What is Cyber Bullying? Essay Sample
Throughout an individual’s educational calling it is frequently taught that intimidation is incorrect. imploring the inquiry why do so many people still choose to strong-arm their equals? Pulling upon my ain personal experiences. I recall being invariably subjected to strong-arming in high school as a consequence of my weight. My equals would frequently mention to me as fat and continuously do gags about my weight. Fortunately for me. I was able to adequately do the alterations necessary to discontinue the intimidation. nevertheless many persons are non as lucky. Traditional intimidation can be described as frequent physical and verbal maltreatment against a victim. Unlike traditional intimidation. intimidation has evolved to the point where toughs have limitless entree to victims via the cyberspace. Internet strong-arming. otherwise regarded as cyber intimidation has become a dominant and major issue for today’s young person. With the changeless betterments in engineerings such as computing machines. smartphones. and the reaching of tablets. toughs now have easier entree to their victims. The fact that most adolescents ain and utilize these electronic devices makes it far easier for adolescents to take portion in cyber intimidation.
Overall. today cyber intimidation is going more detrimental than traditional intimidation due to a greater figure of ways a individual can be cyber bullied ; cyber strong-arming signifiers an ideal environment for toughs given it can happen anonymously and can happen anyplace. Besides. cyber intimidation is more detrimental than traditional intimidation because more people are able to witness cyber strong-arming due to the public nature of the cyberspace. and due to the fact that cyber intimidation is non monitored every bit closely as traditional intimidation in schools. There is a considerable difference in how many ways a individual can be bullied on the Internet in comparing to traditional intimidation. Traditional intimidation normally involves assailing the victim physically and verbally. Physical intimidation includes forcing. punching and kicking the victim. while verbal intimidation can dwell of name-calling. rumours. and opprobrious notes. In contrast. cyber blustery occurs in assorted ways on different Internet web sites and through text messages on a cell phones. First. cyber intimidation can happen on a societal media website such as Facebook. Facebook has about “five hundred million active users” ( Lee et. all ) .
Facebook is a web site where an person can keep communicating with equals through position updates. images. and instant messaging ; nevertheless Facebook is often used negatively. An illustration of cyber strong-arming through Facebook is the recent Amanda Todd incident. During this incident. Todd received baleful messages and had inappropriate images “’sent to [ her schoolmates ] ’” ( Friscolanti page ) . Cyber intimidation can besides happen on picture sharing sites like YouTube. Shaheen Shariff outlines a premier illustration of cyber strong-arming through YouTube in “Bullying Today” . In “Bullying Today” . Shariff gives the illustration of Ghislain Reza. who left behind an abashing videotape of himself“ [ dancing ] with a light sabre” ( Shariff. 343 ) ; the picture was later leaked on to the Internet for many people to see. Furthermore. cyber intimidation can happen through text messages and electronic mails where endangering messages. inappropriate images and unwanted contact can all take topographic point.
Clearly. there is infinite ways and avenues which people can use to take part in strong-arming utilizing the cyberspace as opposed to traditional intimidation. organizing one of the chief grounds why cyber intimidation is more detrimental than traditional intimidation. There is a significant difference between traditional and cyber intimidation in footings of namelessness. It is really difficult for traditional intimidation to be kept anon. . because both the bully and the victim must be in the same general country for the intimidation to happen. The lone manner intimidation can stay anon. within the confines of traditional intimidation is through the use of notes and rumours. Although traditional intimidation has some namelessness. cyber intimidation has proven to be virtually untraceable in many cases. Harmonizing to the diary article “Extending the School Grounds? – Bullying Experiences in Cyberspace” by Jaana Juoven and Elieshva Gross. based on a 2008 survey of about two thousand youth aged 12 to seventeen found that merely “two tierces of cyber intimidation victims reported cognizing their perpetrators” ( Juoven and Gross. page ) . Cyber intimidation can be wholly anon. on sites like Facebook or YouTube through the usage of bogus histories.
Through the creative activity of bogus histories. cyber toughs have a greater ability to diss and assail their victim “without being easy detected” ( Shariff. 342 ) . Personally. in high school I have witnessed legion bogus Facebook pages made merely to assail a individual individual. The sum of namelessness that cyber toughs have is presently giving toughs more power. and as a consequence this signifier of intimidation is more detrimental than traditional intimidation. Besides a difference in the sum of namelessness. cyber intimidation and traditional intimidation are wholly diverse in the topographic points they can happen. For traditional intimidation to happen about ever the tough must be in close locality with their victim. The lone exclusion to this in traditional intimidation is if the bully attacks their victim through the use of rumours. On the other manus. cyber intimidation can happen practically anyplace. For illustration. Amanda Todd’s bully was able to torture her in wholly different physical locality than her. Furthermore. the growing in the figure of striplings utilizing cell phones and computing machines is doing cyber strong-arming to turn.
Harmonizing to the journal article: “Cyber Bullying Behaviors Among Middle and High School Students” by Steve Solomon et all. a recent survey of Toronto pupils revealed that “almost all participants ( 99 % ) had a computing machine in their home” ( Solomon et all ) . This statistic is of import because demonstrates the limitless entree that toughs have to their victims in their places. Besides. from this study it was found “half the pupils indicated they had been bullied on-line before” ( Solomon et. all ) . Furthermore. cell phones and the coming of smart phones additions nomadic entree to the cyberspace and adds to the increasing cases of cyber strong-arming It is easier for cell phones now to make the cyberspace. and easier in bend for the toughs to make their victim. Finally. traditional intimidation victims may experience relieved when they are off from their toughs. nevertheless cyber intimidation can happen anyplace. anytime. and anyplace and this is yet another ground why cyber intimidation is more detrimental than traditional intimidation.
Along with the differences in the topographic points where cyber intimidation and traditional intimidation can be administered. there is a important difference in the figure of people who are able to witness these two types of intimidation. For traditional intimidation there is ever a really limited audience. If traditional intimidation occurs in a school environment. the audience is limited to the equals of the tough and the victim. If there is a physical state of affairs in an back street. merely a choice few people would be able to witness or fall in in. In add-on. when traditional intimidation takes topographic point it is found that “thirty per centum of looker-ons and bystanders support culprits alternatively of victims” ( Shariff. 342 ) . In contrast. cyber strong-arming dramas to a much wider array of people ; where “hundreds of people can acquire involved in the abuse” ( Shariff. 343 ) . For illustration. Amanda Todd’s bully was able to make a big sum of her schoolmates and equals by making a Facebook page take downing her. There are about “five hundred million active users” ( Lee et. all ) on Facebook and any humbling page. picture or exposure posted can potentially be seen by anyone. Another illustration of a big audience witnessing cyber strong-arming comes from “Bullying Today” .
In this article. Shariff gives the illustration of a male child named David Knight who was cyber bullied by his equals. when they “set up a web site about him” ( Shariff. 341 ) . This websites merely purpose was to bully Knight through the usage of “threats. abuses. and gossip” ( Shariff. 341 ) . Knight explained that this incident was worse than traditional intimidation because by making the web site there was up excessively “six billion people [ able ] to see” ( Shariff. 341 ) . and able to do merriment of him. Finally. due to the larger audience and the ability of others to fall in in the intimidation. these grounds make cyber strong-arming more detrimental than traditional intimidation. In add-on to holding a larger audience. cyber intimidation is besides less monitored than traditional intimidation in schools. In schools today. there is a 0 tolerance policy for strong-arming. and frequently if there is an issue at school with respects to traditional intimidation it is revealed to a parent. school teacher. or a guardian.
Besides. traditional intimidation in school is easy noticeable by instructors and other pedagogues who are straight oversing day-to-day interactions between pupils are hence able to witness strong-arming while it is taking topographic point. As a consequence. traditional toughs will frequently forbear from strong-arming at school because they are afraid of the effects. In contrast. in the article “The Changing Face of Bullying: An Empirical Comparison between Traditional and Internet Bullying and Victimization” by Terry Waterhouse et. all. that “young people report being victimized online instead infrequently compared to offline bullying” ( Waterhouse et all ) . This statement is important because it illustrates that striplings are afraid to state person about jobs they may be sing on-line. Furthermore. in the diary article “Sticks And Rocks Can Break My Bones. But How Can Pixels Hurt Me? : Students’ Experiences With Cyber-Bullying” by Cassidy Wanda. Margaret Jackson. and Karen Brown. a study of class six through nine pupils from schools within the Lower Mainland found that 40 two per centum would non “confide to school personnel” about cyber intimidation ( Wanda. Jackson. and Brown. 392 ) .
It was besides found from the study that “one one-fourth of the respondents … would non state anyone about being cyber bullied” ( Wanda. Jackson. and Brown. 392 ) . With traditional strong-arming often happening in school. it is more likely to be monitored than cyber intimidation which occurs outside of school. Bullying is a major job today whether it is traditional or cyber. There have been stairss taken to take traditional intimidation from schools. but it is now clip to concentrate on cyber intimidation as a major issue today. With the intelligence of the recent Amanda Todd incident. it is clear that cyber intimidation is non a current focal point for the populace. seeing as no concern was given until Amanda Todd took her ain life. Cyber intimidation is a job because there are legion variables to this signifier of strong-arming such as namelessness. immense audience. and the figure of sites cyber strong-arming can happen on. Finally. because victims of cyber strong-arming feel insecure. humiliated and degraded every clip they are on the cyberspace. whether it is at place. or at school cyber intimidation is more detrimental that traditional intimidation and should be reported every clip it occurs.
