During the Symposium, we will run a live blog with up to the minute comments and responses. We will announce our bloggers soon. Stay posted!
Symposium Counter
- 1,471 hits
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Juicy Ethics Symposium 
First up is Jamie Neal, with “The Tangles Web We Weave”…
Have any of you been personally affected by Juicy Campus or College ACB?
Before the site closed down, my name was on Juicy Campus, but it was (moderately) flattering, so be it.
How about you?
Here’s the link to the new website which is sort of like juicy campus that Dr. Hyde discussed.
collegeacb.com
In response to Professor Hyde’s opening remarks he poses an interesting question…why do we participate in Juicy Campus when we are supposed to be evolved human beings?
How does the issue of anonymity play into the consequences of Juicy Campus? Should one or can one feel bad for his or her anonymous words?
You again infer that “anonymous words” = “bad.” Define “anonymity.” You can rarely be certain that anyone is who they claim to be online, in print, or even face to face.
“My name is Rob Laughter.” Can you prove that? Even though I am identified, can you truly say I have an identity in this context? Or would you say I am anonymous?
The ethical questions of anonymity certainly are intriguing…does it make the impact of the comments any different?
Seems to me that the individuals affected by anonymous posts like this have the power to let the rumor mill die down or to fuel the flames.
In alignment with Dr. Hyde’s introduction of collegeacb.com, Wake Forest has recently (since I last checked a few days ago) added a board to the gossip website.
Jamie is touching on more than just what was said on Juicy Campus, it seems like it is something that is really prevalent on Wake Forest’s campus. It just took this website for our school to see what is happening. I’m surprised it has taken this long for Juicy Campus to shut down.
In response to Rob, even if you choose not to reply to something posted on JuicyCampus, there is no undoing the potential harm it can cause to a person. It’s not easily ignored. It’s impossible to ignore.
Here’s a question… Is the site and its premise to blame, or are the users to blame? In what ways can we use a site such as Juicy Campus not only ethically, but in a fruitful and productive manner?
i completely agree, the fact that someone take’s time out of their day to publicly insult you is hurtful regardless
I think that the anonymity of gossip websites only fosters to the dwindling interpersonal relationships in today’s societies.
In the future, will people become less and less confrontational and outright with their words?
Makes you think about communication and relationships of the next generations.
Juicy Campus’ blog states that in “these historically difficult economic times, online ad revenue has plummeted and venture capital funding has dissolved.” I’m not convinced. I would like to know if others feel the same as me. Later in the blog, they redirect you to collegeacb.com, which is steadily growing in popularity. The difference between the two is that collegeacb is not so anonymous. On collegeacb, the user must register/sign in, while Juicy Campus let anyone post on its site, without registering. Is it a matter of privacy and anonymity rather than money?
If you have something to say in regards to another person, why should you be afraid to put your face to your words?
“The Tangled Web We Weave” shows that Juicy Campus is not just for entertainment purposes, although some individuals might use this rationalization to justify the websites existence. The website has serious consequences and can be extremely hurtful to individual’s self esteem and personal lives. This paper also proves that gossip is not harmless and is often taken seriously even when no proof is provided to back up gossip claims that are made. As students of the Wake Forest body, we should examine the existence or Juicy Campus and its consequences.
In the introduction of the Juicy Campus Symposium the event moderator, Michael Hyde, touched upon two problems that plague those of the college age:
1) Cell phones and how we use them to “never be alone”
2) The hate we are able to spread through anonymous posting on sites such as Juicy Campus.
As a senior in college I can attest to both of these being very true for our generation. Often adults have a hard time understanding the insecurities young people feel when they are with out a cell phone and also the desire for students anonymously communicate via the internet.
Stacey raises an interesting point, supported by the cultivation theory: technology is an increasingly important and influential medium in today’s society that affects how we perceive the world.
Do we look through a mediated lens (the internet) at the world?
I’m impressed by fact that an undergrad was able to do this kind of content analysis…
I agree that I don’t understand why people are afraid to put their face with their words. Before websites like Juicy Campus gossip could in theory always be traced back to someone who said it.
I’ll buy the “finance” explanation. Juicy Campus was not in any position to maintain the site as a business. Bandwidth on the Web is expensive once your site turns into a high-traffic entity. Without significant advertising or private investors (which I doubt Juicy Campus had either), any blog that reaches epic proportions will quickly crumble.
What does it say about the site if it cannot get any meaningful advertising revenue? Are advertisers shying away from having their products associated with sites that enable slander?
“Juicy Campus: Gender and Message Content of Online Gossip” raises interesting questions about the substance within the messages posted on Juicy Campus. Is the content posted on Juicy Campus representative of the views of students on campus or just extreme views of the select few who only post these views because of anonymity and lack of consequences for their opinions?
We can’t ignore the internet as a new and essential part of our lives in today’s world. I think we have never been more open to information and sharing ourselves online and spanning distances to keep in touch, but, quoting unashamedly the movie Spiderman, “with great power comes great responsibility.” We need to step up and become responsible for ourselves. Things like Juicy Campus abuse not only what should be a gift to all of us but also our fellow human beings.
Having never posted on Juicy Campus, I am wondering if Juicy Campus Bloggers post to stir up drama in, what many have called, the bubble of Wake Forest or solely because they really care about what they are saying?
I went to Boston University last year and the website wasn’t nearly as popular, even with four times the student body as Wake Forest.
Are people creating the drama at Wake Forest just because they really have nothing else to do?
When did you first sense the site getting popular? Would it be accurate to say it became much more “popular” after President Hatch sent a broadcast email to the University both admonishing us for our actions while advertising it to the 3,950 of our 4,000 students who were oblivious to the site?
words can’t always be traced back to who said what- juicy campus just gave a place for people to write gossip and spread it without even picking up their cell phone. The amount of gossip spread in the “wake forest bubble” is unfathomable, and juicy campus just gave it a home where all you needed to do was go to a website.
Even if these views don’t represent what everyone thinks, it is available to everyone and has the potential to affect even those who disagree with the site but still view it.
What are the First Amendment ramifications of such a site?
By tort law, it seems one could very easily build a case for libel with the intent to damage one’s reputation, but such speech acts cannot be traced to one verifiable entity.
At the same time, censoring sites like JC and College ACB would start a slippery slope precedent for censorship across the Internet.
The Obama Administration is taking a more lenient stance on censorship, if my understanding is correct.
Interesting comment.
However, where can this line be drawn? Of course I respect the First Amendment (or else I couldn’t be posting this comment right now), but the implications of gossip websites like Juicy Campus and CollegeACB are far too great.
In the future of the digital era, I can see some sacrifices being made in accordance with the First Amendment.
Next up we have Kimberly Paschall with “The Bill of Rights Battle”
I have the saw question as juicyblogger23. I’m inclined to say that they are the extreme views of a select group of people, but if that’s the case why was Juicy Campus so popular?
It would be interesting to do a content analysis including who SPREADS the rumors through Juicy Campus. Do Greeks instigate most of the Greek rumors? Do Independents? Why?
This seminar raises interesting points about ethics and free speech. To what extent should people be able to express their views without any consequences? Although our society is based upon free speech, the type of free speech found on Juicy Campus is often negative and harmful. Should individuals who are victims of this website be forced to accept slander and hurtful comments about them because of individuals’ rights protected by free speech?
I agree with keefem5. With the privilege the internet brings of having almost any piece of information at our finger tips we need to take personal responsibility for what release to the public audience. Spreading false rumors filled with hatred anonymously on the internet should not be considered a right.
I believe that, to an extent, people should be allowed to say whatever the like on a public forum. What should be amended, however, is the way that sites such as these should be moderated. Unlike Facebook which allows account users to edit their profiles and the content which is placed on it by othes, JuicyCampus does not allow such moderation. This would of course require users to register, providing at least a valid email to use the site. Additionally, people could be emailed when their name is mentioned somewhere on the site, allowing them to view comments made about them instead of being unaware that conversations about them are occuring. This would, perhaps solve some of the concerns surrouding juicycampus- being able to remain anonymous while still being held responsible for comments.
Should it still be protected as free speech if you won’t own up to your own comments? These are nameless comments, what protection do THEY deserve?
I think the law has proven that because of IP addresses, that these are for sure not nameless comments and that people using these sites irresponsibly will be accountable.
Maybe this is a stupid question but if an IP address prevents anonymity why can’t we trace comments on Juicy Campus?
Valid question, but a simple answer. IP addresses aren’t stored on anonymous sites. You can’t track that which is simply not there.
So the law still applies here because the Juicy Campus administrators opt not to store the IP addresses?
That just doesn’t seem fair. It’s like cheating the law.
What law are you referencing?
keefem5, the question is WHO is to be protected or not protected? The site’s founders are not initiating the speech acts and, under Tort law, cannot be prosecuted for doing so. I don’t know of any precedent that cites that publishers can be held responsible unless they specifically publish the content. That’s where the internet quickly becomes a tricky beast.
What about comments that are beneficial or informative? You have to weigh the value of the comments over the potential disruption of the speech acts. I’ve read (admittedly few) informative posts on College ACB.
absolutely not, it is not free speech if all it does is hurt others and the cannot even be traced back to the source. The goal of juicy campus is solely to assist in the spreading of gossip, they don’t deserve any form of protection.
Kimberley’s topic of the “reporter’s privilege” is very thought-provoking. With many of us bloggers being aspiring journalists or scholars in the Communication field, what do YOU think about this?
Personally, I think many journalists push the limits of the “reporter’s privilege.” Of course, we are a nation of democracy , but, again, where do we draw the line?
“The Bill of Rights Battle” also brings up the larger ethical question of “Should our interactions on the internet be censored or controlled by the government?”
I think this might be a step we need to take.
It’s like the Patriot Act. Although our liberties are being taken away, a greater sense of protection is be given.
In a way, the internet is man-made monster attacking the First Amendment.
Next up we have Ross Williford with “Brave New World: Technology’s Troubling Implications for our Humanity”
At what point should university administrations be allowed to intervene? When the safety of the students are at risk? Is it true that Wake Forest can track which websites students visit?
I have also heard that Wake Forest can track any site that a student visits, which is why I find it hard to believe- if they really wanted to figure out who wrote on Juicy Campus they could. They just ignored the issue for over a year and let horrible rumors circulate about members of the student body.
See my commment above on this. WFU cannot track web history remotely–they would have to take physical control of the computer. This could be circumvented by simply removing web history from your computer.
Why should students be punished for simply visiting a website?
not visiting a website, but writing on it. I just think that some form of control should be taken when a website as hurtful as this is made public. I know many people who have been incredibly hurt because of comments made on this website. There is enough gossip by word of mouth- who needs it typed on a website too?
Written comment are more damaging than oral speech acts–they are permanent, not fleeting.
Every time a person signs on to the internet, there is a sense of responsibility needed to be taken.
This responsibility not only applies to gossip sites like Juicy Campus but social sites like Facebook and MySpace.
is the government considering any regulatory laws that could promote accountability on websites like juicycampus?
“The Bill of Rights Battle” also brings up the larger ethical question of “Should our interactions on the internet be censored or controlled by the government?”
Not all comments are bad… In fact, as I read more into it, I see more and more comments like this one:
“Their pledge class is a really great group of guys. I mean they have a few assholes but not anymore than any other fraternity on campus. I agree that their upperclassmen suck but I think that in a few years they will be a middle of the pack fraternity with a bunch of cool guys.”
Take that for what you will. The language may not be too politically correct, but if you turn the elementary slang into educated and “nice” speech, there is a clear argument here. The author clearly has some disdain for a group of individuals and has chosen to express it in this way.
Maybe we should focus on ethics and speech training rather than attacking a public forum?
However, according to Stacey, the bad outweighs the good.
To what extent should protection be given for a sparing nice comment like “Oh, this sorority has a good reputation” or “that guy is really good-looking”?
The same protection that should be allowed all speech–and I was the “unfortunate victim” of a “that guy is really good-looking” comment, thank you!
At what point should university administrations be allowed to intervene? When the safety of the students are at risk?
Is it true that Wake Forest can track IP addresses of which websites students visit because our laptops are technically school property?
I don’t think administrations should be allowed to intervene. To allow them to do so would be to give them “carte blanche” for blatant and unfounded censorship across the Internet.
Wake Forest cannot track web history of users without physically repossessing the machine. To do so without just cause (i.e. a takedown notice from RIAA or the MPAA) is illegal.
The only data our I.S. department can track is a MAC address–the physical identifier of your network connection. This tells them nothing more than when and where you connected to the Wake network(s).
Ross raises interesting questions about the internet and identity…does lack of interpersonal communication in internet “cyberspace” reduce individual’s identities to the interfaces they use with which to communicate?
troll-watching someone lose their minds 2,000 miles away while you watch with your friends and laugh. I’ve never heard of this! Have you?
I’m an Internet nerd. I chat on occasion and you’d be surprised at how many people will pop into a forum with the sole intent of posting controversial messages and basking in the following ruckus.
What is there to lose? If your account is banned from a forum, you can simply make a new one and you’ve instantly developed a new identity.
If you trust Wikipedia, and I personally do, here’s a page on internet trolling…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Ross’ story about Meghan Meir is so sad and shows the evils that can be created with technology. Technology is a double-edged sword. Although it has helped mankind make positive advances in the fields of science and medicine, where does technology end and do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Of course the advantages are much greater. If you’re really ambitious, propose to Information Systems that they “unplug” the Internet for a day. No WIN, no Facebook, no online banking, no news… See what happens.
Yes, I agree, the internet is a very valuable technology tool that is advantageous to society. But what about other technology that is detrimental to society such as machines that create pollution and are causing irreversible damage to society and communication technology that allows terrorists to successfully communicate in secret? These are disadvantages that we need to consider as well.
Of course, I agree that the internet is a double-edged sword and yes, the good outweighs the bad.
HOWEVER, with gossip and social sites, there are social and cultural implications. In many ways, these sites foster a greater sense of communication. Often I think this communication is dangerous in that it can be, to borrow Shannon Gilreath’s words, “hate propaganda” and a “hate campaign.”
Maybe we should just mature as a society in general. We have such amazing opportunities available, I wish we could just grow up and handle them right.
That’s an ideal… How would you propose it be implemented?
Perhaps everything we do should be working towards an ideal. Maybe naming it as such is the first step.
I’m following this conversation from Pittsburgh, so not privy to the actual symposium, but I’m intrigued by the liveblog comments.
From many of our perches, Juicy Campus (and the like) is abhorrent (especially if you’ve been targeted). I’ve visited the site, and been appropriately disturbed.
How are we supposed to think about gossip networks like this going mega-public? On the one had, gossip (and the more hateful stuff) isn’t present just on these forums–but it is made more public and circulated much more widely on them. I don’t know how far we’ll get saying “don’t gossip about others”–it didn’t work when I was a kid and it won’t work now. A deep-seated craving for salaciousness might not be hard-wired into us, but there is obviously a cultural desire to know what’s going on with others (see: celebrity culture.)
I think it is difficult to make over-broad claims about anonymity and personal relationships. Anonymity can give someone the confidence they need to speak–it can’t be subject to blanket condemnation. And there IS some useful stuff on JC/ACB–for example, what are safe places to live, what are the slummiest landlords, etc. The question then becomes how to disaggregate anonymity’s positive function from anonymity’s negative effects brought about by the lack of social sanction.
Ultimately, it is a question of information politics: you can’t shove the genie back into the bottle (or, put another way, squeeze the balloon on one end and the air rushes somewhere else: close down JC, and ACB opens up). In a digital information economy, top down regulations or ethical demands have less traction (ok, debatable, but defensible.) What to do, then? Perhaps the ethical thing to do in this situation is work to delegitimize or devalue the worth of the information put on JC/ACB-type sites. When the quality of information on a site like this becomes less, or it becomes tougher to separate the quality information from poor information, then the sites circulation will decline.
So perhaps the ethical thing to do about JC/ACB is to take a page from culture jamming and post a bunch of inane, ridiculous, obviously erroneous and silly rumors, innuendo, and gossip. This increases the noise to signal ratio, and it shows how the absence of any editorial oversight suggests that the information on these sites is questionable, at best. It might not stop the rumor mill, but it might increase the “hermeneutic of suspicion” toward these sites.
Another option: tell parental units about the site, and encourage them to post. There’s nothing like parental presence on sites like this to make people flee–this is happening on Facebook now, and it happened earlier on MySpace, etc.
A lot of this is thinking on screen, but I think that we should be asking how well modern ethics “stick” in a network society, and whether more inventive challenges to these sites might better draw attention and work to create more ethical discourse communities.
Liveblog on!
Good to have you–great comments.
Damienpfister brings up a valid point when he suggests that parents participate on the gossip sites. As soon as parents, professors and adult friends started to join facebook, I know many of my friends edited their profiles (pictures, comments, info etc. ) to be much more appropriate for the older generation to view. Maybe if professors posted on more social sites this would help control content.
Damien…I see we are on the same wavelength.
I am intrigued by the solutions DP offers. Gossip is peppered with just enough truth to make it persuasive. Moving to the absolute absurd highlights both the ridiculousness of comments and exposes the failures in the site.
And if that fails, parents colonizing such a space is guaranteed to make JC uncool.
Is it possible to post comments on sites such as Juicy Campus where you reveal your real identity? How often did this happen when Juicy Campus was up and running? When students owned up to their comments were they attacked more or less?
i’m sure it is possibly, but i don’t think it really happened too often. Also, I agree with your other statement regarding facebook, etc. I know that the Wake Admissions person who interviewed me before I came to Wake facebook friended me after I got in. That always seemed like it crossed the line because I hardly knew him.
Dr. Mitra’s response was really interesting about our generation learning how to living in an increasing digital world. The line between what is real and what is virtual reality is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish. For example, websites such as Juicy Campus and Facebook present conversations in virtual reality as real and these conversations are increasingly replacing face to face communication. Do you all think that humans interpersonal communication skills are becoming weaker as a result of virtual communication?
YES. Not only that but humans are now perceiving the world through the medium of the internet.
You name it – news, gossip, communication, entertainment – all comes from the internet.
I don’t think interpersonal communication skills should be labeled “weaker” because of this. I never would have been able to share my ideas on this issue in such a public manner that can reach so many people (even across states!) if the internet and liveblogging was not a part of this. I know it’s not face to face communication but it certainly isn’t “weaker” communication.
Then, what is the point of Juicy Campus? Why wouldn’t these participants just confront the person they are posting about?
it is weaker, but only in a certain sense. Forms of communication such as texting have taken over phone calls, e-mails and im-ing are a quick way of getting a message to someone, these things can be argued as both good and bad.
The point of Juicy Campus was to mask yourself in order to express an idea about someone and then wait to see who else felt that way too- that is weak. If a person is really so interested in spreading gossip or hurting other people…find something else to do with your time. I’ve heard of situations when people just “claim” that they saw you on juicy campus, solely to hurt your feelings and see if you will participate in the entire thing. I would say this is considered weak.
I do believe our interpersonal skills are weakening with the increase of communication via the technology instead of face to face interactions. I know a college student would rather text a question or IM a friend instead of walking 10 feet down the dorm hall to their room. A conversation held between two people who are looking each other in the eyes is much more effective and powerful than a conversation held between those same two people through email.
Professor Mitra says, “Nature finds its way,”
It is a scary thought to think this statement is true of the internet.
As we have seen with the destruction of Juicy Campus, other gossip sites, like College ACB, has already replaced it in the past few weeks.
Do you think the future of gossip and social sites is a bright one? Or do you think matters will only get worse?
Social sites, like any other phenomenon, will be fleeting. We’re looking at Juicy Campus in a very small time frame–just MONTHS of existence in a universal timeline billions and billions of years old. Even on a social timeline, huge events rock the globe every hour of every day. Generations change, eras, change, and technology changes. In ten years, we’ll be facing a whole new “crisis” and this ethical dilemma will be all but forgotten.
What will supercede the Internet? What would happen, Heaven forbid, if we approached a collective consciousness?!?
I don’t agree that social sites will be fleeting for a few generations. Be it dating, gossip, or blogging sites, I think communication and interpersonal communication is way TOO important to our society to be fleeting.
Another human flaw: the concept that we are all “too important.”
We delude ourselves into thinking something is “too important” to just “give up.” In the 1400s, the “important” thing was the spice trade–the world revolved (quite literally, in their minds) around trading (to quote an English folk song) “parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme.”
Throughout the fledgling days of American history, “slavery” was too important to the world to let go.
Today, social networking is just too important to fade away.
So was the telegraph…
What does it say about us that we are influenced to become addicted by such seductive sites and shows as the bachelor and Juicy Campus?
It says about us that “we are human.”
Take other “abhorrent” acts–the Spanish Inquisition, say? The Salem Witch Trials?
Sites and shows like these show that we are doing what we always have done and forever will continue to do. It’s an unfortunate by-product of our ability to reason.
Let’s just blame our opposable thumbs for giving fifteen percent of us the ability to type with all ten fingers.
Well-said. I very much enjoy the last comment.
Should that be an excuse? We hurt others because we are human? Is there no greater hope for humanity to evolve beyond that?
Dean Wasiolek quotes: “We are a nation of cowards.”
Not to be blatant or harsh, but I definitely agree in relation to sites like Juicy Campus and College ACB.
I am happy to have never participated in Juicy Campus. I think it is forum supporting cowardly words and actions.
“the seductive nature” of the website is a very strong point, there is a reason that people are so attracted to websites ranging from facebook to PerezHilton, it’s all a way to watch other people (celebrities or not), and most of the time nobody knows who is watching who. It is really creepy to think about, but there is a reason behind why these people are so drawn to websites that ultimately invade a person’s privacy.
Sue is right. We are all to blame by supporting websites such as Juicy Campus by being users even if we are not contributing the negative comments. Juicy Campus is kind of like tabloids and celebrities…why are we so interested and entertained by gossip about others? Is it because the gossip makes us feel better about ourselves?
Are we to blame then for holding and widely publicizing a symposium about the website? Is bringing this to people’s attention just opening up more people to its harm or are we helping to end it?
I didn’t know about it until President Hatch sent an email condoning us for our terrible actions… those which I knew nothing about!
Shannon’s arguments of vowing to do anything to shut them down, in my opinion, would only fuel the flames.
Take the meme of the Internet troll… They’re just trying to incite riot for their own enjoyment. Sound familiar?
I don’t think we are publicizing the website, rather raising awareness about its implications in today’s society.
The internet vein of gossip websites has already been opened. We are all just trying to make sense of it and ultimately tend to it.
I would hope so too. But then again I’ve already declared myself an idealist.
This is an interesting question. To me it seems a lot like an anti-drug campaign. I see the need to foster discussion and awareness of JC and the potential harm it can cause, but it is drawing a great deal of attention to the site- and sites like it. In the anti-drug analogy, if a young student is encouraged to discuss and learn about drugs- drugs they may never have known about in the first place- has what was meant to be beneficial become harmful? In emphasizing JC, a site people may not have visited or posted on in the past are we tempting or encouraging students to visit the site?
In response to myself- encouraging is not really what a meant. I guess what I was trying to say is this: Will students who may not have gone to these sites on their own now go and visit the site after symposiums/discussions like this?
Do you think people who had not heard of collegeacb.com go there now? Isn’t visiting-whether to see how negative it is or not- as bad as posting on it? Unique visitors are all they need to keep the ad dollars coming.
However, without heightened awareness, the problem will never be solved. I understand and appreciate the anti-drug analogy, but if there had been no attention given to Juicy Campus, then the site would still be running as we speak.
i cant imagine that a forum like this would be anything but helpful to solving the problem of hate sites. Though juicy campus is the main site addressed, the ultimate goal of the forum is to solve to problem of hate sites altogether and the information presented throughout the symposium has could absolutely be applied to the larger problem.
I like her point. I think knowing who your enemies are is extremely important.
I definitely agree that we need to know our enemies. I appreciate all the discussion and definitely see the benefit of such conversation. I was just really intrigued by the person who said they had never heard of the site until President Hatch’s e-mail. In trying to drive people away from the site, the email actually introduced it to them. I don’t know if I considered that effect fully before.
The issue I have with the comment of Sue Wasiolek about the show The Bachelor is that we as consumers of the media have to be educated and critical of what we are viewing. Although shows like the Bachelor are staged as a show where one man will find true love, at the end of the day the show is produced by ABC as a source of entertainment and with the goal of attracting a high viewer rating. Although the concept of the show is slightly absurd, does this mean ABC has the responsibility to teach positive and realistic dating styles?
This proves the same for Juicy Campus as well. The reason people are not owning up to their comments on sites such as this by saying what they believe to the person’s face is because they see these websites as a source of entertainment. A place for students to procrastinate and spend their free time, not just to voice what they actually believe.
I like Ross’ terminology of Juicy Campus having a cancerous effect on a preexisting community.
yes, and he also had a great point about stopping this type of speech being like stopping a crime.
the intimacy issue is very interesting, and that seduction of being able to have your name thrown into something you may not ever participate in begins to make the whole idea of community take a really negative tone. Generally people are happy to be a part of a community and its specifically one of the main draws for people to come to Wake but defining juicy campus as a community changes this draw completely.
Exactly, if you think about it this could not happen at a larger university where no one would know the people being mentioned. If these things were said about people who the readers didn’t know then I would bet it would not be as popular.
I don’t think that Juicy Campus is a method to release hateful feelings that Wake Forest students have always had but were with out a forum to communicate these thoughts. I believe these hateful messages are being created because sites like Juicy Campus are now available and students feel entertained through these controversial posts.
Perhaps we’re just too small a university with too few outlets to entertain ourselves? I highly doubt posters are as interested in damaging someone’s reputation for the outcome as they are for their own amusement.
Humans relish some feeling of power–anonymous or not.
I agree with Shannon Gilreath’s point in that anonymity and freedom of speech is not always synonymous, or, for that matter, always related.
The anonymous nature of these gossip sites isn’t ultimately the problem, in my opinion. It is, echoing Gilreath’s words, that these sites are promoting social and cultural trends not necessarily reflective of society.
I am late to the game, so this question may have been asked: are there any benefits to anonymous website like Juicy Campus? In other words, has anyone ever used the cite to express concerns about abuses of power? I can see how anonymity could be helpful in exposing harassers and the like without fear of retaliation.
What I find interesting about Professor Glezakos’ response to this question is that Juicy Campus posters seek a type of justification in their posts.
I think it’s interesting that posters can start a thread on Juicy Campus in which other people can respond.
Therefore, I am wondering if there wasn’t an opportunity to reply to a certain topic like “What do you think of John Smith” on Juicy Campus, would posters feel more a sense of accountability? Or, without a lack of justification or agreement in a poster’s opinion, would they feel less inclined to post?
1) I would like to add that we need to be careful when we refer to those who post on Wake Forest’s juicy campus site as “the Wake Forest community.” Anyone that has access to the internet can post under the Wake Forest category and the posters that make up the site could be 10 people which by no means is representative of the students of the university.
2) I disagree that the administration has a responsibility to monitor and control these sites. Sites like Juicy Campus will exist for the rest of our lives, not just when we are students at Wake Forest. I think it is more important to educate and teach us during our four years here how to be responsible citizens rather than protecting us from the real world. If I’m an educated responsible citizen, I will know how to look at sites like this as a waste of my time.
I’ll second that. The responsibility lies in the individual, not the site’s owners or the administration of an entity that the website is not in any way connected to (in this case University administrations).
I also contend that any contraindication of that sentiment suggests a misunderstanding of how the Internet and its sites operate. Juicy Campus is not just a Wake Forest phenomenon. It’s a national phenomenon and, what is more important, it is just one location on the Web. You can do the same thing on sites like College ACB, 4chan, anonib, and dozens of other forums across the trillions of pages on the web.
The presentations were very good about the implications of Juicy Campus and sites like it. What really impacted me was how Shannon Gilreath referred to it as a “hate campaign”. I was never affected by the site, but it’s demise is good for those who have been attacked. Let’s see how bold people will be on the new site where they won’t be so anonymous.
I feel this is one of the most important info for me.
And i am happy reading your article. However wanna remark on few
common things, The web site style is wonderful, the articles is truly great : D.
Excellent activity, cheers