Digital interactions often create a distance that makes us forget the real presence of people behind screens, profiles and avatars. This phenomenon of online disinhibition, the fact that a person feels released from ordinary social constraints when sheltered by a screen, is one of the most powerful drivers of cyberbullying.
This sequence aims to make concrete what remains abstract behind a screen, and to restore a moral continuity between what one allows oneself online and what one would allow oneself face to face.
Fundamental principle: respect, responsibility and attention to others should apply whether we are face to face with someone or behind a screen.
Main competence
Recognising the mechanisms of online disinhibition and understanding why some people behave differently on social networks than they do in real life.
Cross-curricular competences
Developing empathy in digital contexts, analysing the emotional impact of online exchanges, and building structured and defensible argumentation.
Questions to begin the discussion
- What are the signs of an online harassment situation? What consequences might it have for the targeted person?
- Why do some people behave differently on social networks than they do in real life?
- How can digital uses lead us to take less account of others behind a screen?
Phase 1 — Preparation
45–60 minutes. Researching arguments and building a structured plea. AI may be used as a research tool, provided that students retain control over the reasoning.
Phase 2 — Oral presentations
Ten minutes per group: five minutes for the “for” plea, five minutes for the “against” plea.
Possible questions for the groups
- On the internet, people say more easily what they think. Is that a freedom or a danger?
- Does anonymity foster freedom of expression or cowardice?
- Should certain kinds of comments on social networks be forbidden?
- Can one truly feel another person’s emotions through a screen?
- Do emojis replace our real emotions?
- Behind a username, are we the same person we are face to face?
- If someone is humiliated in a group, is it better to react publicly, privately, or not at all?
- If you “like” a cruel message, are you taking part in the violence?
- If a classmate posts a humiliating photo, who is responsible: the person who posts it, those who comment, or the platform?
- Should one always reply to a hurtful message?
- Do social networks bring people together more than they drive them apart?
Compact sequence map
- Collective debate (30–45 min), exploring the mechanisms of online disinhibition and analysing concrete situations.
- Preparation of pleadings (45–60 min), building contradictory arguments in groups of four.
- Oral presentations (10 min per group), confronting the “for” and “against” arguments before the class.
Possible extension
A collective drafting of a class charter for digital communication: students formulate for themselves the rules they commit to respecting, online as well as offline.
Assessment criteria for the pleadings
- Quality of the argumentation
- Capacity to place oneself in another person’s position
- Attention paid to the emotional dimension
- Ability to propose concrete solutions
- Clarity of oral expression