Digital footprints: an emerging dimension of digital inequality

Abstract

Purpose This conceptual contribution is based on the observation that digital inequalities literature has not sufficiently considered digital footprints as an important social differentiator. The purpose of the paper is to inspire current digital inequality frameworks to include this new dimension. Design/methodology/approach Literature on digital inequalities is combined with research on privacy, big data and algorithms. The focus on current findings from an interdisciplinary point of view allows for a synthesis of different perspectives and conceptual development of digital footprints as a new dimension of digital inequality. Findings Digital footprints originate from active content creation, passive participation and platform-generated data. The literature review shows how different social groups may experience systematic advantages or disadvantages based on their digital footprints. A special emphasis should be on those at the margins, for example, users of low socioeconomic background. Originality/value By combining largely independent research fields, the contribution opens new avenues for studying digital inequalities, including innovative methodologies to do so.

Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data

“…I discussed how this relatively young approach to digital inequalities does not only consider aspects of technology access, skills, and use but also takes into account the differentiated outcomes from using emerging technologies. In today's datafied world, data traces are a particularly important outcome of Internet use (Micheli et al, ), including the engagement with emerging technologies such as smart speakers and online labor platforms. The section on the third‐level digital divide has shown how such traces might themselves lead to advantages or disadvantages, which are unevenly distributed in society (Madden et al, ).…”

“…A focus only on benefits, rather than on benefits and harms (Blank & Lutz, ), misses the opportunity to connect this research strand to emerging literature on privacy risks and surveillance, particularly at the margins of society (Marwick & boyd, ). Instead, third‐level digital divide research should assess the benefits and harms from what people do online and from what data traces are associated with them (Micheli et al, ).…”

“…Third‐level digital divide studies have so far focused on the links between antecedents, such as demographic characteristics, technology attitudes, skills, and differentiated Internet uses on the one hand, and outcomes on the other hand (Van Deursen et al, ). However, Micheli, Lutz, and Büchi () have argued for the integration of digital traces into the scope of digital inequalities. “What users do online matters; but what is online about them also has consequences” (Micheli et al, , p. 243).…”

“…However, Micheli, Lutz, and Büchi () have argued for the integration of digital traces into the scope of digital inequalities. “What users do online matters; but what is online about them also has consequences” (Micheli et al, , p. 243). In an age of big data and AI, where most interactions that happen through and with digital technologies are tracked, passive participation becomes a matter of increasing concern for digital inequalities scholarship (Lutz & Hoffmann, ).…”

Perceptions of Algorithmic Profiling on Facebook and Their Social Implications

“…These findings have implications for research on algorithms from a user-centered perspective (Bucher, 2017;Duffy et al, 2017;Eslami et al, 2015;Klawitter & Hargittai, 2018). Particularly, they point to aspects of social exclusion and social justice, as users might differentially benefit or be disadvantaged from their digital traces (Micheli et al, 2018). If users have overly pessimistic imaginaries of algorithmic profiling, they might be excluded from opportunities the Internet and social media offer (Schradie, 2013).…”