PRIVACY ON SOCIAL MEDIA Essay Example

  • Category:
    Other
  • Document type:
    Assignment
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    3
  • Words:
    1553

Contents

32.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

32.0 Introduction

32.1 General overview

52.2 Theoretical Review

52.2.1The third-person effect theory

52.2.2 Ritualized media theory

52.2.3 Gratification theory

62.3 Empirical Review

63.0 Conclusion

74.0 Reference

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

Since 2004, social network service has become both a mirror and basic tool for personal identity, social interaction and network building among students. When the technology becomes pervasive as social network sites penetrate to their user everyday life and tend to become invisible ones they are adopted and taken for granted. Pervasive technology leads to unplanned consequences such as threats to changes and privacy in the relationship between private and public fields (Stefanick, 2011). There is much concern of Privacy on online social networking due to the accidental leak of personal information as well as damage of status due to gossip and rumours. Privacy is also needed due to unwanted contacts harassment, surveillance due to backtracking functions, hacking and identity theft and use of data by third parties. The paper investigates facebook user’s understanding on privacy issues, their experience and meaning-making process.

2.1 General overview

The privacy concerns defined above have been confirmed through several studies and reports on facebook (Gupta & Brooks, 2013). Report carried out in 23 internet service companies charged Facebook with most privacy flaws but Google scored worse where facebook tied with other six companies. The rating which was based on concern about data mining, data matching, transfers to other companies and other sources such as instant messaging services, newspaper and other users of facebook services (Wankel, Marovich & Stanaityte, 2010).

Nearly after the introduction of facebook, user password was still been sent to the users without encryption and, therefore, they could be easily intercepted by a third party (Blefari, Salgarelli, et al 2011). But since then, it has been corrected and improvement to privacy has been established. A simple algorithm could as well be used in downloading all public profiles since facebook was using predictable URLs for those profile pages. The facebook could also gather information on its user on other sources unless the user chose to opt-out but in 2007 (Moore, Ahvenainen, et al 2009). The system was improved and the opt-choice was cancelled but the data collection policy was still intact.

For the first three years after the introduction of facebook, the ability to restrict the users profile from been viewed by the friends failed. The posted information on the profiles restricted could show up in profile unless the user selected to choose opt-out his or her profile from search. The problem was eliminated in 2007. There was also the introduction of the “News Feed” in late 2006 which tracked any displayed activities of the user’s friends. Such uploads include new friends, writing on someone’s wall and uploading pictures (Bianchi, Salgarelli et al, 2011). None of the individuals was private and the users felt deprived and exposed on their sense of control over their information. Later a group of protestant (700,000 members) formed “student against new feeds.» Later, facebook introduced privacy controls that allowed the users to determine the post shown on news feed and also to whom.

In 2007, there was also the introduction of programs created by third-party developers and the application tracked personal profile available with the purpose of advertising. Initially, the advert was made through the user’s friends and this led to rising of a group “Petition: Facebook, Stop Invading My Privacy.» To curb this problem, facebook introduced a feature that allowed its user to opt-out broadcasting (Lovett, 2011). The invisible part here is maintaining the separation of the adverts and what the user preferred (Moore, Ioannidis, et al 2010). In additional there has been concern about the connection of facebook by the government agencies such as Central Intelligence Agency and facebook company (Trottier, 2012). The police may receive the details of the facebook user and take actions on him or her. There also seems to be invisible actions to be taken on this matter.

Although social media have been made into the news media and also well documented, there is little research to show how these problem plays into the global social by the facebook users and how much user care about these issues (Moore, Ahvenainen, et al 2009).

2.2 Theoretical Review

Three theories have been used to explain how people use media to fulfil their needs while using and interacting with social Medias such as facebook.

2.2.1The third-person effect theory

The theory states that people expect other users to have great effect than them. The state of having a discrepancy between assumption on others and self-perception is known as perceptual hypothesis within the third person effect approach. Although the approach has implications with the people supporting censorship, our purpose is much focusing on the perceptual side (Noor & Hendricks, 2012). How do the users recognize privacy on using facebook and the consequences faced?

2.2.2 Ritualized media theory

The ritualized media theory states that the media are not only consumed for entertainment or information purpose but also used as part of leisure and diversion and people’s daily life routines (Tang & Liu, 2010). The social Media is also connected to other structures such as ritualized meetings of other friends to favourite TV programs at particular time. The theory also shows the peoples concerns on the privacy of the facebook users (Flynn, 2012).

2.2.3 Gratification theory

The gratification theory explains how the facebook users gain in fulfilling the needs of the people. For example, the needs for entertainment and diversion, the needs for interacting with people all over the world and also the need for identity construction (Brown, 2008). We assume that the facebook has a strong gratification on the needs mentioned above.

2.3 Empirical Review

The finding shows that the facebook and other forms of social network sites face high risk to the user’s privacy although, on the other hand, they are also popular. In addition, they also provide great gratification to the users. In fact, other studies have indicated that the users continually manage and negotiate on the expected benefits and the risk involved (Altshuler, 2013). Exploitation on the facebook users by the commercial advert from the third party seems to be invisible. To maintain the separation, any advert and marketing parties must be subcutaneous and unobtrusive. Survey findings indicate that the majority of the facebook user may not have the skew on what exactly the privacy entails (Cohen, 2007). If the user reports a particular form of inversion on personal privacy the user is likely to change the setting of his or her privacy than if they reported privacy invasion that happens to others (Mandiberg, 2012).

3.0 Conclusion

Some of the factors that limit the privacy in facebook are important to continually function despite the need of privacy by the users. For example, the use of social media may be used tighten the security of the country demand great cooperation with the various social media companies. Such needs by the security include terrorism, rebellion and revolution that the citizens use to post on the social Medias. The involved companies should try as much as possible to increase privacy as they deliver their services. The social media highly influences the citizens of a country and therefore measures should be implemented to increase unity and peace in different countries. The different companies providing the services should also increase public education on the need and how to increase the user’s privacy.

4.0 Reference

Aggarwal, C. C. (2011). Social network data analytics. New York: Springer.

Altshuler, Y. (2013). Security and privacy in social networks. New York, NY: Springer.

Blefari-Melazzi, N., Bianchi, G., & Salgarelli, L. (2011). Trustworthy internet. Milan: Springer.

Brown, G. (2008). Social media 100 success secrets: Social media, web 2.0 user-generated content and virtual communities; 100 most asked mass collaboration questions. S.l: Emereo Pty Ltd.?.

Cohen, L. B. (2007). Library 2.0 initiatives in academic libraries. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries.

Flynn, N. (2012). The social media handbook: Rules, policies, and best practices to successfully manage your organization’s social media presence, posts, and potential. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Gupta, R., & Brooks, H. (2013). Using social media for global security. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.

Jaokar, A., Jacobs, B., Moore, A., & Ahvenainen, J. (2009). Social media marketing: How data analytics helps to monetize the user base in telecoms, social networks, media and advertising in a converged ecosystem. London: Futuretext Ltd.

Lovett, J. N. (2011). Social media metrics secrets: Do what you never thought possible with social media metrics. Indianapolis, Ind: Wiley Pub.

Mandiberg, M. (2012). The social media reader. New York: New York University Press.

Moore, T., Pym, D. J., & Ioannidis, C. (2010). Economics of information security and privacy. New York: Springer.

Noor, A.-D. H. S., & Hendricks, J. A. (2012). Social media: Usage and impact. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books.

Stefanick, L. (2011). Controlling knowledge: Freedom of information and privacy protection in a networked world. Edmonton: AU Press

Tang, L., & Liu, H. (2010). Community detection and mining in social media. S.l.: Morgan & Claypool.

Trottier, D. (2012). Social media as surveillance: Rethinking visibility in a converging world. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate.

Wankel, C., Marovich, M., & Stanaityte, J. (2010). Cutting-edge social media approaches to business education: Teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and blogs. Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Pub.