chi2011: were in it together: interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services
DESCRIPTION
Presentation slides for CHI 2011 talk on our full paper, titled "Were In It Together: Interpersonal Management of Disclosure in Social Network Services" (article @ ACM Digital Library: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979420)TRANSCRIPT
WEʼRE IN IT TOGETHER Interpersonal Management of Disclosure in Social Network Services#
Airi Lampinen, Vilma Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio & Sakari Tamminen!
PHOTO CREDIT: NCINDC ON FLICKR!
privacy as a process of interpersonal boundary control that paces and controls interaction!
BOUNDARY REGULATION (ALTMAN 1975 & 1977)#
MEDIATED CONTEXT Four properties key to networked publics (boyd 2008):
– Persistence: automatic recording and archiving – Replicability: potential for duplication – Scalability: great potential visibility of content – Searchability: content is accessible through search
Multiple co-present audiences (Lampinen et al. 2009)
THE PROBLEM#People are free to decide what they share in social network services.!
BUT they are dependent on what others choose to disclose about them.!
ALSO: What they disclose may affect others.!
How do SNS users …!… perceive control over disclosure in social
network services?!… regulate boundaries both individually and in
collaboration?!
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
27 university technology, arts & design students in Finland!
Semi-structured individual interviews!
Focus groups with prompts to provoke discussion!
QUALITATIVE STUDY IN 2009-2010
“My friends act in social network services with consideration and take my wishes into account.”
“When using a social network service, the most important thing is to make sure not to give an unintended image of oneself.”
MANAGING SHARING ON SOCIAL NETWORK SERVICES The key social network service:
People tend to try to manage on their own what is disclosed.
BUT they are aware of the limits of this approach: scarce means to control what others share about oneself.
SNS users rely on mutual consideration: trusting and being trustworthy.!
BUT meaning well isn’t necessarily enough – difficulty of predicting consequences for another person.
MUTUAL CONSIDERATION
“We at least had an unspoken deal that if there is a bad picture it is enough that one person asks for it to be deleted and as soon as that request is noticed, the picture is removed.”!
(UN)SPOKEN EXPECTATIONS
“We at least had an unspoken deal that if there is a bad picture it is enough that one person asks for it to be deleted and as soon as that request is noticed, the picture is removed.”!
“During our freshman year, we had !a rule that bikini pictures of girls are not posted, or any photos of anyone in our friend group who wasnʼt fully dressed, and that was good.” !!
(UN)SPOKEN EXPECTATIONS
PHOTO CREDIT: STITCH ON FLICKR
Collaborative ↔ Individual!Preventive ↔ Corrective!
Mental ↔ Behavioral!
STRATEGIES FOR BOUNDARY REGULATION
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE
INDIVIDUAL
COLLABORATIVE
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE
INDIVIDUAL
COLLABORATIVE
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE
INDIVIDUAL
COLLABORATIVE
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE
INDIVIDUAL
COLLABORATIVE
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE
INDIVIDUAL
COLLABORATIVE
DESIGNING FOR PREVENTIVE COLLABORATION
SHARING WITH WIDER AUDIENCE(S)!
PREVIEW SPACE:!
ACCESS FOR A LIMITED
AUDIENCE!
CONCLUSIONS Reliance on mutual consideration Shared rules of disclosure are rarely discussed Corrective strategies are problematic Currently little support for preventive collaboration
CONCLUSIONS Reliance on mutual consideration Shared rules of disclosure are rarely discussed Corrective strategies are problematic Currently little support for preventive collaboration
Airi Lampinen#[email protected]!@airi_!
Thank you! # Acknowledgements: Funding: OtaSizzle research project / Helsinki University of Technology TKK’s “Technology for Life” campaign, SOVAKO & ASLA Fulbright. Comments & Support: Colleagues at Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, at UC Berkeley’s School of Information and at Berkeley Design Institute, as well as the anonymous reviewers.