Vielmehr wird in der modernen Gesellschaft erwartet, dass man online präsent ist. Man braucht beispielsweise immer häufiger ein Online-Profil, um sich auf eine Stelle zu bewerben. Andernfalls kann man praktisch nicht am modernen Leben teilhaben.

Acknowlegement This study was funded by Public Safety Canada. Start of text box Overview of the study Using multiple surveys, this article examines cyberbullying and cybervictimization among Canadian youth and young adults aged 12 to 29. With rates of online and social media use being high among young people, there is an increased risk of online forms of bullying and victimization. This paper examines the prevalence of cyberbullying and cybervictimization among young people, with a focus on identifying the at-risk populations, behaviours related to prevalence, such as internet and smart phone usage, and the association of online victimization with other forms of victimization, such as fraud and assault. Some young people are more vulnerable to cybervictimization, including Indigenous youth, sexually diverse and non-binary youth, youth with a disability, and girls and women.  Cybervictimization increases during adolescence and remains high among young adults in their early 20s. It then tapers off in the late 20s. Increased internet usage, as well as using smart phones before bed and upon waking, are associated with an increased risk of being cyberbullied. For youth aged 12 to 17, not using devices at mealtime, having parents who often know what their teens are doing online, and having less difficulty making friends act as potential buffers against cybervictimization. Cybervictimized young adults often change their behaviour, both online—from blocking people and restricting their own access—and offline—such as carrying something for protection. Cybervictimized young adults were also more likely to have experienced other forms of victimization such as being stalked and being physically or sexually assaulted. End of text box Introduction Internet use is now woven into the fabric of Canadian society. It has become a large part of everyday life, whether it is in the context of online learning, remote working, accessing information, e-commerce, obtaining services (including healthcare), streaming entertainment, or socializing. And while nearly all Canadians use the internet to some degree, Canadians under 30 represent the first generation born into a society where internet use was already ubiquitous. As such, it may not be surprising that Canadians under the age of 30 are more likely to be advanced users of the internet, compared to older generations.Note   In addition, they often spend many hours on the internet, with this usage increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic, more so than any other age group.Note  Besides proficiency and intensity, the way in which young people interact with the internet is often different from older generations. Previous Statistics Canada research has shown that younger people are more likely than their older counterparts to use social media, more likely to use multiple social media apps, and engage in more activities on these apps.Note  This use has been related to some negative outcomes for younger people, including lost sleep and trouble concentrating.Note  Social media and online activities may also place youth and young people at increased risk of cybervictimization or cyberbullying. Numerous studies have investigated both the prevalence and impact of cybervictimization, noting that youth are often at increased risk.Note   While comparisons across studies are often difficult because of definitional differences, ages of the youth being studied, and the time frames, there is consensus on the criteria for measuring cybervictimization. These include (1) intentions to harm the victim, (2) power imbalance between the bully and victim, (3) the repeated nature of aggression, (4) use of electronic devices (including phones or computers), and (5) possible anonymity.Note  This article examines cyberbullying among youth and young adults aged 12 to 29 in Canada using four population-based surveys. The Canadian Health Survey of Children and Youth (CHSCY) collects information on cyberbullying among youth aged 12 to 17, while three surveys capture this information for adults aged 18 to 29. These surveys include the Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS), the General Social Survey (GSS-Cycle 34) on Victimization and the Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS). Each will be used to help paint a picture of cyberbullying of younger people in Canada.Note  Definitions and measures of cyberbullying within each of the surveys are detailed in “Cyberbullying content across four Statistics Canada surveys” text box. The study starts by discussing the prevalence of, and risk factors associated with, cyberbullying among teens aged 12 to 17. This is followed by an analysis of cyberbullying among young adults aged 18 to 29. Along with providing a profile of cyberbullying, another goal is to highlight data and knowledge gaps in this area and potential areas where future surveys and research should focus. One-quarter of teens experience cyberbullying In 2019, one in four teens (25%) aged 12 to 17 reported experiencing cyberbullying in the previous year (Chart 1). Being threatened or insulted online or by text messages was the most common form, at 16%. This was followed by being excluded from an online community (13%) and having hurtful information posted on the internet (9%).   Among those aged 12 to 17, rates of cyberbullying increased with age, rising from 20% at age 12 to 27% by age 17. This perhaps reflects an increased use of the internet, and specifically social media usage with age. The largest increase in cyberbullying prevalence related to being threatened or insulted online or by text messages (from 11% at age 12 to 19% at age 17). Data table for Chart 1  Data table for chart 1 Table summary This table displays the results of Data table for chart 1 percentage (appearing as column headers). percentage Total youth aged 12 to 17 25 Hurtful information was posted on the internet 9 Excluded from an online community 13 Threatened/insulted online or by text messages 16 Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth, 2019. Besides age, the likelihood of being victimized online varied by gender, sexual attraction, Indigenous identity and educational accommodations.  Generally, boys and girls have quite similar prevalence of cybervictimization. For instance, about 1 in 4 (24% for boys and 25% for girls) reported that they experienced any of the three forms of cybervictimization. Non-binary teens, however, experienced cybervictimization at significantly higher levels than both boys and girls. Over half (52%) of teens who reported a gender other than male or female said that they were cybervictimized in the past year. The higher prevalence among non-binary teens was seen across all types of cybervictimization. The greatest difference, however, was seen for being excluded from an online community. The proportion of non-binary teens who reported this type of cybervictimization was about three and a half times the proportion recorded for boys and girls (45% versus 12% for boys and 13% for girls). In addition, youth aged 15 to 17Note  who identified as having the same gender attraction had a significantly higher likelihood of being cyberbullied (33%), compared to their peers who were exclusively attracted to a different gender (26%). This increased risk was seen for all types of cyberbullying but was most pronounced for hurtful information being posted on the internet and being excluded from an online community. First Nations youth (off-reserve) are at greater risk of cyberbullying First NationsNote  youth living off-reserve were more likely than their non-Indigenous peers to have been cyberbullied in the past year. In particular, 34% of First Nations youth reported being bullied online, compared to 24% of non-Indigenous youth. The risk was heightened for certain types of cyberbullying, including having hurtful information posted on the internet and being threatened/insulted online or by text messages. These higher levels of cybervictimization mirror the overall higher rates of victimization for Indigenous people, which could be rooted in the long-standing legacy of colonialism resulting in discrimination and systemic racismNote  (Table 1). No significant differences were observed for Inuit and Métis youth.Note   Most racialized groups had either similar or lower prevalence rates of cyberbullying compared to non-racialized and non-Indigenous youth. For example, 16% of the South Asian youth and 18% of Filipino youth said that they had experienced cyberbullying in the past year, much lower than the 27% of non-racialized, non-Indigenous youth who reported being victimized online. In addition, those born in Canada had a higher likelihood of cyberbullying, compared to the immigrant youth population (26% versus 19%). This was seen for all forms of online victimization. The differences in risk may be due to variations in frequency of going online. Indeed, previous research has shown that immigrants are less likely to be advanced users of the internet, and are more often non-users, basic users or intermediate users.Note     Table 1 Prevalence of cyberbullying among youth aged 12 to 17, by population group, 2019 Table summary This table displays the results of Prevalence of cyberbullying among youth aged 12 to 17. The information is grouped by Population Subgroups, ages 12 to 17 (appearing as row headers), Types of cyberbullying, Hurtful information was posted on the internet, Threatened/insulted online or by text messages, Excluded from an online community and Any of the 3 types of cyberbullying, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers). Population group Types of cyberbullying Hurtful information was posted on the internet Threatened/insulted online or by text messages Excluded from an online community Any of the 3 types of cyberbullying percentage Gender Boys (ref.) 7 16 12 24 Girls 10 16 13 25 Non-binary 30Note E: Use with cautionNote * 34Note E: Use with cautionNote * 45Note E: Use with cautionNote * 52Note E: Use with cautionNote * Indigenous identity First Nations 14Note E: Use with caution 23Note * 16Note E: Use with caution 34Note * Métis 12Note E: Use with caution 20 13Note E: Use with caution 30 Inuit 14Note E: Use with caution 30Note E: Use with caution Note F: too unreliable to be published 36Note E: Use with caution Non-Indigenous (ref.) 8 16 13 24 Racialized group Black 8 16 12 24 Chinese 7 11Note * 12 22 Filipino 10 10Note * 7Note * 18Note * South Asian 5Note * 9Note * 9Note * 16Note * Not part of a racialized group (ref.) 9 18 14 27 Country of Birth Canada (ref.) 9 17 14 26 Outside Canada 5Note * 11Note * 10Note * 19Note * Gender attractionTable 1 Note 1 Same gender (ref.) 15 22 17 33 Opposite gender 9Note * 18 13Note * 26Note * Youth has an education accomodation Yes 11Note * 19Note * 15 27Note * No (ref.) 7 14 12 23 Don't know 12Note * 19Note * 15 29Note * E use with caution F too unreliable to be published Note 1 Only asked of youth aged 15 to 17. Return to note 1 referrer Note * significantly different from the reference category (ref.) (p<0.05) Return to note * referrer Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Health Survey of Children and Youth, 2019. Higher likelihood of cyberbullying among youth with education accommodation Based on results from CHSCY, having an education accommodation, such as an Individual Education Plan (IEP), Special Education Plan (SEP) or Inclusion and Intervention Plan (IIP), places youth at increased risk of cyberbullying. Overall, 27% of youth with some type of education accommodation for learning exceptionalities or special education needs were bullied online, compared to 23% of their peers without accommodation. The risk was greatest when the cyberbullying incidents involved hurtful information being posted on the internet or being threatened or insulted online or by text messages. The increased risk of cyberbullying among those with an education accommodation peaks at age 16, with 36% of 16 year-olds with an educational accommodation reporting being cyberbullied compared with 24% of youth without an accommodation.Note  Frequent use of social media tied to higher prevalence of cyberbullying among youth Because of the potential negative impacts of cyberbullying, including the effects on mental wellbeing, it is important to understand the factors that can expose youth to online harm. One of these possible factors relates to the frequency of online activity. The CHSCY asked youth how often they go online for social networking, video/instant messaging, and online gaming. The majority (about 80%) said that went online at least weekly, with 60% saying they went on social network platforms several times a day, and just over 50% reporting that they used video or instant messenger apps at this same level of frequency. About 1 in 3 (32%) teens said that they went online for gaming at least once a day or more. In general, results from CHSCY show that more frequent social networking, instant messaging use and online gaming had a strong association with an increased risk of cybervictimization. For instance, among youth who stated that they constantly use social networking, video and instant messaging or online gaming, about one-third (34%, 36% or 30% respectively) said that they had been cyberbullied in the past year. Conversely, the proportion reporting cybervictimization drops to around 20% when social networking and video and instant messaging was used less than once a week (22%, 22%, and 24% respectively). The risk decreases even further to less than 15% when youth never utilized social networking or video and instant messaging apps (Table 2).  Table 2 Prevalence of cyberbullying among youth aged 12 to 17, by frequency of social media use and gender, 2019 Table summary This table displays the results of Prevalence of cyberbullying among youth aged 12 to 17. The information is grouped by Frequency of social media use (appearing as row headers), Proportion cyberbullied in past year, by gender, Total, Boys, Girls, Social networking , Video or instant messaging and Online Gaming , calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers). Frequency of social media use Proportion cyberbullied in past year Total Boys Girls Social networking Video or instant messaging Online Gaming Social networking Video or instant messaging Online Gaming Social networking Video or instant messaging Online Gaming percentage Constantly 34Note * 36Note * 30 33Note * 32Note * 30 34Note * 38Note * 28 Several times a day 27Note * 27Note * 30 26 27 30 27Note * 27Note * 29 Once a day (ref.) 21 23 27 22 25 26 20 20 29 Weekly 27 24 24 30 27 23 21 21 27 Less than weekly 22 20 24 22 21 19Note * 21 17 29Table 2 Note † Never 12Note * 14Note * 22Note * 14Note * 15Note * 15Note * 9Note * 13Note * 24Table 2 Note † Note † significant gender difference (p < 0.05) Return to note † referrer Note * significantly different from reference category (ref.) (p < 0.05) Return to note * referrer Note: Due to sample size limitations, the non-binary category is not releasable. Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Health Survey of Children and Youth, 2019. No gender differences were found between social media, video or instant messaging use and cybervictimization.Note   For instance, for both boys and girls, the proportion who said they were cybervictimized in the past year was over 30% if they constantly checked their social networking and instant messaging applications, with the risk decreasing similarly with lower levels of use. The risk of cybervictimization increases with age, from 12 to 17, mirroring the increased frequency in the use of social networking, video and instant messaging as youth age. Going online more frequently had the same impact on the cybervictimization risk for Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth. That is, going on social media more frequently increased the risk to the same extent for both Indigenous youth and non-Indigenous youth. However, this was not the case for all youth. For instance, the risk associated with more frequent social media and gaming use was greater for non-racialized youth than it was for racialized youth. Cyberbullying is sometimes related to usage patterns of electronic devices In addition to frequency of use, usage pattern of electronic devices may also be related to risk. Among youth aged 12 to 17, three-quarters (75%) used an electronic device before falling asleep in the past week. This usage pattern rises from a low of 54% at age 12 to a high of 92% by age 17. Using electronic devices before going to sleep appears to increase the risk of being cyberbullied. About 27% of youth that used their electronic device before going to sleep were cyberbullied in the past year, compared to 19% who had not used their device before going to sleep. The increased risk was most often related to being threatened or insulted online or by text messages (18% versus 11% who had not used a device before going to sleep) (Chart 2). Data table for Chart 2  Data table for chart 2 Table summary This table displays the results of Data table for chart 2 Yes, a device was used and No, a device was not used (ref.), calculated using percentage units of measure (appearing as column headers). Yes, a device was used No, a device was not used (ref.) percentage Total youth aged 12 to 17 27Note * 19 Hurtful information was posted on the internet 10Note * 5 Threatened/insulted online or by text messages 18Note * 11 Excluded from an online community 14Note * 10 Note * significantly different from the reference category (ref.) (p<0.05) Return to note * referrer Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Health Survey of Children and Youth, 2019. Use of electronic devices before going to sleep and risk of cybervictimization is fairly constant across age, but appears to be highest at age 15, where 31% had been cybervictimized in the past year. This proportion falls to 16% if they did not use their device before bedtime. Results suggest that parents may, in some cases, serve as protective agents, by not allowing electronic devices at the dinner table and having a greater knowledge of what their teens are doing online. For most youth (71%), parents did not allow electronic devices during the evening meal. However, 21% of youth said that their parents allowed electronic devices at the evening meal and another 7% said that their family does not eat together. The association with cybervictimization, especially being threatened or insulted online or by text messages, increases if electronic devices were allowed at dinner (18% versus 15%). However, there are no differences with respect to other types of cybervictimization. The real risk of cybervictimization is not whether a device was used, but whether the family ate together, which can be influenced by financial or other circumstances, such as work schedules or extracurricular activities.  Across all types of cybervictimization, 35% of youth who had not eaten dinner with parents reported that they had been cybervictimized in the past year, significantly greater than the 26% of youth who said that electronic devices were allowed at the evening meal, and the 23% who said that electronic devices were not allowed. This risk is strongest for ages 12 and 16. Parents’ knowledge of youth’s online activities may help lower the association with cybervictimization. Most Canadian youth who go online have some types of rules or guidelines established by their parents, which is usually more stringent for younger children and is typically relaxed as they age and gain more trust.Note  In 2019, the proportion who stated that their parents often or always know what they are doing online was quite high. In all, 63% stated this level of parental knowledge, while another 37% said that their parents never or only sometimes knew what they were doing online. Parental knowledge about online activity declines with age. At age 12, 77% of youth state that their parents often or always know what they are doing online, which drops to 51% by age 16 and to 49% by age 17. As may be expected, increased parental knowledge of teen’s online activity was associated with a lower risk of cybervictimization (Chart 3). In particular, close to a third of youth (29%) who said their parents never or only sometimes knew about their online activities reported that they had been cybervictimized. This proportion drops to 22% when parents often or always knew what their teen was doing online. A similar pattern is noted regardless of type of cybervictimization experienced. Data table for Chart 3  Data table for chart 3 Table summary This table displays the results of Data table for chart 3 Parents never or sometimes know online activity and Parents often or always know online activity (ref.), calculated using percentage units of measure (appearing as column headers). Parents never or sometimes know online activity Parents often or always know online activity (ref.) percentage Total youth aged 12 to 17 29Note * 22 Hurtful information was posted on the internet 12Note * 7 Threatened/insulted online or by text messages 20Note * 13 Excluded from an online community 15Note * 12 Note * significantly different from the reference category (ref.) (p<0.05) Return to note * referrer Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Health Survey of Children and Youth, 2019. Youth who have difficulty making friends are most vulnerable to online victimization Based on previous research,Note  knowing more people and having more friends, especially close friends can perhaps shield youth from being victimized, and if they are victimized, having friends can perhaps offset some of the negative impacts. Therefore, it is expected that individuals who have a difficult time making friends may be at greater risk of being victims of cyberbullying, as the person or persons victimizing them may believe them to be easier targets of abuse. In general, across all youth aged 12 to 17, most do not have any difficulty making friends, based on responses from parents. Just over 80% of parents reported that their teen had no difficulty in making friends, while 15% said that their teen had some difficulty and around 4% said that they had a lot of difficulty or could not do it at all. Across individual ages, these proportions are similar. Also, boys and girls have very similar patterns of ease of making friends (parents of around 80% of both boys and girls said that they had no difficulty making friends).Note  It bears mentioning that these are parents’ reports about their child’s purported difficulty making friends and therefore may not be the most accurate. Parents may not be fully aware of how well their child develops friendships, as this information may be intentionally hidden from them. With respect to cybervictimization, teens that have greater difficulty making friends have a greater risk of being cybervictimized than their peers without any difficulty. For example, 23% of youth whose parents said they have no difficulty making friends reported that they had been victims of cyberbullying in the past year.  This proportion climbs 12 percentage points to 35% if teens had a lot of difficulty or were unable to make friends (Table 3). A similar pattern was observed regardless of the type of cyberbullying. The relationship between the ease of making friends and cyberbullying was seen across all ages, though the gap appears to be greatest at age 16. For example, almost half (44%) of 16-year-old teens who had trouble forming friendship were cyberbullied, compared with 24% who had no difficulty making friends. Girls were especially vulnerable to cyberbullying when they had trouble making friends.Note  Overall, 40% of girls whose parents said had a lot of difficulty making friends, or were unable to do so, were cybervictimized. This compares to 23% of girls who had no difficulty making friends. The corresponding difference for boys was much lower, with 28% being cyberbullied if they had trouble making friends and 23% without any difficulty.  Table 3 Prevalence of cyberbullying among youth aged 12 to 17, by ease of developing friendships, 2019 Table summary This table displays the results of Prevalence of cyberbullying among youth aged 12 to 17. The information is grouped by Cyberbullying type, age and gender (appearing as row headers), Difficulty making friends, No difficulty (ref.), Some difficulty and A lot of difficulty /Cannot make friends, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers). Cyberbullying type, age and gender Difficulty making friendsTable 3 Note 1 No difficulty (ref.) Some difficulty A lot of difficulty or Cannot make friends percentage Total youth aged 12 to 17 23 32Note * 35Note * Type of cyberbullying Hurtful information was posted on the internet 7 14Note * 15Note * Threatened/insulted online or by text messages 15 22Note * 22Note * Excluded from an online community 12 18Note * 24Note * Age 12 years 18 27Note * 29 13 years 21 32Note * 32 14 years 22 28 39 15 years 27 32 28 16 years 24 35Note * 44Note * 17 years 24 40Note * 39 Gender Boys 23 29Note * 28 Girls 23 35Note * 39Note * Note 1 Based on responses from parents. Return to note 1 referrer Note * significantly different from reference category (ref.) (p < 0.05) Return to note * referrer Note: Due to sample size limitations, the non-binary category is not releasable. Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Health Survey of Children and Youth, 2019. Young adults: Women and young adults most often the target of cybervictimization The remainder of the study examines the patterns of cybervictimization among young adults aged 18 to 29.  To understand cyberbullying among this age group, three population-based surveys were used. These complementary surveys, while differing in survey design and measurement, shed light on the nature of cyberbullying and the young people most at risk. According to the 2018 SSPPS, 25% of young people aged 18 to 29 experienced some form of cybervictimization, with the most common being receiving unwanted sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages (15%) and aggressive or threatening emails, social media or text messages (13%) (Table 4). Young women were more often the target of the online abuse, with a prevalence almost double the rate for young men (32% versus 17%). This gender difference was even more pronounced for receiving unwanted sexually suggestive or explicit material, where young women were almost three times as likely to be targeted (22% versus 8%).Note   Therefore, the main gender differences appear to be with respect to cybervictimization of a sexualized nature, as there were no differences between men and women on solely aggressive content without sexual content.Note   Table 4 Prevalence of cybervictimization among young people aged 18 to 29, by age group, gender and type of cybervictimization, 2018 Table summary This table displays the results of Prevalence of cybervictimization among young people aged 18 to 29. The information is grouped by Type of cybervictimization (appearing as row headers), Total, Men, Women, Overall, 18-21 (ref.), 22-25 and 26-29, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers). Type of cybervictimization Total Men Women Young people aged 18 to 29 18 to 21 years (ref.) 22 to 25 years 26 to 29 years Young people aged 18 to 29 18 to 21 years (ref.) 22 to 25 years 26 to 29 years Young people aged 18 to 29 18 to 21 years (ref.) 22 to 25 years 26 to 29 years percentage Total 25 31 25 19Note * 17 25 16 13Note * 32Table 4 Note † 38Table 4 Note † 34Table 4 Note † 26Table 4 Note †Note * Received any threatening or aggressive emails, social media messages or text messages where you were the only recipient 13 14 13 11 9 12 8 8 16Table 4 Note † 17 18Table 4 Note † 14 You were the target of threatening or aggressive comments spread through group emails, group text messages or postings on social media 6 6 7 6 5 7 5 4 8 6 9 7 Somone posted or distributed (or threatened to) intimate or sexually explicit videos or images of you without your consent 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 5 3 Someone pressured you to send, share, or post sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages 6 10 5Note * 4Note * 3 5 3 3 9Table 4 Note † 16Table 4 Note † 8Table 4 Note †Note * 6Note * Someone sent you sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages when you did not want to receive them 15 20 17 10Note * 8 13 8 5Note * 22Table 4 Note † 27Table 4 Note † 26Table 4 Note † 16Table 4 Note †Note * Note † significant gender difference for a particular group (p < 0.05) Return to note † referrer Note * significantly different from reference category (ref.) (p < 0.05) Return to note * referrer Note: Due to sample size limitations, the non-binary category is not releasable. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces, 2018. For some types of cybervictimization, there was a significantly greater risk for young adults aged 18 to 21, as compared with young adults aged 26 to 29. For instance, about 20% of young adults aged 18 to 21 reported receiving unwanted sexually suggestive or explicit images or messeges in the last year, double the 10% of young adults aged 26 to 29 who said they also received these types of unwanted images or messages. Young adults aged 18 to 21 were also twice as likely to report being pressured to send, share or post sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages (10%) than their older counterparts (5% for ages 22 to 25 and 4% for ages 26 to 29). The relationship between cybervictimization and age is similar for both men and women, though rates are always higher for women. Both men and women have about a 12-percentage point gap between ages 18 and 21 and 26 and 29 in experiencing any of the five forms of cybervictimization in the past year (25% versus 13% for men, 38% versus 26% for women). With respect to the individual forms of cybervictimization, the largest decreases by age group related to sexual victimization, especially for women. For example, for women, there was about a 10-percentage point decline from age 18-21 to age 26-29 on being pressured to send, share or post sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages (16% to 6%) and receiving unwanted sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages (27% to 16%). Greater risk of cybervictimization among LGBTQ2 young adults Data from the SSPPS also show that LGBTQ2Note  young adults were more likely than their non-LGBTQ2 counterparts to have experienced cybervictimization (49% versus 23%).Note ,Note  Moreover, the decrease in the risk of cybervictimization across age groups is not seen among the LGBTQ2 population. That is, the proportion experiencing cybervictimization at ages 18 to 21 and late 20s is similar for LGBTQ2 adults, whereas the prevalence of cyberbullying among non-LGBTQ2 young adults declines by about half between the same ages (30% at age 18 to 21 to 18% at ages 26 to 29). Interestingly, among the LGBTQ2 population, the age group with the highest rates of cybervictimization are young adults aged 22 to 25 (at 58%).  This is a rare instance of a nonlinear age trend with respect to cybervictimization declining from age 18 to age 29.Note  First Nations young adults are more frequently the victims of cyberbullying Almost half (46%) of First Nations young people living off-reserve had experienced some form of cyberbullying in the preceding year. This was nearly double the share of non-Indigenous young adults (26%). There was no increased risk among Métis or Inuit young people.Note  Among racialized groups, the likelihood of being cyberbullied was similar to the non-racialized, non-Indigenous population. There was also no difference in risk by immigrant status.  Table 5 Prevalence of cybervictimization among young people aged 18 to 29, by selected characteristics, 2018 Table summary This table displays the results of Prevalence of cybervictimization among young people aged 18 to 29. The information is grouped by Selected characteristics (appearing as row headers), Percent (appearing as column headers). Selected characteristics percentage Total 25 Gender Men (ref.) 17 Women 32Note * Racialized population Black 23 Chinese 19 Filipino 16 South Asian 18 Non-racialized (ref.) 27 Immigrant status Immigrant (ref.) 20 Canadian-born 27 Indigenous identity First Nations 46Note * Métis 31 Inuit 13 Non-Indigenous (ref.) 26 Disability No 17Note * Yes (ref.) 39 Sexual/gender diversity LGBTQ2 (ref.) 49 Non-LGBTQ2 23Note * Note * significantly different from reference category (ref.) (p < 0.05) Return to note * referrer Note: Due to sample size limitations, the non-binary category is not releasable. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces, 2018. Young adults with a disability are more often targeted Young adults aged 18 to 29 with a disabilityNote  were significantly more likely to report that they were cybervictimized in the past year. Across all forms of cybervictimization measured in the SSPPS, 39% of young adults with a disability reported having experienced cyberbullying in the past year, compared with 17% of the nondisabled young adult population (Table 5).Note  The SSPPS also allows for the examination of gender differences among young men and women with a disability. Almost half (46%) of women with a disability had experienced cybervictimization in the past year, much higher than the 22% of women without a disability. The difference for men was less marked. In 2018, 27% of men with a disability were targeted online, compared to 14% of other young men. The severity of the disability also appears to heighten risk. Based on the SSPPS, 56% of young adults with a severe to very severe disability stated that they had been cybervictimized in the past year, while 46% with moderate disability and 34% of those with a mild disability stated the same. This compares to 17% of young adults without a disability that experienced cybervictimization in the past year.Note  Frequent smart phone use is related to cybervictimization Being continually connected to the Internet is common among young adults aged 18 to 29, though this may place them at increased risk. Over half (55%) checked their smart phone at least every 15 to 30 minutes, with another one-third (30%) checking their smart phone at least once per hour on a typical day. Heavy cell phone use, defined as checking at least every 5 minutes, was the least common, with 15% of youth falling into this category. However, heavy use was more prevalent in the younger age groups. In 2018, 17% of young adults aged 18 to 20 were heavy users, falling to 11% among those aged 27 to 29. The majority, around three quarters, of young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 also stated that the last thing they do before going to sleep is check their phones, and a similar percentage stated that they do this again first thing upon waking up. The rates of checking before bed and upon waking are very similar regardless of gender and age. About 4 out of 5 (82%) young adults aged 18 to 20 checked their phones when waking up, and 71% of young adults aged 27 to 29 did the same. This difference, however, was not statistically significant. A pattern, albeit weak, emerges showing that more frequent smart phone use is associated with more online victimization. Based on data from the CIUS, 15% of young adults who used their smart phone at least every 5 minutes said that they had been cybervictimized in the past year. This was double (statistically significant at the p < 0.10 level) the rate of young adults who checked their phone less often (7%)Note . There were no significant differences on whether one used the smart phone before going to bed or after waking up and cybervictimization in the past year. While a direct comparison cannot be made with the data from the CHSCY on ages 12 to 17 presented earlier, it is interesting to note that among 12-to-17-year-olds there was a significant association between using one’s electronic device at bedtime and risk of cybervictimization, with a higher risk noted especially for teens age 12 and age 15. Using protective measures online is more common among younger women Being victimized online can also lead people to pull back from social media and other online activities. For example, information from the SSPPS shows that about 22% of young adults aged 18 to 29 said that in the past year, they blocked people on the internet because of harassment, while 13% said they restricted their access to the internet to protect themselves from harassment. A further 3% deleted their online account because of harassment. Young women were twice as likely as young men to block people because of harassment (31% versus 13%) and to restrict their own access (17% versus 10%) (Chart 4). These gender differences may be driven by the higher overall cybervictimization rates for women.Note  Data table for Chart 4  Data table for chart 4 Table summary This table displays the results of Data table for chart 4 Men, Women, Young people aged 18 to 29, 18 to 21 years, 22 to 25 years and 26 to 29 years, calculated using percentage units of measure (appearing as column headers). Men Women Young people aged 18 to 29 18 to 21 years 22 to 25 years 26 to 29 years Young people aged 18 to 29 18 to 21 years 22 to 25 years 26 to 29 years percentage Blocked people because of harassment 13Note * 15Note * 13Note * 11Note * 31 35 33 27 Restricted own access to protect self 10Note * 7Note * 10Note * 11 17 14 20 17 Deleted online account because of harassment 3 2 3 2 4 4 5 4 Note * significant difference (p < 0.05) between men and women for a particular age group. Return to note * referrer Note: Due to sample size limitations, the non-binary category is not releasable. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), 2018. Limiting online activities as a response to cybervictimization is not surprising. Results from the GSS show a strong association between being victimized online and taking other precautions for one’s safety beyond unplugging from the internet. For example, when asked if they do certain things routinely to make themselves safer from crime, young adults aged 18 to 29 who had been cybervictimized in the past year were much more likely to say that they carry something for defense, such as a whistle, a knife or pepper spray, compared with young adults who had not experienced online victimization (12% versus 3%).  Cybervictimization associated with other forms of victimization among young people There is often a strong association between different types of in-person victimization.Note  This is also the case for cybervictimization.  Young adults who have been cybervictimized were more likely to be victims of fraud, more likely to have been stalked and also more likely to have been physically or sexually assaulted in the past year. Data from the GSS showed a connection between cybervictimization and risk of fraud. For example, 17% of young adults who had been cybervictimized in the past year said that they had also been a victim of fraud in the past year, more than four times higher than young adults who had not experienced cybervictimization (4%).Note  Cybervictimization is also highly correlated with other forms of victimization and behaviour. For instance, information from the SSPPS shows that young adults who have experienced unwanted behaviours in public that made them feel unsafe or uncomfortable had also been victims of online harassment and bullying in the past year.Note  About 45% of young adults who had experienced such behaviours had been cybervictimized in the past year, compared with 11% who had not experienced such behaviours (Table 6). The relationship between online victimization and unwanted behaviours in public appears to be similar for men and women. In particular, 41% of men and 46% of women who had experienced unwanted behaviours in public had also been cybervictimized. This compares to around 10% of men and women who had not experienced such incidents.Note  Cybervictimization may manifest itself in real-world public encounters because victims of online abuse may be highly sensitized to possibly unsafe or uncomfortable situations in public, especially in instances where the identity of the online abuser is not known. For all they know, the person making them feel unsafe or uncomfortable in public might be the very same person harassing them online.  Table 6 Prevalence of cybervictimization among young people aged 18 to 29, by experiences of in-person victimization in the past 12 months and gender, 2018 Table summary This table displays the results of Prevalence of cybervictimization among young people aged 18 to 29. The information is grouped by Gender (appearing as row headers), Felt unsafe or uncomfortable in public, Stalked and Experienced physical/sexual assault (appearing as column headers). Gender Felt unsafe or uncomfortable in publicTable 6 Note 1 StalkedTable 6 Note 2 Experienced physical/sexual assault Table 6 Note 3 Yes (ref.) No Yes (ref.) No None (ref.) One incident Two or more incidents percentage Total young people aged 18 to 29 45 10Note * 67 22Note * 21 54Note * 64Note * Men 41 10Note * 57 16Note * 15 44Note * 54Note * Women 46 11Note * 72 29Note * 27 62Note * 70Note * Note * significantly different from reference category (ref.) (p < 0.05) Return to note * referrer Note 1 Respondents were asked: Thinking about time you spent in public spaces in the past 12 months, how many times has anyone made you feel unsafe or uncomfortable by doing any of the following? Making unwanted physical contact, such as hugs or shoulder rubs or getting too close to you in a sexual manner. Indecently exposing themselves to you or inappropriately displaying any body parts to you in a sexual manner. Making unwanted comments that you do not look or act like a [man/woman/man or woman] is supposed to look or act. Making unwanted comments about your sexual orientation or assumed sexual orientation. Giving you unwanted sexual attention, such as inappropriate comments, whistles, calls, suggestive looks, gestures, or body language. Return to note 1 referrer Note 2 Respondents were asked: In the past 12 months, have you been stalked, that is, have you been the subject of repeated and unwanted attention, by someone other than a current or former spouse, common-law partner or dating partner. Return to note 2 referrer Note 3 Respondents are asked if the following incidents happened to them in the past 12 months (excluding acts committed by a current or previous spouse, common-law partner or dating partner): a. been attacked, b. anyone threatened to hit or attack you or threatened you with a weapon, c. has someone touch them in a sexual way against their will, d. has someone forced or attempted to force them into unwanted sexual activity by threatening them, holding them down or hurting them in some way, e. has anyone subjected you to a sexual activity to which you were not able to consent, that is, were you drugged, intoxicated, manipulated or forced in other ways than physically. Respondents are then asked if these things happened in one incident or more than one incident. Return to note 3 referrer Note: Due to sample size limitations, the non-binary category is not releasable. Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces, 2018. According to the SSPPS, young adults who have been stalked in the past year have also been victims of online bullying and harassment in the past year.Note   For instance, 67% of young adults who stated that they had been stalked in the past year also stated that they had been cybervictimized in the past 12 months, three times higher than young adults who had not been stalked in the past year (22%). The relationship is similar for both men and women, with over 72% of women and 57% of men who had been stalked also stating that they had been cybervictimized. Being a victim of stalking is more prevalent among women in general, as 32% of women stated they had been stalked, significantly greater than the 17% of men who stated that they had been stalked.Note  A connection between online victimization and physical and sexual assaults also exists.Note  Overall, among victims of physical and sexual assault, the proportion that said they were also cybervictimized was very high. In 2018, 54% of physical or sexual assault victims reported being cybervictimized, climbing to 64% if young people had experienced two or more incidents of physical or sexual assault. The strong association is present for both young adult men and women, with consistently higher prevalence for women regardless of number of physical or sexual assaults. Perpetrators of online victimization are most often men and known to the victim An important area of research on cybervictimization that is often lacking relates to the gender of the offender and the relationship between the offender and the victim. Using the SSPPS, it is possible to understand the characteristics of the perpetrator in cybervictimization incidents (Chart 5). About two-thirds (64%) of young adults who had been cybervictimized stated that a man (or men) was responsible, while 19% said it was a woman (or women), 4% said that it was both, and 13% did not know the gender of their online attacker. This general pattern was similar regardless of gender of the victim, though for women victims, the perpetrator was much more likely to be a man (or men). For instance, 73% of women who had been victimized stated that their offender(s) was (were) a man/men, while 13% stated that it was a woman or women. In contrast, 45% of men said that it was a man (or men) that was responsible, while 31% stated that their offender(s) was a woman or women. At the same time, 19% of men and 11% of women did not know the gender of their online offender.Note  Data table for Chart 5  Data table for chart 5 Table summary This table displays the results of Data table for chart 5 Total, Gender of victim, Male victim (ref.) and Female victim, calculated using percentage units of measure (appearing as column headers). Total Gender of victim Male victim (ref.) Female victim percentage Male offender 64 45 73Note * Female offender 19 31 13Note * Both male and female offenders 4 6 3 Don’t know 13 19 11 Note * significantly different from reference category (ref.) (p < 0.05) Return to note * referrer Note: Due to sample size limitations, the non-binary category is not releasable. Source: Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), 2018. The SSPPS also has information on the relationship of the offender and victim for the most serious incident of inappropriate online behaviour (combining single and multiple offender incidents). The most common offenders, at 55%, were offenders known to the victim, including friends, neighbours, acquaintances, teachers, professors, managers, co-workers, and classmates, as well as family members or current or former partners including spouses, common-law partners or dating partners. Meanwhile, 45% were offenders who were not known to the victim, including strangers or persons known by sight only. Thus, results show that the perpetrator was known to the victim in more than 50% of cases, regardless of the gender of the victim. Based on the SSPPS, 53% of men victims and 56% of women victims knew the person victimizing them online.  Conclusion Internet and smart phone use among youth and young adults in Canada is at a very high level, particularly since the pandemic. It is a tether to the outside world, allowing communication with one another, expanding knowledge, and being entertained. It is this importance and pervasiveness that makes it particularly challenging when there are risks of online victimization. A goal of this study was to highlight the current state of cybervictimization among Canadian youth and young adults aged 12 to 29. Four separate surveys were used to paint a picture of who is most at risk of cybervictimization, how online and offline behaviours may contribute to this association, and the association with other forms of victimization. Based on the analysis of the data, there are five key messages related to cybervictimization of youth and young adults: Not all youth and young adults experience cybervictimization equally.  Those that are most vulnerable to online harm were youth aged 15 -17 with same-gender attraction or, more broadly, LGBTQ2 young adults aged 18-29, youth and young adults with a disability, Indigenous youth, and young adult women when the cybervictimization measures were more of a sexual nature. Cybervictimization increases during adolescence and remains high among young adults in their early 20s. The risk drops somewhat as young adults approach age 30. This age pattern was found using two surveys that allowed for prevalence estimates by smaller age groupings (CHSCY and SSPPS). The prevalence estimates were not completely comparable across ages 12 to 29, but the pattern remained. Greater internet use, as well as using devices at bedtime and upon waking up was associated with being cybervictimized. Potential buffers of this connection especially for the teenage population (ages 12-17) were not using devices at mealtime, having parents who often know what their teens were doing online, and having less difficulty making friends. Taking action to make themselves safer was seen for youth and young adults who have been cybervictimized. This included blocking people online, restricting their own internet access, and carrying something for protection when offline. Experiencing other forms of victimization was more common among those who were cybervictimized. This includes being stalked and being physically or sexually assaulted, and experiencing other types of unwanted behaviours in public. The benefits of the internet for the youth and young adult population are numerous, however, as this study has illustrated, there are certain risks associated with the anonymity and widespread exposure to many unknown factors while online. Knowing the socio-demographic factors and internet use patterns associated with cybervictimization can help tailor interventions to better prevent and respond to cybervictimization. Future analytical work should continue to better understand online victimization faced by youth and young adults. Darcy Hango is a senior researcher with Insights on Canadian Society at Statistics Canada. Start of text box Data sources, methods and definitions Four surveys are used in this paper: (1) Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth (CHSCY), 2019; (2) Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS),2018-2019; (3) General Social Survey GSS on Victimization (cycle 34): 2019-2020, and (4) Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS): 2018. The analysis is split into 2 separate broad age groups: ages 12 to 17 is examined using the CHSCY, and ages 18 to 29 is examined using the CIUS, the GSS, and the SSPPS. There remain data gaps in cybervictimization. For instance, there is a need for more information on the perpetrators of cybervictimization. This may involve adding more follow-up questions on existing surveys, whether it is CHSCY or victimization surveys. Moreover, information on specific types of social media platforms, such as social networking sites, image-based sites and discussion forums would be helpful to pinpoint which applications are seeing the most incidents of cyberbullying. As internet use and potential harm is not restricted to people aged 12 and older, it would be critical to understand the prevalence and nature of cybervictimization for the youngest Canadians, those under the age of 12, recognizing that survey adaptation and ethical considerations would need to be considered. Lastly, certain population subgroups are more at risk of cybervictimization than others and the research for this study revealed that an inadequate sample size for some groups, such as Indigenous youth and young adults, as well as sexually and gender diverse youth and young adults, limits the ability to understand the dimensions of the issue for these populations. As such, it is necessary to consider oversampling certain groups to produce meaningful cybervictimization estimates. An additional concern, overarching many of the above issues, is the “digital divide”, particularly affecting communities in rural areas and the north. Recent statistics reveal that in 2017, 99% of Canadians had access to long term evolution (LTE) networks, though this was true for only about 63% of Northern residents.Note  The disparity in connectivity may have an adverse impact especially for the Indigenous population in terms of not only Indigenous youths’ underrepresentation in Canadian data on cyberbullying, but also digital literacy initiatives in Northern or in First Nations and Inuit communities. End of text box                                 Start of text box Cyberbullying content across four Statistics Canada surveys 1. Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth (CHSCY), youth aged 12 to 17 years, 2019 (data collection period between February and August 2019) During the past 12 months, how often did the following things happen to you? Someone posted hurtful information about you on the Internet Someone threatened or insulted you through email, instant messaging, text messaging or an online game Someone purposefully excluded you from an online community 2. Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS), people aged 15 years and older, 2018-2019 (data collection period between November 2018 and March 2019) Universe: Internet users in the past 3 months During the past 12 months, have you felt that you were a victim of any of the following incidents on the Internet? Did you experience? Bullying, harassment, discrimination Misuse of personal pictures, videos or other content Other incident 3. General Social Survey GSS on Victimization (cycle 34), people aged 15 years and older, 2019-2020 (data collection period between April 2019 and March 2020) Universe: Internet users in the past 12 months In the past 5 years, have you experienced any of the following types of cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying? This can be narrowed down to past year by the following question: “You indicated that you experienced some type of cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying in the past 5 years. Did any occur in the past 12 months?” You received threatening or aggressive emails or instant messages where you were the only recipient You were the target of threatening or aggressive comments spread through group emails, instant messages or postings on Internet sites Someone sent out or posted pictures that embarrassed you or made you feel threatened Someone used your identity to send out or post embarrassing or threatening information Any other type 4. Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces (SSPPS), people aged 15 years and older, 2018 (data collection period between April and December 2018) Universe: Internet users in the past 12 months Indicate how many times in the past 12 months you have experienced each of the following behaviours while online. You received any threatening or aggressive emails, social media messages, or text messages where you were the only recipient You were the target of threatening or aggressive comments spread through group emails, group text messages or postings on social media Someone posted or distributed, or threatened to post or distribute, intimate or sexually explicit videos or images of you without your consent Someone pressured you to send, share, or post sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages Someone sent you sexually suggestive or explicit images or messages when you did not want to receive them End of text box Notes Note Internet-use Typology of Canadians: Online Activities and Digital Skills Return to note  referrer Note See Bilodeau, Kehler, and Minnema 2021 Return to note  referrer Note Canadians’ assessments of social media in their lives Return to note  referrer Note Other concerns as a result of increased internet and/or smart phone usage such as lack of sleep and anxiety are important but are left for other research. A recent example is an article by Schimmele et al 2021. Return to note  referrer Note Because there are already very comprehensive reviews of the prevalence and consequences of cybervictimization in Canada and abroad this is not gone into detail here. Readers should consult Zych et al 2019 ; Field 2018 for reviews, and Kim et al 2017; Hango 2016; and Holfeld and Leadbeater 2015 for examples of recent research using Canadian data. Return to note  referrer Note See Field, 2018 Return to note  referrer Note All differences are significant at p <0.05 level, unless otherwise noted. Return to note  referrer Note Questions on sexual attraction were only asked for youth aged 15 to 17. Return to note  referrer Note The Indigenous population covered in this paper are from all provinces and territories. In both the CHSCY and the SSPPS samples were selected from across Canada. The samples do not include youth and young adults living on First Nations reserves and other Aboriginal settlements. Return to note  referrer Note See Perreault 2022 for recent research focused on exploring victimization trends among the Indigenous population in Canada. Return to note  referrer Note The sample size for Inuit youth was too small to detect significant differences between groups. Return to note  referrer Note Wavrock, Schellenberg, and Schimmele 2021. Return to note  referrer Note The analysis by age is not shown but is available upon request. Return to note  referrer Note Sample size was not sufficient to conduct analyses in this section separately for the gender diverse population. Return to note  referrer Note See MediaSmarts 2022. Return to note  referrer Note See for example, research by Bollmer et al 2005 and Kendrick et al 2012. Return to note  referrer Note Due to sample size limitations, analysis does not include gender diverse youth. Return to note  referrer Note Due to sample size limitations, analysis does not include gender diverse youth. Return to note  referrer Note Due to sample size limitations, analysis does not include gender diverse young adults. Return to note  referrer Note Among ages 12 to 17, there were no differences between boys and girls on cybervictimization because none of the measures explicitly asked whether the bullying was of a sexual nature. Some additional analysis on the SSPPS on ages 15 to 17 (available upon request), showed that teen girls did report a significantly higher probability than teen boys of experiencing the three cybervictimization forms that explicitly tapped into the sexualized nature of the abuse. There were no gender differences on the two measures that only asked about aggressive cybervictimization. Return to note  referrer Note Based on the SSPPS derived variable of ‘LGBTQ2’, which uses responses to sex at birth, gender, and sexual orientation. Return to note  referrer Note This aligns with other research on violent victimization among the LGBTQ population. See Jaffray 2020; Cotter and Savage 2019. Return to note  referrer Note In the GSS, LGBTQ2 young adults also reported a significantly higher probability of experiencing cybervictimization in the form of pictures that embarrassed or threatened them (4.4% versus 1%). Return to note  referrer Note These estimates are not presented in a table but are available upon request. Return to note  referrer Note The sample size for Inuit young adults was too small to detect significant differences between groups. Return to note  referrer Note A person is defined as having a disability if he or she has one or more of the following types of disability: seeing, hearing, mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain-related, learning, developmental, memory, mental health-related. Return to note  referrer Note In the GSS, a larger share of young adults with a disability also reported being cybervictimized via aggressive comments through email (4.3% versus 1.1%), and in CIUS, on any of the 3 types of cybervictimization measures (18.1% versus 7%). Return to note  referrer Note These results are not in a table and are available upon request. Based on the global severity score, severity classes were established. Severity scores increase with the number of disability types, the level of difficulty associated with the disability and the frequency of the activity limitation. The name assigned to each class is simply intended to facilitate use of the severity score. It is not a label or judgement concerning the person’s level of disability. The classes should be interpreted as follows: people in class 1 have a less severe disability than people in class 2; the latter have a less severe disability than people in class 3; and so on. For more information on severity scores and classes, please refer to the Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD), 2017: Concepts and Methods Guide. Return to note  referrer Note These proportions are not statistically different from each other due to high sampling variability. Return to note  referrer Note Recall that data from the SSPPS showed that 32% of young women said they were cybervictimized in the past year, compared with 17% of young men. Return to note  referrer Note See examples of some research that examines links between different types of victimization for example see Finkelhor et. al 2011; Turner et. al 2016; Waasdorp and Bradshaw 2015. Return to note  referrer Note Fraud in this case refers to having one’s personal information or account details used to obtain money or buy goods and services, having one’s personal information or account details used to create or access an account, apply for benefits, services or documents, and having been tricked or deceived out of money or goods either in person, by telephone or online. Return to note  referrer Note Respondents were asked: Thinking about time you spent in public spaces in the past 12 months, how many times has anyone made you feel unsafe or uncomfortable by doing any of the following? a. Making unwanted physical contact, such as hugs or shoulder rubs or getting too close to you in a sexual manner, b. Indecently exposing themselves to you or inappropriately displaying any body parts to you in a sexual manner, c. Making unwanted comments that you do not look or act like a (man/woman) is supposed to look or act, d. Making unwanted comments about your sexual orientation or assumed sexual orientation, or e. Giving you unwanted sexual attention, such as inappropriate comments, whistles, calls, suggestive looks, gestures, or body language. Return to note  referrer Note Due to sample size limitations, analysis does not include gender diverse young adults. Return to note  referrer Note Respondents were asked: In the past 12 months, have you been stalked, that is, have you been the subject of repeated and unwanted attention, by someone other than a current or former spouse, common-law partner or dating partner. Return to note  referrer Note These results are not shown in a table but are available upon request. Return to note  referrer Note In the SSPPS, respondents were asked if the following things happened to them in the past 12 months (excluding acts committed by a current or previous spouse, common-law partner or dating partner): a. been attacked, b. anyone threatened to hit or attack them or threatened them with a weapon, c. has someone touch them in a sexual way against their will, d. has someone forced or attempted to force them into unwanted sexual activity by threatening them, holding them down or hurting them in some way, e. has anyone subjected them to a sexual activity to which they were not able to consent, that is, were they drugged, intoxicated, manipulated or forced in other ways than physically. Respondents are then asked if these things happened in one incident or more than one incident. Return to note  referrer Note Due to sample size limitations, analysis does not include non-binary young adults. Return to note  referrer Note See CRTC Communications Monitoring Report, 2019. Return to note  referrer Related information Related Articles Bullying victimization among sexually and gender diverse youth in Canada Social Media Use, Connections and Relationships in Canadian Adolescents Findings from the 2018 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study Data sources Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces General Social Survey - Canadians' Safety Canadian Internet Use Survey Bibliographic references References How to cite this article  More information ISSN: 2291-0840 Note of appreciation Canada owes the success of its statistical system to a long-standing partnership between Statistics Canada, the citizens of Canada, its businesses, governments and other institutions. Accurate and timely statistical information could not be produced without their continued co-operation and goodwill. Standards of service to the public Statistics Canada is committed to serving its clients in a prompt, reliable and courteous manner. To this end, the Agency has developed standards of service which its employees observe in serving its clients. Copyright Published by authority of the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Industry, 2023 Use of this publication is governed by the Statistics Canada Open Licence Agreement. Catalogue no. 75-006-x Frequency: Occasional Ottawa Related infographics Cyberbullying among youth in Canada Cybervictimization among young adults in Canada Date modified: 2023-03-15

Instead of writing Eileen and Rhiannon's texts off as derivative, we began to see them as contributions to an ongoing, intertextual conversation about such issues as friendship, loyalty, power, and sexuality.

As a form, fanfictions make intertextuality visible because they rely on readers' ability to see relationships between the fan-writer's stories and the original media sources.

While the counters on these sites indicate that they did not receive many visits, Rhiannon did report that they were visited by friends she met online who lived as far away as North Carolina and New Mexico in the United States.

new tools for working with various modes of communication are producing a change in the way that young people are choosing to construct meaningful texts for themselves and others in their affinity spaces.

Because many young people growing up in a digital world will find their own reasons for becoming literate--reasons that go beyond reading and writing to acquire academic knowledge-it is important to remain open to changes in subject matter learning that will invite and extend the literacy practices they already possess and value.

In sum, these young people's penchant for creating online content that was easily distributed and used by others with similar interests was facilitated in part by their ability to remix multimodal texts, use new tools to show and tell, and rewrite their social identities.

The storylines through which young people exist in online spaces are highly social as are the literacy skills they employ.

I will not link to the photo here. Allow me my parental illusions of protection. I reprint it here on social media only in doctored form. I didn’t know what to use to cover her eyes.

Virtual shopping agent technology combines natural language processing with predictive analytics. This combination allows such systems to understand customer queries in natural languages while predicting future purchasing behaviour. The result is a more intuitive and efficient shopping experience that feels personal and responsive. Intelligent shopping bots represent the most advanced form of these systems. They can handle complex customer interactions, process multiple data points simultaneously, and learn from every interaction.

you've been doing it online have you found any difficulties translating on translating it to an online system

Welcome to Python Online Compiler!Key features:• Run Python code directly in your browser• Install packages with pip• Share your code with others• Multiple tabs for different files• Light and dark themes

Develop your group working skills

Jim Riegert, now in his 70s, remembers what it used to be like. "Back then, typewriters were pretty big. Typewriters and adding machines," he says, referring to desktop calculators. "It got really difficult in the typewriter business about 25 years ago," he says. "The internet was coming on and killing us, too." He runs Typewriters.com and, despite a decline in sales in recent decades, he still shifts four or five electric IBM typewriters every week.

Nate Fischer is a venture capitalist in Dallas whose current projects include a rural real estate development in Tennessee and Kentucky that he has marketed to conservatives. (Mr. Isker has said he planned to move there.) Mr. Fischer has been reading Mr. Renn’s work since around 2019. He asked Mr. Renn to have a drink with him in Manhattan when Mr. Fischer was there taking a weeklong course in “real world risk” organized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a thinker both he and Mr. Renn cite frequently.

All product listings should have proper details about the product ingredients, weight, size and nutritional information, helping the user to make an informed decision. Also, make sure the app has high quality images and availability status of the items, for achieving a transparent shopping experience.

when i hear that kids are on their phones all day, i know that their parents are too.

Transforming the Web: The End of Silos

the basic argument is that anytime people commun together for uh a long enough time things just get weird all the psychological issues start emerging um sociopaths start like messing things up and so it's going to be hard sense making what's happening and what's important if you're in a terrible community

The seamless running of an eCommerce company depends on effective control of stock levels. Through demand prediction, stock level optimization, and reordering process automation, artificial intelligence streamlines inventory control. AI-driven inventory systems examine consumer preferences, seasonal variations, and sales trends to guarantee that you always have the appropriate level of supply.

Advanced analytics Arc XP offers comprehensive analytics that enables companies to better target content and commerce for higher conversion rates, thereby understanding their audience.Although Arc XP Commerce is a great fit for businesses with complicated needs, it comes with high Arc XP pricing and calls for significant technical knowledge to run and maintain. Small and medium-sized companies with limited resources find this less ideal as a result.

“Very Small Online Platforms (VSOPs)”

The public’s attitudes diverge in similarways on some of the more severe behaviors in the scenario. Most prominently, 85% of Americansthink that Julie experiences online harassment when she begins to receive vulgar messages abouther looks and sexual behavior. But substantially fewer (although still a majority at 66%) think thatthe social media platform has an obligation to step in and address that behavior.

The public has a higher threshold for behaviors thatconstitute “online harassment” than for behaviors that necessitate a responsefrom social media platforms

Again,majorities agree that the platforms should step in to address behaviors such as threateningmessages.

ave found that online harassment is a common phenomenon in thedigital lives of many Americans, and that a majority of Americans feel harassment online is amajor problem.

As in traditional classroom presentations, there can alsobe requirements for other students to view, respond, andask questions of the presenter. A typical setup mightinclude a requirement that the presenting student postthe presentation on the weekend, that the class view thepresentation during the first half of the week, and post acomment or question by Wednesday. The presenter studentwould then need to return later in the week to respond tocomments and questions.

To be successful in this class, youwill need to log in at least three times per week to accesscourse materials and to participate actively in the class.

sample syllabus communication and engagementpolicy for an asynchronous online course, whichcommunicates an expectation for participation and thefoundation of a course architecture for engagement

face-to-face course syllabus does, butit must also set communication policies and expectationsfor online engagement as well as a course schedule thatoutlines the frequent and meaningful engagement andreflection required for students.

we suggest that well-established fundamentalsof online course design and facilitation still need to reachand be accepted by a broader audience within highereducation, and that lingering perceptions about qualitydifferences between face-to-face and online educationsignify a professional development gap—one that can bebridged with training about active learning pedagogy andmodels for active learning in online asynchronous classes

Perceptions ofquality deficiencies in online classes are sometimes based inassumptions that instructors are better able to engage withstudents, and to encourage more active learning, in face-to-face environments

If the conversation gets too heated or off-topic, you may want to reach some sort of closure to the immediate discussion and defer the conversation to another class period, for which everyone can prepare.

Online educators who use discussion boards successfully estimatethat their interaction with students can be as much as three timesthe interaction with face-to-face students, and that peer-to-peerinteraction is even many times more than that.

Managing online discussions of any kind can be a time-consuming endeavor, but it is the heart of a distance education course

For the first two weeks of a course, I leave detailed feedback in the gradebook comment section. If a student didn't meet the discussion expectations, I deduct points and refer them to the discussion guidelines.

One way in which students report experiencing the social presenceof an instructor is the immediacy of response and type of feedbackreceived

Feedback is used as a means to improve performance. The process or system of learning and teaching within an online course can be modified or controlled using feedback.

Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2001) define teaching presence as “the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.”

Humanizing intentionally creates a learning environment in which everyone is welcomed, supported, and recognized as capable of achieving their full  potential.

In humanized online courses, positive instructor-student relationships are prioritized and serve “as the connective tissue between students, engagement, and rigor” (Pacansky-Brock et al., 2020, p. 2). In any learning modality, human connection is the antidote for the emotional disruption that prevents many students from performing to their full potential and in online courses, creating that connection is even more important

Humanizing leverages learning science and culturally responsive teaching to create an inclusive, equitable online class climate for today’s diverse students.

The online teacher uses digital pedagogical tools that support communication, productivity, collaboration, analysis, presentation, research, content delivery, and interaction.

with higher levels of social presence in discussion postshad statistically significantly higher ratings on written assessmentmeasures. Both of the studies demonstrate that increased socialpresence gives students a stronger sense of community and is ef-fective for improving student learning

robust theme in the reasons given for preferringface-to-face delivery formats is the perceived lack of interactionwith an instructor in online courses.This was evident in statementsthat suggested that students believe they would have to “teachthemselves”, or that they would prefer a course taught by a “hu-man” or a “real teacher”.

Thus, being in the physical presence ofothers might give the illusion of interaction in face-to-face classeswhich presents a challenge for online learning. It is possible thatthe interaction to which students are referring involves mostlythe physical aspect of human interaction. Electronic interaction, nomatter how frequent, may not be filling that aspect of the students’needs for social interaction

This suggests that students do not view onlinediscussion forums as equivalent to in-class interactions.

Because students are physically separated from the instructorin an online class, communication and timely responses becomeincreasingly important for students and therefore this physical sep-aration also affects student perceptions of the online learning envi-ronment (Delaney et al., 2010

udent perceptions may be based on old typologiesof distance education akin to correspondence courses, regardless of actual experience with onlinecourses, and 2) course preferences are related to issues involving teaching presence and self-regulated

Doing free work for a company to make THEIR place a better one, only because you were gamed into doing that. The solution is never contribute to anything that is controlled by private company.

Facebook marketplace, set location in various regions. (Ymmv)Ebay (flooded with junk, diamonds in the rough are either overpriced or seller wants high shipping)Auctionninja.com (like shopgoodwill, but higher quality items on average and higher final bids on interesting items)Hibid.com (I've gotten a thing or two here)Estatesales.net (I've gotten good deals here)Estatesales.org (usually redirects to respective company sites to bid there)Shopgoodwill.com (hard to win bids on interesting items)Goodwillfinds.com (the higher end/rarer items they receive go here, so higher prices)Craigslist (usually baren of typewriters)Kijiji (I don't find much that's both interesting and feasible to ship)Etsy (meh, overpriced)

each individual has a certain measure of control in how his/her self is presented to the rest of the group.