{"id":431,"date":"2019-04-29T17:34:18","date_gmt":"2019-04-29T09:34:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/?p=431"},"modified":"2019-04-29T18:06:22","modified_gmt":"2019-04-29T10:06:22","slug":"private-worlds-in-the-public-domain-safeguarding-privacy-in-social-media-networks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/2019\/04\/29\/private-worlds-in-the-public-domain-safeguarding-privacy-in-social-media-networks\/","title":{"rendered":"Private worlds in the public domain: safeguarding privacy in social media networks"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Participants in social media networks should utilise acts of privacy to protect their identity whilst they engage in online information sharing. This will ensure that participants in these online communities can exhibit and express various aspects of their identity without compromising their personal integrity through unsolicited information sharing.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper argues for the importance of maintaining privacy whilst participating in social media networks to safeguard the integrity of one\u2019s identity online. Facebook and Twitter identity practices are compared and discussed alongside the advantages of anonymity to enrich online community engagement. The need to distinguish between online and offline identities is considered a necessary responsibility in online profile management for safekeeping one\u2019s privacy. Networked publics, while mediated, are not able to control the dissemination of content entirely, so it is up to the individual to put certain protections in place such as segmenting their identity, whilst participating in online communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Users access the Internet to engage in social media networks and online communities through mediated personal communication devices such as mobile phones and computers (Katz et al, 2004). Participants in social media networks share personal information including thoughts, whereabouts, images and videos of themselves and their environment with friends, family, colleagues and publics. Social media networks such as Facebook, and Twitter are two popular yet different platforms for participating in online communities that enable users to socialise, express creativity and share opinions with different social groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Each piece of content produced across social media networks forms an accessible repository of data on the individual which can be exploited for commercial gain through profiling; or personal attack by trolling, flaming or doxing practices that risk compromising the integrity and safety of individuals. An individual has no control over how their content is used by others online, so in order to protect one\u2019s identity, an individual needs to be scrupulous with their online profile practices by segmenting their online identity across different platforms, depending on the context of the online community group, if they wish to express more than mainstream conformity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018One\ncan expect\u2026the birth of a monster, of a human-machine assemblage whose\nencounters may be feared as those of alien but who surely will be yet another incarnation\nof ourselves\u2019<\/em> (Poster, 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humans\nlive in communities. Communities practice communication in online environments\nand social media networks. As members of online communities, we are required to\n\u2018sign-up\u2019 or submit to social media networks by creating user accounts. The\nrange of information required to generate a user account varies from\nestablishing \u2018authenticity\u2019\u2014using one\u2019s real name, contact details and\nphoto-likeness\u2014through to offering complete anonymity and allowing the use of\npseudonyms and avatars. The practices of social media networks vary from user\nto user and is dependent upon the cultural context in which they operate. Some\nonline communities, such as closed groups, require authenticity to flourish;\nwhile others\u2014such as Twitter\u2014benefit from the protection anonymity affords its\nusers due to the high prevalence of opinion. Individuals do not benefit\nsocially from practices of full-disclosure under the guise of the real-name\nInternet popularised by Facebook, even within a closed network because of the\nconstant moderation taking place. Pseudonyms provide a practical means to\ncompartmentalise one\u2019s identity when participating in online publics to avoid a\ntendency towards homogenised content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Underlying\nthe use of social media by communities is the desire for people to connect and\nshare information and ideas. According to Feld, \u2018The information shared between\nsocial ties depends on the foci and the shared facets of their identity\u2019,\n(1981). In other words, networks are formed when individuals establish \u2018common\nground\u2019. This implies that there is a distinction between what is common and\ntherefore shared socially between individuals; and what is not common and\ntherefore omitted within some social contexts. Boundaries are established by\nsocial conventions. Donath and Boyd say that \u2018networks are the extension of our\nsocial world, but they also act as its boundary\u2019 (2004). Like-minded\nindividuals gravitate towards one another and congregate in shared spaces\nonline, just as they do offline. The adoption of various personas in online\ncommunities is the application of privacy through implied social conventions\nwithin recognised boundaries. Being able to compartmentalise one\u2019s identity\nsafeguards true representation of the self without compromising one\u2019s personal\nintegrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nopposition to these safeguards, Facebook explicitly represents the camp of\nfull-disclosure\u2014the \u2018real-name\u2019 Internet\u2014requiring full name, gender,\nbirthdate, contact phone and email address together with an accurate image of\nthe person to join. Facebook\u2019s name policy states that \u2018Facebook is a community\nwhere everyone uses the name they go by in everyday life. Always knowing who\nyou’re connecting with helps keep you and the rest of our community safe from\nimpersonation, scams and phishing\u2019 (Facebook, 2019). As the world\u2019s largest\nsocial media network, boasting 1.52 billion daily users, this is impossible to\npolice and not the real aim of Facebook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sold\nunder the guise of social responsibility, profiling user\u2019s information simply\nenables more targeted advertising. Full-disclosure is also practiced across the\nweb through \u2018likes\u2019 and sign-ins from Facebook accounts in other applications.\nAccording to Van der Nagel & Frith, this \u2018ties a user\u2019s online practices\nback to a singular identity\u2019 (2015). Attributing data to a singular identity in\na social network risks homogenising the multi-faceted self. As a warning to us\nall, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook famously said, \u2018You have one identity\u2026The days of you having a different image for your\nwork friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably\ncoming to an end pretty quickly\u2026 Having two identities for yourself is an\nexample of a lack of integrity\u2019 (Kirkpatrick, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nstatement demonstrates a lack of humanity and a complete disregard for\nself-presentation and privacy. Who we<\/em>\nare<\/em> is the fullness of our\nmulti-faceted selves constructed within the relationships of our disparate\ncommunities; be they in the physical or online sense. In contrast to\nZuckerberg\u2019s statement, Katz et al says, \u2018social networks are fragmented\nselves, not the whole embodied self, required by a traditional community\u2019\n(2004), showing that it is important, as individuals, for the realisation of\nself to be able to connect online, in confidence, with like-minded individuals;\nfree from the litany of self-moderation practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our\nidentities are forged by the multiple roles we play while we act in accordance\nwith various situations and events determined by others. Online communities are\nan important extension of this\u2014of our selves\u2014being a space for self-expression\nand conversation, a place of pure consciousness, existing to enrich our social\nconnections\u2014irrespective of physical proximity. Donath and Boyd argue that \u2018By\nmaking all of one\u2019s connections visible to others, social media sites remove\nthe privacy barriers that people keep between different aspects of their\nlives\u2026a network can extend the range of people or limit the range who can\ncontact us\u2019 (2004). By protecting our privacy, anonymity and pseudonymity work\nto preserve these boundaries. An individual needs pseudonyms online to fully\nexpress what matters to them without repercussion. Twitter recognises this\nneed. With more than 126 million daily active users (Zephoria, 2019), Twitter\napproaches the fluidity of identity more readily, as evidenced by their privacy\npolicy: \u2018Your display name and username are always public, but you can use\neither your real name or a pseudonym. You can also create and manage multiple\nTwitter accounts, for example to express different parts of your identity\u2019\n(Twitter, 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twitter\nis a great example of the way in which reputations are established and\nmaintained online. Well-known political and media personalities exist in the\nsame proximity as experts and members of the general public; all contributing\nto the public discourse on current affairs. The displays of identity vary\ndepending on the affordances of the individual\u2019s public profile\u2014from accurate\nrepresentations of high profile individuals such as Scott Ludlam, to\npseudo-anonymous representations by self-proclaimed provocateurs such as\nCaptainGetup! and the avatars of anonymity adopted by disparate users. The\ncurrency of an individual\u2019s reputation \u2018is enhanced by contributing remarks of\nthe type admired by the group (Donath, 1996)\u2019. On one hand, an individual\u2019s\nreputation is enhanced through their ability to post well-informed opinions as\nwith ex-senator Scott Ludlam; while on the other, a reputation can be built on\ninflaming discussions and promoting conflict which is the sole purpose of\nAdvance Australia\u2019s mascot Captain Getup, developed for the 2019 federal\nelection cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An\nindividual\u2019s identity is married to their reputation. An individual\u2019s\nreputation is their currency\u2014the measure of their worth and their credibility.\nDonath argues that to assess the \u2018reliability of information and the\ntrustworthiness of a confidant, identity is essential. Therefore, care of one\u2019s\nown identity, one\u2019s reputation is fundamental to the formation of community.\u2019\nGates argues that \u2018People base their decisions to share information on their\nrelationship with others\u2019 (2007). There is a plethora of personal information\nshared over social networks, including photos and videos containing other\npeople which creates a privacy risk if users\u2019 privacy requirements are all\ndifferent. Facebook cautions users that they have no control over how their\ncontent will be used by others and to consider this when sharing with their\nFacebook friends. According to Fogues, \u2018Social context is another dimension of\nrelationships; some relationships have different meaning depending on the\ncontext, or they only exist in a given context (2015b). The real-name internet,\nsay Van der Nagel & Frith argue \u2018can make people feel less safe and can\ninhibit behaviours they engage in online\u2019 (2015a), which supports the reason\nwhy people readily adopt pseudonyms and anonymity in different contexts,\nespecially in the public arena, outside of closed groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anonymity\npractices, according to van der Nagel and Frith are \u2018highly complex\u2019 (2015)\nobscure, and can disconnect a user\u2019s real identity from their online views.\nPseudonymity marginally obscures one\u2019s identity, while full anonymity is an\navatar totally divorced from the users\u2019 real identity. Hogan argues that\npseudonymity can protect users\u2019 security while enabling them to participate\nfreely online without fears of \u2018context collapse (2010)\u2019. Boyd & Marwick\ncoined the term \u2018context collapse\u2019 to describe the merging of online practices\nbetween different social groups in the real world context (2011). They argue\nthat we segment and contextualise our social lives around different networks\nwhich rarely come together; however social media networks can artificially\nbring these disparate groups together around an individual who then finds\nthemselves moderating their content to eliminate the possibility of context\ncollapse. At worst a moderated, \u2018vanilla\u2019 version of self is presented online\ncontextualised by social conformity and the need for privacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twitter\nis a networked public forum used to great effect by mass media as a\ndissemination tool for current affairs and participation. In the public\ndissemination environment, content is posted at a rate of 350,000 tweets per\nminute (internetlivestats.com), so there needs to be levers for mechanising\nprivacy such as the ability to operate multiple accounts; because it is not\npossible for the architects of the networked public to mediate content as\neffectively as mass communication can with top down dissemination. Danah Boyd\ndescribes mass media technologies such as television, radio and newspapers as\nmediating technologies which disseminate information. \u2018Social media is a\nnetworked public which magnifies happenings in the unmediated public\u2014or offline\nworld\u2014by intensifying the scale of the public\u2019 (2007). The dissemination of\ninformation is not able to be controlled once it is in the possession of the\nnetworked public. Fogues et al state that \u2018the most important privacy concerns\nof social media users are identity theft, unauthorised access, misuse of\npersonal information, stalking and profiling\u2019 (2015). In addition to these\nrisks are negative forms of self-expression which don\u2019t always hide behind\nanonymity practices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Flaming,\ntrolling and doxing are negative behaviours exhibited in social media environs.\nVan der Nagel & Frith describe flaming as \u2018deliberately posting comments\nfilled with profanity and personal attacks designed to unsettle participants in\nonline communities\u2019. Trolling involves \u2018hostile language directed at\nparticipants in order to incite emotional responses\u2019 whilst doxing, a more\nsinister phenomenon, involves \u2018anonymous and pseudo-anonymous users researching\nan individual and posting identifiable facts about that person online\u2019 (2015).\nThese behaviours are exacerbated by the architecture of social media networks.\nComments are not always moderated effectively before exponents have incited\nstrong emotional responses in users, or in some extreme cases, incited extreme\nacts of violence against minorities and individuals. It is the design of the\nsocial media platform that enables these practices through the function of\ncomment feeds and now live self-broadcasting capabilities; the shocking effects\nof which were seen in the mass shooting in March 2019 by an extreme right-wing\nterrorist in Christchurch, New Zealand. According to Donath, \u2018the online world\nis a wholly built environment\u2019 where \u2018the design of the environment is\neverything\u2019 (1996b). Put simply, the platform\u2019s design determines whether or\nnot you can share information in a public forum or have a private conversation.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Marwick and Boyd, privacy is \u2018the management of boundaries\u2019 an \u2018ongoing negotiation of contexts in a networked ecosystem in which contexts regularly blur and collapse\u2019 (2014c). Preserving privacy online is a necessity, requiring individuals to \u2018have agency\u2019\u2014 being knowledgeable of the nuances of the social media platforms they engage in; and understand privacy policy and the methods by which content is shared by others. Alan Westin describes privacy as the \u2018claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated\u2019 (Westin, 1970). Donath similarly states that balancing privacy and accountability, reliability and self-expression, security and accessibility requires a series of compromises and trade-offs whose value is very dependent on the goals of the group and of the individuals that comprise it (1996c). Privacy online is a conscientious decision to safeguard the integrity of our identity without compromising self-expression. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Privacy\nis as much a necessity online as it is offline. Users of social media networks\ncan\u2019t control how their data is profiled by the platform architects, or how\ntheir content is disseminated by other users. Segmenting identity in networked\npublics by the application of pseudonyms and anonymous avatars is a simple, yet\neffective way users can manage their privacy and protect themselves from\npersonal harm. Adopting a pseudonym online also enables individuals to perform\nthe multi-faceted self, and explore different expressions of their identity in\na supported environment. Facebook wrongfully promotes a homogenised single\nidentity that is destructive because it opposes the way in which individuals\nnormally conduct themselves in the offline community, leading to context\ncollapse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twitter\nhowever actively supports multiple identities on its platform\u2014recognising that\nmultiple views promotes multiple discussions which are the very fabric of public\ndiscourse. Supporting multiplicity online within social networks embraces\ncommunity diversity and enriches meaningful human connections. Online privacy\nis needed to maintain social context and explicit boundaries as an extension of\nour communities and our self-presentation. The real-name Internet by design\nopposes the affordance of personal protection and should not serve as a\ndirective to moderate our behaviour. Segmenting our identity through\npseudonymity within different online contexts does this already and should\nalways be supported as a normal function of society.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boyd, D. &\nMarwick, A.E. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in\nsocial media. New Media & Society<\/em>,\n16(7) 1051\u20131067 DOI: 10.1177\/1461444814543995<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boyd, D. (2007). Why\nyouth heart social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage\nsocial life. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.31219\/osf.io\/22hq2<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Donath, J., &\nBoyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22<\/em>(4),\n71-82. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/docview\/215202769?accountid=10382<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Donath, J. (1999).\nIdentity and deception in the virtual community. In P. Kollock, & M. A.\nSmith (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace.<\/em>\n29\u201359. New York: Routledge. http:\/\/smg.media.mit.edu\/people\/Judith\/Identity\/IdentityDeception.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facebook (2019) What\nnames are allowed on Facebook? Retrieved from https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/help\/112146705538576?helpref=faq_content<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fogues, R., Such, J.\nM., Espinosa, A., & Garcia-Fornes, A. (2015). Open challenges in\nrelationship-based privacy mechanisms for social network services. International Journal of Human-Computer\nInteraction<\/em>, 31(5), 350\u2013370.\nhttps:\/\/doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1080\/10447318.2014.1001300<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gates, C. (2007).\nAccess control requirements for web 2.0 security and privacy. IEEE Web, 2(0) in:\nFogues, R., Such, J. M., Espinosa, A., & Garcia-Fornes, A. (2015). Open\nchallenges in relationship-based privacy mechanisms for social network\nservices. International Journal of\nHuman-Computer Interaction<\/em>, 31(5), 350\u2013370.\nhttps:\/\/doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1080\/10447318.2014.1001300<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hogan, B. (2013).\nPseudonyms and the rise of the real-name Web in: Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith,\nJ. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity:\nExamining the social practices of r\/Gonewild. First Monday<\/em>, 20(3), Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ojphi.org\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/5615\/4346<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katz, J. E., Rice, R.\nE., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated\ncommunication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In: P.\nKalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and\nCommunity: Communication Yearbook,<\/em> 28 315\u2013371<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Poster, M. (2001)\np.128 in: Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K.\n(2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory\nand practice. In: P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication\nand Community: Communication Yearbook,<\/em> 28 315\u2013371<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twitter privacy (2019)\nretrieved from http:\/\/www.twitter.com\/en\/privacy\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twitter usage\nstatistics (2019) retrieved from http:\/\/www.internetlivestats.com\/twitter-statistics\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twitter daily user\nstatistics (2019) retrieved from https:\/\/zephoria.com\/twitter-statistics-top-ten\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Westin, A. (1970)\nPrivacy and Freedom, p.7. in: Parent, W. A. (1995). Privacy: brief survey of\nthe conceptual landscape. Santa Clara\nComputer and High-Technology Law Journal<\/em> 11(1), 21\u201326.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Der Nagel, E. and\nFrith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity:\nExamining the social practices of r\/Gonewild. First Monday<\/em>, 20(3), Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ojphi.org\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/5615\/4346<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Participants in social media networks should utilise acts of privacy to protect their identity whilst they engage in online information sharing. This will ensure that participants in these online communities can exhibit and express various aspects of their identity without compromising their personal integrity through unsolicited information sharing. Abstract This paper argues for the importance… Continue reading Private worlds in the public domain: safeguarding privacy in social media networks<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[197,196,58,198,129],"class_list":["post-431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-identity","tag-community-onlinecommunity","tag-identity-privacy-onlineprivacy","tag-networks","tag-profile","tag-socialmedia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/36"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=431"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":434,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions\/434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}