Raffi is the legendary children's singer of "Bananaphone," but right now his crusade is to keep kids safe from cellphones -- and iPads and computer that connect to what he's dubbed the "darkweb."
As anyone who follows @Raffi_RC on twitter already knows, the B.C. troubadour is a prolific tweeter on topics ranging from baby belugas to federal politics to the Vancouver Canucks. But as much Raffi Cavoukian is an old-school folkie, he's also an adopter of new technologies. The 2012 cyberbullying-related suicide of Amanda Todd, however, opened up his eyes to the dangers lurking online.
And so the self-described "tech enthusiast," who recently returned to performing and is playing Toronto's Roy Thompson Hall on Feb. 1, wrote a book called Lightweb Darkweb, as a warning to parents about the Internet's hidden dangers and the need for government and corporate intervention to "reform social media before it re-forms us."
Over the phone from his home on Saltspring Island, Raffi and I spoke about children, technology, parental responsibility and the fine line between regulating and censoring the Internet. And, of course, we discussed his musical legacy as perhaps the greatest children's singer of our time. (At least that's what my beluga-loving four-year-old son, Emile, thinks, and he's, like, a total music snob.)
So I'm 38 from the West Coast with hippie parents.
In other words, 100 per cent your original target demographic. Now I have a son of my own, so obviously we play a lot of your music. But as a relatively new parent, and a music journalist by trade, what I've discovered is that most children's music isn't very good. What do you think it is about your songs that have made it so enduring for so long?
I used to think it was my argyle socks, but I haven’t worn those for a long time, so it can't be that. (Laughs.) You know, I'm just honoured that the songs have this longevity. But there was a freshness about it all for me; I used my folk-singer's chops and had some great musicians playing and singing with me -- Ken Whiteley and a number of musical greats including Bruce Cockburn and others played on these albums. And the first four albums were recorded by none other than Daniel Lanois (producer of U2's "The Joshua Tree," among other classic albums.) Are you aware of that?
Yeah, his studio is actually a couple block from my house.
Dan was a big part of the early success… if you listen to those they sound wonderful, right? So there were a number of things, but I think in the end it comes down to [that] the songs are singable, they feel like -- you know -- there's a tone of respect for the child, as an audience, and that word 'respect' has been the prime value in all my work for kids throughout the decades has been respect for the child, as a whole person. So when I made music for the age of your Emile, I gave it my utmost consideration.
The feeling that I get from what you do but also, say, Pixar movies, is that it’s just you're making a great song that happens appeal to children. As opposed to some people that try to make cultural products for children and try to imagine what they would like, and then it comes off either overly cloying or insulting.
I was guided by three educators -- one was my kindergarten teacher wife at the time and our close friends who were also primary teachers. And they were compassionate teachers who guided me well on the song selection and the tone and so on, but I recall there was, when I was going to do a sequel -- more singable songs -- there was a conversation with some record label in Toronto, the guy there was trying to get me to do it with them and he was saying, 'Oh kids love rock, we should really do more rock!' And I just about laughed, because that's not how you make great music, following an assumption like that, kids like a lot of things.
Kids have a lot better and more sophisticated tastes than people give them credit for. What do you think is the lasting legacy of songs like "Baby Beluga?"
I'm careful not to make assumptions about my fans. There are between 30 or 40 million "Beluga grads" in the U.S. and Canada who've grown up with my music. But I don't ever assume that their politics would be this or that. I'm grateful for the feedback that I do get from fans, who quite love that little white whale on the go and it's meant a lot to them in over the years. Maybe it's been a metaphor in some ways -- "swim wild and free to your true nature."
But at the same time I just wrote a book on social media reform called "Lightweb Darkweb" and I happen to know that Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, who I take to task in my book, he is one of the "Beluga" grads, as well. I know this from his father who told me this on Twitter, so that's a prime example -- you just don't know where people are at.
Tell me how Amanda Todd inspired you to write this book.
Well, she changed my life -- by taking her own, unfortunately. That very moving video that she made a month before she took her life touched millions around the world and I was one of them. And I felt that I had to respond very strongly to what is an unacceptable situation with social media being unsafe for young users and it's still unsafe. Not enough has happened in the time since she died, the sexual predator who blackmailed her and tormented her has still not been identified if you can believe that, Joshua.
That's what blows me away about that story. Not the cyber bullying, because the cyber bullying is a variation on bullying that has happened for a long time. It's the way that the pictures were taken and spread in the first place, the sexual exploitation and online "sextortion" rings, and the police unable to do anything.
So it's unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. I co-wrote, along with Sandy Garossino of Vancouver, an open letter to Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg, the letter was signed by people like Amanda Todd's mother Carol, it was signed by Kim Campbell, our former Prime Minister, and hundreds of others and we received no response whatsoever. In fact, I don't see Facebook doing enough to ensure tragedies like that don't happen again. And I think that's a shame.
So let's start at the top. Obviously, the bottom level is parents. What does the government need to do to protect kids?
I want to answer your question with questions.
Why is social media exempt from the most reasonable precautions we take in society to protect on another? For example, online, using social media, you can be unidentified, you can hide behind anonymity, you can hurl all kinds of insults at people behind this shield of anonymity. You can't do that in real life. Why should you be able to do that online? It makes no sense to me. Where is the CRTC in regulating social media? We do call it "media," and the CRTC does regulate media in Canada.
But not the Internet.
Why does it get off scot-free from any consideration of the most reasonable regulations? Why should the world of sexually explicit websites, that we call pornography, why should that surprise 10-years-olds who are not looking for it? Why can't it be an 18 years and older registered use aspect of the Internet. There are so many things we can do to correct a situation that is really indefensible, if you think about it.
If we put children, our respect and our love for them, if we put them first -- not the dollars that are made from all the over sharing that is pushed on to users by these social media platforms -- if children’s interests came first, I think we could make a number of good changes. But it'll take political will and I ask those questions: why do we let people get away with things online that we would never tolerate in real life? And I think politicians need to answer those questions.
The issue is freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech comes with the responsibilities that go with that right. It's not an absolute right, never was.
Q&A continues after slideshow
March 2013: Teens and Technology
<strong>Source</strong>: Pew Research Center <strong>Gist</strong>: "Fully 95% of teens are online, a percentage that has been consistent since 2006. Yet, the nature of teens’ internet use has transformed dramatically during that time ... Teens are just as likely to have a cell phone as they are to have a desktop or laptop computer. And increasingly these phones are affording teens always-on, mobile access to the internet — in some cases, serving as their primary point of access."
February 2013: Preschoolers Can Learn Great Things From TV
<strong>Source</strong>: Huffington Post (to read the actual study, visit <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/02/13/peds.2012-3872.full.pdf">Pediatrics</a> -- subscription required) <strong>Gist</strong>: "New research out today by Dr Christakis finds that putting our time and energy into working to improve what our children watch, not just how much they watch, can have a positive impact on their behavior -- even for children as young as 3 years of age."
February 2013: Media and Violence: An Analysis of Current Research
<strong>Source</strong>: Common Sense Media <strong>Gist</strong>: "While longitudinal research does allow us to speak in terms of a 'causal' relationship, it is probably more accurate and useful to think about media violence as a 'risk factor' rather than a 'cause' of violence — one variable among many that increases the risk of violent behavior among some children."
January 2013: Screen Time Not Linked To Kids' Physical Activity
<strong>Source</strong>: Reuters (to read the actual study, visit <a href="http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1548755">JAMA Pediatrics</a> -- log-in required) <strong>Gist</strong>: "[R]esearchers said the new study backs up earlier findings showing too much screen time and not enough exercise may be separate issues that parents and schools need to address independently."
December 2012: How Families Interact on Facebook
<strong>Source</strong>: Facebook <strong>Gist</strong>: "We investigated anonymized and automatically processed posts and comments by people self-identified as parents and children to understand how conversation patterns with each other might be a bit different from those with their other friends."
November 2012: Parents, Teens, and Online Privacy
<strong>Source</strong>: Pew Research Center <strong>Gist</strong>: "Most parents of teenagers are concerned about what their teenage children do online and how their behavior could be monitored by others. Some parents are taking steps to observe, discuss, and check up on their children’s digital footprints."
<strong>Source</strong>: C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health <strong>Gist</strong>: "In this Poll, nearly two out of three adults expressed strong support for proposed COPPA updates, including requiring apps designed for kids to confirm that users are at least 13 and prohibiting apps from collecting personal information from users under age 13."
November 2012: The Online Generation Gap
<strong>Source</strong>: Family Online Safety Institute <strong>Gist</strong>: "These surveys indicate that teens’ concerns about their online safety parallel parents’ concerns more closely than parents realize and that many teens are taking steps to protect their privacy and personal information. Nonetheless, teens suggest that parents are not as informed about what their teens do online as parents think they are, and some teens are taking risks by providing personal information to strangers online."
<strong>Source</strong>: Common Sense Media <strong>Gist</strong>: "America’s teachers -- whether they are long-time classroom veterans or young, tech-savvy ones, at wealthy schools or low-income schools, public or private, elementary or high school -- surface relatively consistent concerns: Students are having issues with their attention span, writing, and face-to-face communication, and, in the experience of teachers, children’s media use is contributing to the problem. On the plus side, teachers find that young people’s facility with media is helping them find information quickly and multitask more effectively."
November 2012: How Teens Do Research in the Digital World
<strong>Source</strong>: Pew Research Center <strong>Gist</strong>: "Three-quarters of AP [Advanced Placement] and NWP [National Writing Project] teachers say that the internet and digital search tools have had a 'mostly positive' impact on their students’ research habits, but 87% say these technologies are creating an 'easily distracted generation with short attention spans' and 64% say today’s digital technologies 'do more to distract students than to help them academically.'"
<strong>Source</strong>: Common Sense Media <strong>Gist</strong>: "Three out of four teens have social networking sites, and half of all teens are on their sites on a daily basis. But despite our concerns about social media, in the vast majority of cases, these media do not appear to be causing great tumult in teenagers’ lives."
March 2012: Teens, Smartphones and Texting: Texting Volume Is Up While Frequency of Voice Calling Is Down
<strong>Source</strong>: Pew Research Center <strong>Gist</strong>: “The volume of texting among teens has risen from 50 texts a day in 2009 to 60 texts for the median teen text user. The frequency of teens' phone chatter with friends - on cell phones and landlines - has fallen. But the heaviest texters are also the heaviest talkers with their friends.”
<strong>Source</strong>: Pediatrics <strong>Gist</strong>: "There was no evidence that children receiving the active video games were more active in general, or at anytime, than children receiving the inactive video games."
November 2011: Teens, Kindness And Cruelty on Social Network Sites: How American Teens Navigate the New World of “Digital Citizenship”
<strong>Source</strong>: Pew Research Center <strong>Gist</strong>: “As social media use has become pervasive in the lives of American teens, a new study finds that 69% of the teenagers who use social networking sites say their peers are mostly kind to one another on such sites. Still, 88% of these teens say they have witnessed people being mean and cruel to another person on the sites, and 15% report that they have been the target of mean or cruel behavior on social network sites.”
<strong>Source</strong>: Pediatrics <strong>Gist</strong>: “We found that children in as many as 70% of home-based child care settings and 36% of center-based child care settings watch television daily. More importantly, when television is viewed at all, infants and children spend 2 to 3 hours watching in home-based programs and ~1.5 hours watching in center-based programs.”
October 2011: Media Use by Children Younger Than 2 Years
<strong>Source</strong>: Pediatrics <strong>Gist</strong>: “This updated policy statement provides further evidence that media—both foreground and background—have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years. Thus, the AAP reafﬁrms its recommendation to discourage media use in this age group. This statement also discourages the use of background television intended for adults when a young child is in the room.”
October 2011: Zero to Eight: Children's Media Use in America
<strong>Source</strong>: Common Sense Media <strong>Gist</strong>: "Nine-month-olds spend nearly an hour a day watching television or DVDs, 5-year-olds are begging to play with their parents’ iPhones, and 7-year-olds are sitting down in front of a computer several times a week to play games, do homework, or check out how their avatars are doing in their favorite virtual worlds. Television is still as popular as ever, but reading may be beginning to trend downward. Having an accurate understanding of the role of media in children’s lives is essential for all of those concerned about promoting healthy child development: parents, educators, pediatricians, public health advocates, and policymakers, to name just a few."
July 2011: Cell Phone Study ‘Misleading’: Children May Still Be At Increased Cancer Risk, Experts Say
<strong>Source</strong>: The Huffington Post <strong>Gist</strong>: “[E]xperts have some serious concerns regarding the methods and conclusions of the first study evaluating the connection between cell phone radiation and brain cancer in children and teens. Not only was the study flawed, they note, but it was also financially supported by the cell phone industry.”
October 2010: Children's Screen Viewing Is Related to Psychological Difficulties Irrespective of Physical Activity
<strong>Source</strong>: Pediatrics <strong>Gist</strong>: “This study found that greater television and computer use was related to greater psychological difﬁculties, independent of gender, age, level of deprivation, pubertal status, and objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time.”
<strong>Source</strong>: Pediatrics <strong>Gist</strong>: "Viewing television and playing video games each are associated with increased subsequent attention problems in childhood. It seems that a similar association among television, video games, and attention problems exists in late adolescence and early adulthood."
<strong>Source</strong>: Pew Research Center <strong>Gist</strong>: “Fully two-thirds of teen texters say they are more likely to use their cell phones to text their friends than talk to them to them by cell phone.”
January 2010: Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds
<strong>Source</strong>: Kaiser Family Foundation <strong>Gist</strong>: “Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week). And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.”
So what do you say when the countries that do regulate the Internet are countries like China, where they are using it to censor.
I think that's a legit concern and a shield can work both ways. A shield for anonymity can enable the worst behaviors and then can also protect people where they need that protection. I'm not the most sophisticated thinker on the issue of ID verification, but I do know that if we take it seriously and understand the need for it, those who are closer to how this is done can hopefully weigh-in. You can't use a credit card without giving all kinds of information of who you are, right? You can't use PayPal without doing the same thing. Why should you just be able to go online and do whatever you want hiding behind anonymity? It doesn't make sense to me.
I say that with full respect to those in lands where they are oppressed and they appreciate the freedom of saying the most democratic things without being oppressed. But these days, I don't know, maybe it comes down to a choice between conflicting interests.
There are also issues of shields intended to protect children that end up blocking sites like Planned Parenthood or sites about homosexual issues and things like that.
These are not easy questions to sort through but we must sort through them. And what doesn't work for me is that is the Internet is largely [a] lawless place and that doesn't make any sense to me. It will never be perfect, even with regulations, there will always be some complaints and some trade-offs but I think we’re going to need them, we're going to need some regulations at some point.
Kids were an after-thought when it came to the Internet. Safety was an afterthought -- safety of young users -- so that's why in the book I push for safety by design. And I say the onus lies with social media platforms to make their services safe, whereas right now it's "user beware" and that’s simply not good enough. It doesn't work because you can educate yourself about the parallels of being online but if you make one mistake it can really hurt you. And parents don’t have enough time and enough information or enough wherewithal to keep up with all the changes that they have to deal with all the time about privacy settings and default this and that, it’s an almost impossible job for a parent to do. So wouldn't it just be better if we knew that our kids could use the Internet with little reservation?
Obviously my kid doesn't use the Internet yet because he's four and I'm certainly wary of what happens when he gets older, but at the same time I kind of accept a lot of parental responsibility as far as this goes.
Oh sure, and so you should, yeah.
People who don't have kids are like, "why should I have my information censored?"
It's not censorship first of all, it's reasonable accommodations of citizens in a society. Doesn't matter whether you have kids or not, we live in a community; we don't live as isolated individuals. And we are human and to be human is to care, it's just that simple.
But obviously a 36-year-old is interested in different things than a six-year-old and should that 36-year-old have restricted access because a six-year-old might…
No, I have not espoused that actually -- with ID verification if you’re older than 18 then you have a choice as to what you do. But, until then some restrictions to access make a lot of sense for those under 18.
So what are your thoughts on ID verification? How would that even work?
I don't know how that would work. I'm not an expert in these things, as I've said. What I'm trying to do Joshua, in my book, is deepen the conversation with some questions that perhaps haven't been asked and with some child-honouring perspective that I think society ought to take very seriously.
Without it, I think we're failing our kids. You know you would never open your front door to every single person in the community, you just wouldn't because you know that that wouldn't be wise, there are strangers with all sorts of notions. So why would you inadvertently allow that to happen through the Internet for your child?