I spent part of last week in Washington, D.C., attending a gathering that turned out to be a watershed moment in the 16-year history of online safety education.

The third annual conference of the Family Online Safety Institute brought together about 400 Internet safety advocates around the theme of “Building a Culture of Responsibility: From Online Safety to Digital Citizenship.”

The event, which drew participants from 15 countries, was different from previous years in that young people were viewed less as potential victims of online crimes and more as participants in a global online community.

That’s not to say that participants didn’t worry aloud about youth safety, but instead of focusing on real and imagined dangers, we focused on how adults can work with young people to encourage both ethical and self-protective behavior. It’s all about media literacy, digital citizenship and critical thinking.

This was a big change from just a couple of years ago, when Internet safety gatherings typically focused on ways adults could put up walls to protect children against predators, pornography and other dangers.

While Internet porn continues to be an issue, the “predator panic” that was rampant a few years ago has largely been put to rest as safety experts and law enforcement studies from the Crimes Against Children Research Center and elsewhere show that, statistically, the odds of a prepubescent child being sexually molested by an

online stranger is virtually zero and the odds of it happening to a teenager are very low, especially when compared with children who are harmed by family members and others they know from the real world.When kids are harmed or annoyed online, the culprit is far more likely to be a fellow young person. Though exact numbers are hard to come by, about a third of teens report having been subjected to some type of cyberbullying or online harassment ranging from slightly nasty comments to cruel messages, impersonation or even stalking.

Kids are affected by their own behavior ranging from posting pictures or comments online that could come to haunt them later to “sexting,” sending nude or nearly nude pictures of themselves to others.

While such images usually wind up only in the hands of the intended recipient, there are plenty of cases where photos have been distributed to others or posted online, causing embarrassment or potential ridicule. Even worse, there are teens who have been charged and convicted of producing, possessing and/or distributing child pornography.

While most prosecutors realize that child pornography laws were meant to protect, not punish, kids, a few misguided ones have used these laws against children.

When I said that the Internet safety field is 16 years old, I’m dating it from the publication of the first widely disseminated Internet safety booklet and set of rules which, I confess, were written by this columnist. Back then, I came up with some assumptions like “that 12-year-old girl might be a 40-year-old man” and “posting personal information can lead to harm,” but I wrote that material long before we had research to show that these and other early assumptions weren’t actually the case.

Years ago, I stopped giving out that type of advice but others continue to perpetuate myths about Internet dangers. What made me feel good about this conference is that all of the panic messages were off the table. What we talked about instead is how we can help adults better understand how kids actually use technology and how we can work with kids to better manage risk.

One theme at the conference was “one size doesn’t fit all.” Most kids are actually pretty savvy about keeping themselves safe from serious harm, but others — who are taking big risks — need more serious intervention. Risk prevention specialist Patti Agatston suggested we consider using health prevention models for Internet safety education — basic safety advice for most youth and intense counseling from mental health professionals for the small minority of young people who are taking extraordinary risks both on and offline.

There was a lot of discussion about the lack of interactive social media in schools. Federal law requires schools that receive federal “E-Rate” funding to use Internet filters, and many schools use these filters to block social media sites like MySpace and Facebook.

No one was suggesting that kids should spend their school days socializing with friends on Facebook and MySpace, but several speakers wondered why schools aren’t using social media as part of the educational process.

Anne Collier, my co-director at ConnectSafely.org, suggested that we think of social media “as the new book.” These are interactive books, in a sense, where kids are both consumers and authors. Rather than banning them, schools should be channeling kids toward educational use of this technology.

The presidential election has a lot of people excited, with supporters of both major campaigns eager to do all they can to help assure victory in November. Trouble is, if you live in California, Texas, New York or any other solid blue or red state, you’re not likely to change the outcome by campaigning where you live.

As a result, many partisans who don’t live in a battleground state are using the Internet to reach out to voters in swing states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Missouri.

Both JohnMcCain.com and BarrackObama.com provide lists of voters or volunteers whom supporters can call from the comfort of their home or cell phone. And because many people have unused cell phone minutes and free long distance, they can make an impact without straining their budget. They also can use Skype to call from their PC or Mac for about 2 cents a minute.

The easiest way to make calls is to sign up for an online account on either campaign Web site, pick the state you wish to call to and make the calls while sitting at your computer.

The McCain campaign makes it easy to sign up and start calling people in any state. To register, you need to provide your name, e-mail address and street address. You’re taken to a page where you can select the state you wish to call. However, the page doesn’t necessarily give you voters in that state.

I experimented by selecting Nevada and was immediately taken to a page with the name and phone number of someone to call in Iowa. The next person on that list was in Ohio. The campaign’s desire to have you call someone in Iowa or Ohio is understandable given the tight races in those states, but I’m not sure why they bother letting you pick from all 50 states. The Web page gives you the name, phone number and city and state for each voter, along with a script you’re asked to read aloud.

To its credit, the McCain site blocks you from calling late at night. When I visited McCain’s “Voter2Voter” phone bank at 11 p.m.Pacific time, I was told to come back the next morning because it was “outside calling hours.”

The assignment you get when you sign up for the Obama campaign’s “neighbor to neighbor” outreach program seems to depend on where you live and when you first signed up for an account on the site.

When I logged in to experiment with the Obama site last week using an account with a California address that was established months ago, I was given a choice of calling voters in New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, or Latino voters in Nevada or Obama supporters in California. But when I signed up as a new volunteer that day, I was given only the opportunity to call supporters in California to see if I could convince them to get more involved in the campaign.

I can only guess that this is to distinguish between more “trusted” volunteers and those who log on for the first time. But despite several conversations with campaign representatives, I was never able to reach a campaign worker who could explain it.

The Obama Web site gives you the name, phone number, age and gender of each person you’re calling, along with a suggested opening line. But it leaves it up to the caller to “engage with potential supporter in a conversational manner.”

During the call, you’re asked to place a check mark in the appropriate box to indicate if the voter supports Obama, leans toward Obama, is undecided or leans toward or supports McCain. You’re also asked to indicate if the person is willing to vote early (if possible in that state), and there is a place to type in additional notes. The Web page tells you the time zone of the state you’re calling into and warns you not to make calls after 9 p.m. in that time zone.

McCain’s site provides a script on how “John McCain and Sarah Palin will bring real change to Washington.” You’re also requested to ask each person if McCain can “count on your vote this November?” There’s a drop-down box to indicate if the voter supports McCain and Palin, Obama and Joe Biden or is undecided.

You can also indicate whether the voter’s support is strong, average or weak. The site asks you to collect e-mail addresses for everyone who is a McCain-Palin supporter. Data entered on these sites can provide valuable follow-up information during the last minute get-out-the-vote push.

Neither campaign lets you dial automatically through the computer. That would have been a nice touch, especially if they picked up the cost of the call, which they could do for a very low price by contracting with an Internet phone service.

Both Web sites have other resources for supporters, including plenty of ammunition as to why their candidates are better. There also are places where you can find local campaign events or post events that you want to host, as well as lists of local campaign offices where you can volunteer to help. And of course they’re happy to accept online donations.

If you’re an Obama supporter willing to travel on behalf of your candidate you can go to TravelForChange.org to request free frequent-flier miles or donate miles for others who wish to travel. The site also links you to field offices in those states. After a Web search and an interview with a McCain spokesman, I wasn’t able to find an equivalent site for his supporters.