YouthNet blog

Wednesday Sep 26, 2007

Can't we just turn the internet off?

Science fiction writers – and more recently overpaid futurologists – have often talked about a totally networked, always-on world, where the offline and online are so seamlessly intertwined that the words themselves become redundant.

Whether you view this as a utopian dream or an oppressive nightmare, there's no doubt we are hurtling head-first in this direction. There's also bound to be some collateral damage along the way, as people, organisations and communities try and manage this rapid change.

Some recent examples of the new and the old colliding:

Just not tennis

The Lawn Tennis Association – the doyen of stuffy and conservative sports governing bodies – has suspended two junior players for posting pictures and stories on Bebo. The two players were doing what most teenagers are doing on social networking sites – boasting of parties and drinking, posting pictures of their mates and generally being... teenagers. But this, according to the LTA, breaks their contracts which require them to 'act professionally'.

The silly little people

Three council workers in Wales lost their jobs for spending too much time on E-Bay during work hours. By all accounts, the council – unlike many organisations – had been pretty lenient and only cracked down because the employees had gone too far – spending two hours a day on the site. But the eye-popping bit to this story is the response from a union official who said that the council had put "temptation in their way".

More from his statement:

"People get very involved in eBay, Sky Sports and their favourite soccer teams. It happens in many, many offices. Obviously we cannot justify people spending a couple of hours of working time looking at these sites - but temptation was put in their way. We plan to push for the authority to make changes to its IT system, to help prevent workers landing themselves in hot water."

So there's no personal responsibility expected here. The drones need to be given no rights and no opportunities to get themselves in trouble. We know best.

Run! It's Facebook!

The corporate fear of lost hours – and productivity - to Facebook continues to build into a worldwide panic. In the UK, a third of all employers are now apparently blocking it in the office. Which, if you like madey-uppy figures, COSTS UK PLC 132 MILLION POUNDS A DAY!!!

As many rational observers have pointed out, workers have always found ways to skive at work and it's frankly unrealistic to expect staff to work every minute of every working day.

But what this is an example of – like the others above – is a society not coping with change. Traditional corporate responses ("just don't let them do it, ban it, stop it...") are still the first reactions of many, but now, and in the future, it's just not going to work. The organisations that understand that – and recognise the opportunities (as well as the risks) are the ones that will succeed.

Thursday Sep 20, 2007

The internet - predicted in 1969

Picked up this video through the Guardian tech blog.  It's 1969 (or is it?) and we're predicting a future networked world where people are using computers for radical things like shopping, finance management and  watching videos of the kids. There are a few differences though....

And while we're on videos, here's one that does a nice summary of the big internet stories, virals and sudden online celebrities of the past 15 years.

Monday Sep 17, 2007

What do you want to be when you grow up?

I've lost count of the number of careers that I thought I was going to do when I grew up (and yeah, most of friends and colleagues are still waiting for that to happen).

I can also remember asking my 6^th form college tutor about how to get into certain careers, as well as my university careers service a few years later. The one thing that was lacking from both of them was some clear, impartial advice on the careers I was interested in, as well as some referrals to expert organisations that could tell me more.

That's one of the reasons why we've just launched a work & study section on askTheSite. Just like the other areas askTheSite covers (mental and emotional health, drink & drugs, sexual health & relationships, general health, housing, legal & rights and money), you can ask away about whatever's on your mind and you'll get an expert, confidential and anonymous answer in a maximum of three working days.

Right, I'm off to get some tips about joining NASA.

Friday Sep 14, 2007

NSPCC in hot water

The Daily Mail reported this week that the NSPCC had "faked child abuse stories to generate cash".

Apparently, a direct mailing from the charity contained made up call transcripts detailing acts of cruelty to children. I'm honestly surprised at the naivety on display here. As I've mentioned many times before (and pardon me for sounding like a stuck record), there is a point at which the drive for transparency becomes detrimental to both the donor, and the charity in question.

In this case, the Advertising Standards Authority received several complaints about the shocking nature of the call transcripts, which it then investigated and found to be made up.

Does anyone doubt that Childline/NSPCC has received calls like this though? In reality, I'd imagine they could show us call transcripts that were even more disturbing than the made up ones they used. 

What's interesting here is that the Mail focussed on the fabricated call transcripts, rather than the complaints to the ASA – which makes me wonder what they would like to see in Direct Mail packs. Perhaps real life transcripts, with pictures of the children on the phone calling Childline?

OK – I'm taking things too far there, but there is a point at which the anonymity of the people desperately seeking advice needs to be upheld and protected – at all costs. This also raises the issue of trust, which is absolutely vital to services like Childline and askTheSite, YouthNet's own Q&A service on TheSite.org.

When we have permission, we publish selected questions, with their answers, to our Q&A archive. This means others can benefit from the advice – but in our case it's relatively easy to ask for this permission because we are a web-based service that may give people a bit more time to consider what they ask us.

Obviously the situation is different for a telephone helpline – it's much harder to ask someone on the phone for permission to publish their most private worries and concerns on the phone, immediately after they've told you what they are.

If people needing advice feel the slightest danger that their privacy may not be respected, the service is compromised – which is surely too big a price to pay in return for donors reading some "real life" call transcripts.