ABSTRACT
Cyberbullying is a method of harassment using electronic means and is very common among all, as the digital sphere has extended its technology. As school districts shut down in retort to COVID-19 and students are moving to e-learning, ever than before our children may be using most of the period in front of screens. Though the digital world is supporting us link and study more, it is also a situation where harmful behavior can be encountered. It is serious that we engross our children in dialogue to keep them protective and motivate them to be very vigilant with what they share online. To better safeguard your child, we wish you to study more about digital awareness, check your child’s screen time and online activities, comprehend and set settings related to privacy, and set rules with your child.
Bullying is spiteful behavior that is aggressive, unwanted, and repeated. This can be verbal, social, physical, or online. They are acts of power and can directly cause guilt, sadness, shame, and anger. Bullying is not restricted to children; adults can also bully other adults or children. Cyberbullying is victimization that happens online and over digital devices. Cyberbullying examples comprise detestable or mean texts, social media posts envisioned to embarrassing or fake images, spread rumors, sexually explicit, or threatening direct messages. It is significant to take cyberbullying, and bullying of any kind, seriously.Recent research studies have revealed that cyberbullying and online harassment are considerable problems for users of social media platforms, especially young people. To avoid such situation, an intelligent system is required for the identification of these threats automatically. The chapter mainly focus on the types of cyberbullying, followed by case studies in which we discuss about the automatic detection of cyberbullying in online learning/E –learning platform based on social network.
KEYWORDS
Bully · Cyberbullying · Online/E-Learning · Perpetrator · Cyber-aggression · Machine Learning. Youth. social media
INTRODUCTION
Cyberbullying or cyber harassment is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic means. Cyberbullying and cyber harassment are also known as online bullying. It has become increasingly common, especially among teenagers, as the digital sphere has expanded and technology has advanced.[1]
Cyberbullying is often similar to traditional bullying, with some notable distinctions. Victims of cyberbullying may not know the identity of their bully, or why the bully is targeting them, based on the online nature of the interaction. The harassment can have wide-reaching effects on the victim, as the content used to harass the victim can be spread and shared easily among many people and often remains accessible long after the initial incident.[2]
Research has demonstrated a number of serious consequences of cyberbullying victimisation.[3]Specific statistics on the negative effects of cyberbullying differ by country and other demographics. Some researchers point out there could be some way to use modern computer techniques to determine and stopping cyberbullying.[4]
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
- Smith, Peter K.; Mahdavi, Jess; Carvalho, Manuel; Fisher, Sonja; Russell, Shanette; Tippett, Neil (2008). “Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils”. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 49 (4): 376–385. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x. PMID 18363945.
- Pettalia, Jennifer L.; Levin, Elizabeth; Dickinson, Joël (November 1, 2013). “Cyberbullying: Eliciting harm without consequence”. Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (6): 2758–2765. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022-06-12.
- Hinduja, S.; Patchin, J. W. (2008). “Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization”. Deviant Behavior. 29 (2): 129–156. doi:10.1080/01639620701457816. S2CID 144024729.
- Kumar, Akshi; Sachdeva, Nitin (September 2019). “Cyberbullying detection on social multimedia using soft computing techniques: a meta-analysis”. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 78 (17): 23973–24010. doi:10.1007/s11042-019-7234-z. S2CID 59159655.
Internet trolling is a common form of bullying that takes place in an online community (such as online gaming or social media) in order to elicit a reaction or disruption, or simply just for someone’s own personal amusement.[5][6] cyberstalking is another form of bullying or harassment that uses electronic communications to stalk a victim; this may pose a credible threat to the victim.[7]
Not all negative interaction online or on social media can be attributed to cyberbullying. Research suggests that there are also interactions online that result in peer pressure, which can have a negative, positive, or neutral impact on those involved.[8] [9] [10]
Definition
A frequently used definition of cyberbullying is “an aggressive, intentional act or behavior that is carried out by a group or an individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself.” There are many variations of the definition, such as the National Crime Prevention Council‘s more specific definition: “the process of using the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.”
The terms “cyber harassment” and “cyberbullying” are sometimes used synonymously, though some people use the latter to refer specifically to harassment among minors or in a school setting.
Cyberbullying Types
The cyberbullying types will help the young and adults to differentiate properly allow them to report and adopt preventive measures.
The various types are:
1. Hurtful, nasty or criticizing rumors or any related comments about an individual online.
2. Video or an image publishing on the website.
3. Create a fake profile of an individual.
4. Issuing online threats, provoke an individual to kill herself / himself or any other person.
5. Posting the religious, ethnic, racial hurting post or the comments.
————————————————————————————————————-
- Diaz, Fernando L. (2016). “Trolling & the First Amendment: Protecting Internet Speech in the Era of Cyberbullies & Internet Defamation”. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy: 135–160.
- Duggan, Maeve. “5 facts about online harassment”. Pew Research Center.
- Smith, Alison M. (September 5, 2008). Protection of Children Online: Federal and State Laws Addressing Cyberstalking, Cyberharassment, and Cyberbullying (Report).
- O’Keeffe, G. S.; Clarke-Pearson, K.; Council on Communications and, Media. (April 1, 2011). “The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families”. Pediatrics. 127 (4): 800–804. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0054. PMID 21444588.
- Ramasubbu, Suren (May 26, 2015). “Influence of Social Media on Teenagers”. Huffington Post. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
- Wolpert, Stuart. “The teenage brain on social media”. UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
Cyberbullying is an emerging problem in E-learning platform specifically in higher education institutions and Universities. The definition can be said in such a way that the utilization of communication tools on the internet recurrently caused damage to a group of individuals or a specific individual. Different face to face bullying in higher education triggers the rate of increase in victims and perpetrators, which leads in bullying text or images.
According to Willard (2004)[11], cyberbullying can take different forms, ranging from flaming to harassment to cyberstalking. The following list defines different forms of cyberbullying:
- Flaming – sending angry, rude, vulgar messages directed at a person or persons privately or to an online group
- Harassment – repeatedly sending a person offensive messages
- Cyberstalking – harassment that includes threats of harm or is highly intimidating
- Denigration(put-downs) – sending or posting harmful, untrue, or cruel statements about a person to other people
- Masquerade – pretending to be someone else and sending or posting material that makes a person look bad or places the person in potential danger
- Outing and trickery – sending or posting material about a person that contains sensitive, private, or embarrassing information, including forwarding private messages or images, engaging in tricks to solicit embarrassing information to be made public
- Exclusion – actions that specifically and intentionally exclude a person from an online group
- Impersonation – posing as the victim and electronically communicating negative or inappropriate information with others as if it were coming from the victim
- Sexting – distributing nude pictures of another individual without the person’s consent
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Manuals intended to educate the public about cyberbullying summarize that cyberbullying is inclusive of acts of intended cruelty to others in the form of posting or sending material using an internet capable device. Research, legislation and education in the field are ongoing. Research has identified basic definitions and guidelines to help recognize and cope with what is regarded as abuse of electronic communications.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
- Willard, N. (2004). Educator’s guide to cyberbullying: Addressing the harm caused by online social cruelty. Retrieved from http://www.asdk12.org/Middlelink/AVB/bully_topics/Educatorsguide_cyberbullying.pdf
- Cyberbullying involves repeated behavior with intent to harm.
- Cyberbullying is perpetrated through harassment, cyberstalking, denigration (sending or posting cruel rumors and falsehoods to damage reputation and friendships), impersonation, and exclusion (intentionally and cruelly excluding someone from an online group).
Cyberbullying can be as simple as continuing to send emails or text messages harassing someone who has said they want no further contact with the sender. It may also include public actions such as repeated threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e. hate speech) or defamatory false accusations, ganging up on a victim by making the person the subject of ridicule in online forums, hacking into or vandalizing sites about a person, and posting false statements as fact aimed a discrediting or humiliating a targeted person.
The recent rise of smartphones and mobile apps have yielded a more accessible form of cyberbullying. It is expected that cyberbullying via these platforms will occur more often than through more stationary internet platforms because of constant access to the internet. In addition, the combination of cameras and Internet access and the instant availability of these modern smartphone technologies yield specific types of cyberbullying not found in other platforms. It is likely that those cyberbullied via mobile devices will experience a wider range of cyberbullying methods than those who are exclusively bullied elsewhere.
REVIEW OF LITRATURE
The spiral of silence theory (1974) helps to explain why individuals sometimes feel unable to speak up when bullied. The theory indicates that bullying victims tend to become further isolated, as they have nowhere to escape. Some scholars believe that the spiral of silence effect does not exist or is very weak in online communication contexts. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) suggest that the ‘spiral of silence’ in its original form may have little predictive power in the new media environment. Further, Schulz and Roessler (2012) theorize that as individuals can select the information they receive online, they believe they are surrounded by more like-minded people online than in real-world contexts.
Thus, the projection effect will decrease the fear of isolation, and individuals will be more likely to express their opinions online, minimizing the spiral of silence effect on the internet. Other early critics draw attention to two more aspects of the internet that can reduce the spiral of silence effect: anonymity and lack of interpersonal presence. However, empirical studies have since found support for the spiral of silence effect in online social environments, even those with anonymity (Woong Yun & Park, 2011)[12].
The spiral of silence theory was primarily applied to political science and public opinion studies. It states that people tend to remain silent when they fear that their views don’t lie with the majority opinion. The reasons for such silence is the fear that they will be rejected and the fear of isolation. The longer people remain silent, the more likely they are to spiral into a state of total silence where they are reluctant to voice their opinion.
The spiral of silence remains one of the theories aiming to rationalize the effects of socialization as well as individuals’behaviour. It helps to explain why students feel unable to speak up when bullied. As bullying has become an online phenomenon, bullies can now remain anonymous and harass their victims every day at any given hour. This forces the bullied into a perpetual state of silence because it is increasingly hard for them to fight back. So even if alone, victims still must withstand the pressure of online bullies.
This results in the bullied becoming further isolated because they have nowhere to turn to or seek help from, especially in Arab societies, considering the cultural and social norms. Therefore, a need exists to identify more proactive measures to help cyberbullying victims.
METHOD
The concept of ego network was introduced, which comprise of a focal node also known as ”ego” and the nodes to whom ego is connected straightly to plus the ties, if any, amongst the alters. Specifically, a “1.5 level ego network” is termed that because its collection procedure stands amidst a network distance of 1 and a network distance of 2 network has as numerous egos as it has nodes. Social network was represented as a graph G =< V ; E > where V set of all vertices/nodes and E is the set of all directed edges/relationships in a G. And represent the 1 ego network of a node v as the graps G1(V1; E1) such that V1 has all of the nodes u such that there is an edge which exists (v; u) in E, and that E1 has all of the edges from v to the nodes of V1. Later the 1.5 ego graph was presented i.e., G1.5(V1.5; E1.5) where V1.5 = V and E1.5 = E [29].
Fig. 1 1.5 Ego Network
In the figure 1, which represents the ego node A specified as a square, and its neighbors are specified as triangles. The edges of the same represented as a solid line while the other edges are shows as dotted lines. The focus was on 1.5 ego network graph, since it captures and holds a judicious level of social context such as my friends, me, the relationship among the friends etc.
Figure 2(b) represents the users’ relationship graph by merging the 1.5 ego network of the two users B (receiver) and A (sender). The communication between these two graphs will be represented as a directed weighted edge and allows the characterization of both receiver and sender in terms of the location where they grip their respective ego network.
Few important social network features were considered and as follows:
– Number of nodes – resulting in 1.5 ego network which shows that how the graph large is and its relationships.
– Number of edges – which represents how well the connected community or sub-community.
——————————————————————————————————————————12. Woong Yun, G., & Park, S. Y. (2011). Selective posting: Willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(2), 201–227. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
– Degree Centrality – number of relationships incident upon the node in a directed graph or a network. The use of both the degree of centrality such as popularity (in-degree) and active (out-degree) in the feature set. Both the features were calculated for receiver and sender, where it uses the following expression to calculate the same.
(1)
where, CI (i) is indegree centrality, xji is the value of the tie from j to i (either 0 or 1), n is the number of nodes in the network. Similarly, calculate the same of out degree connections in the network graph.
– Edge betweenness Centrality EB(e) – measuring the centrality and influence of an edge in the network as a directed graph G (V, E) and it is calculated by using the equation 2.
(2)
where, σvi,vj is the shortest path between the vertices vi and vj and σvi,vj (e) is the shortest path between the vertices vi and vj on edge e.
– Links – count of posts amongst two persons from the labeled conversation.
– K-core score – is a maximal sub-graph which contains the degree k or more.
LAW AGAINST CYBERBULLING
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), neither defines bullying nor punishes it as an offence. However, various provisions of the IPC and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) can be used to fight cyber bullies.
Cyber Stalking of Women
The National Commission for Women (“NCW”) in its legal module on ‘Gender Sensitization and Legal Awareness Programme’4 defines cyber stalking as following:
‘Stalkers are strengthened by the anonymity the internet offers. He may be on the other side of the earth, or a next-door neighbour or a near relative!’ It involves following a person’s movements across the Internet by posting messages (sometimes threatening) on the bulletin boards frequented by the victim, entering the chatrooms frequented by the victim, constantly bombarding the victim with emails, etc. In general, the stalker intends to cause emotional distress and has no legitimate purpose to his communications’
Cyber Stalking is an extension of the physical form of stalking, committed over the internet, through e-mail or other electronic communication devices and can take different forms including slander, defamation and threats.
The Press release on ‘Digital Exploitation of Children’, by the Ministry of Women and Child Development states that the sections 354A and 354D of the IPC provides punishment for cyber bullying and cyber stalking against women.
Cyber-stalking of women was recognied as an offence, subsequent to the insertion of section 354D in the IPC through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
Section 354D of IPC defines stalking as following:
‘Any man who
1) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
2) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking: (emphasis supplied)
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that
i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the state
ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law
iii) in particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.’
The language of Section 354D of IPC makes it clear that the section penalises both the offence of offline and online stalking, without discriminating on the basis of presence or absence of the ‘cyber’ component. However, sub-section (2) fails to clarify the manner in which the victim can be said to be ‘monitored’ or ‘watched’ or what constitutes such acts.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi,[15] the accused took possession of some private and obscene photographs of the victim by hacking into her phone, blackmailed her by threatening to upload the stolen pictures and videos on the internet and subsequently uploaded her private pictures and intimate videos onto an obscene website.
The District Court of West Bengal convicted the accused u/s 354A, 354C, 354D, 509 of IPC and sections 66C and 66E of the IT Act. The court held that the offence u/s 354D of the IPC is proved as the victim was not only stalked online but also suffered from ‘virtual rape’ every time a user of the openly accessible global website viewed the video. The court commented that deterrence was one of the prime considerations for convicting the accused and an inadequate sentence would do more harm than justice, as it would undermine public confidence in the seriousness of the issue.
Cyber Stalking of Men
At present, if a man is a victim of cyber stalking, Section 354D will not apply. However, it is possible that other provisions of the IPC or the IT Act may apply. For example, let’s assume that Mr. ABC, the manager of a reputed venture capital fund, is being stalked online by XYZ, who may be a male or a female. XYZ had initially sent a polite email to ABC’s work email address, seeking an appointment, so that he could make a pitch for an investment by ABC’s venture capital fund into his struggling start-up. A PDF document attached to the email gave relevant details of XYZ’s start-up. ABC replied to politely decline the meeting and the investment opportunity, which he felt wasn’t worth pursuing. Subsequently, XYZ’s emails started to get angrier and nastier. XYZ has now started posting some derogatory remarks regarding ABC on various online venture capital forums. He has also sent a few emails to ABC in which he explicitly threatened to harm ABC.
The posting of derogatory remarks regarding ABC on various online venture capital forums would tantamount to defamation, as defined under Section 499 of the IPC. Section 500 of the IPC provides that whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
XYZ is also likely to be found guilty of criminal intimidation under Section 503 of the IPC on account of having made threats to ABC through emails. Section 506 of the IPC provides that whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If the threat was to, inter alia, cause death or grievous hurt, it shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. If the emails sent by XYZ to ABC were anonymous, section 507 of the IPC provides that XYZ shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment prescribed under section 506 of the IPC.
Online Sexual Harassment
In India, it used to be common for sexual harassment to be called ‘eve-teasing’, which downplayed the severity of the offence. However, the concerted efforts of Indian courts, the legislature, the Law Commission of India, non-governmental organisations and women’s activists have led to a radical change in the treatment of sexual harassment of women. The enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (“POSH Act“) has conveyed a stern message that any form of sexual harassment of women in the workplace shall not be tolerated. Further, there have been a number of milestone amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (“CrPC”), IPC and the Indian Evidence Act which facilitate the prosecution of sexual harassment.
With effect from February 3, 2013, Section 354A was inserted in the IPC to penalise the offence of sexual harassment. Section 354A states that the act of making physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, or demanding/requesting for sexual favours, or showing pornography, or making sexually coloured remarks amounts to the offence of sexual harassment, shall be punishable with 3 (three) years of rigorous imprisonment and/or a fine.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
15. State of West Bengal v. Animesh Boxi GR No. 1587 of 2017.
Online sexual harassment includes, inter alia, using an electronic medium to make calls repeatedly, send vulgar SMSs, emails or make vulgar conversation or pressure a woman to engage in friendship or to establish sexual relations. However, Section 354A of the IPC requires physical contact or physical advances and hence harassment through an electronic medium will fall outside of the purview of Section 354A of the IPC.
Overlap between Cyber Stalking and Online Sexual Harassment
Cyber stalking could amount to online sexual harassment if it has sexual overtones. However, a stalker is usually an anonymous person unlike a sexual harasser who is unlikely to hide his or her identity.
Fake Facebook Profiles
Creation of a Facebook profile in someone else’s name is relatively easy and such a profile makes it possible to show the victim in a false light. There have been instances where vulgar or obscene photos of a victim have been linked to such fake Facebook profile, causing the victim extreme mental anguish.
When the creation of a fake Facebook profile is accompanied by the uploading of vulgar or obscene photos of the victim on to such profile, Section 354A (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), Section 354D (Stalking), Section 499 read with Section 500 (Defamation and Punishment for defamation), Section 507 (Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication) and Section 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of IPC may apply.
SUGGESTIONS
Research has demonstrated that the youth today have changed radically due to the rapid transformation and diffusion of technology. As technology is an integral part of their lives, restricting access to such platforms will profoundly affect them. These effects need to be taken into consideration when formulating strategies for the prevention and intervention of cyberbullying.
An important aspect for consideration is that the degree of severity of cyberbullying, like traditional bullying, can have short-, medium-, and long-term effects on victims. To help victims of cyberbullying, they should be able to reach out for help without feeling scared or intimidated by any consequences. Faculty and staff of educational institutions can hold seminars or sessions to educate children and youth on the negative impacts of cyberbullying. These should not be one-time awareness sessions, rather comprehensive, detailed programms to help combat cyberbullying. Counselling is also a remedial approach to help victims of cyberbullying
Additionally, technologies need to be monitored and modified to manage cyberbullying and enable the direct-reporting of any bullying incidents; therefore, more attention needs to be given towards promoting the responsible use of technology. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter should adopt control measures to ensure safe user experience of social media and filter offensive comments or hate speech.
CONCLUSION
The chapter discusses the importance of the detection of Cyberbullying in E-learning. We discussed the emergence of the cyberbullying and the types of cyberbullying. The case studies which we have considered were limited to a particular group. The case studies are discussed to throw light on the work done still so far in the area and helps for further study in this area for research.
This paper supports the importance of conducting more research to investigate further the different types of bullying that are unexplored due to the cultural and social factors in many countries. Despite the India having a transparent policy in place and being one of the first countries to establish a unit in its police departments for cybercrimes, victims need to be further encouraged to report any acts of bullying that can affect their psychological or mental health. As proposed by this study, further qualitative research is required to assess the socio-psychological impacts of cyberbullying on victims in conservative societies.
SUBMITTED BY – ANCHAL MAURYA
1st YEAR LAW STUDENT (FACULTY OF LAW) [DELHI UNIVERSITY]