1 / 20

Computer-Mediated Communication

Computer-Mediated Communication. Social Privacy in a Networked World. Quick Review. Personal disclosure is a fundamental human activity Disclosure in CMCs is a reflection of this activity What looks like a “Privacy Paradox” can be unpacked into more nuance that contextualizes disclosure

smay
Télécharger la présentation

Computer-Mediated Communication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computer-Mediated Communication Social Privacy in a Networked World

  2. Quick Review • Personal disclosure is a fundamental human activity • Disclosure in CMCs is a reflection of this activity • What looks like a “Privacy Paradox” can be unpacked into more nuance that contextualizes disclosure • Disclosure is motivated by: • Different aspects of privacy (psych, social, info) • The need/desire to build social capital • Lack of privacy “literacy” (people are unaware of info gathering by CMC platforms, or they don’t care) Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  3. Today: Implications of Disclosure • Social Consequences • Turbulence: interpersonal consequences, such as embarrassment, loss of friendship, loss of privacy • Objective harms: loss of job, discrimination, reputational harms http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2009/12/10/either-mark-zuckerberg-got-a-whole-lot-less-private-or-facebooks-ceo-doesnt-understand-the-companys-new-privacy-settings/#7f3f4b721c61 Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  4. What’s happening on the ground? Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  5. Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  6. Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  7. Silent Listeners (Stutzman et al.) • Facebook users over time became more privacy seeking by progressively limiting data shared publicly with strangers • Facebook’s 2009 changes reversed this • amount of info users revealed to connected friends increased, as well as to third party apps; often occurred w/o explicit consent or awareness; the network remains an “imagined” community that does not map to actual audiences Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  8. Facebook privacy settings circa Dec 2009 Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  9. Facebook privacy settings circa July 2010 Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  10. http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  11. http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  12. http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  13. http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  14. Implications of “Silent Listeners” • How much is our expectation of privacy bound to the platform we are using? • “Power of the environment in affecting individual choices: the entity that controls the structure . . . Ultimately remains able to affect how actors make choices in that environment.” • Privacy by overexposure? • How much of this study is just specific to FB? Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  15. Boundary Management • Litt & Hargittai’s paper • Incorporates the work of Sandra Petronio (using an updated version of Altman’s theory: Communication Privacy Management) • Privacy == individuals’ information boundary (rule) management w/r/t others • Turbulence == breakdown in expectations when personal info goes beyond a person’s desired boundaries Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  16. Key findings • Skill is a key concern in Hargittai’s work – found those with more Internet skills less likely to experience negative outcomes • Self monitoring: “ability & motivation to pick up on social cues and modify their self-presentations” • Higher self-monitoring skills & privacy behaviors == more turbulence • Context collapse, or perceived vs. actual privacy misaligned, also control paradox • Higher self monitors might be more sensitive, more aware negatives exist, better at ID’ing it, not necessarily more likely to experience • Prior negative experiences may also contribute • While we can cause our own turbulence, more often generated by what others share about us – how do we design for this? Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  17. Misplaced Confidences – Control Paradox • Individuals’ perceived control over release and access of private info increases willingness to disclose • Questions assumptions about rational, informed choice • Part of a larger body of research by Acquisti questioning decision-making models; role of heuristics • Posits that privacy preferences are contextual and subject to manipulation Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  18. Design solutions? • Better (re)designed privacy controls • Privacy “nudges” • Predictive privacy preferences • Incorporating longitudinal aspects • How do we design for social privacy? Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  19. Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

  20. Cheshire & King - CMC i216 Fall 2016

More Related