online exacerbate harmful interactions and privacy violations, while also enabling children and young people to access and encounter ‘inappropriate’ content/material. Algorithms and social media logics directly and indirectly promote harmful interactions and content sharing and exposure to such interactions and content (Breazu & Machin, 2019; Rambukkana, 2015). Platform affordances have paradoxical effects in terms of enabling benefits and harms to users. While, for example, platforms may offer opportunities for self-expression and interpersonal connection (Ng, 2020), there are risks related to the nature of the communication and interaction (Watt et al., 2002). Nash (2019, p. 19) describes features such as anonymity as ‘excellent for free speech but less helpful in maintaining civility’. Anonymity, reduced visual and auditory cues, and collapsing distance and time, and greater control over one’s self-presentation online (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Walther, 2007) facilitate online interactions, including with strangers. Children and young people value the opportunity to expand their networks online, but encounter risks of exploitative or otherwise harmful relationships with strangers (Gordon, 2021). The sheer

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

15

amount of information and disparate entities online can offer opportunities for learning and development while also jeopardising reliability and trust (Pérez-Escoda et al., 2021). Children and young people are not just passively consuming or encountering content online though. They also create content as (inter) active agents (Iglesias et al., 2015). For example, while they may encounter pornographic, self-harm, violent, racist, or hateful content online, or may be groomed or harassed, they may also perpetrate acts including bullying, peer-on-peer abuse, or privacy violations (Gordon, 2021; Cernikova et al., 2018; Liau et al., 2005; Livingstone & Haddon, 2008). Children and young people are, therefore, influenced and affected by others, while also potentially influencing and affecting others themselves (Christakis & Fowler, 2010). While online risks are enabled by platform affordances, they also relate to wider social contexts that shape how children and young people act online, including how they negotiate and navigate risk in ways that may create or exacerbate harm to themselves and/or others. Harms arising from peer pressure and social dynamics; ‘comparison culture’ regarding aspirational and idealised content; loneliness and isolation; and marginalisation, prejudice, and discrimination all relate to children’s and young people’s offline lives and circumstances even as they manifest and may be exacerbated online. For example, privacy concerns relate to peer surveillance (Naezer & Ringrose, 2018) and the norms by which identity is judged and scrutinised in peer contexts. Risks relating to misinterpretation by ‘outsiders’ or unintended audiences arise due to collapsing contexts online but also depend on the meanings held by different audiences, which are socially located and constructed. Hence, we contend that supporting children’s and young people’s rights as digital citizens requires constructionist and (sub)cultural theorising of children’s and young people’s online lives, whereby digital citizenship is addressed with close attention to whether and how citizenship is enabled, practised, and developed in context.

16 

E. Setty et al.

 upporting Participation and Provision Rights S Alongside Protection Rights Being online presents both opportunities and risks for children and young people (Livingstone & O’Neill, 2014). Studies identify that young people negotiate ‘trade-offs’ (Thelwall, 2011) and ‘tensions’ (Malvini Redden & Way, 2017) as they participate in online spaces. For example, they want to meet people, socialise, access information, and learn, but are concerned about bullying, harassment, and privacy violations (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). Many say they like connecting with new people (‘strangers’) online who they do not already know offline, but are aware of being misled and, therefore, try to manage rather than avoid risk in the pursuit of opportunities to expand their networks (Wang & Edwards, 2016; Smahel et  al., 2020). In their intimate relationships, there are opportunities for interpersonal connection online but also normalised practices of monitoring and scrutiny through devices and social media, which can evoke jealousy and abusive and controlling behaviours (Van Ouytsel et al., 2019). Malvini Redden and Way (2017) suggest that as young people navigate these terrains, the risks and opportunities are not always ‘mutually exclusive’ (p. 22), but often ‘interdependent’ because the same interaction, activity, or experience may simultaneously involve risks and opportunities. For example, demands for self-expression exist alongside the need to curate content deemed authentic by others. In managing such tensions, young people articulate ‘local logics of self-protection, relational maintenance, and identity management’ to ‘protect friendships, avoid becoming cautionary tales, and for self-protection’ (p.  33). As such, online (inter)actions are shaped by ‘complex personal and relational goals’ (Malvini Redden & Way, 2019, p. 498). Peter and Valkenburg (2011, p. 231) suggest that managing co-­existing risks and opportunities is part of ‘normal, and usually functional, developmental processes in adolescence’. Risk may, furthermore, be

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

17

purposively taken rather than managed or avoided because, as Livingstone (2008, p. 397) argues, children and young people are attracted to risk and therefore ‘… what for an adult observer may seem risky, is for a teenager often precisely the opportunity that they seek’. An emotional motivation to engage in risky situations is associated with more risk-­taking online (Răcătău, 2013). Benefiting from being online also necessitates encountering some risk (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010). SlavtchevaPetkova, Nash, and Bolger (2015) argue that harm does not always result from risk, and several studies have found that outcomes depend on multiple factors and effects may be direct, indirect, and/or bi-­directional (Daine et al., 2013; Hamm et al., 2015; Kowalski et al., 2014; Kosenko et  al., 2017; Lewis & Seko, 2016; Smahel et  al., 2020; Smith & Livingstone, 2017; Viner et  al., 2012; Wolak et  al., 2008). Throuvala et  al. (2021) further suggest that the ‘impact’ on children and young people depends on the meanings attached to online behaviours and experiences, including within wider social contexts, underscoring the need for a constructionist and (sub)cultural theorising of risk and opportunity online. Given the co-existence of risk and opportunity online, experiences online may not be defined as either beneficial or harmful but, perhaps, ‘somewhere in between, and the consequences depend on the particular interaction between a child and both online and offline contexts’ (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010, p. 6). A ‘post-digital’ framing of children’s and young people’s lives addresses how the online has become increasingly indissoluble from the offline; these spaces now intertwine in a fluid and reciprocal manner to mean that ‘real life’ is just as much online as it is offline. Nelson, Perry, and Rogers (2020, p. 105) conceive of children’s and young people’s ‘online engagements’ as operating along a ‘continuum of offlineness’, which, they argue, enables exploration of where along the continuum meaning and experience falls, with it often being in the ‘spaces in between’.

18 

E. Setty et al.

Individualistic vs. Systems Approaches to Risk and Resilience Online Digital literacy and skills are at the heart of efforts to increase children’s and young people’s resilience to risk online. Răcătău (2013, p.  16) describes young people as potentially ‘resourceful persons who are able to protect themselves from the danger that might occur online’. Digital literacy/skills-based approaches are described as ‘strengths-based’ because they aim to equip and empower children and young people with the tools they need when online (Third et al., 2014, p. 7). It requires supportive, rather than covert and restrictive, actions in which children and young people understand and accept rules and guidelines rather than have these dictated to them (Livingstone et al., 2005). It also involves developing ‘life skills’ and ‘cognitive skills’ relevant to, but going beyond, online domains (Throuvala et al., 2021). Livingstone, Mascheroni, and Stoilova (2021, p. 4) categorise digital skills into: technical and operational skills (e.g., understanding platform affordances, settings, etc.); information navigation and processing skills (e.g., the ‘ability to find, select and critically evaluate digital sources of information’); communication and interaction skills (the ‘ability to use different digital media and technological features to interact with others and build networks as well as to critically evaluate the impact of interpersonal mediated communication and interaction on others’); and content creation and production skills (the ‘ability to create (quality) digital content and understand how it is produced and published and how it generates impact’). These skills categories combine to enable, for example, ‘the skills required for problem-solving online, or to protect one’s privacy or safety online, participate in civic activities or cope with harmful experiences’ (p. 4). Eradicating all risk online is considered undesirable because encountering risk helps children and young people to develop skills and ‘resilience’ (Smith & Livingstone, 2017; Sage et  al., 2021). ‘Resilience’ is typically defined as the ability to withstand setbacks and/or a capacity to use problems to effect positive change (Batty & Cole, 2010). Cahill et al. (2014, p. 5) relate resilience to ‘social competence, a sense of agency or

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

19

responsibility, optimism, a sense of purpose or hope for the future, attachment to family, to school and to learning, problem-solving skills, effective coping style, pro-social values, a sense of self-efficacy, and positive self-­ regard’. ‘Digital resilience’ specifically refers to ‘the ability to deal with negative experiences online or offline (Throuvala et al., 2021). Strategies focus on skilling users to adapt and respond effectively to potentially harmful online experiences’ (Third et al., 2014, p. 7). Resilience and skills are interrelated, therefore, and enable children and young people to harness the benefits of being online (Best et al., 2014). It is also important, however, not to over-focus on the individual and to also consider the factors underpinning risk and any other required regulation, social support, and environmental changes, for example regarding the provision of public spaces for children and young people (Clarke et al., 2015; Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Smith & Livingstone, 2017). Socio-structural patterning of risk online necessitates going beyond individualistic and binary conceptualisations of resilience. There is freedom and reflexivity online, but also limited choices, whereby children and young people shape their identity and participate online, but within socio-structural constraints and cultural discourses (Willett, 2008). More privileged users—along axes of economic, social, and other factors—are more able to reap the benefits of being online than less privileged individuals (Bonfadelli, 2002; Zillien & Hargittai, 2009). Access to technology and opportunities online is unequal and mirrors offline inequalities (Andrade-Vargas, et al., 2021; Blank & Lutz, 2018; DiMaggio et al., 2004;). Boys and older and middle-class teenagers seem to benefit from a broader range of opportunities compared to girls and younger and working-class teenagers, but are also encountering more risks albeit are not necessarily harmed from doing so (Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Livingstone et al., 2005). Marginalised and minoritised youth may benefit from being online, but are at risk due to their social locations (Pascoe, 2011), whereby their (inter)actions online are shaped by wider social stigma and norms to both beneficial and harmful effect (McDermott et al., 2015). Given these socio-structural contexts of being online, it is necessary to shift focus from individuals to also encompass ‘networks, groups, and communities’ (boyd, 2012, p. 350), which Tsaliki (2022) suggests entails

20 

E. Setty et al.

a ‘macroscopic’ as well as ‘microscopic’ lens of analysis. The wider context that shapes experiences of risk and harm online raises the question as to whether the internet has increased risk to young people. Finkelhor (2011) suggests it has ‘amplified’ risk, in that it may facilitate harmful behaviours and access to harmful content, but overall, there may not have been an increase but a digital mediation of harm. Livingstone and Smith (2014) also note that there is no evidence of a substantial rise in risk, perhaps because technology has simply created new spaces for encountering and taking risks. They do not downplay adverse emotional or psychological harms, but try to connect these with pre-existing vulnerabilities (Smith & Livingstone, 2017). When seeking to address new and changing risks and harms, it is important to take a nuanced approach to identifying what is happening online for children and young people and to avoid imposing pre-­ conceived ideas about what is required in terms of regulation and control (Slavtcheva-Petkova et al., 2015). Action that may be considered beneficial or neutral may have counter-productive effects. Over-regulation may, furthermore, exacerbate social inequalities in online participation because the emphasis on personal responsibility intersects with differential terrains of risk and, therefore, will ultimately be more salient to some children and young people than others (see Way & Malvini Redden, 2020). Any emphasis on skills, resilience, and responsibility online must also address human-technology interfaces in ways that enable children and young people to appreciate their rights and obligations as agentic users of technology. Wood (2021) outlines how digital affordances require activation by human agents, while Cooper et al. (2002, p. 286–7) argue that ‘…a technology may have, or be conceptualized as having, particular potentialities, but the latter’s realization – or reconfiguration or subversion – takes place in and through, and thus depends on, actual situated everyday practice’. Children and young people must be supported to be critical online actors aware of the wider community and ethical implications of risk and harm online, which, studies suggest, may be lacking among some—even many—children and young people (Davis, 2011; James, 2014). The online safety agenda needs, therefore, to consider adopting what Nash (2019, p. 21) describes as a ‘systematic approach’ that accounts for

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

21

‘the particular social, economic, political and technological drivers’ of online harms. This requires critical engagement with the notion of resilience to account for the structural factors that may constrain resilience or erode resilient capacities (see Harrison, 2012). Otherwise, supporting resilience may depoliticise and decouple harm from its wider lived contexts and may lead to value judgments on individuals rather than the structures and systems they inhabit (Ibid). Harris and Johns’ (2021) ‘global digital citizenship’ frames citizenship beyond the psychosocial level, also encompassing the local, community, and national level. They replace individualistic approaches to resilience with a focus on ‘the socio-political processes by which children and young people can engage with and build diverse, safe and inclusive social spaces, and position themselves as rights-bearers and responsibility-holders.’ (p. 401), which, they argue, enables ‘the development of policy and programmes that address issues of participation, recognition and rights and not only psychosocial risks and protections’ (p. 402).

 outh-Led Research and Conceptualisations Y of Children and Young People’s Online Lives Children, young people, and adults often differ in their perspectives on the risks and opportunities of being online (Throuvala et al., 2021). New norms have emerged for children and young people as they navigate online spaces in ways that may be disarming for adults (Cupples & Thompson, 2010). Whose perspective—children’s, young people’s, or adults’—is, and should be, privileged in conceptualisations of online risks and opportunities is difficult to decide (Binford, 2015). However, it is important to avoid solely adult-centric, deficit models of young people’s behaviours and experiences online (see Edwards & Wang, 2018). While children and young people may lack awareness or may hold harmful attitudes that may negatively affect their and/or other people’s online lives, adults may misconstrue what children and young people are doing and experiencing or may over-determine the role of digital technologies in causing new and distinct risks and harms, and, in turn, lose credibility

22 

E. Setty et al.

and impact with young people. Children and young people should not be essentialised as digital natives, and instead, the diversity of their lives online and the way such diversity reflects and reinforces wider socio-­ structural patterns, as well as the agency and innovation they show when navigating intersecting risks and opportunities online, should be recognised (boyd, 2012; Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Marwick & boyd, 2011; Pascoe, 2011). A youth-led approach aligns with a rights-based perspective and, moreover, helps ensure interventions address the reality of children’s and young people’s lives. It also helps identify and ameliorate unintended consequences of interventions. The emphasis on regulation and control means children and young people often express concerns about adults overreacting and making things worse, and therefore, they can feel reluctant to speak with adults about their experiences online (Wang & Edwards, 2016; Iglesias et  al., 2015; Patchin & Hinduja, 2018). It is important to take seriously the challenges and struggles that children and young people face online and treat them as ‘real’ and meaningful (Malvini Redden & Way, 2017). Research undertaken directly with young people enables them to articulate the nuances of their perspectives and experiences online (Scott et al., 2020; Slavtcheva-Petkova et al., 2015). It does not mean to uncritically celebrate or accept everything they say, but to engage with their voices as a starting point for understanding the challenges that need to be addressed. It is this spirit of critically informed youth-led theory and research that underpins the chapters that comprise this edited collection. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 offer insight into young people’s experiences online and their perspectives on the risks, harms, and opportunities of being online. Chapter 2, by Rebecca Mace, takes a unique approach to theorising self-­ expression and self-presentation online in terms of what it means to young people. The chapter underscores the need to think critically about conceptualisations of ‘the self ’ online. Chapter 3, by Claire Pescott, also engages with self-presentation online and examines the links with harm for children and how children navigate offline––online contexts. Mace’s and Pescott’s accounts offer different accounts of the benefits and harms of self-expression and self-presentation online, but, read together,

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

23

illustrate the complexities of identity in the digital age in which risks and opportunities co-exist. Chapter 4, by Emily Setty, elaborates on the ‘post-digital’ continuum of online harms for young people and engages with adolescent perspectives and experiences online, identifying what their accounts suggest about the social conditions required for post-digital citizenship for young people. In Chap. 5, Caroline Stockman and Emma Nottingham go further and examine platform affordances and the implications for agency and awareness of online harms, specifically regarding ‘cute design’. They foreground the need to identify and address the ways that platform affordances create or constrain the conditions in which risk and opportunity unfold for children and young people online. The collection then shifts focus in Chaps. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to consider current and future approaches to responding to young people’s online lives. In Chap. 6, Lorna Woods critically engages with the ever-changing online safety landscape and examines the extent to which and how online harms can be addressed through regulation, picking up on what it would mean to take a systemic approach to identifying and addressing how platforms create conditions for harm and, indeed, how online harms have become embedded within their business models. Woods’ chapter takes a step back to consider the online safety legislation in general and, unlike other chapters, is not driven by research conducted with young people, but provides vital insight into the legislative context to other chapters. Chapter 7, by Andy Phippen and Emma Bond, then offers a research and practice-based discussion of how to create dialogue with young people about online harms in ways that address barriers imposed by adults and enables young people to feel able and willing to report their experiences of harm to adults. Chapters 8 and 9 address the role of the immediate family. In Chap. 8, Claire Bessant explores parents’ perspectives on protecting children from online harms. Drawing on family privacy theory, she discusses the arguments and evidence for approaches based on trust, protectionism, and dialogue. Chapter 9, by Faith Gordon, takes a detailed look at the significance of siblings in young people’s perceptions of harm online and argues that ‘digital siblingship’ should be central to enabling young people themselves to play an active role in supporting young people’s digital rights. Finally, in Chap. 9, Jonny Hunt discusses the attempts

24 

E. Setty et al.

to regulate online pornography as part of efforts to tackle harmful sexual behaviour among young people in schools and offers an alternative approach that focuses on supporting young people’s sexual citizenship as they encounter and engage with sexually explicit content online. In the collection, readers will also find three policy and practice vignettes. First, following Chap. 6, a discussion of ‘age verification’ and ‘age assurance’ online is presented by Defend Digital Me, which includes case studies illustrating the challenges and potential unintended consequences of the measures for addressing online harms affecting children and young people, particularly regarding the contentious issue of so-­ called ‘lawful but harmful’ content online. Second, following the chapter by Phippen and Bond about the need to provide safe and effective avenues for reporting and recourse for victims of online harms, there is a vignette by Phippen and Louisa Street about the Headstart Kernow’s Digital Resilience Project, which offers an evidence-based tool for practitioners based on a harm reduction approach to supporting young people online. Finally, after Hunt’s chapter on the trials and tribulations of addressing online pornography with young people, a vignette by Fumble outlines a web-based approach to educating, informing, and guiding young people about sex and relationships in the ‘digital age’ based on resources co-created with young people, for young people. We bring together the various contributions from research and practice in our conclusion chapter to identify what the substantive chapters and vignettes tell us about the realities of and how best to address children’s and young people’s online lives. We will address a key objective of this collection, which is to stimulate engagement across and between research, policy, and practice spheres, driven by recognition of and commitment to critically informed and youth-led approaches to tackling online harms and to upholding children’s and young people’s participation, provision, and protection rights as (post-)digital citizens in an ever-­ evolving and changing digital environment.

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

25

References Andrade-Vargas, L., Iriarte-Solano, M., Rivera-Rogel, D., & Yunga-Godoy, D. (2021). Young people and social networks: Between the democratization of knowledge and digital inequality. Comunicar, 29(69), 85–95. Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590. Batty, E., & Cole, I. (2010). Resilience and the recession in six deprived communities: Preparing for worse to come. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 27–36. Binford, W. (2015). The digital child. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2563874 Blank, G., & Lutz, C. (2018). Benefits and harms from Internet use: A differentiated analysis of Great Britain. New Media and Society, 20(2), 618–640. Boers, E., Afzali, M.  H., Newton, N., & Conrod, P. (2019). Association of screen time and depression in adolescence. JAMA Pediatrics, 173, 853–859. Bonfadelli, H. (2002). The Internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical investigation. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 65–84. boyd, D. (2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation series on digital learning: Youth, identity and media volume (pp.  119–142). MIT Press. boyd, D. (2012). Networked privacy. Surveillance and Society, 10(3), 348–350. Breazu, P., & Machin, D. (2019). Racism toward the Roma through the affordances of Facebook: Bonding, laughter and spite. Discourse and Society, 30(4), 376–394. Buckingham, D., & Willett, R. (Eds.). (2013). Digital generations: Children, young people, and the new media. Routledge. Burnette, C. B., Kwitowski, M. A., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2017). “I don’t need people to tell me I’m pretty on social media:” A qualitative study of social media and body image in early adolescent girls. Body Image, 23, 114–125. Cahill, H., Beadle, S., Farrelly, A., Forster, R., & Smith, K. (2014). Building resilience in children and young people. The University of Melbourne. Available at: https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/department/resiliencelitreview.pdf

26 

E. Setty et al.

Cernikova, M., Dedkova, L., & Smahel, D. (2018). Youth interaction with online strangers: Experiences and reactions to unknown people on the Internet. Information, Communication and Society, 21(1), 94–110. Children’s Commissioner. (2017). Growing up digital. A report of the growing up digital task force. Available online at: https://www.childrenscommissioner. gov.uk/publication/growing-­up-­digital/ Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Social network sensors for early detection of contagious outbreaks. PLoS One, 5(9), e12948. Clarke, A. M., Morreale, S., Field, C.-A., Hussein, Y., & Barry, M. M. (2015). What works in enhancing social and emotional skills development during childhood and adolescence? A review of the evidence on the effectiveness of school-based and out-of-school programmes in the UK. World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Health Promotion Research, National University of Ireland Galway. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411492/What_works_ in_enhancing_social_and_emotional_skills_development_during_childhood_and_adolescence.pdf Cooper, G., Green, N., Murtagh, G. M., & Harper, R. (2002). Mobile society? Technology, distance, and presence. In S.  Woolger (Ed.), Virtual society? Technology, Cyberbole, reality (pp. 286–301). Oxford University Press. Coyne, S. M., Rogers, A. A., Zurcher, J. D., Stockdale, L., & Booth, M. (2020). Does time spent using social media impact mental health? An eight year longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106160. Cupples, J., & Thompson, L. (2010). Heterotextuality and digital foreplay: Cell phones and the culture of teenage romance. Feminist Media Studies, 10(1), 1–17. Daine, K., Hawton, K., Singaravelu, V., Stewart, A., Simkin, S., & Montgomery, P. (2013). The power of the web: A systematic review of studies of the influence of the internet on self-harm and suicide in young people. PLoS One, 8(10), e77555. Davis, K. (2011). Tensions of identity in a networked era: Young people’s perspectives on the risks and rewards of online self-expression. New Media and Society, 14(4), 634–651. Department for Culture Media and Sport. (2017). Making Britain the Safest Place in the World to be Online. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/making-­britain-­the-­safest-­place-­in-­the-­world-­to-­be-­online DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

27

digital inequality. In K. Neckermann (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). Russell Sage Foundation. Dittel, A. (2022). The UK’s Online Safety Bill: The day we took a stand against serious online harms or the day we lost our freedoms to platforms and the state? Journal of Data Protection and Privacy, 5(2), 183–194. Edwards, S., & Wang, V. (2018). There are two sides to every story: Young people’s perspectives of relationship issues on social media and adult responses. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(6), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367626 1.2017.1418083 Finkelhor, D. (2011). The Internet, youth safety and the problem of ‘Juvenoia’. University of New Hampshire: Crimes against Children Research Center. Available at: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Juvenoia%20paper.pdf González-Larrea, B., & Hernández-Serrano, M. J. (2020). Digital identity built through social networks: New trends in a hyperconnected world. In Eighth international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 940–944). Gordon, F. (2021). Online harms experienced by children and young people: ‘Acceptable use’ and regulation. London: Catch22. Available at: https:// static1.squarespace.com/static/5d7a0e7cb86e30669b46b052/t/618b7cd8b 5872f4721c9d59a/1636531420725/Online+Harms+Research+November+2021++Full+Report.pdf Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shullan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., Ennis, H., Scott, S.  D., & Hartling, L. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 770–777. Harris, A., & Johns, A. (2021). Youth, social cohesion and digital life: From risk and resilience to a global digital citizenship approach. Journal of Sociology, 57(2), 393–411. Harrison, E. (2012). Bouncing back? Recession, resilience and everyday lives. Critical Social Policy, 33(1), 97–113. Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2008). Assessing concerns and issues about the mediation of technology in cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2), Article 1. Iglesias, E.  J., Garmendia Larrañaga, M., & Casado del Río, M. Á. (2015). Children’s perception of the parental mediation of the risks of the Internet. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 70, 49–68. James, C. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. MIT Press.

28 

E. Setty et al.

Jandric, P. (2019). The postdigital challenge of critical media literacy. The International Journal of Critical Media Literacy, 1, 26–37. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. Kelly, Y., Zilanawala, A., Booker, C., & Sacker, A. (2019). Social media use and adolescent mental health: Findings from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. EClinicalMedicine, 4, 59–68. Kosenko, K., Luurs, G., & Binder, A. R. (2017). Sexting and sexual behavior, 2011–2015: A critical review and meta-analysis of a growing literature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(3), 141–160. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center. Available at: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/619187/ teens-­social-­media-­technology-­overview-­2015/1600266/ Lewis, S. P., & Seko, Y. (2016). A double-edged sword: A review of benefits and risks of online nonsuicidal self-injury activities. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 249–262. Liau, A. K., Khoo, A., & Hwaang, P. (2005). Factors influencing adolescents’ engagement in risky internet behavior. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8(6), 513–520. Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-­ expression. New Media and Society, 10(3), 393–411. Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2004). Taking up online opportunities? Children’s uses of the Internet for education, communication and participation. E-Learning and Digital Media, 1(3), 395–419. Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2008). Risky experiences for children online: Charting European research on children and the Internet. Children and Society, 22(4), 314–323. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2010). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the Internet: The role of online skills and Internet self-­ efficacy. New Media and Society, 12(2), 309–329. Livingstone, S., & O’Neill, B. (2014). Children’s rights online: Challenges, dilemmas and emerging directions. In S. van der Hof, B. van den Berg, & B.  Schermer (Eds.), Minding minors wandering the web: Regulating online child safety (pp. 19–38). Springer.

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

29

Livingstone, S., Bober, M., & Helsper, E. (2005). Internet literacy among children and young people: Findings from the UK children go online project. LSE Research Online. Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000397 Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Olafsson, K., & Haddon, L. (2014). Children’s online risks and opportunities. LSE. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Stoilova, M. (2021). The outcomes of gaining digital skills for young people’s lives and wellbeing: A systematic evidence review. New Media and Society, 25(5), 1176–1202. Livingstone, S., & Smith, P. K. (2014). Annual Research Review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: The nature prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(6), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcpp.2014.55.issue-­610.1111/jcpp.12197 Malvini Redden, S., & Way, A. K. (2017). ‘Adults don’t understand’: Exploring how teens use dialectical frameworks to navigate webs of tensions in online life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(1), 21–41. Malvini Redden, S., & Way, A. K. (2019). How social media discourses organize communication online: A multi-level discursive analysis of tensions and contradictions in teens’ online experiences. Communication Quarterly, 67(5), 477–505. Marwick, A.  E., & boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–133. McCosker, A., Vivienne, S., & Johns, A. (Eds.). (2016). Negotiating digital citizenship: Control, contest and culture. Rowman and Littlefield. McDermott, E., Roen, K., & Piela, A. (2015). Explaining self-harm: Youth cybertalk and marginalized sexualities and genders. Youth and Society, 47(6), 873–889. Naezer, M., & Ringrose, J. (2018). Adventure, intimacy, identity and knowledge: Exploring how social media are shaping and transforming youth sexuality. In S.  Lamb & J.  Gilber (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sexual development: Childhood and adolescence (pp.  413–432). Cambridge University Press. Nash, V. (2019). Revise and resubmit? Reviewing the 2019 Online Harms White Paper. Journal of Media Law, 11(1), 18–27. Nelson, E. L., Perry, M., & Rogers, T. (2020). Introducing offlineness: Theorizing (digital) literacy engagements. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(1), 101–107.

30 

E. Setty et al.

Newman, M. Z. (2010). New media, young audiences and discourses of attention: From Sesame Street to ‘snack culture’. Media, Culture and Society, 32(4), 581–596. Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here...: Reflections on cancel culture and digital media participation. Television and New Media, 21(6), 621–627. O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800–804. Ofcom. (2022). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2020/21. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-­and-­data/media-­literacy-­ research/childrens/children-­a nd-­p arents-­m edia-­u se-­a nd-­a ttitudes-­ report-­2022 Pascoe, C.  J. (2011). Resource and risk: Youth sexuality and new media use. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(1), 5–17. Patchin, J.  W., & Hinduja, S. (2018). Deterring teen bullying: Assessing the impact of perceived punishment from police, schools, and parents. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(2), 190–207. Pérez-Escoda, A., Pedrero-Esteban, L.  M., Rubio-Romero, J., & Jiménez-­ Narros, C. (2021). Fake news reaching young people on social networks: Distrust challenging media literacy. Publications, 9(2), 24. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P.  M. (2011). Adolescents’ online privacy: Toward a developmental perspective. In S.  Trempte & L.  Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web (pp. 221–234). Springer Heidelberg. Prensky, M. (2011). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–5. Available at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-­%20 Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-­%20Part1.pdf Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. Răcătău, I.  M. (2013). Adolescents and identity formation in a risky online environment. The role of negative user-generated and xenophobic websites. Journal of Media Research, 6(17), 16–36. Rambukkana, N. (2015). Hashtag publics. Peter Lang Incorporated. Sage, M., Randolph, K., Fitch, D., & Sage, T. (2021). Internet use and resilience in adolescents: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 31(2), 171–179. Scott, R.  H., Smith, C., Formby, E., Hadley, A., Hallgarten, L., Hoyle, A., Marston, C., McKee, A., & Tourountsis, D. (2020). What and how: Doing

1  Introduction: Children, Young People, and Online Harms 

31

good research with young people, digital intimacies, and relationships and sex education. Sex Education, 20(6), 675–691. Setty, E., & Dobson, E. (2023). Department for education statutory guidance for relationships and sex education in England: A rights-based approach? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52(1), 79–93. Shakya, H. B., & Christakis, N. A. (2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised well-being: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185(3), 203–211. Slavtcheva-Petkova, V., Nash, J. V., & Bulger, M. (2015). Evidence on the extent of harms experienced by children as a result of online risks: Implications for policy and research. Information, Communication and Society, 18(1), 48–62. Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. LSE.  Available at: http://eprints.lse. ac.uk/103294/1/EU_Kids_Online_2020_March2020.pdf Smith, P. K., & Livingstone, S. (2017). Child users of online and mobile technologies–risks, harms and intervention. In D. Skuse, H. Burce, & L. Dowdney (Eds.), Child psychology and psychiatry: Frameworks for clinical training and practice (pp. 141–148). Wiley. Stavropoulos, V., Motti-Stefanidi, F., & Griffiths, M.  D. (2021). Risks and opportunities for youth in the digital era: A cyber-developmental approach to mental health. European Psychologist, 27(2), 86–101. Stockdale, L. A., & Coyne, S. M. (2020). Bored and online: Reasons for using social media, problematic social networking site use, and behavioral outcomes across the transition from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 79(1), 173–183. Thelwall, M. (2011). Privacy and gender in the social web. In S.  Trempte & L. Reinecke (Eds.), Privacy online: Privacy and self-disclosure in the social web (pp. 251–265). Springer. Third, A., Forrest-Lawrence, P., & Collier, A. (2014). Addressing the cyber safety challenge: From risk to resilience. Western Sydney University. Available at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/telstra_addressing-­c yber-­s afety-­ challenge_2014_2014.pdf Throuvala, M., Griffiths, M.  D., Rennoldson, M., & Kuss, D.  J. (2021). Psychosocial skills as a protective factor and other teacher recommendations for online harms prevention in schools: A qualitative analysis. Frontiers in Education, 6, 648512.

32 

E. Setty et al.

Tsaliki, L. (2022). Constructing young selves in a digital media ecology: Youth cultures, practices and identity. Information, Communication and Society, 25(4), 477–484. Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among US adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17. Twigg, L., Duncan, C., & Weich, S. (2020). Is social media use associated with children’s well-being? Results from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Journal of Adolescence, 80(1), 73–83. Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2019). An exploratory study of sexting behaviors among heterosexual and sexual minority early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(5), 621–626. Viner, R. S., Ozer, E. M., Denny, S., Marmont, M., Resnick, M., Fatusi, A., & Currie, C. (2012). Adolescence and the social determinants of health. The Lancet, 379(9826), 1641–1652. Walther, J.  B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538–2557. Wang, V., & Edwards, S. (2016). Strangers are friends I haven’t met yet: A positive approach to young people’s use of social media. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(9), 1204–1219. Watt, S. E., Lea, M., & Spears, R. (2002). How social is internet communication? A reappraisal of bandwidth and anonymity effects. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Virtual society? (pp. 61–77). Oxford University Press. Way, A. K., & Malvini Redden, S. (2020). Working-class wisdom: How relationality and responsibility shape working-class youth’s meaning-making on social media. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 48(6), 675–694. Willett, R. (2008). Consumer citizens online: Structure, agency, and gender in online participation. In D.  Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 49–70). MIT Press. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. (2008). Is talking online to unknown people always risky? Distinguishing online interaction styles in a national sample of youth internet users. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(3), 340–343. Wood, M. A. (2021). Rethinking how technologies harm. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(3), 627–647. Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274–291.

Part I Understanding Children’s and Young People’s Experiences of Being Online

2 A Real Virtual Self Rebecca Mace

Introduction Social media is commonly associated with a cultural narrative of superficiality, with users frequently criticised for being fake and self-absorbed (Gardner & Davies, 2014; Miller, 2014; Turkle, 2012). Analyses of social media often focus upon the proliferation of users, images, platforms, and likes, often suggesting they are symbolic of narcissism or inauthentic self-­ expression. However, as social networking sites (SNS) have become increasingly integral, rather than merely instrumental, to the ways in which people experience themselves, it is worth reconsidering the way in which they ought to be regarded. Drawing upon theory pertaining to imagination and play (Vygotsky, 1967; Piaget, 1923; Erikson, 1998; Miller & Almon, 2009; Smith, 2010; Stone, 2007), this chapter will consider the relationship between fact and fiction, using imaginative play,

R. Mace (*) School of Human and Social Sciences, University College London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 E. Setty et al. (eds.), Children, Young People and Online Harms, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46053-1_2

35

36 

R. Mace

storytelling, and role play as an alternative framing when applied to selfexpression on social media. In something akin to the well-known phrase “show me the child until he is 7 and I will show you the man”, this chapter argues that our childlike tendencies stay with us throughout life, playing an essential role at all stages. The chapter will consider three ways in which social media could serve an important role in modern self-formation and development, especially regarding the trying on of identities when developing a sense of self. Having unpacked a little of the potential for existential depth to be expressed through material culture, the conclusion will then draw together the ways that, in the increasingly merged existence between online and offline life, sharing serves an important role, offering potential for greater ontological breadth. However, it should be noted that this is not an exhaustive list of all the educational and developmental theory that may be evident in adolescent use of social media, but merely an initial exploration, a broad-brush overview, or an introduction to some applied ideas.

Fake or Real Online Existence

It was initially argued (Gardner & Davies, 2014; Turkle, 1985, 1997) that the internet enabled people to formulate false selves or alternate realities, and while there has been a huge shift in internet usage in the

2  A Real Virtual Self 

37

intervening decades (for example the move from niche online chat rooms to the ultimate ubiquity of social media), some continue to argue that social media encourages teenagers to present a veneer or “fake” self to the world because of the focus upon the perception of other.1 In a similar vein, it has been argued that the so-called Selfie Generation (Eler, 2017) is living a life of “self-expression rather than self-examination”,2 and this has led to much criticism of youth culture being shallow and too obsessed with appearance. Sherry Turkle (1997) originally proposed that Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” has been eclipsed by “I share therefore I am”,3 implying that adolescents’ sense of self is far more reliant upon the perception of others than ever before. This suggested divide between “fake” presented-life and “real” lived-life became entrenched as an idea over time, and in this formulation, people inhabit an existence which runs parallel to their real life; a fake life in which a better self pretends to be,4 taking the form of something that is like life, rather than anything that is real.5 However, there is a counter-narrative, and it is possible to argue that the division between online and offline is no longer as pronounced or experienced in the same way as it has been in previous years. People are continuously connected and living merged online/offline existences. Observing a group of teenagers, for example, will see them continually taking photographs and sending snaps6; their online world is not  Gardner and Davies (2014) discuss this further.  Guardian 11 March 2013. 3  Turkle (1997) discusses this in depth. 4  Gardner and Davies (2014) discuss this at length. 5  The ways in which young people can be seen to be developing their real sense of self using the virtual (in the context of “as if ” as well as the technological interpretation) offer a way to reframe the problem of “fake” online existence. The way we understand the word virtual is to be questioned, as it seems the notion of fake has become conflated with virtual (technological). There is a narrative where both fake and virtual equal bad, whether that virtual means “online” or “not completely or according to strict definition” (Oxford Dictionary 2021). Perhaps an assumption that virtual presence is bad is because we have been encouraged into a habit of thought in which we look behind or beyond images for the “real”, as if it had been obscured by the object itself. This implies there is an internal “real” self that requires uncovering or clarifying, one that is concealed from the real world or even the individual in some way. 6  Snaps are the photos produced when engaging in the app Snapchat. Although it now has a wider range of options for users, the app Snapchat was initially focused on private, person-to-person photo sharing. The content is ephemeral and disappears after a short time of viewing. Users will send many “snaps” (photographs) to one another in short periods of time as a way of maintaining friendships and ensuring up social connection. The content can be conceived of as phatic communication. 1 2

38 

R. Mace

considered to be separate, but instead augments their friendships and real-world interactions. As well as an enmeshing or merging of the offline and online, there appears to have been a blurring of the boundaries of truth and fiction. For example, people go Pokémon hunting7 in augmented but real environments, they photoshop images, so they are partially real but improved, and they use emoticons and Gifs to communicate real emotion in the form of cartoons. It is increasingly clear that the online and offline collide, co-habit, and complement one another. Therefore, when pursuing a line of argument that concerns itself with fake and real online existence, it is important that this is considered. Experiencing and interacting with this world calls into question whether asking what real is and where it exists may not be as relevant in their interactions as it once was when it comes to self-expression on social media. If people judge social media as if it were intended as a factual documentary, looking to see if what is posted correlates directly with the offline world, the feed will invariably fall short as a documentary of a life. As a result, rather than looking for the offline world to correlate exactly, perhaps we ought to expect no more than it simply tessellates. It is precisely the relationship between factual and fictive that is worth considering further in relation to the self as expressed online. As Richard Bartle stated, although he was talking in a time pre-social media ubiquity, “Virtual worlds let you find out who you are by letting you be who you want to be” (Bartle, 2004, p. 161).8

 Pokémon GO is a GPS-enabled game that asks players to walk around their neighbourhoods and hunt down Pokémon (a cartoon character). Players view the offline world through their camera, and the GO game will then add Pokemon to appear in augmented reality in semi-random physical locations as they walk around hunting. When a player finds one, the game activates the phone’s camera and shows them the Pokémon. It appears on the screen as if they are really there. 8  This, according to Belk (2013), is a far more effective mirror and has a stronger effect than others’ feedback alone. This has been exemplified in the Proteus effect; psychological experiments have shown that people can change after even small amounts of time “wearing” an avatar. A taller avatar increases people’s confidence, and this boost persists later in the physical world. It also appears that a more attractive avatar makes people more sociable, an older one leads to a more responsible approach to finance, and a physically fit one makes people exercise more (Blascovich, 2011). Therefore, by developing one’s “real” online self to the extent that one essentially becomes it or comes to think of one’s self in much the same way as an avatar, an individual can inhabit this liminal space—becoming a virtually real self. 7

2  A Real Virtual Self 

39

It is worth noting at this stage that many problems are deemed to arise from incongruence/misrepresentation online being framed negatively. Rather than allowing for a fictive representation of self “online harms”, policy discourse frequently seems to take SNS posts at face value. Perhaps it would be important for some consideration of this aspect in the legislative plans regarding the way in which the online space is being positioned. If such posts are reframed to open up space beyond the notion of “harm” caused by any lack of reality, there is perhaps more space for conversation around the potential for positive impact. For example, it is possible to argue that people use the images of themselves they post to convey an existence that they want to live. This does not have to be superficial, for example, perhaps a shared image will portray a version of self that is one desperately wants to inhabit, a happier, better version than the one an individual might be going through at the time. They may need to be portrayed in the world as much for themselves as for others, with the image acting as simultaneously aspirational and restorative. A movement inadvertently started in July 2018 by Tracy Clayton, host of the Buzzfeed podcast, demonstrates this. She had shared the reality behind her picture from the previous year, and tweeted9 “im curious. If youre comfortable doing so, post a picture of you that you have shared on social media where you were actually having a really tough time in life  This was reproduced from an article in Quartz (Fessler, 2018/2022) with further permission granted from Tracy Clayton @brokeymcpoverty 22/01/2020. 9

40 

R. Mace

even tho [sic] you look perfectly fine in the picture”. People replied with pictures of their own, adding the “real stories” behind them.10 All these stories were far more vulnerable than the images first appeared. The picture of the mother walking her son to school depicted is one such example. It can be argued that these people felt the need to be construed, by themselves as much as by others, as coping or doing well. It is possible to put forward the suggestion that to some extent, they viewed themselves through their future eyes, which then, in turn, played a role in facilitating their personal construction of themselves into someone who can cope. Neil Haynes argues that the public spaces of social media allow individuals to present themselves as they would like to be seen (Haynes, 2016, p. 72), and this does not always have to be considered as fake or narcissistic in its focus. It could be seen as empowering or simply as something to hold on to in tough times.

 Also contained in the Quartz article and further permission granted from @KrisMissTime 24/01/2020. 10

2  A Real Virtual Self 

41

A hybrid fictive and factual self is not a new phenomenon, nor one that is peculiar to online existence. It has been considered by existential thinkers, for example, Sartre, when considering his existence in the world, tells of an imaginary version of himself he had as a child.11 When he pretended to be him, he felt like a powerful warrior. As he grew up and discovered boxing in his 20s Sartre spoke of feeling like he was able to re-capture some of the essence of this imaginary and internal, powerful warrior, whom he called Pardaillan. He was in effect dipping in and out of his fake self and real self, overlaying one on top of the other in order to make his real self into a better version: “I never stopped creating myself ” (Sartre, 1963/2000, p. 23). In this way, it added to his radical freedom, giving him a sense of empowerment. Sartre’s alter ego empowered him, and the same could be said of social media. People sometimes use it to display an alter ego to empower themselves. For example, the lawyer on 11

 Les Mots (1963; Words) as cited in (Boule, 2005).

42 

R. Mace

the left12 often posts pictures of Bengali Tigers, as well as describing himself as a Bengal Tiger.13 He seems to use the tiger to convey the idea that he is powerful and perhaps a revolutionary,14 or perhaps that he is seeking the meaning of life.15 In this way, the images are clearly not documentary, but offer some truth to us in terms of his character and personality. This further calls into question the suggested binary between real and “fake”, suggesting that something may be less real in terms of documentary, but very real in terms of character. Ultimately, social media displays this type of self-expression publicly in a way and on a scale that was never possible before. This online self-presentation is sometimes documentary, sometimes life/self-affirming, sometimes partial, and sometimes aspirational. Another way of thinking about the relationship between online and offline self might be better conceived of by thinking about the differences between a painting and a film (and sometimes even a cartoon). There is  Permission to reproduce the images kindly granted by Sham Udin May 2019.  https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-bengal-tiger-lawyer-dares-airport-security-arrest-him-meltdown-video 14  The nickname of Bengali tiger has been applied to revolutionaries in the past: Bengali revolutionary Jatindranath Mukherjee was nicknamed Bagha Jatin; a political cartoon from 1857 edition of Punch in which Indian rebels were depicted as tigers. 15  The film Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo (2010) is based on the true story of a tiger that escaped from the Baghdad Zoo in 2003 and haunts the streets of Baghdad seeking the meaning of life (Joseph, 2012). 12

13

2  A Real Virtual Self 

43

no denying these expressions of the world contain powerful realities— they have elements of what some might call real from a documentary perspective—but they are also more than that. What they can express beyond that is every bit as important, meaningful, and real, albeit in an alternative context. It allows one to temporarily ignore the question “But is it real?” in order to ask how the world is. Erin Taylor (2014) explores the relative merits of films and paintings as means of representing reality on social media in this way. She suggests that although films are made up of all kinds of different elements, the way they are brought together as a final product gives the audience a sense that the events taking place are real, with the very nature of film obscuring the nature of production. The audience is not required to question whether the scene is filmed in a real place or on a film set. However, with paintings, it is clear that it is a representation of reality, with things like the visibility of brush strokes, the choice of colour, the artistic genre, and the style of the artist all playing an important role in the meaning of the piece. Social media is often perceived as closer to film in that the final product conceals its process of production, and it gives the viewer the sense that the events taking place are completely real; however, perhaps if it were thought of as like a painting, it would be more fruitful. Doing so would in effect show the (air)brush marks, the choice of (filter) colour, and the (meme) genre and perhaps offer more insight. There is no denying that these expressions of the world contain powerful realities, they have elements of what some might call real from a documentary perspective, but they are also more than that. What they can express beyond that is every bit as important, meaningful and real, albeit in an alternative context. It is therefore worth considering that pursuing a line of argument that concerns itself with fake and real online existence is not the most productive. Having considered an alternative way to approach the fake real debate with regards to social media—one that is more forgiving and open to a flexible interpretation of a real virtual self—this chapter will move on to consider several different ways in which social media and image sharing could serve an important role in self-expression and self-understanding. These are: sharing on social media as imaginative play; accumulated being

44 

R. Mace

as a route to self-reflection; and finally, peer twinning in relation to online environments.

Self-Sharing as Play Well-rehearsed arguments in educational theory suggest that imaginative play is widely recognised as essential method of learning and development for young children.16 Not only does it provide opportunities for motor skills, vocabulary development, and creativity; it can allow participants to adopt different perspectives during which ideas and emotions are moulded and rearranged. Erikson, for example, noted the “playful and yet ‘planful’ dialog” between infant and mother “that negotiates the first interpersonal encounters, the light of the eyes, the features of the face, and the sound of the name, become essential ingredients of a first recognition of and by the primal other” (Erikson, 1998, p. 40). It starts the formation of self as individual. Later, as toddlers begin to develop a theory of mind, playing also helps sensitise them to the intentions of others (Marks-Tarlow, 2012). Furthermore, playing on words, solving puzzles, choosing sides, or singing silly songs enlarges their working vocabularies, practices and stimulates the sense of number and proportion, as well as maintaining friendships, augmenting a sense of fairness, and exercising a feeling for rhythm. Essentially, imaginative play also helps a child find their place in society. Children are actively encouraged to play throughout primary school because of the strong benefits it offers. However, this experience appears to change at the point of secondary school, as here it is possible to identify a narrative in which young people are frequently told “Be the real you” in their PSHE, RSE, or Character Education programmes, especially when it comes to the online context. It is this I would like to focus upon, translating the younger child’s experience of make-believe across to the adolescent online experience and paying particular attention  The benefits of pretend play on children’s language development have been widely investigated (Bates et al., 1980; Casby & Corte, 1987; Griswold, 2007; Lewis et al., 2000; Lyytinen et al., 1997; Stagnitti & Lewis, 2015; Tykkyläinen & Laakso, 2010; Ungerer & Sigman, 1984, etc.). 16

2  A Real Virtual Self 

45

to the use of social media as a method of play. Research into online play for older children and teenagers has almost entirely focused upon gaming, rather than upon the use of social media more generally. Due to a blurring of the lines between the so-called fake and real (as discussed above), it is possible for teenagers (and some adults) to approach some of their use of Social Networking Sites (SNS) as a form of play. Imagination play is, therefore, albeit articulated differently in online contexts, simply being extended into teenage years and beyond. When a child engages in pretend or imaginative play, by pretending to be different characters or by controlling objects in their own way and observing the result, they are essentially experimenting. In pretend play, objects or gestures employed by children are not perceived in a literary way; instead, they are used to mention other things that can be absent in reality (Smith, 2010; Stone, 2007). Krasnor and Pepler (1980) developed four criteria to define play: flexibility, pleasant emotion, nonliterality, and intrinsic motivation. Although all four criteria can be seen as evident within the context of SNS, it is nonliterality that is often overlooked or misunderstood. It has an important role in both child’s play and SNS, as actions do not always have the same meaning as they do in real life and behaviours take on new meanings. Nonliterality is a central feature. Both spaces are about learning who they are as individuals and how they fit into the world around them, and how the world works. Memes, filters, silly faces, using a bunny filter, or “elf-ing themself ” are all examples of play. In these, people are usually not trying to fake their existence, but are playing in much the same way as one might dress up, trying on a parent’s high heels to “be an adult” or putting on a stethoscope to “be a doctor”. It is a form of “wishful imagination” in which the young child creates for itself a reality of imagination or dreams, tending “not to establish truths, but to gratify wishes” (Piaget, 1923, pp. 59–60). On social media, this understanding can easily be broadened to include lifestyle by using filters or careful positioning of the camera so specific angles enhance or reduce aspects of their lives. They are creating a version of them that is not the same as the real world them, pretending to have fabulous holidays or attend amazing parties. Importantly, this should not always be interpreted as cynical deception of others. If everyone else is also participating in the pretence and playing along, then it can happily form part of a

46 

R. Mace

make-believe world, with their behaviour being understood in just the same way as young children pretend to ride unicorns and fly to the moon. The problem comes when it is not perceived in this way by others. However, assuming they are self-sharing as a way of playing, perhaps “It just isn’t that deep” (teenager interviewed 201917). Pretend play is closely connected with language development with play being a central means of expression when vocabulary mastery is not great enough to communicate orally.18 Play is used as a form of self-­ expression or way of articulating the self with children, often addressing issues within their world by “playing them out”. As adults, however, we tend to have richer vocabularies and are able to use our language differently, talking through our problems rather than playing them. Teenagers, however, are straddling both adult and childlike worlds, at a point developmentally, when they may not have the words to express their changing identity, relationships, and sense of how they show up in the world. Adolescence is arguably a time when vocabulary may not extend to describe the emotions or sense of flux one experiences, and in the same way as a child who does not have strong mastery of language can use play, teenagers could be described as using social media to work out situations that cannot yet be explained. As demonstrated in Furth’s 1999 study, children will not compromise their storylines when they cannot find words to express them, but rather they will increase their use of representations, whether this is with props or with more fantasy images. Filters and augmented photographs are the online equivalent of these. In this way, as imaginative playtime provides an opportunity for a child to practice important reasoning skills and to expand upon ideas before they can be adequately verbalised, so could online play be said to do so for teenagers. Therefore, allowing adolescents the space to play online in some form

 Teenager from north London interviewed as part of a workshop on e-safety 2019.  Pretend play is closely connected with language development and acquisition amongst children, for example, McCune-Nicolich (1981) and McCune (1995) showed that complexity in play is associated with subsequent analogous development in language production. Numerous studies have also identified a closely coupled relationship between play and early spoken language development (e.g. Bornstein et al., 1992; Kelly & Dale, 1989; Lewis et al., 2000; McCune-Nicolich, 1981; Ogura, 1991; Shore et al., 1984). 17 18

2  A Real Virtual Self 

47

ought to be recognised as important rather than belittled, dismissed, or treated with suspicion.

Social Media as Storytelling Blurring the boundary between play and reality can be a positive for teenagers, and in the same way storytelling also plays an important role in self-understanding. From the time of our birth, we are immersed in a web of narratives and become who we are through the stories others tell of us, and the stories we tell of ourselves. Barthes and Duisit (1975: 237) famously stated that “there has never been anywhere, any people without narrative”, and stories regarding broader culture, family, religion, morality, and myth all play an important role in child development, helping them to discover and articulate their space and place in society. Storytelling also continues to be in evidence in a variety of ways on social media, and there are several aspects of the term “story” that are worth focusing upon. This section will focus upon the ephemeral nature of social media Stories,19 the narrative arc of the storied self as presented through social media, and the nature of curated content in order to form a self-story.

Ephemeral Content Facebook Stories, Instagram Stories, Twitter Fleets (Stories), LinkedIn Stories, Pinterest Stories, Snapchat Stories, YouTube Stories and others typically take the form of a 10 to 15 second video clip or photo. They are designed to give people a glimpse of the individual captured, and while social media feeds generally are carefully curated, Stories tend to have more of a spontaneous feel. However, the biggest defining factor in stories is that they are temporary. On most platforms, they last only 24 hours,20 helping drive a more casual feeling to these stories. They are  The use of capital “S” on Stories denotes a specific application/function within a social media platform, using a lowercase “s” is for the broader concept of a story or tale. 20  Although Instagram does give users the option to save some stories to their highlights reel to view again. 19

48 

R. Mace

presented as disposable. The human desire to “airbrush” stories, inflate or reduce certain elements, telling white lies, and omitting details is unremarkable offline, and yet, online people are often held accountable for their stories in a different way.21 It is here that we, as observers, need to be careful, adopting a more flexible understanding of the S/story. Often True-stories and Real-stories are referred to as such, but on social media, there is no qualifying term, and it is precisely because they remain (S)stories, they ought to be freer from the factual and allowed to move closer to the fictive. The temporary nature of a Story, combined with the very nature of a story in its more general definition, arguably decouples the content they contain from documentary and truth. People have the potential to post content and images of themselves as a way of telling their self-story, viewing literal and conceptual/fictive content in the same blurred way as discussed above. The way these Stories (and stories) disappear may give further freedom for poetic licence as the accountability that can come with a sense of permanence is reduced. Therefore, in understanding the social media Story as just that, not a true story or a real-life story, it can mean that different characters or aspects of self can be brought to the fore and held up to the world in order to gauge a reaction. People are able to build a self by cycling through many selves,22 and there is safety for the teenager in it being only a story, as the reality need not be inhabited if that reaction is not favourable. In just the same way, a child can experience a storybook as real in that moment, but they can close the book if they do not like the story, and it might all go away. As well as the “Story” on social media, it is also important to pay attention to broader stories and tales that are in evidence on social media feeds. Narratives are not easily defined, but narrative scholars tend to emphasise temporality, one event following another, and causality, one event caused by another. These components together create the plot that, in turn, can be said to give a narrative meaning (Polletta et al., 2011). Tracing this through to social media, some platforms, e.g. Facebook, are formatted  Online this accountability problematises the nonliterality of posts. The airbrushing is taken as concrete reality and people measure themselves (and are measured) against this perceived reality. One example of this is body image as airbrushed images can uphold unrealistic body shapes as attainable ideals. 22  Turkle (1995, p. 178) 21

2  A Real Virtual Self 

49

specifically to present a personal self-story as a linear narrative on a timeline.23 The literary rules of causality and temporality are therefore facilitated by virtue of the platform. They can be said to reinforce a sense of life having an end goal or perhaps purpose that people are moving through time and working towards. For some users, the notion of a narrative identity24 is in evidence. Narrative identity is defined as an internalised and evolving life story, it integrates the reconstructed past, made up from what one notices in the moment and holds on to as significant, with the present and the future, offering up some degree of unity and purpose.25 Users are not putting up a Story with the intention that it remains a static artefact, but rather showing themselves as constantly moving through time. Erikson (1998) suggested the psychosocial task at the stage of adolescence is to answer the question “Who am I?” in such a way that continuity can be found between “Who I was” and “Who I am becoming”, and this can be said to continue throughout life. Social media affords the opportunity to try out many storylines, with self-continuity found in the way narrative self-stories, linking the potential self with the actual self, are constructed, with past selves, present selves, and potential selves brought into alignment. Ideals of future selves are integrated with memories with the aim being that the two are eventually aligned into a coherent narrative or self-story. It appears that some people post different images or status updates in a deliberate way to create this cohesive self-story, by appropriating the form to generally construct a story about themselves or curate the self.26 This phrase “Curation of self ” emphasises the importance of the capacity to display a particular kind of self; to “take charge of or organize, to pull together, sift through, select for presentation […] and to preserve”.27  Other platforms, however, such as Instagram allow for a non-linear approach, presenting the individual through tiles that could be described as a quilt or mosaic. Although they are non-linear it is still worth noting that they form a regular, organised pattern and they form a sequence of representations, ultimately connecting the parts to a whole, if not a centre. The tiles on an Instagram account offer a sense of unity if not a middle. 24  Understood as a person’s internalised and evolving life story, in which they integrate the reconstructed past and imagined future to provide life with some degree of unity and purpose. 25  McAdams and McLean (2013). 26  As Taylor (2014) refers to it. 27  Mihailidis and Cohen (2013). 23

50 

R. Mace

“Curation” implies that different aesthetic objects are put together deliberately to create a cohesive story, and in a social media setting, it serves the function of throwing “spotlight” on the self you want to present. Simply posting a picture on Facebook or a collection on Instagram may not count as curation in the sense that is normally associated with galleries and museums, but in the same way as curation can be described as an organisational tool28—adding value to the content posted by the way in which it is co-presented with other content—it can be argued that when deliberately appropriating aesthetic forms, such as photographs, memes, or selfies, people are constructing a story and looking to present who they are in a particular way. Conceptualising status updates and images as artefacts of the self through which people accumulate being can be a useful way to understand how this works. Just as we accumulate objects, we could be said to accumulate being. Our prized possessions offer (us) “ontological proof ” to our being, expressing our identities and values.29 These images are a way of showing who we are to ourselves and to others. In this way it can act as scaffolding—a stepping-stone towards self-understanding. Roland Barthes calls these kinds of photographs “certificates of presence”30 and Susan Sontag refers to them as “photo-trophies” or “souvenirs of daily life”.31 In just the same way as we externalise ourselves into the things we collect, it is my contention that we externalise ourselves into images that we then collect on our social media platforms. The souvenir picked up while travelling, the rug handed down from our grandma, the picture painted by a niece, all these offer a framework or a grounding into what we find important and who we feel we are/want to feel we are. Sharing photographs on social media does the same in the sense that it records that you were in a certain place, with certain people. “I was there, and I did that”. There is a collection of curated images that suggest something about the individual, a reference catalogue that tells a  Mihailidis and Cohen (2013).  Greg Noble (2004) develops notions of “existential breadth” and “ontological depth” to explore this notion of accumulated being in relation to material objects. He discusses this further in Accumulating Being (Noble, 2004). 30  Barthes (1993). 31  Sontag (1977). 28 29

2  A Real Virtual Self 

51

story. It is something on which to peg out their identity. It could act like a series of sentence starters for the (auto)biography of them. Due to the linear nature of timelines or stories, for example, it is easy to presume that there is a core of self that evolves over time, something akin to character development within a story. This can be reassuring at a point in life where you lack certainty about who you feel you are. Sorapure observes “in an online diary, pieces of information about the self may be brought together in different configurations, signifying the multiple and shifting ways of understanding the self ” (Sorapure, 2003, p. 8), but as Giddens states, our “identity is not to be found in behaviour, nor – important though this is- in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going” (Giddens, 1991, p. 54).32 A self-story articulated on social media seems to have a beginning and a middle at the very least, if not an ending that makes it all make sense, quite yet.

Role Play and “As If” Although it has been suggested that young people share photos of themselves on social media as a way to crystalise the formation of self-identity to present to others (Drenten, 2012, p. 6), the idea of simply presenting a version of you to others as a way of shoring up who you are seems to miss the way that adolescents often mimic others who they encounter. Be that by dressing similarly, using specific language, adopting certain poses or attitudes. They derive affirmation and approval from their friends’ identical outfit choices and from mimicking their friends’ appearances, in much the same way a baby who is learning to babble feels reassured every time its “goo goo goo” is met with its mother’s identical and responsive “goo goo goo”. Self-identity is formulated through this permeable ego boundary for many teens where it is not clear where one teenage self  In Sartre’s Nausea, one of the protagonists speaks of creating “aventures” in her life. These “aventures”, are not daring adventures, but trivial moments that she shapes into a framework, that give form to formless time, and thus create meaning out of meaninglessness. She calls them “perfect moments” that she can re-live at will and thus appreciate and understand her life. The same could be said with regards to the online world. People often post boring or mundane content making the everyday seem like an event. 32

52 

R. Mace

ends, and another begins. Drawing upon this, it can be argued that going through the motions (genuinely and authentically) of borrowing aspects of others (consciously and unconsciously) is a way of learning to articulate who they are to themselves and others. This can be likened to a literary style referred to as “free indirect” in which the narrative discourse moves freely back and forth between the author’s voice and the character’s voice. “So, in the line, ‘she tried not to be sad, so as not to be angry’ it is as if the author is inside the mind of the protagonist” (Lodge 2003 quoted in Hallam, 2011: p.  82/83). In much the same way, on social media, teenagers move around as if they are inside the minds of others, but also being their own audience and speculating what others might be thinking they mean. They may be their self, their other, the other, and a mixture of all three at various points online. This is evocative of Lacan’s mirror phase in which the person is, at first, so captivated by their external environment that it becomes their camouflage. In teenager terms, this can be seen as copying their admired peers so as to be exactly like them in order to fit in. They are chameleon-like in terms of fitting in with the admired peer(s). The relation to the other in the act of photo sharing serves as a kind of collective mirror that helps the adolescent grapple with the question “who am I?”, “who do others say I am?”. They are reflecting the other initially, this then moves to being a situation in which they are reflecting themselves (to both others and themself ) in chameleon form. This then gets transferred to the inner world, in essence moving from captivation to evolution. However, more than just acting as a reflection of who they are shone back at them, there is a sense in which this process can also be seen to scaffold the sense of self. There is arguably a double mirroring action taking place, as often the actions they chose to have mirrored back will be the ones they have seen others do. In that people observe those around them and see personalities they admire/aspects of them and aim to emulate them. TikTok initially provided a basic framework for this. Do “the” dance, learn “the” moves. It was a way to participate in the in-crowd culture and to take on parts of others and emulating them. The idea of mirroring and external confirmation as a way of bolstering ego in order to feel more confident is nothing new. However, perhaps it is useful to reframe this and take into account the notion of “twinship”

2  A Real Virtual Self 

53

online as a form of self-scaffolding. If we apply “twinning” to adolescents mimicking and even adopting aspects of an admired peer, it can be seen as an attempt to align themselves with this idealised self-image. It is easy to see how borrowing aspects of a close friend / admired person might act as stepping-stones, or psychological scaffolding of self. The admired parts of the other have now become part of them; they feel they have attained the admired, hoped for self by aligning with the admired “twin”. Just as the mother is mirroring her baby’s emotional development by encouraging, affirming, and responding (“goo goo goo”), a teen peer finds acknowledgement, and affirmation in the stepping-stones of “twinning” through borrowed aspects of the other. Once again there is a blurring of the conceptual dimensions and literal actions of self. The literal copying is a scaffolded activity in which the individual can act “as if ” their self-concept is a reality. There is an interesting moment of liminality where the external resided in a place of “as if ” for the first person, in which they are behaving “as if ”. In the literal presentation of this “as if ”, they are conceptualising those aspects from a second person perspective in the hope they will appear like X kind of a person. It is a version of autobiographical experience by which Braude33 means experiencing something as one’s own but not being in a position (conceptually speaking) to believe it is one’s own. It is not necessarily disingenuous as it may well be they end up internalising these aspects. For example, posting pictures of amazing banana bread and wholesome homeschooling became a popular at the start of lockdown for many parents. It may be that these were aspects of themselves that many people desperately wanted to be, and we are in the process of a curious reformulation of Berkeley’s “to be seen is to be”34 (Berkeley, 1710). At the same time as they are internalising an aspect of the other, they are externalising it as themselves in order to watch it back. Initially, they are internal conceptual models externally literally represented, but this process is ultimately flipped on its head in a cycle of self-scaffolding.

33 34

 Discussed further in Stephen Braide’s First Person Plural (Braude, 1995).  esse est percipi (aut percipere)—to be is to be perceived (or to perceive).

54 

R. Mace

 onclusion: The Real Virtual or C the Virtually Real? It has been argued that at points, it is useful to reframe some behaviour on social media in terms of imaginative play, storytelling, and role play, with users sometimes afforded space to make-believe. Sometimes, the images posted provide a conceptual stepping-stone for an individual to understand themselves in a particular way.35 Adolescents may use their social media to scaffold themselves. They may want to live up to the conceptual version of who they want to be, so they perform actions, “prove” that they are that kind of a person, for their own benefit; this might result from a point in their life where they have lost a sense of who they are, perhaps following a break-up of a relationship, or simply when they are just exploring what it means to be them; they may portray how a person shows up in the world “as if ” to gauge others’ response; or they may want to try on a role for size to see how it feels, only later to discard it. By completing smaller more manageable “tasks”, such as uploading photographs, alongside their peers acting as facilitators, the task of self-­ understanding can be embarked upon. Reframing the virtual self to include an “as if ” to scaffold self, allows for a more positive understanding than perhaps is put forth in online harms policy debates, of the relationship between real and unreal online behaviour. For example, to position of “as if ” as having its basis in playfulness and imagination suggests that a virtual self can be real and virtually real at the same time. In the same way, there comes a point in a child’s life where the know that Father Christmas is real but also know he is not real. They can hold these two opposing truths in their mind together. Likewise, when young children play “as if ” they are riding on unicorns, those unicorns are not fake to the children, but nor are they real to them either. Virtual in an online context can mean “as if ” and we, as observers, need to make sure we pay as much attention to the “as if ” in terms of make believe, trying on for size, something that is running parallel to life, as it is frequently undertaken genuinely, rather than as malicious trickery.  In much the same way as Vygotsky (1978) suggested that scaffolding tasks provide stepping-­ stones towards the understanding of a larger concept (Vygotsky, 1978) 35

2  A Real Virtual Self 

55

Furthermore, the term real also needs to be understood as having a broader definition than “in the documentary style”. Being the “real you” is about the relationship between the conceptual and the literal. It does not mean they have to directly correlate. To assume that it does seems to be missing something important about human self-articulation, not least as the lines between play and reality, story and documentary, self and other, online and offline, continue to blur within a world in which experience is described as “onlife” (Floridi, 2014). The liminal space between reality, real, virtual, and fake is increasingly viscous; therefore, we need to pay attention to both factual and fictive understandings as they afford developmental space within the context of social media.

Summary The chapter has explored the behaviour of adolescents on social media, specifically focusing upon the way SNS platforms are used to shape and understand self-identity. It argues that young people can be seen to play on social media in many of the same ways as they did as children in the playground. They are engaging in role play, storytelling, and “as if ” scenarios, mimicking others they encounter on social media as a way of forming and presenting their self-identity. It emphasises that this playfulness is not deceptive or malicious but rather an essential part of adolescents’ developmental journey, with social media acting as a space where they can try on different roles, experiment with personas, and gauge the responses of others. The process involves an imaginative blurring of the lines between the self and others, where teenagers move in and out of various personas, reflecting and adopting aspects of admired peers to fit in and gain affirmation. This serves as a form of self-scaffolding, where young individuals experiment with different aspects of themselves to understand who they want to be. By engaging in “as if ” scenarios, they navigate the blurred lines between reality and make-­believe. The chapter advocates for a broader definition of what is considered “real” on social media. With the lines between reality, virtuality, and fiction continually blurring, the article emphasises the importance of

56 

R. Mace

considering both factual and fictive understandings of self-expression in the context of social media. Understanding that online actions can be simultaneously real and virtually real demonstrates that adolescents’ social-­media-­play is not an act of deception but an opportunity for selfexploration and self-articulation, serving to shape their understanding of identity in the digital age. • Adolescents use social media as a playground for role play, storytelling, and “as if ” scenarios to shape their self-identity. • Mimicking admired peers, they blur the lines between themselves and others, seeking affirmation and fitting in with different aspects of who they are. • Social media serves as a form of self-scaffolding, allowing young individuals to experiment with various aspects of their identity. • The concept of “as if ” scenarios helps them navigate the blend between reality and make-believe, understanding the real and virtually real aspects of their online actions. • A broader definition of “real” on social media is advocated, acknowledging the fluidity between reality, virtuality, and fiction in shaping their self-expression.

2  A Real Virtual Self 

57

References Barthes, R. (1993). Camera Lucida. Vintage. Barthes, R., & Duisit, L. (1975). An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. New Literary History, 6(2), 237. https://doi.org/10.2307/468419 Bartle, R. (2004). Designing virtual worlds. New Riders. Bates, E., Bretherton, I., Snyder, L., Shore, C., & Volterra, V. (1980). Vocal and gestural symbols at 13 months. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 407–423. Belk, R. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. Blascovich, J. A. (2011). Infinite reality: Avatars, eternal life, new worlds and the Dawn of the virtual revolution. Harper Collins e-books. Bornstein, M. H., Vibbert, M., Tal, J., & O’Donnell, K. (1992). Toddler language and play in the second year: Stability, covariation and influences of parenting. First Language, 12, 323–338. Boule, J. (2005). Sartre, self formation, and masculinities. Berghan Books. Braude, S. E. (1995). First person plural: Multiple personality and the philosophy of mind. Rowman and Littlefield. Casby, M. W., & Corte, M. D. (1987). Symbolic play performance and early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16(1), 31–42. Drenten, J. (2012). Snapshots of the Self: Exploring the Role of Online Mobile Photo Sharing in Identity Development among Adolescent Girls. In Angeline G. Close (Ed.), Online Consumer Behavior: Theory and Research in Social Media, Advertising, and E-Tail, (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge. Eler, A. (2017). The selfie generation: How our self images are changing our notions of privacy, property, sex, consent, and culture. Skyhorse Publishing. Erikson, E. H. (1998). The life cycle completed. W. W. Norton. Fessler, L. (2018/2022, July 1). The ultimate proof that looking happy on social media often masks real pain. Retrieved from Quartz: https://qz.com/1326806/ the-­u ltimate-­p roof-­t hat-­l ooking-­h appy-­o n-­s ocial-­m edia-­o ften-­ masks-­real-­pain/ Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is shaping our reality. OUP. Gardner, H., & Davies, K. (2014). The app generation. Yale University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.

58 

R. Mace

Griswold, O. (2007). Achieving authority: Discursive practices in Russian girls’ pretend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(4), 291–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701471286 Grosz, E. (1999). Becomings: Explorations in time, memory, and futures. Cornell University Press. Grosz, E. (2005). Bergson, Deleuze and the becoming of unbecoming. Parallax, 11(2), 4–13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13534640500058434 Hallam, R. S. (2011). Virtual selves, real persons: A dialogue across disciplines. Cambridge University Press. Haynes, N. (2016). Social Media in Northern Chile. UCL Press. Joseph, R. (2012). Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo. New York: Dramatists. Kelly, C. A., & Dale, P. S. (1989). Cognitive skills associated with the onset of multiword utterances. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 645–656. Krasnor, L. R., & Pepler, D. J. (1980). The study of children’s play: Some suggested future directions. In K. H. Rubin (Ed.), Children’s play: New directions for child development (pp. 85–95). Jossey-Bass. Lewis, V., Boucher, J., Lupton, L., & Watson, S. (2000). Relationships between symbolic play, functional play, verbal and non-verbal ability in young children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/136828200247287 Lyytinen, P., Poikkeus, A. M., & Laakso, M. L. (1997). Language and symbolic play in toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502597384875 Marks-Tarlow, T. (2012). The play of psychotherapy. American Journal of Play, 4, 365. McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative Identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233–238. McCune, L. (1995). A normative study of representational play at the transition to language. Developmental Psychology, 31, 198–206. McCune-Nicolich, L. (1981). Toward symbolic functioning: Structure of early pretend games and potential parallels with language. Child Development, 53, 785–797. Mihailidis, P., & Cohen, J. (2013). Exploring Curation as a core competency in digital and media literacy education. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (1), Art. 2. Miller, D. (2014). Social networking sites. In H.  Horst & D.  Miller (Eds.), Digital sociology. Bloomsbury.

2  A Real Virtual Self 

59

Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School, College Park, MD. Alliance for Childhood. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED504839.pdf Noble, G. (2004). Accumulating Being. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(2), 233– 256. Ogura, T. (1991). A longitudinal study of the relationship between early language development and play development. Journal of Child Language, 18, 273–294. Piaget, J. (1923). The language and thought of the child. Routledge. Polletta, F., Chen, P., Gardner, B., & Motes, A. (2011). The Sociology of Storytelling . Annual Review of Sociology, (37), 109–130. Sartre, J. (1963/2000). Words. (P.  Classics, Ed., & I.  Clephane, Trans.). Hamish Hamilton. Shore, C., O’Connell, B., & Bates, E. (1984). First sentences in language and symbolic play. Developmental Psychology, 20, 872–880. Smith, P.  K. (2010). Children and play: Understanding children’s worlds. Wiley-Blackwell. Sontag, S. (1977). On photography. Penguin Books. Sorapure, M. (2003). Screening moments, scrolling lives: Diary writing on the web. Biography, 1(26), 1–23. Stagnitti, K., & Lewis, F. M. (2015). Quality of pre-school children’s pretend play and subsequent development of semantic organization and narrative re-­ telling skills. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2014.941934 Stone, S. J. (2007). An analysis of mixed-age children’s scaffolding during symbolic play transformations. Paper presented at AERA April, 2007, Chicago. Taylor, E. (2014). The curation of self in the age of the Internet. IUAES/JASCA conference. Tokyo. Retrieved from Erin B Taylor Anthropologist and Consultant (blog): https://erinbtaylor.com/entry/ the-­curation-­of-­the-­self-­in-­the-­age-­of-­the-­internet Turkle, S. (1985). Second self. Computers and the human spirit. Touchstone. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. Simon and Schuster. Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

60 

R. Mace

Tykkyläinen, T., & Laakso, M. (2010). Five-year-old girls negotiating pretend play: Proposals with the Finnish particle jooko. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(2010), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.006 Ungerer, J. A., & Sigman, M. (1984). The relation of play and sensori-motor behavior to language in the second year. Child Development, 55, 1448–1455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130014 Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6–18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychologcial processes. Harvard University Press.

3 Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces Claire Pescott

Introduction The rapid growth of technology over the past two decades has transformed the way children and adults interact and communicate within digital spaces (Booker et al., 2018; Kaess, 2020). Faster broadband, more readily available Wi-Fi, and the availability of smartphones and handheld devices have had significant impact on this advancement (Throuvala et  al., 2019). Within this hyper-connected digital world (Benjamin, 2019), social media is a widespread phenomenon that now plays a significant role in modern life (Buda et al., 2021) and has undeniably transformed the way people create, share and consume information (Baccarella et al., 2018). Through a self-curated digital content in the form of narrative, images and photographs, online virtual communities have been created, and within a social-technical context, people and digital technologies

C. Pescott (*) Faculty of Life Sciences and Education, University of South Wales, Newport, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 E. Setty et al. (eds.), Children, Young People and Online Harms, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46053-1_3

61

62 

C. Pescott

interact (MacDonald et al., 2023). boyd (2014) suggests that social media has subsequently changed the way we connect and interact with others, and our socialisation now involves how we present ourselves within these digital spaces. Furthermore, this identity expression and exploration allows users to connect and interact without time or geographical limitations (Gündüz, 2017). Despite the apparent commonality of social media, the way adults and children use these platforms often differs (Burnette et al., 2017). As well as age, how we interact and engage within these digital spaces and how we choose to represent ourselves and relate to others are dependent on factors such as self-monitoring, technological skills as well as a non-equitable digital divide driven by socio-economic factors (Donelle et al., 2021). It is apparent, though, that social media has fast become embedded in children’s and young people’s lives (Goodyear & Armour, 2019), and despite the terms of service being thirteen years of age, children as young as eight may have their own social media accounts (NSPCC, 2018). Ofcom (2022) reported that by eleven years of age the majority (59%) of UK children use social media. This figure may be conservative, however, as children are self-reporting in this data and may be aware of the minimum age set by social media platforms. Furthermore, children can easily circumvent these age restrictions, sometimes without their parents’ awareness (MacDonald et al., 2023). Children and young people are now a generation growing up with social media (Clark, 2011), which infiltrates their social ecology (Crawford & Schultz, 2019) and permeates peer culture (Charmaraman et  al., 2022). According to Willoughby (2019), for children and young people, sharing information, photographs and personal data is important for shaping their identity, but there is a lack of research about what children do on social media and how they feel about it. Also, what is known is often viewed through a problematic lens (Duffy & Chan, 2018), within a discourse of risk and harm or from “adultist views” (Phippen & Street, 2022). Whilst there are indisputably risks associated with children using social media, such as cyberbullying, grooming, catfishing and predatory behaviour (Reeves & Crowther, 2019), the bias of these warnings from a determinist discourse does not make them an inevitable jeopardy. Concurrently, magnification of these issues denies that children’s agency can shape their behaviour within their

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

63

digital spaces and that they may have more discernment than they are given credit for (D’Lima & Higgins, 2021). Situating children as capable social actors, with an enactment of agency and choice, as well as being co-constructors of their own experience (James & James, 2004) is important when considering how social media impacts children’s lives. With the rapid evolvement of digital spaces, parents and carers as well as educators are not always aware of the benefits of social media use and tend to focus on the anticipated risks (Livingstone et al., 2017). Adults’ attempts to educate children and equip them to be responsible digital citizens may be ill-advised and somewhat naïve (Moss, 2019; Phippen & Street, 2022). Recently, there has been more emphasis on children’s rights, but it is apparent that adults face a tension between balancing children’s rights and protecting them within digital spaces (MacDonald et al., 2023). Passive or restrictive monitoring, such as imposing filters or blocking access, does not necessarily eliminate risk; instead, active negotiation and supportive mediation can empower children and facilitate coping strategies and resilience (Gentile et al., 2014; Livingstone et al., 2018). In Wales, to embrace digital literacy in a more holistic way, The Digital Competence Framework (Welsh Government, 2018) was developed and implemented in schools. In the Welsh context, there is a progressive strategy for children aged 3–16 years of age that includes overt reference to “citizenship,” which encompasses “identity, image and reputation, health and wellbeing, digital rights and ownership, online behaviour and cyberbullying” (Welsh Government, 2018, p.  5). Notably, Polizzi (2020) highlights how in the rest of the UK and other countries in Europe, there is not a unified framework of how digital literacy should be taught. Due to this lack of consistency, the Children’s Commissioner for England (2018) emphasised the need for digital resilience lessons for children towards the end of primary school to raise awareness of the emotional demands of social media and not just messages about e-safety. Pyer, Lomax and Bramble (2019) similarly stress that children need to be more actively involved in developing digital policies. This, they argue, would help facilitate well-being when using social media, particularly with the less overt dangers. From a safety perspective, important new legislation in the form of the Online Safety Bill (UK Parliament, 2022) will help to protect children

64 

C. Pescott

from harm, with social media platforms being more accountable for the content that children can access and easier mechanisms for reporting inappropriate material, particularly in relation to child exploitation and terrorism. However, it is essential to hear the voice of the child on matters that affect their own social media use, allowing them to narrate their own realities, especially as this may differ from the digital spaces that adults contend with. Instead of viewing children as passive subjects, recognising their agency and co-constructing capabilities (Livingstone, 2014) redirects the lens away from moral panics about social media use (Thomson et al., 2018) and allows for a situatedness of their experience. Employing strategies that encourage digital resilience has been shown to mitigate the negative impact of risk, whilst promoting opportunities to thrive within digital spaces (Vissenberg et al., 2022).

Social Media and Identity Portrayal An integral aspect of using social media is the portrayal of identity that it affords and the subsequent meaning-making that this engenders (Odell, 2019), and within this chapter, this is the emphasis of children’s perceptions of their digital spaces. Social media offers a portal for individuals to portray visual representations of themselves and a self-curated narrative through their profile and status updates that enables engagement with a digital audience (Nesi, 2020). Undeniably, how children experience childhood can be affected by their social media use and their subsequent identity portrayal may not be the online/offline binary that adults may experience (Goodyear & Armour, 2019). Unlike offline though, Jones (2015) suggests that due to the nature of digital spaces, this digital identity may be a disembodied experience because without being physically present, the nuances of subtle communication may be compromised. This can be problematic for children and young people, who may rely on social cues and subtleties of expression to fit in with peers (boyd, 2014). It may be useful to view the profile pages of social media as a type of artefact that exists to position the creator in relation to the audience in a more contrived and deliberate way than offline, which carries representation and meaning of the world they wish to communicate (Gulatee et al.,

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

65

2021). This performance of identity, an integral facet of the presentation of self in digital spaces, is offered to the community in which socialisation occurs (Thomson et al., 2018). Identity is not a singular entity but rather a complex concept that for children uses social markers such as age, gender, ethnicity, hobbies and friends to convey aspects of who they are (Ellison, 2013). Seargeant and Tagg (2014) highlight that it may be more useful to characterise this notion as a plural and think of “identities,” that demonstrate different aspects of a person’s self which may be at play at any given time. Therefore, identity portrayal may be viewed as a dynamic process, where negotiation is evident and multiple identities are constructed and reconstructed within digital spaces (Darvin, 2016). Children who are experimenting with their identities online may feel the pressure to present themselves in a certain way, particularly as they are continually exposed to others’ “highlight reel” and idealised selves, which may generate a fictious persona (Burnette et al., 2017). Similarly, Mishra and Ismail (2018) argue that social media allows for a more multi-faceted online identity, which may be viewed as a type of personal brand, with a lack of authenticity due to prevalent influences from peer culture. Furthermore, the self-­validation aspect of social media that allows others to “like” and comment on their lives can have repercussions for peer approval, self-esteem and social acceptance (Steinbekk et al., 2021). This public scrutiny can lead to positive as well as negative narratives, which may be more overt than offline experiences. These “networked selves” influenced by a type of performance can lead to collective identities presented simultaneously (Kim, 2017) in complex and ill-defined communities, with differing perceived rules of engagement (boyd, 2014). In this chapter, the connection between identity portrayal and how children present themselves online and the importance of this to consider in relation to the Online Safety Bill (UK Parliament, 2022) is discussed. An understanding of how this phenomenon of constructing identities online via social media platforms and how this may affect childhood experience was investigated. Hearing the voice of the child is held central to this research, especially as previously noted it is often adults that are providing the narrative for children’s social media use (Goodyear & Armour, 2019).

66 

C. Pescott

Methodology The primary aim of the study reported here was to investigate children’s experiences of social media and how they make meaning of their digital identity online through focus groups with activities. Employing an interpretivist epistemology enabled positioning of the children’s digital experience as a process of interpretation, rather than a direct assumption of knowledge. The research questions were derived from an extensive pilot study and review of literature which focused on how children’s identities are shaped by their experiences of social media, with the influence of gendered stereotypes and the pressures of these digital spaces. The theoretical lens of Goffman’s (1959) impression management was employed in this research to underpin the notion that identity portrayal is dependent on others’ perceptions of this. Integral to this theory is the idea that guiding the impression of how others perceive you in respect to appearance, attitude and manner can directly influence behaviour. Goffman (1959) uses a dramaturgical analogy that posits both a front (public self ) and a backstage (private self ) identity, which may be more blurred with the use of social media, and measuring this “imagined” audience may be difficult to quantify (Litt, 2012). Ranzini and Hoek (2017) emphasise that as performances of self are under continual public scrutiny, this can lead to an exaggeration and influence on how daily actions are displayed. Goffman’s (1959) theory assumes that individuals have more control over the impression that they convey, therefore engendering individuals with more autonomy than psychosocial and postmodern theories. Though it is apparent that social media may provide an additional stage for individuals to consider, where their roles and sense of self may shift and evolve and may be more challenging to navigate. In 2021, four primary schools in the South Wales area were recruited for this research, with varying demographics of both a higher and lower socio-economic bias based on their intake, as indicated by Free School Meal status. Forty participants, who were all self-nominated, in year 6 of primary school and between 10 and 11 years old took part in this study. In total, ten focus groups, each with five participants (two in each school), were used to generate data. Focus groups were deemed an appropriate

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

67

way to generate data with children as they can be useful for revealing attitudes, beliefs, collective experiences and feelings of participants (Wilson, 2017). They can also ascertain and co-construct new knowledge by interpreting culture (Gibbs, 2017), which is important when investigating children’s social media use. Particularly when researching with children, focus groups are a useful way of generating data because the nature of group facilitation can replicate a familiar and authentic form of communication in which children talk together with their peers, whereas one to one discussion with an adult may be restrictive and unfamiliar (Wilson, 2017). In addition, using child-centred structured activities helps to avoid adults dominating the discussion (Roberts-Holmes, 2018). This principle was adopted in this research and seven activities were utilised to generate a more in-depth discussion. The activities consisted of sorting logos into those that were social media logos and those that were not, sorting emojis into different categories, discussing Snapchat filters and why people may use them, exploring examples of posts from social media and examples of advertisements, and deliberating faux profiles from social media platforms. Unlike the previous activities that were intended to be interactive and elicit a group response, the final activity was designed as an opportunity to reflect on the discussions in a more individualised way. The children were invited to give their messages about social media and encouraged to write their response on a prepopulated piece of paper that had a happy and sad emoji on it. There are invariably limitations of using focus groups, for example, potential problems of group dynamics, researcher bias, group conformity and generalisability (Newby, 2014). However, due to the interactive nature of the activities and the visual stimulus that were provided, rich discussions took place in the focus groups. Furthermore, all the focus groups were receptive to the activities, and they were certainly “tin openers” for talk (Roberts & Woods, 2018). Also, an adoption of the “least adult” role by myself as the researcher ensured a friendly rather than authoritarian manner that the children were receptive to (Crano et al., 2014). Ethical considerations were paramount during this research, and rather than being viewed as an imagined endpoint, an ethical journey that positioned the child participant as a cornerstone was upheld (Alderson & Morrow, 2011). Ethical approval from the university institution was

68 

C. Pescott

secured and parental consent was gained once the children had expressed an interest in the research. The children were provided with age-­ appropriate information sheets and invited to ask questions, with assent taken verbally. However, this was not seen as an absolute agreement of their participation, and signs of dissent verbally, behaviourally and emotionally were continually observed and monitored (Alderson & Morrow, 2011). Date generated was analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase approach to thematic analysis, which in the social sciences is arguably the most influential approach due to its clear and usable framework (Macquire & Delahunt, 2017). NVivo was utilised to facilitate coding and to check the frequency of themes, as well as the quality of data related to those themes. The analysis was discursive in nature and not viewed through a single lens (Newby, 2014). Three master themes were identified with several sub-themes in each. Within this chapter, the theme “presentation of self within the digital space” is discussed, as this links directly to identity portrayal and is viewed as a central facet of using social media for children.

Findings and Discussion As highlighted earlier in the chapter, children’s social media use is often portrayed in terms of a moral panic by adults, with children viewed as passively inhabiting their digital spaces (Thomson et al., 2018). In this research, however, participants highlighted some positive feelings of communication. For example, the sharing element of social media was seen as a powerful way to reinforce the sense of self. The following Group 3 demonstrates this: Child K:  And sharing their happy days. Child O:  To share like their happy moments with other people when they feel something good, they share with other people.

Nesi (2020) similarly suggests that social media offers a portal for communication and individuals can express themselves verbally and through imagery in a way that was not possible prior to the advent of such

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

69

platforms. Emojis were also seen to be a powerful mode of communication and children expressed the fact that this can help if you find it difficult to articulate your emotions, with one child commenting, “if you can’t really say it or explain it in words” (Child AE, FG6) and another that, “it’s a quicker way to get your feelings known” (Child D, FG1). Using emojis was also seen as positive in relation to an international language that could be accessed whatever your mother tongue as explained by Child E (FG1) “…because if people don’t speak the same language, they can still communicate. You can understand more because it is like a facial expression, and you can tell how they feel from this.” This symbolic interaction, which in this case is reflected in non-verbal behaviours, can be influential in terms of communication (Zhao, 2005). Impression management was a significant sub-theme that emerged from the data, with a distinct gender divide, boys commented on the way filters were used for comedy and entertainment purposes, for example by adding dog ears and a large tongue. Whereas many discussions generated from the females related to using filters to enhance physical appearances and how viewing such idealised imagery can negatively affect their self-­ esteem. For example, Child E (FG1) said, “and a lot of people use them for their profile pictures, they go on Snapchat, then use a filter and the photo on other social media. It makes them look perfect and flawless.” This had a more personal emphasis for Child D (FG1) who said, “I like putting filters on because it doesn’t show my birth mark at all. It takes the blemishes off my face.” Child Y (FG5) also commented on this, describing females as sometimes using them “to make them look flawless, as people do randomly get spots on their faces. They can use filters and post them somewhere just to make them look like they are perfect,” adding, “it like changes them and hides their flaws.” (Child AF, FG7). Child AG (FG7) also emphasised this and explicitly linked using filters to feelings, saying, “when you put a filter on, it makes your skin tone better and it covers up any spots or like any bruises and stuff that you feel insecure about in yourself.” Being able to alter physical aspects of your face was also commented upon, as demonstrated by Child AE (FG7) who said, “they can also hide facial features and contour to make their nose look thinner and their lips bigger.” This data suggests links with existing research that cites Goffman’s (1959) impression management theory in

70 

C. Pescott

terms of how individuals strive to guide or control the impression of how other people perceive them, particularly in this case with the way they present their physical appearance (Litt, 2012). Steinbekk et al. (2021) highlighted that increasingly young people rely on social media photographs as a core means of self-presentation and subsequently the importance of physical appearance may be further intensified. They explain that girls internalise media-promoted body ideals to a greater extent, which is perpetuated by social media, and this digital environment may create appearance norms that are difficult to attain. These observations are clearly linked with this research and many females mentioned that viewing these manipulated photographs and idealised imagery could affect self-esteem and how they perceived themselves as depicted in the following conversation in Focus Group 1: Interviewer: Why do you think people want to look different online then? Child E:  Because they don’t like the way they look, there is a lot of pressure to look a certain way. Child C:  You want to look like someone else that you have seen on social media.

Metcalfe and Llewelyn (2020) highlight that there are unwritten rules of gender that young people adhere to both in the physical world of school and peer culture and the digital world in which they inhabit. Social media, therefore, arguably reinforces these notions of gender normative behaviour rather than creates them. Though tensions of gender struggles and the complex relations that young people face can be amplified by social media (Renold et al., 2017). In this research, this was certainly the case, as the pressure to look a certain way appeared to be part of the female culture and was commented on numerous times. The emphasis of these discussions was implicitly linked to being “perfect” and facilitated a comparative element, as commented on by Child G (FG2) who said, “people don’t look like how they really look on Snapchat and that can make people compare themselves.” This constant comparison can make females overtly concerned about the way they look. As Child H (FG2) put it:

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

71

People can like hide their real face, so say that one there [points to Snapchat filter] she can make that her profile picture, she can like edit it and even though you can see her real face she is flawless and sometimes contoured. Like this person [points to another Snapchat filter] is worried about their appearance.

In a similar manner, Child Y (FG5) discussed how aspirations to this beauty ideal were unachievable, commenting, “because people don’t really look like that. They are trying to be someone they can’t be…if maybe I got that Snapchat app maybe I can look like that, but I don’t look like that. People have had that done to them and it has probably just ruined their confidence.” Child F (FG2) said that this went beyond feelings about oneself though and was also about how this was perceived by others “people are like comparing themselves to other people and trying to be the most popular.” These comments correspond with Kim and Chock’s (2015) research which demonstrated a desire to strive towards socially accepted body norms, they coined this “social grooming,” and this certainly seems to be part of the female culture with the participants in this research. This idealised way of perceiving oneself in relation to physical appearance and a perceived “perfection” is also seen in more recent research by Burnell, Kurup and Underwood (2021). In their research, they used college students and were specifically utilising the social media platform Snapchat, however their conclusions about self-­ objectification and body surveillance playing a part in media-imposed cultural standards of beauty appear to be relevant to this research. The Online Safety Bill (2022) makes overt reference to risk assessment and preventing children encountering content that may be harmful, but this is seemingly referring to more explicit content than viewing idealised images. Whilst the research documented in this chapter is small scale, it certainly may be indicative of the kind of risks that children, especially girls, are dealing with and how this social grooming could be affecting their self-esteem. Widening e-safety lessons to look at some of these issues more explicitly and using examples such as the focus group activities that were utilised in this study could help facilitate worthwhile discussions and help to build resilience around this kind of overt physical impression management. Putting the responsibility on social media platforms or bodies such as Ofcom (2022) is only partly resolving the issue, children

72 

C. Pescott

and young people need to have the opportunity to develop a healthy way of socialising in digital spaces that can positively impact on their sense of well-being through positive interaction and communication. Another aspect influencing young people’s sense of self is the feigning and “fakeness” that they experience on social media. This took the guise of girls aspiring to beauty ideals, as documented in the discussion above, but also in terms of manipulating feelings. For example, Child AD (FG6) illustrated this by saying “some people for example sent me a video. I sent so many like laughing emojis and I actually was just like watching it with no expression, so bored. Like I’m going to die, it’s so funny, but actually I’m just sat there.” The misconception of reality is a deliberate attempt to protect the feelings of the person making the post and an intentional “fakeness” for the audience who receives it, a contrived meaning-making experience (Darvin, 2016). Children do not always passively view these feeds though and can be more discerning, as exemplified by Child C (FG1) “it can be fake though. Look at me. Look at my clothes.” However, not all children may be aware of the “fakeness” on social media though and viewing these idealised feeds may affect how they feel about themselves (Dooly, 2017). Many children commented on self-validation in relation to social media use, particularly in relation to Focus Group activity 4, where influencer’s Instagram posts were discussed. Many children highlighted the pretentious boasting and bragging that social media facilitates. The following dialogue from Focus Group 1 demonstrates this: Child A: Child C:

She is trying to show off. She is showing off her clothes and her designer bag.

There were also comments that this level of popularity and self-­ validation was linked to being famous, one child commenting, “to get followers and likes and to become famous probably” (Child X, FG5). This was also linked to popularity and the reciprocal nature of social media, which emphasises the use of likes and comments. The following extract from Focus Group 2 demonstrates this: Child F:

She wants to be popular. She is showing off. Her clothes. Where she is.

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

73

Child J:  She is trying to be very popular. And she is looking to get a lot of followers. And a lot of likes and comments.

This kind of comment was reiterated many times, with Child M (FG3) suggesting that posts were often contrived “for likes and views and for more clout.” Similarly, Child Q: (FG 4) said, “Yes. You are looking for likes and comments. Looking for attention” and Child S (FG4) echoed this by saying, “most people try and get lots of likes so they can feel popular.” These examples align with research by Steinbekk et al. (2021), who demonstrate that allowing others to like and comment on their embodiment of self through social media posts can have implications for self-­ esteem, since much social acceptance is validated by peer approval. Though in this research, some children cited celebrities and kept their comments generic rather than regarding their own personal experience. The reasons for this were not just about being famous and popular though, as instigated by Child AD (FG6), who said that people were looking for self-validation, “for confidence,” and to lift their mood. One child commented, “maybe if they are having a bad day, it may make them feel good about themselves” (Child X, FG5). It is important not to over-problematise this, as research by Uhls, Ellison and Subrahmanyam (2017) exemplify self-validation in more positive terms. They suggest that young people via social media can engage in this social feedback on their own interactions and can practice interpreting signs and others’ emotions, though arguably this is a more disembodied experience (Jones, 2015). The subtle nuances that children and young people experience when using social media cannot simply be viewed via a safety or harm agenda. They need to discuss and understand the nature of seeking self-validation and develop a resilience and self-­ belief that is not simply dependent on others’ approval. The influence that celebrity culture has on social media use was highlighted by many of the children. This was seen as partly since “loads of people on here are famous” (Child K, FG3) and often linked to the number of followers they have and not always recognised talent, as depicted by Child Z (FG6) who said, “she has two million followers.” This was viewed as problematic by Child AJ (FG8) who said, “the problem is with celebrities, that they are showing us their life and their things and their

74 

C. Pescott

luxury, some people are impressed by that and want to be like them.” This can cause unrealistic aspirations and feelings of poor self-worth (MacIsaac et al., 2018). Some children were more discerning with their viewing of celebrities, as illustrated by Child X (FG5) who seemed to recognise that for celebrities, they were deliberately manipulating their celebrity status “yes, some people do. I think some people do. Probably not famous people like Kim Kardashian, she probably does have hobbies but doesn’t post it. She just promotes herself, her beauty.” The material element was also portrayed as being paid to promote and endorse products, which may be more subtle than overt advertisements, as suggested in the following conversation: Child AN: Child AM:

I suppose you can notice things, like some products. Some things go viral, and everyone wants it.

Though, this was not just seen through products, as Child AD (FG6) mentioned a shift in celebrity culture that social media affords due to the persuasive and far-reaching nature of its use, rather than teen media that previous generations had “people used to see it on magazines, but it is now more on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook.” This is a very indicative comment on how this element of social media is now infiltrating daily life. MacIsaac, Kelly and Gray (2018) emphasise that social media use is connected to a type of “celebrification,” a term they use to illustrate the desire to strive for celebrity status among peers, which is an emulation of celebrity interactions and a constant gaze by others. The digital space for children and young people enables this voyeuristic opportunity to view celebrity lifestyle in a way that other types of media do not purport, and this can lead to over social comparison (Festinger, 1954) with goals and ideas that may be impossible to reach. However, there was also a gender divide reported in relation to celebrity influence in this research, as many boys commented in a more positive way, particularly regarding sport and how this influenced their sense of self. Child AC (FG6) discussed this and said “I do follow some football players on Instagram, and I look at my favourite team, Man City, I like to see the clips that they have posted about stuff that they have posted from when they were younger. It is quite enjoyable.” As did Child AM

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

75

(FG8): “I am a big football fan, so I follow football players.” This can also be seen to encourage aspirations, but arguably in a more positive way, as depicted by Child K (FG3) who said, “they post all their video clips and all their good moments. Like really good shots. I want to be like them [pause: 1: 26].” In research by Tatangelo and Ricciardelli (2017), this is also the case, where boys cited sports and ability related comparison.

Conclusion The lens in this chapter was directed at analysing children’s sense of self and identity portrayal within digital spaces. The considerable impact that social media has on identity formation has been highlighted, especially in relation to the theoretical lens of Goffman’s (1959) theory in relation to impression management and the imagined audience. The amplification of this is apparent due to the nature of social media and the discursive element which allows users to curate their own portrayal of self in relation to the likes and comments that they may receive (Potter & McDougall, 2017). The affordances of how filters can be used as props to alter images (Ditchfield, 2019) and perpetuate social and gender stereotypes have been evaluated and are seen to be a much more prevalent issue for girls. In this research, this was highlighted by the female participants as being potentially harmful, in terms of affecting self-esteem and overt comparison with beauty ideals and perceived notions of physical looks. This is a problematic area in terms of equipping children with the emotional mechanisms to deal with such overt impression management (Goffman, 1959) and it is clear that teachers and parents need to move beyond traditional e-safety agendas. Childhood and how children make meaning of their experiences has certainly evolved in terms of the influence that outside agencies such as celebrity culture and advertisements have on their sense of self. The notion of a digital childhood with more overt awareness of other people’s lives infiltrates the way children socialise and communicate within these spaces and discernment needs to be administered to protect themselves both physically and emotionally. The digital space and the way children navigate this is ever evolving due to the latest trends, such as the recent

76 

C. Pescott

popularity of TikTok and Snapchat social media platforms (Ofcom, 2022), which may distance parents and practitioners in terms of understanding and experience. This “participation gap” can be harmful for children, as adults are unaware of the specific issues they may be facing. It is therefore essential that children’s voices are heard in respect to the positives and negatives that they encounter and how a more nuanced understanding of this can help them to confidently navigate this digital space and positively portray their digital self. Moving beyond a risk and harm agenda allows for a situatedness of childhood experience, recognises children’s agency and empowers them to develop a resilience when using social media. Active meditation by adults needs to involve discussions of potential emotional repercussions of using social media and not just keeping physical safe online. The Online Safety Bill (UK Parliament, 2022), with a government manifesto to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online whilst still defending free expression, is an important move forward in terms of safeguarding children and young people. However, further attention needs to be directed at hearing the child’s voice and really understanding the nuanced experience of children’s social media use. Researching with children and giving them to the opportunity to narrate their own experiences of social media use must play a more important role in understanding the broader agenda that social media facilitates. Utilising first-hand accounts of the socially contingent and divergent nature of children and young people’s experiences, which facilitate both positive and negative encounters, will help promote resilience in a way that formal legislation cannot attend to.

Summary • Children and young people’s social media use is often viewed through a problematic lens by adults. This does not allow for the situatedness of their childhood experience in digital spaces, nor does it recognise their agency and positive enactment of self that social media may engender. • Adults are understandably concerned about risks associated with children’s social media use, such as catfishing, grooming, accessing

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

•

•

•

• • •

77

­ nsuitable content and cyberbullying. Only seeing children’s experiu ence through a harm or risk agenda and using restrictive measures to prevent this are not as effective as active mediation and allowing children to discuss and develop strategies to manage their own social media experience. An important facet of using social media for children is self-­presentation and identity expression. However, this may not have a distinct online/ offline binary as adults may experience. Peer culture and fitting in may be an influential factor in children’s experiences of inhabiting digital spaces. The research in this chapter discusses aspects of data generated from forty participants of 10 and 11 years of age (in their final year of primary school) in the South Wales area who took part in focus groups with activities related to social media use. This generated rich discussion and allowed a more nuanced depiction of their social media experience. In the research documented in this chapter, impression management was demonstrated through children’s social media use, which support Goffman’s (1959) theory of an “imagined audience” and having a “front stage” and “backstage” persona. There was a clear gender divide though, particularly when discussing the use of Snapchat filters. Boys commented that they used filters for fun and entertainment purposes, whereas girls discussed adhering to beauty ideals of flawless skin and a drive to look “perfect.” This was seen to have emotional ramifications, and in response to this, e-safety lessons need to move beyond discussions about physical safety and need to include discussion and exploration of social grooming. Seeking self-validation through likes and comments on social media posts was also deemed problematic by some children in the research that could affect self-esteem. Celebrity culture and endorsements of brands was also illustrated as a key feature of children’s social media use, though it is evident that some children are discerning when viewing their lifestyles. Children in this study talked about influencers and celebrities showing off designer clothes and a certain lifestyle, and even peers only showing their best version of self. The impact of this may be especially i­ nfluential

78 

C. Pescott

when children and young people are experimenting with who they are and how they wish to portray their identity publicly. Invariably then, this can render them vulnerable in terms of how they compare themselves to others, especially as they may not realise that they are continually looking at other people’s idealised feeds. • The Online Safety Bill (2022) has made an important contribution to keeping children and young people safe online, though it does concentrate primarily on the physical dangers and extreme psychological risks associated with child exploitation, abuse and terrorism.

References Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). The ethics of research with children and young people. A practical handbook. Sage. Baccarella, C., Wagner, T., Kietzmann, J., & McCarthy, I. (2018). Social media? It’s serious! Understanding the dark side of social media. European Management Journal, 36(4), 431–438. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Social Forces, 98(4), 1–3. Booker, C., Kelly, Y., & Sacker, A. (2018). Gender differences in the associations between age trends of social media interaction and well-being among 10–15-year-olds. Public Health, 18(321), 1–12. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Buda, G., Lukoševičiūtė, J., Šalčiūnaitė, L., & Šmigelskas, K. (2021). Possible effects of social media use on adolescent health behaviours and perceptions. Psychological Reports, 124(3), 1031–1048. Burnell, K., Kurup, A., & Underwood, M. (2021). Snapchat lenses and body image concerns. New Media & Society. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444821993038. Accessed 21 Oct 2021. Burnette, C., Kwitowski, M., & Mazzeo, S. (2017). “I don’t need people to tell me I’m pretty on social media:” A qualitative study of social media and body image in early adolescent girls. Body Image, 23, 114–125.

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

79

Charmaraman, L., Lynch, A., Richer, A., & Grossman, J. (2022). Associations of early social media initiation on digital behaviours and the moderating role of limiting use. Computers in Human Behavior, 127(1), 2–11. Children’s Commissioner. (2018). Life in likes: Children’s Commissioner Report into social media use among 8–12-year-olds. Available at: https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2018/01/Childrens-­ Commissioner-­for-­England-­Life-­in-­Likes-­3.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2021. Clark, A. (2011). Multimodal map making with young children: Exploring ethnographic and participatory methods. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 311–330. Crano, W., Brewer, M., & Lac, A. (2014). Principles and methods of social research (3rd ed.). Routledge. Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2019). AI systems as state actors. Columbia Law Review, 119(7), 1941–1972. D’Lima, P., & Higgins, A. (2021). Social media engagement and Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) in primary school children. Educational Psychology in Practice, 37(3), 320–338. Darvin, R. (2016). Language and identity in the digital age. In S. Preece (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and identity (pp. 523–540). Routledge. Ditchfield, H. (2019). Behind the screen of Facebook: Identity construction in the rehearsal stage of online interaction. New Media & Society, 22(6), 927–943. Donelle, L., Facca, D., Burke, S., Hiebert, B., Bender, E., & Ling, S. (2021). Exploring Canadian children’s social media use, digital literacy, and quality of life: Pilot cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Formative Research, 5(5), e18771. Dooly, M. (2017). Performing identities in social media: Focusing on language learners’ identity construction online. Identity Construction in Social Media, 20(1), 118–128. Duffy, B., & Chan, N. (2018). “You never really know who’s looking”: Imagined surveillance across social media platforms. New Media & Society, 21(1), 119–138. Ellison, N. (2013). Future identities: Changing identities in the UK – The next ten years (pp. 1–23). DR3: Social Media + Identity. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. Gentile, D., Reimer, R., Nathanson, A., Walsh, D., & Eisenmann, J. (2014). Protective effects of parental monitoring of children’s media use: A prospective study. JAMA Paediatrics, 168(5), 479–484.

80 

C. Pescott

Gibbs, A. (2017). Focus group and group interviews. In R. Coe, M. Waring, L. Hedges, & J. Arthur (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies in education (2nd ed., pp. 190–196). Sage. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. The Overlook Press. Goodyear, V., & Armour, K. (Eds.). (2019). Young people, social media and health. Routledge. Gulatee, Y., Combes, B., & Yoosabai, Y. (2021). Social media among Thai students: Narcissism, self-identity or empowerment. Higher Education Studies, 11(1), 79–93. Gündüz, U. (2017). The effect of social media on identity construction. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(5), 85–92. James, A., & James, A. (2004). Constructing childhood. Theory, policy and social practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Jones, J. (2015). The looking glass lens: Self-concept changes due to social media practices. The Journal of Social Media and Society, 4(1), 100–125. Kaess, M. (2020). Editorial: Social media use in children and adolescents – On the good or the bad side of the force? Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 25(4), 199–200. Kim, J. (2017). A study of social media users’ perceptional typologies and relationships to self-identity and personality. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(3), 767–784. Kim, J., & Chock, M. (2015). Body image 2.0: Associations between social grooming on Facebook and body image concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 331–339. Litt, E. (2012). Knock, knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330–345. Livingstone, S. (2014). Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on social network sites. Communications. The European Journal of Communication Research, 39(3), 283–303. Livingstone S., Davidson J., Bryce J., Batool S., Haughton C., & Nandi A. (2017). Children’s online activities, risks and safety: A literature review by the UKCCIS evidence group. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-­online-­activities-­risks-­and-­safety-­a-­literature-­ review-­by-­the-­ukccis-­evidence-­group. Accessed 22 July 2022. Livingstone, S., Stoilova, M., & Nandagiri, R. (2018). Children’s data and privacy online: Growing up in a digital age: An evidence review. London School of Economics and Political Science.

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

81

MacDonald, M., Wright, A. C., Taylor-Beswick, A., Gillespie, K., & Collings, S. (2023). Digital relationality, rights, resilience: Conceptualising a digital social ecology for children’s birth family relationships when in care or adopted. The British Journal of Social Work, 53(1), 216–235. MacIsaac, S., Kelly, J., & Gray, S. (2018). ‘She has like 4000 followers’: The celebrification of self within school social networks. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(6), 816–835. Macquire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis. A practical step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–3354. Metcalfe, S., & Llewelyn, A. (2020). “It’s just the thing you do”: Physical and digital fields, and the flow of capital for young people’s gendered identity negotiation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 35(1), 84–110. Mishra, S., & Ismail, A. (2018). Performance of the online self for networked audiences. Journal of Human Values, 24(1), 8–13. Moss, P. (2019). Alternative narratives in early childhood: An introduction for students and practitioners. Routledge. Nesi, J. (2020). The impact of social media on youth mental health. North Carolina Medical Journal, 81(2), 116–121. Newby, P. (2014). Research methods for education (2nd ed.). Routledge. NSPCC. (2018). Keeping children safe online. Available at: https://www.nspcc. org.uk/keeping-­children-­safe/online-­safety/. Accessed 10 Oct 2019. Odell, J. (2019). How to do nothing: Resisting the attention economy. Melville House Publishing. Ofcom. (2022). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2020/21. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-­and-­data/media-­literacy-­ research/childrens/children-­a nd-­p arents-­m edia-­u se-­a nd-­a ttitudes-­ report-­2022. Accessed 01 June 2022. Online Safety Bill. (2022). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ new-­p rotections-­f or-­c hildren-­a nd-­f ree-­s peech-­a dded-­t o-­i nternet-­l aws. Accessed 01 Dec 2022. Phippen, A., & Street, L. (2022). Online resilience and well-being in young people. Palgrave Macmillan. Polizzi, G. (2020). Digital literacy and the national curriculum for England: Learning from how the experts engage with and evaluate online content. Computers & Education, 152, 1–13. Potter, J., & McDougall, J. (2017). Digital media, culture and education: Theorising third space literacies. Palgrave Macmillan.

82 

C. Pescott

Pyer, M., Lomax, H., & Bramble, P. (2019). Participatory design model design kit step by step user guide. Available at: http://cygen.eu/resources/participatory-­ design-­model/. Accessed 09 Aug 2021. Ranzini, G., & Hoek, E. (2017). To you who (I think) are listening: Imaginary audience and impression management on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 228–235. Reeves, J., & Crowther, T. (2019). Teacher feedback on the use of innovative social media simulations to enhance critical thinking in young people on radicalisation, extremism, sexual exploitation and grooming. Pastoral Care in Education, 37, 280–296. Renold, E. Bragg, S. Jackson, C., & Ringrose, J. (2017). How gender matters to children and young people living in England. Cardiff University, University of Brighton, University of Lancaster, and University College London, Institute of Education. ISBN 978-1-908469-13-7. Roberts, A., & Woods, P. (2018). Theorising the value of collage in exploring educational leadership. British Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 626–642. Roberts-Holmes, G. (2018). Doing your early years research project. A step-by-step guide (4th ed.). Sage. Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (Eds.). (2014). The language of social media: Identity and community on the Internet. Palgrave Macmillan. Steinbekk, S., Wichstrøm, L., Stenseng, F., Nesi, J., Hygen, B., & Skalická, V. (2021). The impact of social media use on appearance self-esteem from childhood to adolescence – A 3-wave community study. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 1–7. Tatangelo, G., & Ricciardelli, L. (2017). Children’s body image and social comparisons with peers and the media. Journal of Health Psychology, 22(6), 776–787. Thomson, R., Berriman, L., & Bragg, S. (2018). Researching everyday childhoods: Time, technology and documentation in a digital age. Bloomsbury. Throuvala, M., Griffiths, M., Rennoldson, M., & Kuss, D. (2019). Motivational processes and dysfunctional mechanisms of social media use among adolescents: A qualitative focus group. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 164–175. Uhls, Y., Ellison, N., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2017). Benefits and costs of social media in adolescence. AAP News & Journals Gateway, 140(2), 67–70. Vissenberg, J., d’Haenens, L., & Livingstone, S. (2022). Digital literacy and online resilience as facilitators of young people’s well-being? European Psychologist, 27(2), 76–85.

3  Self-Presentation Within Children’s Digital Spaces 

83

Welsh Government. (2018). Digital competence framework  – Learning Wales. Available at: https://hwb.gov.wales/storage/337437b8-­cfe3-­4305-­ae32-­ f47ad82f3e76/digital-­competence-­framework-­guidance-­2018.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2022. Willoughby, M. (2019). A review of the risks associated with children and young people’s social media use and the implications for social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 33(2), 127–140. Wilson, E. (Ed.). (2017). School-based research. A guide for educational students (3rd ed.). Sage. Zhao, S. (2005). The digital self: Through the looking glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic Interaction, 28(3), 387–405.

4 A “Post-digital” Continuum of Young People’s Experiences of Online Harms Emily Setty

Introduction Young people’s online lives encompass but go beyond accessing and consuming content to include active, interactive, and participatory engagement facilitated by so-called “Web 2.0” (Buckingham & Martínez-Rodríguez, 2013; Goodyear & Armour, 2018). Risks and opportunities relate, therefore, both to what they are creating and sharing and what they are encountering and being exposed to online (Iglesias et  al., 2015). Studies identify opportunities for learning, communication, self-expression, creativity, and entertainment, but “sexual,” “aggressive,” “value-related,” and “commercial” risks (Smith & Livingstone, 2017). There may arise negative impacts on health and well-being for young people who encounter risk (e.g., Kelly et al., 2018). Yet, evidence suggests that encountering risk does not always lead to harm (e.g., Slavtcheva-Petkova et al., 2015; Smahel et al., 2020) and, moreover, may

E. Setty (*) University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 E. Setty et al. (eds.), Children, Young People and Online Harms, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46053-1_4

85

86 

E. Setty

help young people develop skills and resilience, which then reduces the likelihood of harm (Livingstone et al., 2021). Edwards and Wang (2018) suggest that the process is part of how young people develop “self-­ narrative” (p. 727) and exercise “self-governance and agency” (p. 728). Attention has, therefore, increasingly turned to identifying the relationship between risk and harm and how best to strengthen young people’s resilience online (Throuvala et al., 2021). Studies suggest, however, that the relationship between risk and harm is complex and shaped by intersecting individual, social, and environmental factors and circumstances rooted in offline contexts (e.g., Livingstone & Haddon, 2008; Sage et al., 2021; Smith & Livingstone, 2017; Stockdale & Coyne, 2020; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Young people’s online and offline experiences are not distinct; instead, their lives are digitally mediated (Livingstone et al., 2018) and entail an “always on” culture of compulsory (albeit heterogeneous) engagement with (and access to) technology (Collier & Perry, 2021; Hodkinson, 2015). Nelson et al.’s (2020, 102) research with young people suggests that the meanings of their online experiences in this “post-digital” reality (Jandric, 2019) are “subjective and nonbinary” and entail a “fluid continuum of online and offline.” In this chapter, I discuss findings from a study conducted in 2021 with young people in England to explore a post-digital framing of online harms as operating along a continuum of online–offline meaning and experience. I consider the implications for (post-)digital citizenship regarding critically informed, rights-based approaches to “online safety.”

Methodological Note Data was generated through 13 focus groups with 60 young people aged 12–21 and a survey of 550 young people aged 10–16. The study was conducted between May and December 2021. Focus groups were conducted virtually in with 12- to 16-year-olds in two schools (a northwest independent girls’ school and a southeast

4  A “Post-digital” Continuum of Young People’s Experiences… 

87

co-­educational academy) and with 13- to 21-year-olds in a youth club in northwest England during June 2021. Groups were mixed gender other than one group of year 10 girls in the co-educational academy and all groups in the girls’ school. Most participants were white and heterosexual, although there was some socioeconomic and demographic diversity. Participants were shown a word cloud depicting risks and harms that predominate in public and policy discourses about young people’s online lives (e.g., “harassment,” “anonymity,” “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “scams,” “porn,” “unwanted nude,” “eating disorder,” “cyberbullying,” etc.). Discussions explored participants’ perspectives on the topics, how different issues play out and are dealt with, and views about online safety education. Thematic analysis identified major codes and themes depicting the meanings, norms, and experiences as constructed by participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006). An online survey was subsequently administered to 12–16-year-olds to measure prevalence of and perspectives on dealing with different online harms. It was administered within the schools in July–September 2021 and to further young people via a third-party recruitment company during January–February 2022. There were slightly more female (53.8%) than male (42.4%) respondents (2.7% selected non-binary/third gender and the rest non-disclosed). Most were heterosexual (77.0%) and white (70.5%). All young people provided informed consent. Focus group participants aged under 16 also obtained parental consent. Parental consent opt-out mechanisms were used in schools for the survey, while the third-­ party recruitment company followed its parental consent process for under 16 s. The study received ethical approval from the University of Surrey Ethics Committee (FASS 2021 049).

Experiences of Online Harms Focus group participants typically referred to social media platforms when discussing their online experiences, most often TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Snapchat, followed less frequently by Twitter, Tumblr,

88 

E. Setty

Facebook, various gaming platforms, and video hosting platform YouTube. Survey data attested to the dominance of these platforms, with 77.1% of respondents using between one and four apps daily (74.4% using two or more daily). Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and WhatsApp were most frequently selected, with 86.0% of the sample using at least one of these daily, while only 3.5% used none of them. Responding to the word cloud, participants most often wanted to discuss abusive (including hateful) content; unwanted sexually explicit/ nude content; scams, fake news, and other forms of misrepresentation/ misinformation; “unrealistic” body and appearance-related content and “comparison culture”; self-harm and suicide-related content; fights and arguments, among others. Most felt that these issues are ubiquitous online, but some claimed to feel personally unaffected by them. For example, regarding hateful and abusive content, a year 9 boy in the co-­ educational academy remarked: “it doesn’t make me not enjoy social media because of what other people are posting. It’s just that you don’t have to look at it.” Many participants believed that certain young people are more at risk of harm than others. A year 10 girl in the girls’ school, for instance, said: “…for some people it [being online] is a lot worse than it is for others, and for some it’s more positive,” while a year 10 girl in the co-educational academy described racist hate as potentially damaging to some “people’s mental health.” Survey data indicated heterogeneity in online experiences. When asked whether they have seen or experienced different examples of online harms, 17.3% reported encountering/experiencing one or more harms daily online, while 70.2% were doing so daily, weekly, or monthly. Yet, while a slight majority reported having encountered/experienced racism, homophobia/transphobia, and sexism, large proportions said they had not encountered/experienced each harm and most certainly were not doing so regularly. This somewhat contradicts the perception of ubiquity expressed in focus groups.

4  A “Post-digital” Continuum of Young People’s Experiences… 

89

Experiencing and Seeing Harmful Online Content At least At least once a once a day week Threatening or abusive 25 content (4.5%) Violent content 17 (3.1%) Unwanted nude or 30 sexually explicit (5.5%) content Racist content 35 (6.4%) Homophobic or 40 transphobic content (7.3%) Sexist content 47 (8.5%) Self-harm/suicide 24 content (4.4%) Other 13 (2.4%)

At least once a month

Less often or never

97 (17.6%) 85 (15.5%) 78 (14.2%)

128 (23.3%) 126 (22.9%) 105 (19.1%)

300 (54.5%) 322 (58.5%) 337 (61.3%)

550 (100.0%)

104 (18.9%) 113 (20.5%) 126 (22.9%) 70 (12.7%) 17 (3.1%)

153 (27.8%) 140 (25.5%) 132 (24.0%) 100 (18.2%) 27 (4.9%)

258 (46.9%) 257 (46.7%) 245 (44.5%) 356 (64.7%) 493 (89.6%)

550 (100.0%)

Total

550 (100.0%) 550 (100.0%)

550 (100.0%) 550 (100.0%) 550 (100.0%) 550 (100.0%)

Respondents were asked whether they had ever been targeted directly with harmful content. Of those who had been directly targeted (34.9%), 46.4% reported having experienced one type of harm and 45.4% reported between two and five types. Threatening/abusive and unwanted nude/ sexually explicit content were most common. Proportions were lower for direct targeting than they were for having encountered/experienced the harms. Many, for example, reported having encountered/experienced racist, sexist, and homophobic/transphobic content, but fewer had been directly targeted with it, which may explain why some focus group participants were aware of these online harms but did not always feel personally affected. A year 10 girl in the co-educational academy, for example, said that she often sees “anti-feminist [posts]… it’s regarding women, there’s always little jokes, oh yeah, women get back into the kitchen stuff.” This may be characterised as encountering sexism online, distinct from feeling targeted with it. A year 9 boy distinguished between general racism online and his experiences of being targeted with it, whereby “people think it’s funny… [but] sometimes it crosses the line… they’ve been racist to me… It can happen a lot… Racist comments… messages from other people I don’t even know.”

90 

E. Setty

 ersonal Experiences of Online Harms Compared P to Any Exposure

Threatening or abusive content Violent content Unwanted nude or sexually explicit content Racist content Homophobic or transphobic content Sexist content Self-harm/suicide content None

Personally targeted

Ever seen/ experienced

86 (15.5%) 48 (8.7%) 82 (14.9%)

250 (45.5%) 228 (41.5%) 213 (38.7%)

52 (9.5%) 37 (6.7%) 59 (10.7%) 41 (7.5%) 358 (65.1%)

292 (53.1%) 293 (53.3%) 305 (55.5%) 194 (35.3%) 92 (16.7%)

Focus group data suggested that life online is affected by young people’s identity markers. Girls, for example, described extensive experiences of being sent unwanted sexually explicit content, and non-heterosexual and gender non-conforming participants recounted experiences of abuse and harassment online. Survey data supports these findings, with females, non-binary/third gender, BAME, and non-heterosexual young people experiencing/encountering more online harms than their counterparts. For example, BAME respondents were more likely to have encountered/ experienced violent content compared to white respondents (x2(1) =5.71, p0.05). Non-heterosexual respondents were more likely to have encountered/experienced homophobia/transphobia, racism, and sexism than heterosexual respondents (respectively: x2(1) =21.04, p