Let's talk (online)
Theoretical framework
The activity allows participants to experience situations that particularly young people have to deal with in an online environment today. Its aim is to open up a discussion about how online communication intertwines with the offline world, what are the commonalities and differences between communicating online and face to face.
The data for the activity were obtained through an unrepresentative questionnaire survey among 96 young people aged 13–25. In the questionnaire, young people reported specific situations that they encountered online and that they found unpleasant.
By analyzing the situations, we have obtained a list of general elements that are often present in online communication, and based on the list we have created fictional dialogs that contained these elements.
“When I didn't send the photos, the person pressured me and said they'd come to find me…”
Anna (not the real name)
“Men, mostly significantly older men, pushed me a lot to send them intimate photos or to meet them and do indecent things.”
Lucie (not the real name)
“One girl wanted to send me nudes once, but it was just…weird. Moreover, she was 14 and I didn’t want it to ever turn against me. It’s illegal and all, so I didn’t accept it.”
Michal (not the real name)
Practical guidelines
- The recommended time to work with one activity dialog is 60–90 minutes.
- The activity introduction takes 5 minutes.
- A dialog takes 5 minutes.
- Discussion takes 15 minutes.
- Group work takes 10 minutes.
- Presentation of the group work and discussion takes 15–45 minutes.
- The final discussion takes 10 minutes.
- The recommended group size is 5 to 25 participants.
- Materials: dialogs – version for the trainers and the group
Activity structure and instructions
Two trainers are needed to carry out the activity. Choose one of the dialogs included in the activity and divide the roles. Your task will be to act out a short scene. The trainers do not need to have experience with acting. The dialogs are simple and they take place in an online environment, so people only interact with each other verbally.
The dialogs contain various topics. It is a good idea to familiarize yourself with these topics so that you can discuss them with the group.
The stories open up the following topics:
1. Mila and Tondy
- Communication partner who speaks only/mostly about themselves
- Catchphrases and cheesy pickup lines that seem like the person have used them on 50 other people
- Bragging about the number of former partners
- Sending nudes
2. Vláďa and Soňa
- Too personal questions asked too soon
- Pressure for a quick response
- Patronizing and lecturing
- Comments on appearance / body shaming
3. Miro and Stan
- Partner is too mysterious and non-communicative which causes uncertainty
- Lack of openness in communication
- Exaggerated fears and anxieties
- The “Slippery Slope” logical fallacy
4. Emi and Kája
- The pressure to share photos/information
- Requesting a face-to-face meeting
The trainer should read the dialogs in advance and carefully consider whether they want to present the story. The stories could provoke negative emotions in the trainer and they should never be forced to act the dialogs out. If you do not feel up to it, skip this activity. It is totally okay.
Do not use this as a stand-alone activity. At first, a connection with the group has to be established. If you feel that the group is detached and withdrawn, choose a different activity. If you feel that the participants put their trust in you, you can carry out the activity.
At the beginning of the activity, act out one dialog. There should be several copies of the dialogs distributed in the group so that participants can better follow the story. Then, discuss for example the following issues:
- How do people in the dialog feel?
- Why do they feel like that?
- Has any problem arisen in the communication between them?
- What was it?
Ask participants to think in smaller groups about how to change the dialogs so that no one involved feels bad at the end of the conversation. They should come up with specific suggestions for changes in the dialogs. Give them a few minutes to think about it.
Groups can decide whether they just want to read their suggestions or whether they would like you to reenact the dialog again applying their suggested changes (if you feel up to it as well). Discuss why they have decided to make the specific changes and ask how the other groups feel about the changes.
During the discussion, you can use the feeling cards, which are used in non-violent communication and can be found online in various language versions, but you can find it also as the opening method within this aspect.
It is not enough to provide a safe environment for the group only. It is necessary for the lecturers to think about their emotions and take care of themselves and their mental well-being.
Slippery Slope is one of argumentative fallacies. Event A is presented as a trigger of event B, leading to event D. As a result, it appears that event A leads directly to event D without relevant evidence being presented. This is merely a fallacy, not a real argument. Example: “I don’t approve of registered partnership because then these couples will want to get married and adopt children, and then the same will be demanded by pedophiles and other deviants, who will thus get the opportunity to legally abuse children.
more…Source: Hate Free
Wrapping up and reflection
At the end of the activity, discuss whether the participants think that a similar situation could really happen and whether similar situations happen often in the online environment.