Current media challenges samenvatting
Artikelen en presentaties
Lieke Brekelmans
Artikelen
Artikel 1: Introduction to privacy online
The more people disclose about themselves online, the more benefits they gain, but the
greater the privacy risks they face.
Online communication creates a dualism between privacy and social connection:
- Self-disclosure increases social rewards (connection, intimacy, visibility, identity
exploration)
- Self-disclosure simultaneously increases vulnerability to privacy breaches
- Users often misunderstand how privacy works online
- Legal protections are much narrower than users assume
- Therefore, privacy literacy (not stricter research restrictions) is the most promising
solution
Three fundamental misunderstandings that complicate online privacy
1. Misplaces presumption of privacy:
a. Many users assume online communication is private because it resembles
offline interaction
b. Offline settings:
i. Face-to-face conversations are fleeting
ii. Phone calls are usually limited to two people
iii. Private gatherings feel contained
c. Online settings:
i. Content is persistent
ii. Content is searchable
iii. Content can be copied and redistributed
iv. Content may reach unintended audiences
d. Users mistakenly apply offline expectations to online environments
e. Consequences:
i. Students/employees punished for posts they assumed were private
ii. Surprise and disappointment when posts spread
iii. Underestimation of digital permanence
2. The internet’s infrastructure is incompatible with privacy:
a. At a mechanical level, the internet is a store-and-forward system:
i. Information must be captured
ii. It must be stored
iii. It must be transmitted
iv. It can be replicated
, b. Online content persists
c. Social media platforms are built for:
i. Shareability
ii. Replicability
iii. Propagation
3. Expectations of privacy is not the same as legal privilege:
a. Many users belief: if I expected privacy, I am legally protected
b. This is legally incorrect (in U.S. law)
c. Legally privileged communication applies mainly to:
i. Doctor-patient conversations
ii. Therapist-patient conversations
iii. Attorney-client conversations
d. Most online communication is not legally privileged and not protected
e. Publicly accessible online messages are considered public domain (except
copyright)
The author leans towards:
Education and literacy rather than restricting research.
Rather than changing laws, the author suggests users need:
- Better understanding of digital permanence
- Awareness of technological architecture
- Knowledge of unintended consequences
- Awareness of how norms and peer behaviour influence privacy choices
Privacy protection online depends largely on
- Individual conscious effort
- Attitudes toward disclosure
- Social norms
- Network behaviour
Why adolescents use online communication
- Identity exploration
- Sexual identity exploration
- Development experimentation
- Pseudonymous communication
These affordances are beneficial but risky.
Adults use online spaces for
- Therapeutic exploration
- Emotional support
- Sexual exploration
- Alternative identity experimentation
,When anonymous
- Disclosure of stigmatized conditions
- Support seeking
- Gender-equal participation
- Social support without offline stigma
Modern social network sites create a paradox
1. On one hand:
a. Real names
b. Visible identities
c. Known offline connections
d. Location tracking
e. Radical transparency
2. On the other hand:
a. Users still actively manage impressions
b. Profiles are selectively curated
c. Photos and content are edited
d. Self-presentation is strategic
Users recognize exaggerations in their own profiles.
They excuse distortions in close friends. They judge acquaintances more harshly for similar
distortions.
This suggests:
Impression management persists even in transparent systems.
Self-presentation may serve psychological development functions.
Across internet history
- More disclosure → more gratification
- More disclosure → more privacy risk
Privacy protection depends on:
- Number of friends
- Friend acceptance criteria
- Quality and quantity of personal data shared
- Privacy settings
- Friending behaviour
Artikel 2: self-disclosure in social media
Traditional theories describe self-disclosure as:
- Selective
- Dyadic (one-to-one)
- Gradual
- Risk-managed
, Yet on social network sites (SNSs), people:
- Disclose publicly
- Broadcast to large audiences
- Share intimate information
- Mix personal and trivial details
Why do people self-disclose in public on social media, and what determines how intimate
those disclosures are?
Self-disclosure
- Intentional sharing of personal information
- Core principles:
o Balances openness vs. privacy
o Maximizes rewards, minimizes risk
o Most comfortable in:
▪ Dyadic contexts
▪ Close relationships
▪ Stranger situations without future interaction
o Least comfortable:
▪ In presence of observers
▪ With acquaintances expecting future contact
- Problem: SNS public disclosure contradicts these expectations
Functional theory of self-disclosure
- Derived from Derlega & Grzelak and Omarzu
- People disclose to achieve goals
- Disclosure goals activate decision-making and shape:
o What is disclosed
o How intimate it is
o How long it is
Core disclosure goals (functional model)
1. Social validation:
a. Seeking approval, liking, affirmation
b. Example: bragging about a gift
2. Self-expression:
a. Venting emotions
b. Relieving distress
3. Relational development:
a. Building or repairing relationships
b. Increasing closeness
4. Identity clarification:
a. Defining who you are
Artikelen en presentaties
Lieke Brekelmans
Artikelen
Artikel 1: Introduction to privacy online
The more people disclose about themselves online, the more benefits they gain, but the
greater the privacy risks they face.
Online communication creates a dualism between privacy and social connection:
- Self-disclosure increases social rewards (connection, intimacy, visibility, identity
exploration)
- Self-disclosure simultaneously increases vulnerability to privacy breaches
- Users often misunderstand how privacy works online
- Legal protections are much narrower than users assume
- Therefore, privacy literacy (not stricter research restrictions) is the most promising
solution
Three fundamental misunderstandings that complicate online privacy
1. Misplaces presumption of privacy:
a. Many users assume online communication is private because it resembles
offline interaction
b. Offline settings:
i. Face-to-face conversations are fleeting
ii. Phone calls are usually limited to two people
iii. Private gatherings feel contained
c. Online settings:
i. Content is persistent
ii. Content is searchable
iii. Content can be copied and redistributed
iv. Content may reach unintended audiences
d. Users mistakenly apply offline expectations to online environments
e. Consequences:
i. Students/employees punished for posts they assumed were private
ii. Surprise and disappointment when posts spread
iii. Underestimation of digital permanence
2. The internet’s infrastructure is incompatible with privacy:
a. At a mechanical level, the internet is a store-and-forward system:
i. Information must be captured
ii. It must be stored
iii. It must be transmitted
iv. It can be replicated
, b. Online content persists
c. Social media platforms are built for:
i. Shareability
ii. Replicability
iii. Propagation
3. Expectations of privacy is not the same as legal privilege:
a. Many users belief: if I expected privacy, I am legally protected
b. This is legally incorrect (in U.S. law)
c. Legally privileged communication applies mainly to:
i. Doctor-patient conversations
ii. Therapist-patient conversations
iii. Attorney-client conversations
d. Most online communication is not legally privileged and not protected
e. Publicly accessible online messages are considered public domain (except
copyright)
The author leans towards:
Education and literacy rather than restricting research.
Rather than changing laws, the author suggests users need:
- Better understanding of digital permanence
- Awareness of technological architecture
- Knowledge of unintended consequences
- Awareness of how norms and peer behaviour influence privacy choices
Privacy protection online depends largely on
- Individual conscious effort
- Attitudes toward disclosure
- Social norms
- Network behaviour
Why adolescents use online communication
- Identity exploration
- Sexual identity exploration
- Development experimentation
- Pseudonymous communication
These affordances are beneficial but risky.
Adults use online spaces for
- Therapeutic exploration
- Emotional support
- Sexual exploration
- Alternative identity experimentation
,When anonymous
- Disclosure of stigmatized conditions
- Support seeking
- Gender-equal participation
- Social support without offline stigma
Modern social network sites create a paradox
1. On one hand:
a. Real names
b. Visible identities
c. Known offline connections
d. Location tracking
e. Radical transparency
2. On the other hand:
a. Users still actively manage impressions
b. Profiles are selectively curated
c. Photos and content are edited
d. Self-presentation is strategic
Users recognize exaggerations in their own profiles.
They excuse distortions in close friends. They judge acquaintances more harshly for similar
distortions.
This suggests:
Impression management persists even in transparent systems.
Self-presentation may serve psychological development functions.
Across internet history
- More disclosure → more gratification
- More disclosure → more privacy risk
Privacy protection depends on:
- Number of friends
- Friend acceptance criteria
- Quality and quantity of personal data shared
- Privacy settings
- Friending behaviour
Artikel 2: self-disclosure in social media
Traditional theories describe self-disclosure as:
- Selective
- Dyadic (one-to-one)
- Gradual
- Risk-managed
, Yet on social network sites (SNSs), people:
- Disclose publicly
- Broadcast to large audiences
- Share intimate information
- Mix personal and trivial details
Why do people self-disclose in public on social media, and what determines how intimate
those disclosures are?
Self-disclosure
- Intentional sharing of personal information
- Core principles:
o Balances openness vs. privacy
o Maximizes rewards, minimizes risk
o Most comfortable in:
▪ Dyadic contexts
▪ Close relationships
▪ Stranger situations without future interaction
o Least comfortable:
▪ In presence of observers
▪ With acquaintances expecting future contact
- Problem: SNS public disclosure contradicts these expectations
Functional theory of self-disclosure
- Derived from Derlega & Grzelak and Omarzu
- People disclose to achieve goals
- Disclosure goals activate decision-making and shape:
o What is disclosed
o How intimate it is
o How long it is
Core disclosure goals (functional model)
1. Social validation:
a. Seeking approval, liking, affirmation
b. Example: bragging about a gift
2. Self-expression:
a. Venting emotions
b. Relieving distress
3. Relational development:
a. Building or repairing relationships
b. Increasing closeness
4. Identity clarification:
a. Defining who you are
