Control your Facebook: An analysis of online privacy literacy

Abstract

For an effective and responsible communication on social network sites (SNSs) users must decide between withholding and disclosing personal information. For this so-called privacy regulation, users need to have the respective skills—in other words, they need to have online privacy literacy. In this study, we discuss factors that potentially contribute to and result from online privacy literacy. In an online questionnaire with 630 Facebook users, we found that people who spend more time on Facebook and who have changed their privacy settings more frequently reported to have more online privacy literacy. People with more online privacy literacy, in turn, felt more secure on Facebook and implemented more social privacy settings. A mediation analysis showed that time spend on Facebook and experience with privacy regulation did not per se increase safety and privacy behavior directly, stressing the importance of online privacy literacy as a mediator to a safe and privacy-enhancing online behavior. We conclude that Internet experience leads to more online privacy literacy, which fosters a more cautious privacy behavior on SNSs.

Markers of Online Privacy Marginalization: Empirical Examination of Socioeconomic Disparities in Social Media Privacy Attitudes, Literacy, and Behavior

“…All these approaches focus on the individual as the locus of privacy interactions, but do not address surveillance or privacy violations that result from data aggregation by third parties (Baruh & Popescu, 2017). Focusing on a range of privacy concerns and PPBs allows the teasing out of additional dimensions of online privacy, such as distinctions between interactions among human beings (social or horizontal privacy) and interactions between individuals and institutions, such as companies or the government (institutional or vertical privacy; Bartsch & Dienlin, 2016; Masur, 2018; Raynes-Goldie, 2010). Such nuance is required to address both the rapidly changing technology and the evolving relationships people develop within digital spaces (Raynes-Goldie, 2010), since each involves different characteristics in terms of scalability, underlying perceptions, and potential threats (Masur, 2018).…”

“…Some previous research focused on questions of awareness and knowledge about data collection practices by large organizations and marketers (Milne & Rohm, 2000; Turow, 2003). Other research examined knowledge about relevant privacy-protecting technologies (Bartsch & Dienlin, 2016; boyd & Hargittai, 2010; Hargittai & Litt, 2013; Jensen et al, 2005). Yet still other research has focused on legal dimensions of data protection (Hoofnagle et al, 2010) or social aspects of limiting the spread of data through privacy settings (Bartsch & Dienlin, 2016).…”

“…Baruh et al (2017), in their meta-analysis of privacy management literature, have reinforced the mediating role of OPL in amplifying privacy concerns and scope of online engagement. Complimentarily, Bartsch and Dienlin (2016), focusing explicitly on Facebook, showed how privacy-literate users employ stronger protections and feel safer when using the platform; they have also pointed at quantity of use as a predictor of OPL. Recently, Li et al (2018) examined low-income communities in the United States focusing on the interaction between privacy concerns, skills, and engagement in privacy-compromising activities online (e.g., online commerce).…”

“…As discussed above, one useful distinction is between vertical (or institutional) and horizontal (or social) privacy. The first refers to the privacy relationship between an individual and an institution or platform sponsor, while the second refers to privacy relationships among individual actors (Bartsch & Dienlin, 2016; Raynes-Goldie, 2010). While research has so far focused mostly on institutional privacy (e.g., Purchases et al, 2013), social media users tend to prioritize its social aspects, particularly privacy from unwanted audiences (Quinn et al, 2019).…”

Transparency you can trust: Transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns

“…The needle in the haystack issue could become an even bigger problem with cloud robotics and Internet of things devices, where the data collected about a user and its interactions are more complex and harder to convey. Thus, it is crucial not only to consider the disclosed information but also the effort, skills, and requirements needed to decode and interpret the information (Kemper and Kolkman, 2018), or in other words the information and privacy literacy demands on the user side (Bartsch and Dienlin, 2016), including the way in which disclosed information is embedded in other practices that may support or hinder its use.…”