The creative activity of societal networking sites, peculiarly Facebook, has seen the traditional construct of ‘privacy ‘ redefined in a cyber universe.

Many texts on the topic have observed how “ privateness within societal networking sites is frequently non expected or is vague. ” ( Dwyer, Hiltz & A ; Passerini 2007 ) . Much of the research sing Facebook has involved surveying and questioning University pupils, the audience for which Facebook was generated. Through this research, a complex but graphic image of how pupils react to privateness issues has been developed. Facebook has introduced the thought of societal convergence, where “ disparate societal contexts are collapsed into one ” ( Boyd 2008 ) , and this has resulted in persons ‘ loss of ability to pull off private information.

Research workers have discussed how with the imminency of societal convergence, boundaries between public and private have been blurred and the traditional construct of privateness has been subverted. Social networking sites are, by nature, based on the construct of societal capital formation and care. Research has shown the importance of Facebook, as it “ becomes omnipresent and the default manner of communicating ” ( Raynes-Goldie 2010 ) , taking users to ignore privateness concerns in favor of sociometric popularity. This paper will analyze the similarities and disparities in literature turn toing privateness on Facebook, peculiarly in relation to issues of individuality revelation, ownership and the nature of societal networking relationships.

The Undefined Nature of Privacy on Facebook

Facebook is a late modern phenomenon, which assists in the care of preexistent societal webs, every bit good as supplying agencies to make new relationships based on shared involvements, political positions or common friend webs.

Users of Facebook create profiles, which list placing information to changing grades, depending on privateness scenes implemented by the user. The creative activity of these new, cyber communities, “ makes societal information more easy accessible [ and ] can tear people ‘s sense of public and private by changing the antecedently understood societal norms ” . ( Boyd 2008 ) .

Facebook was established as a societal networking site available to college pupils merely, utilizing college electronic mail histories and hence increasing the outlooks of cogency, every bit good as “ the perceptual experience of the on-line infinite as a closed, trusted, and trusty community. ” ( Acquisti & A ; Gross 2006 ) . However, more late, Facebook has become available to a planetary web, overthrowing the old construct of privateness ordinance in a closed web.

Boyd ( 2008 ) has discussed how privateness is frequently taken for granted by users of societal networking sites, asseverating that “ privateness is non an unalienable right – it is a privilege that must be protected socially and structurally in order to be. ” ( Boyd 2008 ) .The construct of privateness in our mundane universe has non yet been defined, or made movable to societal networking sites. Facebook publically offers a elaborate privateness revelation statement, placing how they “ usage ” every bit good as “ protect ” personal information. These two footings are immensely conflicting, and Facebook ‘s policy to protect personal information is about wholly dependent on the user “ puting privateness options that limit entree to [ their ] information ” . ( Facebook Revised December 9 2009 ) .

Some of the more recent engineerings applied to Facebook, such as the “ Newsfeed ” , which brings together the actions of a participant ‘s Facebook “ friends ” to one page, have been seen as go againsting privateness to an even greater grade. Boyd ( 2008 ) has attempted to cope with these issues, presenting the thought of societal convergence, where “ disparate societal contexts are collapsed into one..

. [ which ] requires people to manage disparate audiences at the same time without a societal book. ” ( Boyd 2008 ) . Boyd ( 2008 ) discusses how the construct of societal convergence is an issue on Facebook, where looker-ons can interpret information a user intends to unwrap to a peculiar audience in different ways.

With the invention of the “ Newsfeed ” , “ participants had to reconsider every alteration that they made because they knew it would be broadcast to all their Friends. ” ( Boyd 2008 ) . Raynes-Goldie ( 2010 ) has besides touched on this subject, associating it back to the issue of privateness by discoursing how “ …

the end of [ Facebook ] is to increase the transparence and efficiency of communicating, two ends which are non precisely in line with the protection of a user ‘s societal privateness. ” ( Raynes-Goldie 2010 ) .All of these communicative characteristics elude to what Halbert ( 2009 ) has referred to as the vague nature of privateness on Facebook, which “ provides chances for voyeuristic surveillance. ” ( Halbert 2009 ) . Harmonizing to Halbert ( 2009 ) , Facebook has become the equivalent of a “ public infinite ” ( Halbert 2009 ) , where users are under changeless surveillance from assorted beginnings. This issue has been widely publicized, and assorted signifiers of media have coined the term “ Facebook still hunt ” , which “ is typical, if non implicitly encouraged ” ( Dubow 2007 ) in these webs.Due to Facebook ‘s temperament as a extremely public agencies of communicating, there are many privateness concerns that are yet to be resolved.

Theorists have attempted to decide these issues by researching the procedures of electronic communicating, and more late through trying to redefine the construct of privateness in cyber webs.

Identity Disclosure on Facebook

A great trade of research has been undertaken into the motives behind changing grades of individuality revelation on Facebook, peculiarly in college webs. Research workers have attempted to contextualise the grounds for users ‘ deficiency of privateness concern when unwraping private information, peculiarly contact Numberss and place references. Acquisti and Gross ( 2006 ) have examined how “ altering cultural tendencies, acquaintance and assurance in digital engineerings, deficiency of exposure or memory of crying abuses of personal informations by others may all play a function in this unprecedented phenomenon of information disclosure. ” ( Acquisti & A ; Gross 2006 ) .There is a great trade of concern environing the grade to which Facebook is personally identifiable, where “ there is a hazard that the information given by the user could be abused by stalkers or individuality stealers. ” ( Whelan 2005 ) . Tufecki ( 2008 ) identifies that pupils are “ by and large cognizant of the visibleness of their profiles ” ( Tufekci 2008 ) , and their deficiency of individuality revelation is likely based “ on their current concerns and may be shortsighted about future jobs.

” ( Tufekci 2008 ) . Of even greater concern is the usage of Facebook by younger high school pupils who “ … are more comfy with sexual orientation, more motivated for promotion, and more willing to give up their privateness.

” ( Tufekci 2008 ) . Barnes has besides conceptualized this issue, placing how societal networking tools “ have about become indispensable for adolescents, who frequently think of their lives every bit private as long as their parents are non reading their diaries. ” ( Barnes 2006 ) . Tufecki ( 2008 ) has summarized this duality between individuality revelation and privateness by offering the impression that “ pupils do seek to pull off the boundary between promotion and privateness, but they do non make this by entire backdown because they would so give up a opportunity for promotion. ” ( Tufekci 2008 ) .Christofides, Muise and Desmarais ( 2009 ) have distinguished an intrinsic nexus between individuality revelation and trust, where “ information revelation increases the feeling of trustiness and consequences in mutual personal revelation.

.. ” ( Christofides, Muise & A ; Desmarais 2009 ) . Facebook users ‘ who responded to an on-line study identified that they were “ significantly more likely to unwrap information on Facebook than they were in general ” ( Christofides, Muise & A ; Desmarais 2009 ) , where “ individuality is constructed by sharing information such as images and involvements. ” ( Christofides, Muise & A ; Desmarais 2009 ) . This impression is shared by other research workers such as Strater and Richter ( 2007 ) , who uncovered “ the importance of personal revelations in profile rating ” ( Strater & A ; Richter 2007 ) , through interview-based research.The extent to which user ‘s unwrap personally identifiable, private information on Facebook, has besides been extremely publicized in the media, typified in an article from The Boston Globe, saying that “ the range of Facebook ‘s impact may non be felt for old ages to come. ” ( Schweitzer 2005 ) .

Many theoreticians side with this impression, believing the effects of individuality revelation in immature users may non be perceptible for many old ages.

Ownership and Control over Personal Information

In Facebook ‘s privateness statement there is an recognition that “ we use the information we collect to seek to supply a safe, efficient and customized experience. ” ( Facebook Revised December 9 2009 ) . However, many research workers and media mercantile establishments have seen the collection and storage of personal information as motivated by anything but keeping the privateness of users. Acquisti and Gross ( 2006 ) have contended that Facebook ‘s personal informations aggregation is non ethical and are concerned that “ …

information provided even on apparently private societal webs is, efficaciously, public informations, that could be for every bit long as anybody has an inducement to keep it. ” ( Acquisti & A ; Gross 2006 ) . Other research workers such as Dwyer, Hiltz & A ; Passerini ( 2007 ) believe Facebook and other societal networking sites need to supply “ expressed policies and informations protection mechanisms in order to present the same degree of societal privateness found offline. ” ( Dwyer, Hiltz & A ; Passerini 2007 ) . There have been a figure of incidents already where people in the public limelight have been scrutinized for information they have published online. Govani and Pashley ( 2005 ) have identified how this may go a significant issue in the hereafter, as “ pupils may non see the information they provide as a menace to their hereafter at present..

. [ but ] if they are put in the public oculus for any ground the information can be published. ” ‘ ( Govani & A ; Pashley 2005 ) .Since Facebook is now a big corporation, which is motivated to a great grade by net income, personal information is expendable if advertisement companies are interested in paying to execute research and targeted advertisement towards users. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has established what he calls a “ societal ad ” , intended to “ assist [ advertizers ] create some of the best ad runs [ they ‘ve ] of all time built. ” ( Klassen November 26 2007 ) .

Catherine Rampell, a Washington Post Staff Writer has investigated the manner targeted advertisement is highly affectional as it “ allows [ the advertizer ] to draw together things like age, demographics, geographical information, and the new holy grail: who user ‘s friends are. ” ( Rampell November 3, 2007 ) . Todi ( 2008 ) besides discusses how effectual Facebook is as an advertisement platform as it is “ the 6th most trafficked web site on the cyberspace ” , “ boasts an highly big planetary user base ” and “ the add-on of Facebook applications, gifts, pages and groups gives companies multiple options for aiming users through advertisement runs. ” ( Todi 2008 ) . However, Todi ( 2008 ) has besides acknowledged the extent to which Facebook ‘s targeted advertisement system “ suffered a great trade of recoil and had to be modified to a great extent to pacify its users ” , who were concerned about their privateness.

( Todi 2008 ) .Although many users are incognizant that their information is used in informations excavation and targeted advertisement, “ Facebook ‘s privateness policy explicitly says that they may unwrap profile information to 3rd parties, so the chance of them making so is clearly realistic. ” ( Jones & A ; Soltren 2005 ) . Szoka and Thierer ( 2009 ) argue that although the cyberspace “ increases the ways advertizers can make audiences, it [ besides ] increases the power audiences have to act upon advertizers ” ( Szoka & A ; Thierer 2009 ) , as advertisement companies wish to pacify their audiences.

Equally good as this, Szoka and Thierer ( 2009 ) besides see targeted on-line advertisement as per se linked to freedom of address and look, as every facet of user-generated content on the cyberspace owes its being to the invention of Internet-based advertisement ( Szoka & A ; Thierer 2009 ) .Overall, the divergency between privateness and ownership are summarized by Tufecki ( 2008 ) , who distinguishes between relationships offline and electronic transmittals online, which are “ by and large stored by Internet service suppliers, archived by hunt engines, and documented in cookies and Web histories by default. ” ( Tufekci 2008 ) .

Future Research

There are many avenues available for future research on the subject of privateness on Facebook, specifically concentrating on individuality revelation, ownership and the nature of societal networking relationships. First, most research and samples have been performed on one university per survey merely, and have non aimed to aim a broad national or planetary audience with changing demographics.

Equally good as this, most of the research undertaken is mostly, if non entirely, based on interviews and studies and there has been no participant-observation based research. This would be hard as relationships function in different ways in on-line webs such as Facebook, but it would be enlightening in set uping any disagreements between the safety measures users claim to use and the manner their profile and interactions are really designed.Another avenue, which would be interesting to research, is whether the extent to which a user applies privateness scenes and restricts information on Facebook is based on personal experience or cognition of stalking or individuality larceny. As discovered when researching individuality revelation, there is small literature based on surveies of high school pupils ( instead than university pupils ) , which would be enlightening since old surveies have assumed adolescents are less cognizant of privateness hazards and less able to grok the effects of sharing personal informations with possible aliens.

Finally, as the nature of societal networking sites is that they are invariably altering and germinating, research into Facebook could be undertaken sporadically, over a greater infinite of clip, to track alterations in behaviour as policies change and structural accommodations are made. This could besides be studied in concurrence with periodical media coverage, which will go on to track privateness issues on Facebook due to public involvement. This would let farther deepness to the research in acknowledging whether media concern and promotion affects the revelation of personal information and the execution of privateness scenes on Facebook.

  • Acquisti, A. & A ; Gross, R. 2006,Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook, vol. 4258, Cambridge, UK.
  • Barnes, S.

    2006, ‘A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States ‘ ,First Monday [ Online ], vol. 11, no. 9.

  • Boyd, D. 2008, ‘Facebook ‘s Privacy Trainwreck: Exposure, Invasion and Social Convergence ‘ ,Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technology, vol.

    14, no. 1, pp. 13-20.

  • Christofides, E. , Muise, A.

    & A ; Desmarais, S. 2009, ‘Information Disclosure and Control on Facebook: Are they Two Sides of the Same Coin or Two Different Procedures? ‘ ,CyberPsychology & A ; Behaviour,vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 341-345.

  • Dubow, B. 2007, ‘Confessions of “ Facebook Stalkers ” ‘ ,USA Today,& lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.usatoday.

    com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-03-07-facebook-stalking_N.htm & gt ; .

  • Dwyer, C. , Hiltz, R. & A ; Passerini, K. 2007, ‘Trust and Privacy Concern within Social Netowrking: A Comparison of Facebook and Myspace ‘ , paper presented to theConference on Information Systems, Colorado.
  • Facebook Revised December 9 2009, “ Privacy Policy ” , viewed 30 March 2010 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. # INFO_PROTECT & gt ; .

  • Govani, T. & A ; Pashley, H. 2005, Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications while Using Facebook.

    , Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Halbert, D. 2009, ‘Public Lifes and Private Communities: The Footings of Service Agreement and Life in Virtual Worlds ‘ ,First Monday [ Online ], vol. 14, no. 12.

  • Jones, H. & A ; Soltren, J. 2005, Facebook: Menaces to Privacy, viewed 18 March 2010 & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //

    pdf & gt ; .

  • Klassen, A. November 26 2007, ‘Facebook ‘s Bid Ad Plan: If Users Lke You, They ‘ll Be Your Campaign ‘ ,Ad Age,& lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // article_id=121806 & A ; search_phrase= % 22social+ads % 22 & gt ; .
  • Rampell, C. November 3, 2007, ‘Widgets Become Coins of the Social Realm ‘ ,Washington Post, & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. & gt ; .

  • Raynes-Goldie, K. 2010, ‘Aliases, Creeping, and Wall Cleaning: Understanding Privacy in the age of Facebook ‘ ,First Monday[ Online ] , vol. 15, no. 1.

  • Schweitzer, S. 2005, ‘When pupils open up – a small excessively much ‘ ,,& lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: // & gt ; .
  • Strater, K. & A ; Richter, H. 2007, ‘Examining Privacy and Disclosure in a Social Networking COmmunity ‘ , paper presented to theSymposium on Useable Privacy and Security, Pittsburgh, USA.

  • Szoka, B. & A ; Thierer, A. 2009, ‘Targeted Online Ad: What ‘s the Harm & A ; Where Are We Heading? ‘ ,Advancement on Point,vol. 16, no. 2.
  • Todi, M. 2008, ‘Advertising on Social Networking Websites ‘ ,Wharton Researh Scholars Journal.
  • Tufekci, Z.

    2008, ‘Can you see me now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites ‘ ,Bulletin of Science Technology Society, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 20-36.

  • Whelan, B. 2005, ‘Facebook, a Fun Resource or Invasion of Privacy ‘ ,, & lt ; & lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //athensnews.

    com/issue/article.php3? story_id=21491 & gt ; . & gt ; .

Written by

I'm Colleen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out