I like it....whatever that means: The evolving relationship between disclosure, audience, and...

I like it…whatever that meansThe evolving relationship between disclosure, audience, and privacy in networked spaces

Jessica VitakCollege of Information StudiesUniversity of Marylandjvitak@umd.edu | Twitter: @jvitak Website: jessicavitak.com

Google processed more than

20 PETABYTES of data per day

in 2014.

(That’s 1,000,000 gigabytes forthe non math-oriented)

Source: Mashable

So why do we share so much online...

And what are the implications of these shifting norms?

Flickr: Photos_by_Lis

SOCIAL CONNECTION MATTERS.

SHARING BUILDS RELATIONSHIPS.

ALTRUISM IS PART OF BEING HUMAN…

Flickr: Arlington County

…AS IS NARCISSISM.

(ALTHOUGH MAYBE THAT’S NOT LIMITED TO PEOPLE)

INTERACTIONS BUILD NEW & MAINTAIN EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS.

INTERACTIONS BUILD NEW & MAINTAIN EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS.

AFFORDANCES, AFFORDANCES, AFFORANCES

Other options:• Your first pet• Paperweight• Art project• Bring down a government

General affordances of social media

VISIBILITY: making it easily to locate information

PERSISTENCE: content is visible and searchable for a period of time (aka archivability)

EDITABILITY: curate identity through careful self-presentation

ASSOCIATION: public displays of connection link people and content

BUT… affordances vary by technology also.

Affordances shape our experience. Features encourage sharing.

So why do we share so much online...

And what are the implications of these shifting norms?

Analog Footprints

(Yeah, you’re not going to be there in five minutes)

BUT IS SOMETHING LOST IN THESE INTERACTIONS?

A little

experimen

t in likes…

Low-costAccrue social capital

…SO WHAT?

The public-private fallacy in networked publics

1. We make assumptions about who can see a piece of information we share online. This is a false expectation of privacy (usually) due to limited knowledge of how the technology actually works.

2. When choosing between privacy and usability, people always choose usability.

3. You’re never really truly anonymous.

The public-private fallacy

Establishing privacy in public?

Technically possible, practically useless.

The public-private fallacy

Hiding online is even harder.

The public-private fallacy

1. People will sacrifice privacy & security for usability.

2. Companies structure their services to encourage sharing information with a wide audience.

The public-private fallacy

You’re leaving digital traces for everything you do.

Three examples: 1. The Taste, Ties & Time study2. Target Predicts Pregnancies (and

other targeted advertising)3. And of course, there’s always the

NSA…

The public-private fallacy

1990s 2015

Is privacy dead?

1997 2012 2015

Organization-Level Proactive Strategies

≈

The future remains a (somewhat) blank canvas…

Three critical areas of focus:

1) Providing education and resources on privacy management

2) Minimizing penalties for non-disclosure/non-use of technology

3) Pushing companies to be more transparent

≈

Thanks!

Jessica VitakCollege of Information StudiesUniversity of MarylandEmail: jvitak@umd.eduTwitter: @jvitakWebsite: jessicavitak.com/cv