Blog

As a followup to our last blog post, we’d like to share some more guidance to keep in mind as you are updating and refining your school’s policy related to Facebook (and other social networking sites). We hope this is helpful for you. Please remember, though, that you must do a lot more than policy enhancements to be in compliance with the FCC’s new mandates, and to make a meaningful difference in protecting students and avoiding liability issues. Thanks again to Mike Donlin for his excellent summary on these matters!

Preliminary Guidance on the use of Facebook, MySpace and other Social Networking Sites in Schools

- Recognizing the value of social networking in 21st century education,

- Recognizing that social networking is specifically mentioned in Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act and FCC guidance,

- Recognizing that the FCC guidance states specifically that filtering of Facebook, My Space and other social networking sites is not necessarily required, and finally,

- Recognizing that there are potential safety, security and liability issues, the following is preliminary guidance for educators on the use of social networking sites in schools:

1. Check and follow your most current district / school policies and procedures on the use of social networking tools in schools. The policy you may be called by some variation of your district’s Internet Use, Network Use, Internet Access, or Network Access policy. You will also want to check your district’s Internet or network use/access agreement for students and staff.

2. Keep personal and professional/educational accounts separate.

a. There might be different, separate accounts through the same service, however.

b. Do not use social networking sites which do not come through your district network.

3. Never friend a student on a personal site.

4. Do not share personal information on your professional/educational site.

5. Remember: using a social networking site for educational purposes has the potential for extending your school day beyond the school day and the school walls.

- It also has the potential of exposing students to your own or to others’ personal information, even inadvertently.

6. All rules which apply to your bricks-and-mortar classroom and school apply to the online, social networking environment: bullying, harassment, courtesy, appropriate language, timeliness, etc.

7. Inform and involve school administration

8. Inform and involve parents/guardians as appropriate. However, this also may be problematic:

a. Inviting parents to join/participate would be tantamount to inviting parents to be involved in your classroom every day.

b. The parents would have to know that they should not join using their ‘personal’ sites.

c. Remember: there are students from broken, blended or other non-standard families, as well as some with no-contact orders. The teachers would have to be able to negotiate through all that in some, not too demanding way.

d. This might involve a small number of students, but potential risk and liability issues arise.

9. Do not friend other adults on your educational site.

a. Allow for the possibility of inviting “special guests” for specific educational purposes.

b. For such a professional guest profile-type, establish a vetting process, done by the educator using some sort of rubric.

c. Establish what the expert guest would need to agree to be involved.

d. Consider the involvement of teaching team members, student teachers, specialists, counselors and/or administrators

10. Read, become familiar with all site-related Terms of Use documentation.

Our colleague Mike Donlin and I have been talking out some issues related to public education and teen technology use. He has recently pointed out that there are certain points that the FCC would like schools to know as it relates to their intersection with and use of social networking sites. Specifically, schools need to be very familiar with the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, and that it:

1. Adds statutory language to existing FCC rules for implementing the Children’s Internet Protection Act

2. Has an impact on eRate compliance

3. Requires that school districts’ board policies provide for the education of minors regarding appropriate online behavior including interacting with other individuals on social networking websites and in chat rooms, and regarding cyberbullying awareness and response

4. This requirement is in addition to existing Children’s Internet Protection Act requirements (requiring blocks/filters, and education of staff, students, parents, etc.)

Also, in addition to policy language, it is important to note that the FCC also specifically mentions Facebook and MySpace, as well as addressing other social networking sites. The FCC finds that:

1. Individual pages on Facebook or MySpace might be potentially harmful to minors, but

2. these sites are not “harmful to minors”, per se, and

3. do not fall into a category of websites which must be blocked.

4. Further noting recent work by the Department of Education, the FCC and the DOE suggest that “social networking websites have the potential to support student learning…” (FCC 11-125 Report and Order, p.8)

So, what are the implications of all of this?

1. By July 1, 2012, School Boards will have to create or update current Internet Use policies to include wording that they are teaching Internet safety

2. Districts will have to decide how, who and with what they will implement this new requirement

3. With the comments on Facebook and other social networking sites, and with the inclusion of social networking within required Board policy language, education and training around both appropriate and pedagogical uses of social networking resources will be critical

4. Districts and schools will need background and training on issues, materials, approaches, resources

5. Cyberbullying awareness and response will need to be included within ongoing harassment, intimidation and bullying training and program implementation

6. As the education of minors about appropriate online behavior, digital citizenship, cyberbullying, etc., covers a wide range of issues and topics, it will be very important for prevention-intervention, school safety, counseling, educational technology and content specialists to work closely to create as effective and all-encompassing digital safety education program as possible

So, the major question are as follows: Is your district positioned to address all of these requirements? How specifically are you making this happen? What will you use to educate staff and students? What protocols are currently in place as it relates to prevention, investigation, and response? Are they ideal? I know that many states just wrapped up standardized testing, and are just trying to make it through the end of the school year. These matters, though, will have to be addressed before administrators take a break for the summer.

Canadian Cyberbullying Educator and Speaker Lissa Albert and I have been chatting about some parents engaging in controversial and arguably questionable behavior to “send a message” to their teenagers about appropriate and inappropriate behavior. These instances have gone viral, and Lissa has done a great job of providing a backdrop of this practice as well as detailing why we just don’t support these kinds of responses. Her writeup is below – I encourage you to share with us your thoughts. Also, feel free to contact her with any followup!  Here we go:

There is a new, troubling trend emerging in our digital world; it blends social media and parental discipline. And it’s more disturbing than one might believe at first glance. It’s even been given a name: “cyber-discipline”.

The first such incident occurred in February 2012, when the news outlets carried the story of a man in North Carolina, who decided to discipline his 15-year-old daughter for having complained about her parents, on Facebook. She blocked her parents from seeing it, and used belligerent, curse-filled rhetoric. She was upset at all the chores she had to do, and complained about it. Was she mouthy? Yes. Obscene language used? Yes. Did she cross the line? Yes. But at the age of 15, is she still learning about appropriate behavior? Yes.

Tommy Jordan’s way of handling his daughter was to post a video on YouTube, entitled “Facebook Parenting: For the Troubled Teen”. The video begins with the camera on him, as he explains that he will be providing advice for parents who have to deal with kids misbehaving on Facebook. He addresses his daughter, telling her how he fixed her computer and spent money to do so, and came across a post on Facebook she obviously didn’t think he’d see. He reads the post which is what can only be described as a typical teen complaint about having to clean up and do chores. As he reads, he mocks her words. He then addresses the things she said, point by point, talking directly to her – albeit via YouTube.

When he is done, the camera moves to show the computer in the grass and dirt. He says, “That right there is your laptop.” He then moves a gun into the video and says, “This right here is my .45,” and proceeds to shoot the laptop – nine times. He counts the bullets, telling her she’ll have to pay him back the dollar each one cost.

He posted the video to YouTube, it went viral, and the father has gone on the talk show circuit. It also prompted many discussions about how social media was used as well as this type of discipline. The debate ranged from the insinuated violence, to the over-reactive nature of the discipline, to the utter waste of an expensive piece of technology. This father got revenge on what his daughter did; it is never right for a parent to get revenge on their child. He stated, in an interview, “She put it on Facebook, I put it on Facebook.” Why was it wrong for his daughter to swear and behave immaturely online but not wrong for him to do the same in a public video denigrating her?

Another case of blatant cyberbullying came to light this past week. In Akron, Ohio, Denise Abbott decided her 13-year-old daughter Ava needed disciplining for airing her gripes on Facebook, and used the same venue to exact her parental “justice.” She used Photoshop to place a red X over her daughter’s mouth in a picture of Ava. She added the text: “I do not know how to keep my (mouth shut). I am no longer allowed on Facebook or my phone. Please ask why. My mom says I have to answer everyone that asks.”

She uploaded the photo to her own Facebook account as well as to her daughter’s, making it the cover photo (the very large banner-type picture the new Timeline format incorporates) as well as the small thumbnail profile photo used as an inset (see photo). To make matters worse, the local network news did a story on what had been done, and while 13-year-old Ava does not appear in the story, her photo does. This prompted national news to pick up the story as well. Denise Abbott says, “You have to adapt your parenting skills with the times.”

The news story made the Internet, and has – of course – gone viral. Denise Abbott has also gone on the “Today” show, and may yet appear on other shows. A simple Google search reveals that this story has gone around the world, with news items from France, Portugal, Spain, Brazil, and Germany, and probably more countries than can be listed in this space.

Both Tommy Jordan and Denise Abbott have said that had they known they would receive such worldwide attention, they might have rethought their actions. Surely Denise must have heard about the backlash Tommy Jordan got; and yet, she did what she did anyway, as well as invite local news media into her home to cover the story. It’s important to note that it’s always too late for regrets, once it’s on the Internet. This will never be erased even as the headlines fade. Abbott has said that she never expected this to go viral the way it did. Jordan says the same. This reinforces the need for parents to understand the viral nature of the Internet.

Tommy Jordan speaks directly to his daughter about his feelings regarding her Facebook posting; but he does so via video camera, posted on YouTube. Denise Abbott prefaced her actions by removing Ava’s phone and Facebook privileges. Both these parents seem to have the right ideas, the wrong methods. Instead of addressing their children’s behavior privately, at home, they – in essence – opened the walls of their living rooms to the world. And yet, they did so because they were upset that their children had done the very same thing! Hannah Jordan had complained using Facebook; Ava had used Facebook to speak disrespectfully about her mother but no details have been provided.

Both forms of discipline, in my opinion, went way overboard, but they also crossed an important line between home discipline and public degradation. Moreover, it seems these parents wanted some sort of public approval for getting their kids in line. That seems to take priority over getting the behavior changed; otherwise, why post it online? Why go on talk shows? Why not deal with their children in their homes, privately, and respectfully? Shouldn’t adults be the adults in these situations, and model positive behavior instead of reflect the very acts for which they are penalizing?

What is wrong with these types of disciplinary actions? Some thoughts:

- Parents have turned parental discipline into a world-stage event. It’s tantamount to putting one’s child on a stage, in a spotlight, pointing fingers to highlight what is actually normal teenage behavior, stating “look how badly my child behaved,” and inviting everyone on the Internet (and those watching on television) to do the same. It is a very strong example of cyberbullying, using technology and the platform of social media to humiliate and denigrate. It is not discipline at all, it is public shaming, and it is abusive. Various news stories have Ava saying she deserved it, but did Ava really feel that way or is she somehow feeling coerced to own up to it?

- It also opens doors for so many other parents to follow suit. On the site where the story first emerged online, there are countless comments from parents exclaiming, “I’m definitely going to do this when my kid acts up!” Polls (unscientific as they may be) on the various news outlets have shown an overwhelming majority of parents who believe that both Jordan AND Abbott acted appropriately. It provides dangerous precedents for more cyberbullying behavior on the part of parents, the very people who are supposed to be protecting their kids from the world, not exposing and shaming them.

- This trend also begs the question: what will parents like Denise Abbott do when their children commit a second, or more egregious infraction? They will – we know they will. Kids misbehave. It’s normal. As they grow, they test their wings. What will she do when Ava uses harsher words, or decides to skip a day at school, or any other numerous known teenage rule-breaking behaviors? The bar is already advanced on how far she will go to discipline Facebook rudeness. What comes next? Where does she go from here? She has already said, on NBC, that she will do something similar again if that’s what it takes. That, in itself, is deeply alarming. And if she has to do it again – did it really work in the first place? There is no magic disciplinary action. Kids – like adults – learn through repetition and maturity. We will all make mistakes. We may make the same mistakes more than once. That’s human nature.

Some questions to ponder:

- Why is it “creative parenting” when an adult carries this out but cyberbullying when kids target one another? If this had been another kid, the story would have been about cyberbullying. Abbott may even have called out the other teen who was humiliating her daughter. Yet somehow, these parents – and their supporters from far and wide – believe their actions are for the betterment of their children. The very example of the power in cyberbullying is intrinsic in these stories. Abbott’s actions, in her mind, are justified because she is the parent, the authority – the one with the power, as opposed to another child carrying out this action, in which case she probably would have been incensed that her daughter had been targeted and victimized.

- As well, is it not dangerous to call this “creative”, which carries a positive connotation? Almost every news story has referred to it as “creative parenting”. We must change that perception.

- If the behavior does change, is it because the child has learned a lesson? Or merely because the child has been so intimidated by his/her public shaming (and perhaps emails or posts from strangers) that call further attention to their rule breaking? Ava’s response via email stated that she had been rude to her mother but that she will think twice next time because “It made me realize that I didn’t want my picture on there like that because all of my friends were asking me what happened and what I did.” She doesn’t say that she realized it was wrong to be rude to her mother, only that she did not want to be humiliated again. Lesson learned? Perhaps. Punishment feared? Yes. Parental discipline is not to instill fear of the punishment; it is to teach a change in behavior due to understanding of why the behavior needs changing. I don’t believe we’re seeing that in Ava’s statement.

- With so many bullycides and cyberbullycides in our headlines, do we really want to see cyber-discipline become the acceptable, notable norm? Will more “creative” solutions for parents to use social media to shame their children, in the most public forum possible, emerge if this is not addressed? And if so, is it not frightening to think of what other parents may do? Those with true abusive streaks have the potential to harm their children beyond the pale.

- Denise Abbott, in follow-up stories, even says, “When you put everything on Facebook, you have to realize there is a consequence for all of your actions.” Does Denise realize that the consequence is now worldwide reaction to her actions on Facebook? And that consequence is not only negative toward her, but encouraging of others to follow in her footsteps? How many more kids will we see highlighted on the news as the targets of “creative discipline” and how many will already be experiencing bullying or cyberbullying at the expense of their self-esteem? Must we get a tragic wake-up call before cyber-discipline is finally put into its proper category – that of cyberbullying?

The story has gotten a lot of press, and those supporting the actions of both these parents seem to be unaware of how cyberbullying is inherent in both cases. How can we prevent more children from the cyber equivalent of stockades in a public square?

It’s time to get proactive. Spread the word that cyberbullying doesn’t just “look like” inflammatory texts in emails, text messages, Facebook or Twitter posts. Spread the word that cyberbullying takes many forms, and we must train everyone involved (parents, teachers, students, and bystanders) not only to recognize cyberbullying but to stand up in defense of victims, especially when those victims are being targeted by their parents. Harsh? Not when you look at the analysis of the behavior: social media used as a tool to publicly out a misbehaving teen. Whether it is parent or peer, this is cyberbullying. And it’s up to us to make sure cyber-discipline does not become sanctioned cyberbullying.

I have been chatting with my colleague Nancy Willard of the Center for Responsible Internet Use about Facebook in schools, and how they should and should not be used by educators. These are her recent thoughts with some of my input added…just to get some more discussion going on this issue. We both think that schools MUST shift to the use of interactive technology environments to effectively prepare students for success in their future. There are incredibly effective tools to do this, like EPals and EdModo. However, Facebook in its current instantiation may not be perfectly suited for certain uses by educators. For example, the use of Facebook for community outreach – by schools or extracurricular organizations – is perfectly appropriate. In addition, there may be times that it would be helpful and appropriate for students to access material on Facebook for instructional purposes. However, I would hesitate to recommend that Facebook be used as a platform for instructional activities based on its current limited feature set for schools and educators. The potential problems – including potential liability for schools – are significant.

These include:

- The privacy of student work products must be protected under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Having students publicly post their work on Facebook could very well violate this federal statute. (Justin and I recommend that schools and teachers set up Facebook Fan Pages which ensures that communications between the adults and students are public…but Facebook is testing the capability for Fans (students, in this case) to send private messages to the owner (adult educator, in this case) of the Fan page. See here for more information.)

- Schools would have to ensure that every adult has effectively set up the appropriate group protections to avoid the potential of liability.

- If a teacher has access to student Facebook profiles, these profiles could reveal evidence of abuse. If a teacher fails to detect and report such abuse, the teacher might be in violation of state mandatory reporting laws.

- Facebook requires individuals to be at least 13 years of age to sign up. Schools must adopt interactive platforms that can be used throughout their K-12 system.

- Students deserve privacy in their personal and social communications. Being required to use Facebook for their instructional activities disrespects this privacy for some. Also, some students and their parents might prefer not to have an account on Facebook.

- Facebook’s business model is focused on market profiling and advertising. Whether instructional environments should be engaged in these activities is definitely a controversial issue.

- Teachers and other school staff who want to friend students on Facebook are possibly setting themselves up for difficulties. School staff should certainly maintain friendly and supportive relationships with students. But do we want to *formally* encourage teachers to become students’ “friends?” Should they also go and hang out at the mall and go to movies with students? Or should they maintain a distinction in the status of their relationship? This, of course, is a polarizing debate with many strong opinions on one side or the other.

To summarize, these are some of the difficulties associated with teacher friending of students:

- The aforementioned mandatory reporting requirement

- Activities in an environment that is fundamentally built for sharing personal information, thoughts, experiences, photos, and videos (as compared to other social networking platforms like LinkedIn)

- Perceived pressure on students to allow teachers to have (at least some) access to their personal social environment, which may violate their privacy

- Perceived grading bias if some students establish deeper or stronger “connections” or friendships than others

- Possible expectation that busy teachers take on some of the responsibility of monitoring and intervening in student-student personal relationships when they are out of school

I really want to hear your thoughts on this…again, keeping in mind the caveats I have stated. I am not suggesting we throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Facebook is great and has numerous benefits and incredible potential. I just don’t think it is where it needs to be yet in terms of providing what schools and educators need to deliver education and provide connections in a perfectly appropriate way.

Here are some sample policies that may help you within your school or district as you seek to establish or revise your current formal rules.

Facebook has also contracted with a third-party to create a Guide for Educators, and it is available here.

Chime in and let’s talk this out!

By now, you have probably seen Facebook’s newest controversial overhaul to profile pages.  Dubbed “Facebook Timeline,” the latest out of Palo Alto is being described by the social networking behemoth as a new way to “Tell your life story.” With these changes, it is clear that Facebook intends to allow its users to do just that.  The most substantial feature Timeline offers is the ability for users to organize their current and past life updates into an easy-to-browse, reverse-chronological order.  Timeline also replaces, reorganizes, or updates almost every major feature previously found on user profiles.

As soon as one accesses Facebook Timeline, the user is greeted with an introductory page which explains what Timeline is, and what it will mean to Facebook going forward.  Users previously had the option to opt-in to Timeline during a beta/dev period, but as of December 15^th of last year the update was applied site-wide so that all users could enable it.  Many have made the switch, while others are holding out until it becomes completely mandatory for every user.  As with most past Facebook updates, Timeline has received a fair amount of criticism from privacy advocates over the way user information will be collected and displayed to others.  While the experience of Facebook Timeline is initially unnerving because of these new privacy concerns, its ease of use, improved design quality, and additional security options may override these concerns over time.

Individuals may now update to Timeline and are given a one-week review period in which they are able to go over all the content that is to appear on their Timeline and make any adjustments that they deem necessary.  For instance, if there are old controversial pictures or status updates that you had forgotten about – which may now show up prominently on your Timeline – you may remove the old content altogether or simply hide it from the Timeline before it goes live at the end of the review period.  All of these actions may be seamlessly performed at any time by using pop-up drop-down boxes that show up when a user places their mouse over a particular Timeline post.  In addition, the new security features rolled out right before Timeline was launched are also still applicable.  You may edit exactly who can see various content on your Timeline, and may even limit the number or groups of people who can see each individual Timeline post.

Timeline is intended to serve as a sort of digital scrapbook – neatly compiling a user’s life story on a single page for everyone to see.  From top to bottom, the changes on every profile page are abundant.  The most obvious have occurred at the top.  The first thing a user may notice is the new ‘Cover Photo’ that takes up a large portion of the top of a user’s profile.  A user may opt to upload a new photo or simply use an already available one for his or her ‘Cover.’

You will also see that Friends, Photos and Likes are neatly rearranged near the top of each profile.  Moreover, a Map feature has been added, which shows everywhere a user has previously checked in.  When clicking the ‘Map’ button on a profile page, you (and anyone else who can see the contents of your page) is taken to a separate page which shows all of your individual check-ins.  All future updates of yours that provide a location will be added to your map.

The new Facebook Timeline layout compiles every post, picture, status and location update in an extremely easy-to-navigate chronological listing.  To view the digital history of a Facebook friend, one simply has to scroll down through a user’s profile page to go deeper into their past (I wish the load time for this to happen was a little faster, but I’m sure that will happen Facebook’s in-house XHP programming code and database backend connectivity gets refined over time).  While previously only some activities such as status updates and posted pictures were viewable on a person’s wall, now just about every single activity the person engages in on the site is chronicled and easier to access.  In the previous version of Facebook, your activity would only show up to others as links to those actions.  This provides your friends with a snapshot of your daily musings on the site, but with Timeline, the emphasis has changed from what you do from day to day to what you’ve done with your life.  With the improved Facebook Timeline, user profiles display a descending order of bullet points in the middle of the timeline to chronologically order to every action you make.  Adding pictures, updating your status, and your interactions with others are all saved on the timeline for anyone you allow to see.

Users may also retroactively add photos, updates, or a variety of life events to their timeline.  By simply clicking somewhere on the timeline, a pop-up will appear which provides a list of options. The types of Life Events you may add to your timeline are essentially limitless.  Facebook offers a large variety of default options including starting a new job, retiring, getting married, having children, moving, learning a new language or hobby, and countless others.  Even if Facebook doesn’t have the life event you want to add available on their default lists, users can add custom Life Events via the “Add Other Life Event” button at the bottom of each drop down box.  It is notable however that Facebook Timeline currently does not allow you to remove the Life Events that you add to your profile.  For example, you are technically able to add a new job that doesn’t actually exist, but just know that if you do will then be unable to delete it.  Given Timeline has just been rolled out to the public, it is unclear whether or not this is by design or just a temporary bug.  Until that becomes clear, users should be particularly careful with what Life Events are added to their timeline, because they may very well be there permanently.

Facebook users also have the option of going back as far as their date of birth to retroactively add life events.  If I wish, I could go all the way back and edit the location I was born, include a story I want to tell about my birth, or even add old baby pictures that my family may have. The goal with all of these changes seem to be simple enough – to transition Facebook from just a popular social network into an omnipresent, publicly-viewable timeline that chronicles one’s entire life history.  Timeline’s changes also serve a couple of broader purposes.  Most apparent is that a fresh offering from the social networking site may earn Facebook considerable press and in turn attract new users.

Additionally, the features offered by Timeline may help ensure that Facebook’s current users continue using the site for the foreseeable future.  Timeline may manage to propel Facebook into something more than just one of the current fads of our culture because it moves beyond just an expressive engine for the in-the-moment, day-to-day activities of Facebook users into a potentially much more substantial, long-term service.  The appeal and power of this service is that it may be used by its users to essentially keep a comprehensive, free, and easy to use digital record of their personal lives.

Timeline manages to more efficiently organize and better display a user’s personal information than the previous version of Facebook.  It also offers a detailed, chronicled history in a manner that is easier to access and peruse through than its predecessor ever allowed.  These changes are concerning for all users, especially for minors, because while it may make the site more appealing and easier to use for its members, it also threatens to make all of this vast information more accessible to strangers.  Careless adolescents may not only risk updating strangers on their day-to-day activities, but also may allow strangers to have access to their entire life story.  Now much more than just photos, friends lists, and personal likes and dislikes, Timeline announces when you were born, what schools you’ve attended, the places that you frequent, the friends you most interact with, and may publish every other major milestone in an adolescent’s life on a single page.  The power of all this information in the hands of strangers, or even in the hands of the site itself, may be somewhat concerning if the user does not have their profile page locked down as completely as possible.

While every major or minor milestone that a user has ever chronicled on Facebook may now be archived on a single page, this may not be as concerning in the end as it initially appears to be.  All of the previous security and privacy features that Facebook offers are still in place, with the addition of a few extra features being rolled out along with the launch of Timeline.  Users may easily adjust their privacy settings to limit exactly what their friends can and cannot see.  The ‘Friends’ page of each user has been redesigned significantly.

With the latest changes, you can broadly edit your privacy controls from the ‘Friends’ page.  You can make your page viewable to everyone with the ‘Public’ setting, or only allow friends, yourself, or certain customized groups of friends to see your profile.  By simple pointing your mouse over a friend’s hyperlinked name, a pop-up box appears to gives you further privacy options.  From here, you may limit what this specific friend sees of your profile, and you can edit what ‘Friends’ group he or she belongs to.  You may even ‘Unfriend’ him or her via this options box.  It is important to note that for minors, ‘Public’ technically equals “Friends of Friends” rather than everyone on the Internet.  This is one way that Facebook attempts to restrict the visibility of youth profiles.  When the minor becomes a legal adult, this designation changes so that ‘Public’ means everybody.  An adolescent also now has the option of limiting what may be seen by specific people.

In the end though, Facebook Timeline may actually help users protect themselves due to its very design.  Structuring a Facebook user’s digital history in such an easy-to-navigate manner may make it more apparent to users just how much information they share online, and could help them realize that further discretion on their own part is necessary if they want to protect themselves.  It is important to state here that with the old version of Facebook, some people who used to be party animals were able to passively hide their youthful indiscretions by just posting new information (i.e., status updates).  To then see behavior from (for example) years ago, one had to click the “Older Posts” hyperlink on someone’s wall hundreds of times — maybe more.  Now, the principle of security by obscurity is gone, as it is much easier to uncover older content by just scrolling down to a particular year and month (see Activity Log).  In addition, everyone must exercise due diligence with Timeline and meticulously restore the privacy level they previously had with the old version.  This is because sometimes the settings do not carry over.  For example, “do not publish to wall” does not translate to “do not publish to Timeline.”

All of this is to say that Facebook Timeline as a whole may seem a bit disconcerting upon first use.  It compiles all of your expansive personal history archived on the site into an extremely easy-to-navigate format.  After some time, though, Facebook Timeline may very well grow on you…as some users definitely prefer it much more over its predecessor (while some do not yet, of course).  While Timeline does manage to make one’s life story even more public than Facebook ever has before, all of it is only there because the user uploaded it and left it there to begin with.  You always have had – and still do have – the option to remove (or at a minimum, edit) the personal information that is displayed on your Timeline.  Furthermore, you can limit precisely who can see that personal information.  As far as the general public and adolescents in particular are concerned, Timeline is not a service which needs to be feared.  Timeline assuredly comes into the public consciousness with a fair amount of privacy concerns, but Facebook has also made strides to ensure that those who use the service will be better protected, and more capable of protecting themselves.