Jen is asking questions in an area that I remember D’Arcy talking about some time ago: handling digital identity for children and students. How do we protect them? Will they resent the stuff we have them putting out into the social web later?  It’s an important and ongoing issue. I’m synopsizing/abridging/adding to my latest response and putting it here in hopes of enlisting more thoughts for Jen. In my first comment I advocated for consideration of the opposite approach– perhaps we have an obligation to facilitate these activities. I theorized that the idea of limiting participation comes from the same kind of idea of protection that has lead to school filters (not that they are the same idea or that Jen is advocating filters in that sense).

I didn’t say that your post and filtering were the same, but that they seem to come from similar sources, in particular the idea of “protection” and what it means as a parent and teacher. I understand what you are saying– and I’ve taken this position when others have tackled these questions. I just happen to have a different perspective. In the end people will opt for what makes sense to them and have no obligation to agree with me. Which is good, since not very many do!

You are asking about the potential negatives of your child having a socially mediated part of life and I am responding that I am more concerned if they don’t have a rich life there. You are asking about ramifications for employment and judgment and I am saying that I think the negative ramification are a temporary issue borne of change and soon will evolve to wondering about people who don’t have that trail behind them. I see this already when I look for someone’s social presence and can’t find it… it makes me wonder where they are coming from and, potentially, what is wrong with them. What if the first graders of today don’t resent us for putting stuff out there but resent and question why we didn’t or didn’t do more?

This is where I diverge from many others-– I think part of our responsibility as parents and educators is precisely about identity, digital and otherwise. I don’t trust the environment by itself to shape my child offline and I don’t do so online. I also don’t see it as a binary issue where only one thing can happen if I am involved and that is “foisting”– I see it as part of the developmental process. Children and students are at a stage where the co-creation of their identity involves parents and teachers, and for good reasons. Eventually they move on to be more aware add in control (but never wholly), and it continues to change. It’s not as if they are stuck (or blessed) with only what came before they asserted greater control and assumed greater involvement. It’s an ever-changing story.

The definition of the “true story of who we are” is subject to change… and is changing because the nature of public and private acts are changing. I think this change is generally for the better, even if it is a bit uncomfortable at times for everyone.

I don’t want to dismiss taking a judicious approach. The difference between a judicious inquiry like Jen’s and the pernicious effects that we see when institutions end up trying to do with individuals should be doing is the difference between a powerful and thoughtful approach that a good teacher like Jen seeks to take and the stupidity of broad filters and creativity killing, overly restrictive firewalls… but I do think this is an issue in which reasonable people can– and will continue to– disagree.