Evaluating social media privacy settings for personal and advertising purposes

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to define two types of privacy, which are distinct but often reduced to each other. It also investigates which form of privacy is most prominent in privacy settings of online social networks (OSN). Privacy between users is different from privacy between a user and a third party. OSN, and to a lesser extent researchers, often reduce the former to the latter, which results in misleading users and public debate about privacy. Design/methodology/approach – The authors define two types of privacy that account for the difference between interpersonal and third-party disclosure. The first definition draws on symbolic interactionist accounts of privacy, wherein users are performing dramaturgically for an intended audience. Third-party privacy is based on the data that represent the user in data mining and knowledge discovery processes, which ultimately manipulate users into audience commodities. This typology was applied to the privacy settings of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. The results are presented as a flowchart. Findings – The research indicates that users are granted more options in controlling their interpersonal information flow towards other users than third parties or service providers. Research limitations/implications – This distinction needs to be furthered empirically, by comparing user’s privacy expectations in both situations. On more theoretical grounds, this typology could also be linked to Habermas’ system and life-world. Originality/value – A typology has been provided to compare the relative autonomy users receive for settings that drive revenue and settings, which are independent from revenue.

Antecedents of Privacy Protection Behaviors at the Vertical and Horizontal Levels

“…Furthermore, privacy concerns had a stronger influence on PPBs at the horizontal than at the vertical level. This suggests that horizontal privacy concerns are more easily translated into protection from other internet users, presumably because related privacy protections are more readily available and easier to employ compared to privacy protections against institutions (Heyman et al, 2014). Interestingly, no significant differences were found in the effect of OPL on PPBs across levels.…”

Digital Identity Management on Social Media: Exploring the Factors That Influence Personal Information Disclosure on Social Media

“…The diagram (Figure 1) clearly shows that the sets of identity attributes and identifiers used for specific transactions on the Internet may vary considerably depending on the context [65]. Effective identification is therefore, based on users' ability to demonstrate knowledge (something you know-e.g., a password); possession of a token or credential (something you have-e.g., driver's license); physiological characteristics or features (something you are-e.g., gender, facial features, signature, fingerprint), or a combination of all or any of the three [66,67].…”

Does social media use at work lower productivity

“…However, other factors such as the limitations of such social media, which may preclude connections outside the organisation, may prevent the platforms from benefitting from the strength of weak ties outside the organisation. Enterprise social media in multinational organisations can improve knowledge sharing, but smaller, private organisations may not have the resources or the ability to develop or deploy enterprise-specific social media and the use of social media may shift towards personal use (Heyman et al, 2014) that may adversely affect project success (Ellison et al, 2015).…”