Big Brother's Bots

Part of the fallout of the Mark Foley scandal has been increasing (although, I'd wager, temporary) awareness of the Internet as a means for people to talk to each other, largely under a veil of anonymity, about sex.

This comes at the same time that social networking sites -- MySpace, Facebook, and others -- are coming under increased scrutiny because of the role they have played in a handful of criminal cases. Compared to the hundreds of millions of messages sent via these sites each day and the tens of millions of members they have, the criminal presence on them is minuscule. Still, since many people are both tech- and sex-phobic, the headline-grabbing cases emerging from MySpace and other social networking sites tend to generate hysteria beyond what they deserve.

As someone who has been using instant-messaging technology (that is, IMs) for more than 13 years, I was both bemused and befuddled by the reaction to the instant messages that allegedly were sent by then-Congressman Foley to former congressional pages. It's like millions of Americans had never seen "LOL" or "ttyl" before. (And if they think Foley's language or tone was salacious, these people really need to spend some time on line to find out what lewd is.)

The overreaction, however, came not just from the Foley incident(s). Fear of the Internet has already worked its way into the law of several states and the federal criminal code.

What I was not aware of, in this regard, was the Orwellian nature of the laws that have been put on the books already. This point was really brought home to me in an article by William Saletan, who writes about science and technology for Slate, which appeared in Sunday's Washington Post. Saletan's last few paragraphs are really chilling:

Some states pursue adults with underage sex in mind into cyberspace and outlaw dirty messages. Georgia, for instance, forbids any "Internet contact" with minors involving "explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity" or even of "sexual excitement." The recipient doesn't have to be a minor. He can be anyone "believed . . . to be a child residing in this state." Someone could be charged under this law even if he never went to Georgia or wrote to anyone there. All you would have to do is meet him in a chat room, pose as an Atlanta teenager and wait for him to say something gross.

If a pervert won't act on his words, you can criminalize the words. If he won't utter them, you can prosecute him for writing them. If he won't come to your state, you can go get him. If he has no victim, you can invent one. This is no joke. In almost every state, laws specify that you can be convicted of an Internet sex offense against a child even if you contact no child and commit no physical crime. In fact, the most recently analyzed data, published by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, suggest that more people are arrested on suspicion of using the Internet to solicit what turn out to be cops posing as kids than for using it to initiate relationships with real kids. The unnatural has been surpassed by the artificial.

Cybersex is only getting weirder. Most Canadian college students surveyed by a dating Web site say they've already had sex via instant messages. By year's end, more than 100 million people will be playing online games. Fifteen million webcams are in use; hundreds can be viewed for a fee, and many are pornographic. You can even interact with a "virtual girlfriend" on your cellphone. It's a creepy world of imaginary meetings and deeds. The only thing creepier, perhaps, is to prosecute them like the real thing.

Winston Smith, call your office.

Blogs and More Blogs

Sophrosyne at Nova Townhall Blog takes the bull by the horns and adds a few "best ofs..." to self-submitted selections in this week's Virginia Blog Carnival. Sophrosyne caught my entry about the Virginia sales tax holiday, which I neglected to submit to the Carnival on my own. (Thanks for the plug!)

One of the posts mentioned in the Carnival talks about using MySpace and other social networking sites as a campaign tool. In it, Jason Kenney writes:

On a broader scale, does an interactive internet presence really do anything for a candidate? Blogs have begun to play larger roles since the 2004 cycle and this year will really shows whether or not netroots activism really works. MySpace and other networking sites are just extensions of that, other tools at the netroots activist's disposal. The difference is the potential target audience. People that use MySpace and Facebook are primarily 15-25 year olds, a demographic that rarely determines the outcome of elections (which is a sad fact in and of itself). Blogs, on the other hand, have no set age demographic and are a lot more inviting to people seeking information on a candidate or campaign. They also go a lot farther in lending themselves to the "echo chamber" that drives some of the larger stories and get more traditional media attention.

Could having a MySpace presence hurt a candidate? Potentially. By using MySpace you associate yourself with MySpace's public image baggage. I'm sure MySpace loves campaigns using their site, it gives them a bit more credibility and standing. Perhaps it does more for MySpace than the candidates themselves in that respect.

Speaking of blogs and politics, the Christian Science Monitor reported a couple of weeks ago about a survey of bloggers that seems to show that politics is one of the least likely topics to motivate bloggers to blog.

The article, by Tom Regan, begins:

In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 people. When Scottish artist Momus used that phrase back in 1991, he might have had the blogosphere in mind. But even if he didn't, a new report on American bloggers released last Wednesday by the Pew Internet and American Life shows that he was right on the money.

The study indicates that the average American blogger is not a member of the so-called "pajamahudin" who furiously post a dozen or more comments a day expressing a particular political viewpoint. Instead, most bloggers are people who just want to share their everyday experiences with a relatively small group of family and friends, and perhaps a visitor or two who might surf by and find their writing enjoyable - an "audience of the willing," as head Pew researcher Amanda Lenhart describes it.

In other words, as one pundit put it, the average blogger is a 14-year-old girl writing about her cat.

Those bloggers who care about public policy and about influencing a large number of people are in a distinct minority, according to the Pew study:

Americans, it would seem, yearn to be creative, and blogging provides them with an outlet. Seventy-seven percent of the 233 bloggers who took part in the survey said they write a blog in order to have a place to express themselves creatively.

They are not, in fact, writing to attract a large following; 52 percent said they blog for themselves. Another 37 percent said they did it in order to keep up with family and friends. Most bloggers, 59 percent, said they only spend an hour or two a week on their blogs.

I suspect that a larger sample than 233 bloggers would come up with different conclusions. In fact, I think the reason people blog is a combination of the reasons given in the Pew study. Think about it: Why would somebody "blog for himself"? Someone who writes for him- or herself can simply keep a diary on paper. A blog is a public document. That doesn't mean that some bloggers don't write for an extremely limited audience (family and friends, for instance, or the Neighborhood Watch team). But blogs are by their nature not meant for their creators' eyes only.

At the same time, those of us who write entirely or largely about politics and public policy have to realize that we are, really, in the minority. Most people, for good or ill, simply don't care about the topics that animate us. That's no reason to end the conversation, however. For those of us who do care, talking about politics is educational, challenging, enlightening, and fun. We may be a minority, but we are a dedicated and close-knit one.

Update: The latest Carnival of Liberty is now online, too. The song-filled 57th entry in this series can be found at the Socratic Rhythm Method, explained thusly:

You're enjoying the new Socratic Rhythm Method, a new site from the proprietor of the former New World Man blog. The Socratic Method is a method of instruction involving questioning the student so that the student can arrive at the most defensible, persuasive elements of the truth. Often, Socratic instruction fosters an adversarial relationship between instructor and student, and there are hard feelings. That more or less sums up my relationship with readers. The Rhythm Method is the name of a drum solo by Neil Peart.

I never knew about that drum solo. My knowledge of the Rhythm Method dates to this joke, popular in my Catholic high school:

Q: What do you call people who use the Rhythm Method?
A: Parents.

Times change.

Social Networking: Baby or Bathwater?

Kenton Ngo, as we have come to expect from him, has a perspicacious comment on proposed legislation to force schools and libraries to use filters to ban "social networking" sites from their computers.

As explained in the Allentown Morning Call, a Pennsylvania congressman is leading the effort, although so far he has found few followers:

Bucks County Republican Mike Fitzpatrick is at the fore of an election-year effort in Congress to limit access to popular ''social networking'' Web sites such as MySpace.

Just 15 House colleagues have signed on to Fitzpatrick's bill prohibiting anyone under 18 from accessing the sites on school or library computers.

(According to the "Power Rankings" derived by Knowledgis, Mike Fitzpatrick is the 266th most effective member of Congress, which -- aside from the lack of merit for this bill -- may explain the small number of cosponsors.)

As Kenton correctly points out, this bill is merely feel-good legislation that will not produce the desired effect:

This bill will do nothing to protect stupid teenagers, who are the only ones vulnerable (come on, smart teenagers don’t respond to sexual propositions and post slutty pictures of themselves). Only good parenting and brains will do that, and this legislation does neither. Their solution is to restrict access (which never works) in limited subsector of internet use.

Crazed efforts to parent America’s children from Congress’ election-year pandering will do nothing to protect children, give the illusion that action is being taken, and won’t dissuade the stupid from doing stupid things, such as putting up a pictures, like a Denver teenager who is now being slapped with felony charges, of yourself smoking a bong.

But, more than that, should the legislation pass, it could also have a deleterious effect, essentially throwing out the social networking baby with the putative predator bathwater.

An article by Brian Satterfield on the Digitial Divide Network points out that the numerous social networking sites -- they are not limited to MySpace, which has been getting a bad rap through tabloid TV these days -- are important tools for charities and other non-profit groups to do their good works.

Satterfield, a staff writer at TechSoup, notes:

Social networking platforms give nonprofits a forum for meeting like-minded organizations and potential supporters, and provide a medium for spreading their messages beyond the immediate community, says Alan Rosenblatt, Executive Director of the Internet Advocacy Center.

He explains what "social networking platforms" are:

Online social networking involves connecting and sharing information with other like-minded people via the Web. Internet message boards and Yahoo Groups fall under the general category of social networking, as do social bookmarking tools like del.icio.us and Technorati, applications that let users add their own keywords (or tags) to Web pages and blogs. (For more information on tagging and social bookmarking, read TechSoup's article What Is Web 2.0 Anyway?)

On the other hand, friend-of-a-friend (FOAF) social networking sites such as Care2, MySpace, and Friendster are specifically designed to connect individuals and groups directly with others who share common interests and goals.

A typical FOAF network will display a directory of people or topics. When you find someone with similar interests, you can send them a message asking to be added to their contact lists. This in turn allows you to meet other like-minded folks in that person's network, theoretically expanding your organization's contacts more efficiently and quickly than you could in the real world. Your network grows exponentially with each person you add, and you can interact with others using tools such as public and private messages and discussion forums.

There are hundreds of FOAF social networks on the Internet, each with its own user base and communication tools.

He then lists some of the most popular sites (some of which I have not previously encountered): Care2, Flickr, Friendster, Gather, LinkedIn, MySpace, Ryze, and Tribe. (He doesn't mention Facebook in this list, one of the most popular sites among college students.)

Satterfield then points out how these sites are useful to non-profits:

While many people regard social networking tools as a fun diversion, some nonprofits are leveraging them to accomplish serious goals, such as increasing their visibility, helping constituents find jobs, and raising awareness about time-sensitive issues.

For instance, Interplast, a nonprofit that provides free reconstructive surgeries to persons in developing countries, uses Flickr to help publicize its work. Interplast Communications and Technology Coordinator Seth Mazow initially began using Flickr in March 2005 when he was looking for an easy way to add images to Interplast's blog. Through Flickr, he quickly realized the benefits of sharing photos online. "Flickr is a very powerful tool," said Mazow, "one that Interplast uses to spread the message about our life-changing surgeries."

Eventually, Mazow began to experiment with Flickr's tagging feature, which has increased the visibility of Interplast's photos in Google search results. He points out that one of the top results for the search term "cleft baby" is a photo from Interplast's Flickr page. Mazow also started a Flickr group called International NGOs so that persons or organizations interested in international aid could share pictures, stories, and ideas.

I recommend reading all of Satterfield's article, which does not address political efforts to limit access to social networking sites. Given the information he provides, however, it is clear that, should Congressman Fitzpatrick succeed in getting his bill passed, a large number of people and organizations will suffer for it -- especially low-income people who use library computers to seek out assistance from non-profit groups that use social networking platforms to reach out to potential clients (as well as financial contributors).

Fitzpatrick's bill limits not only teenagers and so-called "predators" from access to these sites, but also the type of civil society organizations that make it possible to reduce the size and scope of government -- which, I would think, is Fitzpatrick's goal as a Republican Member of Congress.

But then, reducing the size and scope of government does not seem to have been on the radar screen of the Republican-led Congress in a long, long time.

Update: Vendetta Studios has produced a very funny video about the intersection of MySpace and life. It's called "My Space: The Movie." (You'll need Macromedia Flash to watch it.)

I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change

Readers will recall my June 18 post ("Young Zach Among the Philistines") about Zach, a gay Tennessee teenager whose parents shipped him to a brainwashing facility run by an "ex-gay" ministry called Love in Action.

Now the New York Times has picked up the story and the Christian Broadcasting Network has published an interview with Zach's father, who admits to his abusive actions regarding his son, using the smarmy language of compassion usually employed by liberals who advocate a rights-constricting law because it is "for the children".

In his interview with CBN, Joe Stark -- who apparently is brash enough and so lacking in shame that he uses is own name -- says:

“We felt very good about Zach coming here because… to let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future, and to give him some options that society doesn't give him today,” Stark said. “Knowing that your son... statistics say that by the age of 30 he could either have AIDS or be dead.”

* * *

“Zack has got a mind of his own, and that's a God-given gift,” Joe said. “And Zack will have to make those choices when he is an adult as to what exactly he is going to do with his life. But until he turns 18 and he's an adult in the state of Tennessee, I'm responsible for him. And I’m going to see to it that he has all options available to him.”

* * *

“A lot of things that Zach spent a lot of his time doing were taken away,” Stark said. “And I can see why they do it now. It's because, if you're not doing those things, then what are you doing? Sometime or other, you have to communicate with your family. And that's a big thing that has happened in our family – Zach is communicating a lot more with us.”

One of the survivors of the Love in Action program told the New York Times:

"It's like checking into prison," said Brandon Tidwell, 29, who completed the adult program in 2002 but eventually rejected its teachings, reconciling his Christian beliefs with being gay.

CBN was fair enough to interview Tidwell, as well:

“Rarely in life will you ever live that closed off from the world,” Brandon Tidwell, a former client of “Love in Action,” said. “It's very, I think, deceiving, or misleading, or creates a false hope for people, to help them to create change in that very isolated environment, and then move out into the real world and try to continue to…understand themselves in a whole different way.”

The Times notes that

Critics of programs that seek to change sexual orientation say the programs themselves can open a person to lifelong problems, including guilt, shame and even suicidal impulses. The stakes are higher for adolescents, who are already wrestling with deep questions of identity and sexuality, mental-health experts say.

"Their identities are still in flux," said Dr. Jack Drescher, the chairman of the committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues of the American Psychiatric Association, which in 2000 formally rejected regimens like reparative or conversion therapy as scientifically unproven. "One serious risk for the parent to consider is that most of the people who undergo these treatments don't change. That means that most people who go through these experiences often come out feeling worse than when they went in."

Two weeks ago the Tennessee Department of Health sent a letter to Love in Action, saying it was suspected of offering therapeutic services for which it was not licensed, a department spokeswoman said. Mr. Smid insisted in the interview that his program is a spiritual, not a counseling, center, and he is removing references to therapy from its Web site.

He said he does not track his success rate. Mr. Harwood, who graduated from the adult program in 1999, said that of 11 fellow former clients he has kept track of, eight once again consider themselves gay.

Fortunately, Zach is going to be released into the real world soon. We can only pray that his keepers have not lobotomized him (metaphorically speaking). The Times ends its article with a quotation from Zach's blog, suggesting that, despite his youth, he has the fortitude to overcome this terrible episode:

Zach is due to leave the program next week. His June 4 message expressed thanks for the more than 1,700 messages on his page, many voicing support. "Don't worry," he wrote. "I'll get through this. They've promised me things will get better, whether this program does anything or not. Let's hope they're not lying."

Perhaps that last sentence is simply a manifestation of youthful naivete.

Young Zach Among the Philistines

There is a courageous young man in Tennessee who, as of this writing, is being subjected to psychological torture at the whim of his parents, simply because he was honest with them about his being gay.

I am late in coming to this story, which apparently has swept the blogosphere over the past two weeks or so. Consequently, Zach's blog now contains thousands of messages of sympathy and support. The mainstream media (MSM) are just now catching up to it.

Here is how the Washington Blade describes the story in its edition for Friday, June 17:

A Tennessee teen is claiming in a blog that he was forcibly admitted into an “ex-gay” camp by his parents after coming out as gay, gaining attention from media outlets and gay activists.

Zach, a 16-year-old from Bartlett, Tenn., was sent to the camp Refuge, associated with Love In Action near Memphis June 6 and is to remain there at least until June 20, according to his June 3 blog entry.

Love In Action, an ex-gay ministry, is accredited by the ex-gay group Exodus International and supported by numerous area churches in Memphis. Officials with the ministry on Wednesday would not confirm whether the teen was enrolled. A friend contacted by this newspaper would not confirm Zach’s full name. His parents could also not be identified.

Gay activists tracking the teen’s plight have organized daily protests since June 6 outside Love In Action’s facility in Memphis. The organization scheduled a press conference for June 16, after this publication’s press deadline, to address the growing controversy.

“LIA is calling upon the community to extend open-minded consideration and tolerance towards young people with same-sex attraction who are currently undergoing the organization’s youth program called Refuge,” according to a press statement from the organization.

Wayne Besen, a gay author who tracks the “ex-gay” movement, said the teen is likely to experience psychological damage.

"This is significant child abuse,” said Besen, author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals & Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth."

A local Memphis TV station, WMC-TV, did a report on Love in Action, the organization that tries to brainwash gay teenagers. (If you don't listen to the words, can you tell which of the two interview subjects is openly gay and which one is the "ex-gay"?) The report can be found here.

Protests have been organized and took place at the Love in Action facilities in Memphis over the past several days. The protesters got the word out through their own blog.

According to Zach's blog -- which he has updated despite fear of punishment for doing so by the "counselors" at Refuge -- the organization has rules that seem designed to induce Stockholm Syndrome in its "clients", by cutting them off from the outside world and anyone who cares about their well-being. Zach laments:

What is with these people...? Honestly.. how could you support a program like this? If I do come out straight I'll be so mentally unstable and depressed it wont matter.. I'll be back in therapy again. This is not good--

Some of the rules are downright bizarre. I was struck by this one (in addition to bans on clothing made by Abercrombie & Fitch or Calvin Klein):

6. No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the client's and the parent's/guardian's control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian). The only exception to the media policy is the weekly movie. [emphasis added]

Bach not Christian? What about the cantatas? "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"? The St. Matthew Passion? Or, for that matter, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis?

These people are philistines, pure and simple. Perhaps young Zach's blog will turn out to be the equivalent of young David's sling.