Category Archives: Uncategorized

Fostering Respect & Civility Online: What Parents & Kids Need to Know

Difficult issues and events are often reframed in highly simplified ways online. It’s tempting to boil complexity down into memes, pictures and provocative posts that are more likely to get likes and shares. It’s also appealing to believe we can reduce shades of grey into black and white. But as history teaches us, there’s a cost to doing that. Navigating hard situations requires more information, not less.

Silhouette man hate speech online content
Aim to generate light, not heat, when posting online.

If we plan to teach our kids how to do that, we need to understand – and model – the skills required to assess contradictory information, process it and produce opinions. That’s especially important on social media, which have effectively become each of our own individual publishing platforms. Caught in our own echo chambers, it can be easy to forget there are other opinions, positions and feelings. The “other side” can come to seem so abstract. It can seem like all the posts are bringing people closer together but they are also driving people apart.

That’s a problem. As the brilliant Brené Brown maintains in her book, Braving the Wilderness, “people are hard to hate close up.” We need to move in, not build Instagram or Facebook barricades.

With that in mind, I offer in this post some helpful ways to 1) Check our own impulses before we comment or post and 2) Parse out the sometimes blurry differences between hate speech and opinions you don’t agree with (however strongly). This lens and these skills can prove helpful when you or your kids come across stuff online that upsets you, pushes your buttons, offends or disgusts. Because you and they absolutely will.

Here are is my working draft of Risk-Within-Reason’s guide to generating light, not heat online. Have I left anything out? Please let me know – after all, this is a working document and I welcome your input.

How do I know if something is hate speech or just something I disagree with?
This is undeniably a tricky one. Hate can seem very clear to one person and not so clear to another. Minority groups have the right to define what is offensive to them. Not all offensive speech is hate speech, which means organizations such as workplaces and schools need to have their own policies for basing decisions on what is acceptable and what is not.

Things are particularly complicated for schools, which strive to teach critical thinking and expose students to a wide variety of viewpoints and perspectives. They have to navigate between their students’ right to free speech and all o provide freedom from discrimination. This is a thin delicate line to walk, to avoid some students being silenced and some students being harmed. While we do want to encourage diverse perspectives and tackle hard questions, we also need to avoid injuries. Ideally, classrooms will have rules and norms around these things, including promoting empathy, avoiding stereotypes and challenging ideas, not people, and determining as a group if there are lines that cannot be crossed. It makes a big difference to proactively discuss how words can be hurtful before incidents arise. (read more here from MediaSmarts.ca)

When reading or posting content online, here are some things to consider:

  • Begin by assuming good intentions but keep your critical lens handy. When reading other people’s posts, remember that they may not always provide context or explain their points clearly online. Begin by assuming goodness instead of reflexively moving to outrage, anger or insult. This would avoid a lot of conflicts online. The critical questions below can help to clarify if your assumption is warranted.
  • Refuse stereotypes. Anything that lumps people together based on stereotypes is both lazy and insulting. Question any content online that does so, particularly when it targets a vulnerable group, and avoid using it yourself. Look inwards to see what stereotypes you may be bringing to the content and challenge yourself to recognize and see beyond them.
  • Promotion of hatred or discrimination against a defined group. This is always flat-out unacceptable and causes serious harm. It’s acceptable to question the existence of ideas but not groups of people. Report to moderators where possible. Kids who come across this kind of content should be encouraged to tell a trusted adult since it can be very upsetting.
  • Promotion of violence. Any content that promotes violence – directly or indirectly – by using violent words or proposing behaviours is to be reported.
  • Remember the people behind the words. Abstract groups of people are actually made of individuals who have parents and kids and full lives of their own. Words can hurt real living people. Can you see the humanity in this post or does it rely only on abstractions that make it easier to ignore the harm they may cause?
  • Don’t feed the trolls. They are trying to provoke. Your reactions are their food. The best thing to do is refuse to engage
  • Consider the speaker. How could these words benefit the original speaker or author or their interests? What were their intentions? Is this part of a pattern of behaviour? Do they have a leadership role, which gives their posts additional power over those they lead?
  • Consider the climate. Where/ when is this is being shared? Are people calm and thoughtful? Scared? Is the poster adding fuel to the fire or adding something thoughtful or insightful?
  • Consider the source. It’s easy for misinformation and disinformation to seem credible and legitimate at first glance. Approach content online with a critical eye and research both the author and publication/ channel or context in which it is circulated online. Kids often assume that adults are looking out for them but many websites and social channels don’t have moderators to report harmful content.
  • Consider the target audience. Is the poster looking to just rally those who already agree with them or actually create a dialogue with others?
  • How far will this reach? What is the context in which it is being shared or published? Could it have been copied out of that context? How might that change the meaning of the words/ images?

“Remember there are people behind your words. Can you see the humanity in this post or does it rely only on abstractions that make it easier to ignore the harm they may cause?”

Before you hit “send” or “comment” or “share”, take a deep breath and look at your words. Here are some important questions to ask before you click:

  • Is this post based on someone’s identity or on an individual or group’s specific actions?
  • Is this post likely to incite hatred or violence towards others?
  • Could my post make someone feel unsafe? Could it cause harm?
  • How does my post add value to the discussion?
  • How would I feel if I saw these words/images targeted against me?
  • Am I promoting empathy?
  • Does this post contain trigger words or terms that function as dog whistles or shorthand to hate or violence (“holocaust”, “genocide,” “terrorists”, the N-word, etc)?
  • Does this post contain terms that are dehumanizing (“animals,” “dogs,” “cockroaches”)?
  • Am I recirculating something that is untrue, exaggerated or taken out of context?
  • Is this becoming personal (against a specific person or group of people I know in real life)?
  • Am I being intentionally provocative or inflammatory to elicit a reaction from people who already agree with me? 
  • Am I using excessively vitriolic language to elicit an emotional reaction? This dilutes meaning and impact and strips power from powerful words. It also makes it less likely that others will carefully consider your points.
  • Am I using shocking pictures to seize people’s attention? Am I sure these pictures are correctly attributed to this event? Stirring up drama in this way is performative and insensitive and confuses people.
  • Speaking of drama, what am I trying to accomplish? Highly emotional people are generally not good at thinking clearly and addressing actual problems.
  • Am I slipping into using hate speech because of group-think?
  • Do I think this post will convince someone who shares different beliefs?
  • Where will this be circulated? Can it be copied or shared in other contexts that might alter my meaning?
  • If you aren’t sure if a post may be deemed offensive, is it necessary to post at all?
  • Am I willing to take responsibility for any consequences to my words/ image/ post?

Want to know more? Check out this excellent resource from https://www.connectsafely.org/hatespeech/

   Send article as PDF   

In the News: Talking to CTV News About Kids, Screens, Gaming & Social Media

Alissa Sklar CTV News

CTV News Reporter Caroline Van Vlaardingen stopped by for a discussion with me about kids, digital technology, smartphones, gaming and social media, as part of the larger discussion about mental health issues for Bell Let’s Talk day on January 30th.

Here’s an edited look at what I had to say.

   Send article as PDF   

When is a soda not a soda?

My 14-year-old daughter stopped at the dep on her way home from school last week, looking for a snack after a lengthy extra-curricular activity. The depanneur (convenience store) is right next to the school and very familiar with the teen students in their plaid kilt uniforms. 

Smirnoff Raspberry Soda

Deceptive packaging makes this look like a regular soda.

She bought a can of low-calorie raspberry soda and hopped on the bus home. But the soda tasted strange. Way too sweet. So she checked the ingredient list and was shocked to find it contained 4% alcohol. 

“Um, Mom? I bought alcohol by mistake.”

Turns out what she actually bought was a Smirnoff cooler with a raspberry & soda flavour. The Smirnoff label is very prominent but like the average 14-year-old, she didn’t know or recognize the brand name. Everything else about the packaging (see photo) suggests this was a soft drink. 

Initially, we laughed off her error and poured it down the sink. I told her how glad I was that she told me about it. She wasn’t at fault and certainly wasn’t in trouble.

Then I got upset. And the more I thought about it, the angrier I got. But not with her.

First of all, I was upset that the dep employee sold alcohol to a 14-year-old wearing the familiar high school uniform (she even had on a hoodie with the school name). She wasn’t challenged or asked for identification. Moreover, the product wasn’t in a beer and cooler fridge, surrounded by other products obviously containing alcohol; it was in a six-pack on a shelf next to some bananas and snack foods. 

Mostly, however, I was upset about the packaging for this product. It’s easy to see how a teenager unfamiliar with the Smirnoff brand might think it’s a soda. The most obvious marketing messages in this packaging design are about the low calorie nature of the beverage and the raspberry soda flavour. Even if a young person was deliberately seeking alcohol, it makes it seem so benign. And the sugary sweet taste promoted by the beverage suggests it’s designed for young drinkers.

The whole mixup seems particularly onerous in the wake of the death from alcohol poisoning last month of another 14-year-old girl from Laval. Athena Gervais had reportedly been drinking a high sugar alcoholic beverage called FCKD UP purchased from a nearby depanneur. Laval-based Groupe Geloso, which manufactured the drink, announced soon after that it was stopping production and pulling it from shelves. Similar to the American beverage, Four Loko, the drinks are very high in alcohol and caffeine – and both brands appeal to youth.

It seems the problem is bigger than just those one or two particular drinks. Can we address the way packaging and marketing specifically appeals to underage drinkers? How it is deliberately promoted to seem like candy or energy drinks or soda as if it were completely safe for all?

The day after this incident, I went over t0 the depanneur where my daughter bought this drink. Full of mama rage, I confronted the owner. To his credit, he was shocked and horrified and apologized immediately. He recognized that placing these drinks next to snack foods and away from the rest of the alcohol could be confusing to students and pledged to move them right away. And he promised to reinforce to all his employees that the legal age for alcohol consumption in Quebec is 18, and they must demand identification to prove their age. My 14-year-old could easily pass for older, but she was wearing a high school uniform and thus clearly no older than 17. She claims the worker showed zero interest in what she was purchasing. 

I was satisfied with the owner’s response and proud of my daughter for speaking up. But I remain concerned about this kind of misleading advertising. There are many reasons why alcohol consumption can be dangerous for teens, from alcohol poisoning to addiction, heightened risk of assault, drinking and driving, and decreased judgment. This kind of marketing is unethical and it’s our kids who pay the price.

   Send article as PDF