Digital Deception

Digital Deception and the Great Debate

Hi all,

I just wanted to weigh in on the debate: is digital deception new, or is it just the same thing but dressed up differently.

First, you all did a great job and both Catalina and I were impressed. A few points stuck out for me:
- the old team's point that the fundamental characteristics of deception are no different for digital deception
- the new team's point that if one instance of digital deception is different than regular deception (e.g., a pedophile deception that wasn't previously possible) then the old team's case is in serious jeapordy

It seemed to me that everyone agreed that the definitional characteristics of digital deception do not change, but that the character (including frequency), cues, transmission, and ultimate effects of digital deception may be different. This was also reflected in Catalina's judgment.

Jenna's rhetorical question, I thought, had the biggest punch of the day: Why are we taking a course on digital deception if its not different? Indeed, why should we do research on digital deception if its not different? Great question, and its one that I hope each one of you considers when thinking up your research question. Its certainly something that each of us (and that includes Catalina and I) have to address when we write about digital deception.

So, to let you know where I'm at with my thinking, I'll quote Josh: Its old wine in new bottles, but those new bottles can change the taste (this would get at the cues issue and the impact/effect issue). Or, to quote Corey: Its old wine with an improved distribution system (which gets at question of frequency and prevalence).

--Jeff

posted by jeff hancock @ 12:38 PM