Amanda Todd & The Facade of Cyber-Bullying

In lieu of the suicide of Amanda Todd, corporate news outlets across Canada have managed to manipulate a national dialogue on cyber bullying.

This is an unsettling situation for many reasons. Animosity is being incubated; fearfulness is present and central, and there are many sides to the issue. Yet its this very multidimensionality that goes unheeded. Save for paltry gradations, only one perspective is put forth by corporate media. To have a properly informed public many viewpoints must be made available. So I'm taking something of a journalistic liberty here. I'm going to try my best, respectfully, to provide an alternate view on the Amanda Todd story, a view mass media will not touch. If you have an inkling to explore the logical aspects of this issue rather than merely be spoon fed the narrow-minded opinions of media pundits, than I recommend you read on. Several things have incensed me in the wake of this befuddled fallacy. I have outlined them below.

Mob Mentality & the Enemy Disorder

Just the other day I noticed an online comment that said, "those who tormented Amanda Todd are disgusting. I hope the worst fate upon you."

This remark embodies the essence of a mob mentality. A prototypical example of how a vengeful attitude stunts all intelligent resolve, perpetuating a matter that must be handled with calmness if a step in a mindful direction is to be made. What's more is that this sought after retribution remains the commonplace disposition amongst a public that grows more disinformed each day. As blame surges throughout Canada at the moment, we search for culprits to be hanged (metaphorically of course, but maybe not). The reactive fury of the public is dangerous because it beckons the same sort of hatred and fearfulness that led to the suicide of the Port Coquitlam teen. Positivity and strength, vigilance and bravery, these are the qualities needed to face the real predicaments of our society. A mob mentality only reveals a collective weakness. It exhibits a fearful society composed of fearful people. It galvanizes a deficiency to deal with the problem in a proactive manner; a weakness to confront the inner forces of the matter, all of which will be reviewed in this entry. 

The media’s emphasis of the word ‘bully’ appears to be an attempt to marginalize the true nature of the word itself. A ‘Bully’ is the personification of oppression; the intimidator, the tormentor, the persecutor. We are told the bully is our enemy. In fact, we don’t even have to be told the bully is our enemy, we simply know it. It's been around for all of human history on one level or another, and the way mainstream media has portrayed this as new phenomena is indeed underhanded. The discerning citizen knows how to apply the word ‘bully’ in a wider context, in it’s true context. The discerning citizen must recognize ‘the bully’ as part and parcel of our system. It also concerns me that this alleged enemy has not one face, but many, making it effortless to point fingers, and just as easy to manufacture consent.

Ad-Hocracy & The Reactive Mode of Society

Every time. Every fucking time something hideous like this happens, what takes place? A reaction, predictably. That's all. A prompt by the media elicits a reaction from the people triggering a reaction from the government, which is taken as the penultimate step. Every time in vain. I’m not proclaiming that I am anti-reactive. I know reaction is natural, but to yield to reaction without prudence is irrational. I’m talking about proactivity, and the absence of it in the handling of the bigger picture. The truth is government will use this tumult as fodder for whatever agenda is on the table, nothing more than a token attempt at false mitigation. It's so predictable. When there's a surge of gun violence, a "gun-control initiative" is established. When drinking water becomes infected by a virus, a "safe water bill" is drafted, or a "panel on potable water production and distribution" is organized. Same shit, different issue, different band-aid. This is ad-hocracy: the lowest form of problem solving. Is this what it must take for us to have the impetus to give a shit? Suicide? Someone who is driven to take their own life? Now we discourse? Now we seek preventative measures? That's an inane approach. And to be honest, that's one of the more embarrassing hallmarks of our collective consciousness: myopia.

Responsibility

One of the first things to come to mind when I caught wind about this whole Amanda Todd thing was the Internet's role in the tragedy. It was substantial. I thought, "couldn't she have logged off, maybe stepped away from the Internet?" If her anguish had approached a suicidal level (or at the first sign of distress) wouldn't turning the computer off have been effective, not as a definitive solution, but as the best step toward repair?

To be speculative and presumptuous deviates from what is one of the most important topics of this essay, that of responsibility. Responsible use of the Internet. Responsible parenting. I believe these two factors can supply us with the simplest, most intelligible explanation for what has happened to Amanda Todd, and how it can be proactively dealt with in the future. To carefully educate everyone, all Internet users from adolescence to old age, on the hazards of careless Internet use, would be a bona fide step toward a substantive solution. All mega-media needs to do is push this idea of vigilant, responsible Internet use and there will be no need for counter-constructive legislation.

Also, in the pre-web world where you had to face bullies in the schoolyard, you hadn't the option to power down. You had to either defend yourself or flee. Bullies will surely continue to plague the Internet just as they do in the physical world, but when you stop exposing yourself to the source of the problem, in this case, cyberspace, walking away from the screen’s glow could form a sense of empowerment to progress and heal.

The Systematic Regimentation of the Internet

SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, Bill C-61... Incessant threats to our liberal use of the Internet lies around many corners. It remains one of the only democratic commons still relatively intact, and for anyone who has ever read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, the alleged cyber-causal suicide of Amanda Todd has political opportunists foaming at the mouth. It's of no coincidence that while these digital Machiavellian laws are being tabled by governments all around the globe, this particular story is currently being "discussed" in the House of Commons, as if Canadian legislature will provide any real solution to such a systemic issue.

9/11 is an example of Klein's "shock therapy." The mass murder of thousands of hard-working Americans at the hands of a kamikaze extremist group prompts the Patriot Act, a pervasive declaration of war against the "terrorists" (in this case, the bullies) allowing for an abrupt, tailored kind of legislation to run amok.

The public apparently cries out for "preventative measures" to make sure nothing like this happens again. The public looks to the politicians for answers, for some kind of official action. And when the public looks to politicians for action, it permits politicians to act on the accord of their faction, not the liberty of the public. The kicker is that the public wields all the power pertinent to this issue (and beyond). We can either enable the problem, make the matter worse, or solve it outright. If not, the Internet will continue to be whittled down to a shell of what it had the potential to be.

Hypocrisy

Our apparent, collective concern for victims of bullying is a representation of our concern for the helpless and our disdain of those who prey upon the helpless. If this is true, as I'm sure most of you would agree it is, then why this story? Why now? Why not Kelly Thomas, the clinically schizophrenic man who was beaten to death by three Californian police officers last year? Has anyone seen the disturbing suicide rates amongst Canadian aboriginals? Why hasn't there been a national eruption on the issue of increasing poverty in Canada? On gentrification? On stratification? On inequality? Shouldn't we converge around the foundational issues of bullying rather than treating it as a fresh, isolated occurrence? If we suddenly are so sympathetic

These are the questions that must be posed now. We need to positively focus on the ramifications of this nature of tragedy. Topics such as: vigilant parenting, responsible use of the Internet, adolescent empowerment and self-defense, the perils of social stratification, police presence in schools, cooperation and mutual aid, etc. If there were any legitimacy in this proposed anti-bullying strategy then Canada wouldn't be actively participating in perpetual warfare and "military intervention" all around the world. The tools of propaganda are strong, but they’re not invisible. It has much to do with language and our misunderstanding of it. If we persecute the bully, isn’t that really persecution of ourselves and the ‘bullying’ we fully enable in other nations? That’s foreign policy, though, right? Not bullying. Not if it’s in the name of ‘national defense.’ Aren’t there homeless and impoverished people out there that have been economically bullied? No, of course, not, because we can’t put a face to that kind of bully, right?

The Pitting of a Society Against One Another

There's no question about it: this story has successfully produced more animosity between you & I. It doesn’t have to be that way, though, for we have no constructive use for a quality like that. There’s too much of it amongst us anyway. It is divisive and harmful, and it must be ignored. All around us are reminders of contest. That is a glaring feature of a capitalist system, but it doesn't mean it’s in our nature to compete with one another. The bully versus the vulnerable; ethnicity versus ethnicity; gender versus gender; rich versus poor; all of which are socially counterintuitive. Instead of proliferating blame, misjudgment, and persecution in times like this, why not promote cooperation, discernment, and courage to address the matter of bullying, of inequality?

The Cunning of Corporate Journalism

Sensationalization really pisses me off. And truly, this is how the Amanda Todd story has been delivered. This is how it was meant to hit the presses. I have no intention to downplay the gravity of the ordeal, for it is gloomy. However, tragedies such as this occur every day of the year, and in turn, corporate media has its pick. It's like the Elizabeth Smart story in the States a while back. One of my favourite comedians, Dave Chappelle, has a great bit about this. Around the same time Smart was abducted, so was another little girl, in some other state. She chewed her way through the ropes and managed to be at "home watching herself on the news by 5:30." Here's my point: the media moguls out there understand what sort of public reaction will be received when each and every story is released. So what they've essentially done is not only brought the threat of "the bully" and "the cyber bully" to the forefront of the public conscience, they've emphasized it, and embellished it.

According to a recent CBC release, Todd memorial pages on facebook are being defaced :

"Images and comments making light of Todd's death and suggesting she deserved to be bullied are flooding a Facebook memorial page dedicated to the teen -- so many that Facebook can't remove them fast enough."

Why does FB bother removing individual comments when the medium of the message, the Todd memorial page, continues to be the prime gateway for further disparagement?  Is a memorial page necessary once its been compromised? I don't believe it is. Certainly not if the slander can be foreseen. The denigration is enabled by having the page operational, thus welcoming the "cyber-org bully, who does not die with its victim, who furthers the protagonist's suffering well into the epilogue," as Huff Posts' Elizabeth Plank has put it in her most recent blog post.

The Underpinnings: Foundational Questions Corporate Media Won't Broach

As long as a capitalistic society remains operational, where competition is encouraged and profit is placed before the well-being of you & I, then bullying will always be abundant, and there will always be inequality, and there will continue to be a repetition of sorrowful situations such as Amanda Todd's. At the root, the reality of it is very simple. Bullying, harassment, teasing, abuse––this is a raw form of inequality. And there is no denying that inequality is a rampant component of a capitalist system, and sadly, an effluence that will continue to stain our social fabric unless more people begin to think critically and act courageously in the face of ignorance and in the face of power.

I had began this opinion piece by saying 'in light of the suicide of Amanda Todd, a national dialogue on cyber bullying has now commenced.' I read this statement back to myself and realized the absurdity in it because of it’s assumed correlation. The most important questions remain to be posed.

How was Amanda Todd being raised? What was her family life like? Clearly not every teenager who is teased or bullied commits suicide, so why her? What are the differences between the adolescents who have surmounted or endured such torment compared to ones that have turned to suicide? Shouldn't the national dialogue revolve around suicide prevention rather than bully control? Could it be true that a suicide may be more preventable than the malevolent actions of particular people?