Advertisement

A Democracy Called Facebook? Participation as a Privacy Strategy on Social Media

  • Severin EngelmannEmail author
  • Jens Grossklags
  • Orestis Papakyriakopoulos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11079)

Abstract

Despite its known inadequacies, notice and consent is still the most common privacy practice on social media platforms. Indeed, conceptualizing alternative privacy strategies for the social media context has proven to be difficult. In 2009, Facebook implemented a participatory governance system that enabled users to vote on its privacy policy. However, three years later, Facebook held a final vote that led to the termination of its participatory governance system. Here, we empirically assess this participatory privacy strategy designed to democratize social media policy-making. We describe the different components of Facebook’s participatory governance system, show how users could influence privacy policy decision-making, and report the privacy policies users accepted and rejected by vote. Furthermore, we identify the common themes users discussed during the final electoral period by applying an unsupervised machine learning topic modeling algorithm to thousands of Facebook user comments. Our results demonstrate that users voiced concerns about being insufficiently informed about participation commitments and possibilities, attempted to orchestrate a transfer of the vote to a third-party platform, and engaged in spreading misconstrued data ownership claims. Based on our results, we analyze the key reasons behind Facebook’s failure to implement a successful participation process. Finally, we highlight the significance of framing diversity for privacy decision-making in the context of a participatory privacy strategy on social media.

Keywords

Social media democracy Social media governance Privacy Online participation Topic modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Kathryn E. Lambert and Alan Nochenson for their contributions to data collection and preliminary analysis of the data. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments. The research activities of Severin Engelmann and Jens Grossklags are supported by the German Institute for Trust and Safety on the Internet (DIVSI).

References

  1. 1.
    CNN: Mark Zuckerberg in his own words: The CNN interview. http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/21/technology/mark-zuckerberg-cnn-interview-transcript. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  2. 2.
    Lazer, D., et al.: The science of fake news. Science 359(6380), 1094–1096 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M.: Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31(2), 211–236 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Atlantic: What took Facebook so long? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/facebook-cambridge-analytica/555866/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  5. 5.
    Pu, Y., Grossklags, J.: Valuating friends’ privacy: does anonymity of sharing personal data matter? In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 339–355 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stieger, S., Burger, C., Bohn, M., Voracek, M.: Who commits virtual identity suicide? Differences in privacy concerns, internet addiction, and personality between Facebook users and quitters. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 16(9), 629–634 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cate, F., Mayer-Schönberger, V.: Notice and consent in a world of big data. Int. Data Priv. Law 3(2), 67–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langheinrich, M.: Privacy by design—Principles of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. In: Abowd, G.D., Brumitt, B., Shafer, S. (eds.) UbiComp 2001. LNCS, vol. 2201, pp. 273–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45427-6_23CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gürses, S., del Alamo, J.M.: Privacy engineering: shaping an emerging field of research and practice. IEEE Secur. Priv. 14(2), 240–246 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Good, N., et al.: Stopping spyware at the gate: a user study of privacy, notice and spyware. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 43–52 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Acquisti, A., Grossklags, J.: Privacy and rationality in individual decision making. IEEE Secur. Priv. 3(1), 26–33 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spiekermann, S., Grossklags, J., Berendt, B.: E-privacy in 2nd generation e-commerce: privacy preferences versus actual behavior. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 38–47 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gindin, S.: Nobody reads your privacy policy or online contract: lessons learned and questions raised by the FTC’s action against Sears. Northwest. J. Technol. Intellect. Prop. 8(1), 1–37 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keith, M., Maynes, C., Lowry, P., Babb, J.: Privacy fatigue: the effect of privacy control complexity on consumer electronic information disclosure. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., Loewenstein, G.: Misplaced confidences: privacy and the control paradox. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 4(3), 340–347 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bösch, C., Erb, B., Kargl, F., Kopp, H., Pfattheicher, S.: Tales from the dark side: privacy dark strategies and privacy dark patterns. Proc. Priv. Enhancing Technol. 4, 237–254 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nochenson, A., Grossklags, J.: An online experiment on consumers’ susceptibility to fall for post-transaction marketing scams. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spiekermann, S., Cranor, L.F.: Engineering privacy. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(1), 67–82 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Buzzfeed: Facebook democracy is dead. https://www.buzzfeed.com/mattbuchanan/facebook-democracy-is-dead?. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  21. 21.
    CNN: The end of digital democracy? Facebook wants to take away your right to vote. https://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/22/tech/social-media/facebook-democracy. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  22. 22.
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  23. 23.
    The Guardian: Facebook privacy change angers campaigners. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/dec/10/facebook-privacy. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  24. 24.
    PCWorld: Facebook’s Zuckerberg to Address User Privacy Concerns at Press Conference Thursday. https://www.pcworld.com/article/160304/facebook.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  25. 25.
    Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  26. 26.
    Facebook Newsroom. https://newsroom.fb.com/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  27. 27.
    Adweek: Facebook’s proposed revisions to statement of rights and responsibilities, data use policy up for vote through June 8. http://www.adweek.com/digital/site-governance-vote/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  28. 28.
    Letter of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. https://epic.org/privacy/facebook/EPIC-CDD-Ltr-to-FB-Data-Use.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  29. 29.
    Facebook Newsroom: Our Site Governance Vote. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2012/12/our-site-governance-vote/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  30. 30.
    Facebook: Results of the Inaugural Facebook Site Governance Vote. https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/results-of-the-inaugural-facebook-site-governance-vote/79146552130/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  31. 31.
    CNN: Voting closes on Facebook policy changes, only 299 million votes short. https://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/10/tech/social-media/facebook-policy-vote/index.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  32. 32.
    Aizawa, A.: An information-theoretic perspective of TFIDF measures. Inf. Process. Manag. 39(1), 45–65 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blei, D., Lafferty, J.: Topic models. In: Text Mining: Classification, Clustering, and Applications, pp. 71–93 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, D., Seung, S.: Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature 401(6755), 788–791 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Franc, V., Hlaváč, V., Navara, M.: Sequential coordinate-wise algorithm for the non-negative least squares problem. In: Gagalowicz, A., Philips, W. (eds.) CAIP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3691, pp. 407–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11556121_50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cao, J., Xia, T., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Tang, S.: A density-based method for adaptive LDA model selection. Neurocomputing 72(7–9), 1775–1778 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Our Policy, 7000 Comments for a better Privacy Policy. http://web.archive.org/web/20120617192456/, http://www.our-policy.org:80/html/en.html. Accessed 21 May 2018
  38. 38.
    Süddeutsche Zeitung: Nein, man kann den neuen Datenschutz-Regeln nicht per Facebook-Bild widersprechen. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/eu-verordnung-nein-man-kann-den-neuen-datenschutz-regeln-nicht-per-facebook-bild-widersprechen-1.3984780. Accessed 18 May 2018
  39. 39.
    New York Times: A guide to (somewhat) painless thanksgiving travel. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/travel/thanksgiving-travel-tips.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  40. 40.
    Bond, R., et al.: A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489(7415), 295–298 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Facebook newsroom: proposed updates to our governing documents. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2012/11/proposed-updates-to-our-governing-documents/. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
  42. 42.
    Wired: The case for a Zuck-free Facebook. https://www.wired.com/story/the-case-for-a-zuck-free-facebook/. Accessed 21 May 2018
  43. 43.
    Estlund, D.: Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Adjerid, I., Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., Loewenstein, G.: Sleights of privacy: framing, disclosures, and the limits of transparency. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kelly, J.T.: Framing democracy: a behavioral approach to democratic theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2012)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sniderman, P.M., Theriault, S.M.: The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, pp. 133–165 (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brewer, P., Gross, K.: Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: effects on content and quantity. Polit. Psychol. 26(6), 929–948 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Severin Engelmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jens Grossklags
    • 1
  • Orestis Papakyriakopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.Chair of Cyber Trust, Department of InformaticsTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Political Data Science, School of GovernanceTechnical University MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations