How Private is Your Facebook?

Arya Firoozmand

Jane Myhers

Jennifer Lee

Laura Meyers

Najia Saber

Alyssa Keyes

When our group was given the assignment to analyze any form of social community it was only natural for our group to decide to investigate Facebook one of the most popular current forms of social networking. All over campus, it is no secret many students check their Facebook page religiously, spending as much time possible avoiding paying attention in lecture or studying in the library. This fascination has not been around for long, but yet it encompasses a large portion of the lives of teenagers and young adults all over the nation. From sharing funny anecdotes with close friends to keeping in touch with relatives across the country, Facebook has exponentially grown to become a staple in online communities.

However, while Facebook presents many advantages in social networking, the threat of revealing personal information over the internet has been a consistent concern for many internet users. Due to the nature of Facebook, personal information, photos, comments, and personal whereabouts are posted for friends, and even friends of friends to see, making privacy a real concern. As a result, it was relevant that our group question how Facebook users deal with the issue of privacy by analyzing the responses of users within our personal Facebook networks. Through the use of surveys and personal interviews, we examined privacy concerns of Facebook users and found Facebook’s privacy concerns are more elaborate than we originally believed. Through our research, it became clear that there are tiers of censoring that reveal themselves, that specifically arise from each user’s reasoning for using their Facebook.

Methodology

To test our original hypotheses, our group felt that the most effective means of collecting data was by using an online survey.  Ironically, we made a Facebook event to advertise the survey that we asked our Facebook friends to participate in.  Supplemental emails were also sent to any email groups or list serves that our members were a part of, inviting them to take part in our survey.  In addition, we supplemented our online survey with personal interviews from several sources that provided more detailed insight on the reasoning behind many Facebook privacy decisions.  We did make it clear in the survey that the research that would be conducted would be kept confidential, and any and all information provided would go directly towards our research project.
  
  
            Our first research question asked respondents general questions asking them about their gender, age, and level of collegiate experience, to determine a sort of grouping for our respondents.  After which point, the survey asked: “have you ever removed or detagged an unflattering comment or photo, and if so, why?”  Our second research question asked: “have you ever changed key information facts, such as name, email, or location, to increase the difficulty in finding you on Facebook.”  A follow up question asked respondents that answered in the affirmative to reply as to why they decided to change such personal information.  Similarly, another research question asked respondents whether or they “censor information for different groups of people.”  By nature, this led into the following question that asked respondents “what types of filters or divisions do they use to restrict information to certain groups of friends on Facebook.”  On a comparable note, respondents were asked whether or not they “have taken down or restricted information after friending someone or joining a group, and if so, why?”    On the other hand, our personal interview questions went into more detail about privacy norms on Facebook.  Specifically, these questions went into detail about how safe interviewees feel on Facebook in relation to their designated privacy settings.

According to research done by students at Carnegie Mellon University in, “Student Awareness of the Privacy Implications When Using Facebook,” Facebook allows users to post the most amount of personal information than any other social networking site. What’s interesting about this statistic is that of those they surveyed, over 60% of profiles had a profile image, birth date, home town, AIM screen name, high school, relationship status, interests, and various other favorite things. In relation to privacy settings, the researchers found that 84% of those surveyed knew about Facebook privacy settings, and of those that knew, only 48% altered the default settings. This research alludes to the fact that Facebook users know about privacy concerns and issues, yet still engage themselves in risky online behavior. This type of decision can be the result of a comfort level that users have with the online networking site, and a lackadaisical attitude young adults have about their private information.

However, in “Understanding Privacy Settings in Facebook with an Audience View,” researchers at University of North Carolina found that while the students knew about the privacy settings, many of them found it to be confusing and time-consuming, thus turning them away from altering the default settings. Furthermore, after altering the settings, the current interface (at the time the research was conducted) did not give the user any assurance that what they changed matched their desired outcome. Interestingly enough, the article also cites that users, when first joining, knew about the risks of putting personal information online. Yet, the more they interacted with friends, the more their qualms about privacy decreased, thus suggesting again that there is a comfort level users have that reduces

In “Brave New World of Digital Intimacy” by Clive Thompson, Thompson touches on the idea of the original Facebook’s “inherent, built-in level of privacy.” This original layout, “took work and forethought…[but] there weren’t enough hours in the day to keep tabs on every friend all the time” (Thompson 2008:1). This issue resulted in the creation of the News Feed, “a long list of up-to-the-minute gossip about their friends, around the clock, all in one place” (Thompson 2008:1). However, the public reaction to the News Feed was at first very poor, which resulted in Zuckerberg “add[ing] a privacy feature to News Feed, letting users decide what kind of information went out” (Thompson 2008:1). Interestingly enough, “Users’ worries about their privacy seemed to vanish within days, boiled away by their excitement at being so much more connected to their friends. (Very few people stopped using Facebook, and most people kept on publishing most of their information through News Feed.). It catalyzed a massive boom in the site’s growth” (Thompson 2008:1). In comparison to the research we have done, it is important to note that most of filters sprouted off the creation of the News Feed, an aggregate of the activity and information from Facebook friends. While the research points out that most of the users chose to keep their information out there, it is important to note that it does address interaction between faculty, employers, or family, which is what our research points to as the reason behind the use of filters.

Another recent tool for social networking is Google Buzz. In “Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service,” Miguel Helft writes that, “Google has faced a firestorm of criticism on blogs and Web sites, and it has already been forced to alter some features of the service” (Helft 2010:1). Furthermore, “After numerous bloggers complained that the privacy controls were difficult to find and adjust, Google agreed to make changes… and ‘continue to improve the Buzz experience with user transparency and control top of mind’” (Helft 2010:1). While this article applies to the Buzz feature, it still has a strong relevance to privacy and filtering. The idea of filtering and control over information not only applies to Facebook, but to all forms of social networking. It seems that regardless of the clientele these networks have, privacy is at the forefront of issues that need to be addressed.

In “Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook,” by Tong et al., reports, “Given these kinds of linkages that Facebook and similar systems provide, the sites are all the more interesting to communication researchers because they are specifically dedicated to forming and managing impressions, relational maintenance, and relationship-seeking. They are novel because, in comparison to typical conversations… the information on these sites contains information provided not only by the creator, but by the creator’s friends,” (Tong et al. 2010:2). One of things that our research also looks into is the way filtering differs for age groups. Because Facebook is dedicated to managing relationships and impressions, it becomes apparent that the more information one leaves public, the more accessible he or she becomes to friends and thus more material to form relationships is available.

Nevertheless, these standards for social networks extend beyond just Facebook. “Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name,” claims, “by providing spaces for social interaction and relationships beyond the workplace and home, MMOs have the capacity to function as one form of a new "third place" for informal sociability much like the pubs, coffee shops, and other hangouts of old. Moreover, participation in such virtual "third places," appears particularly well suited to the formation of bridging social capital (Putnam, 2000), social relationships that, while not providing deep emotional support per se, typically function to expose the individual to a diversity of worldviews” (Steinkuehler et al. 2010: 1). MMOs and Facebook both provide a network where users can actively participate in a “third place.” However, participation is also reliant on how much information each user is willing to disclose.

Results

Through utilizing both an online survey and interviews, we were able to extract raw data correlating to our research and thus draw deductions according to these results.

Survey Demographic

Based on the first 100 respondents of the survey, we were able to extract data that defined our overall hypothesis and further examined the variations of censorship and filtration. As initially projected, 66% of the respondents were college undergraduates, while 16% of the individuals were members of the workforce. The majority age distribution ranged from eighteen to twenty four years old. In regards to gendered responses, the data was largely skewed with 64% of the respondents being female.

Survey results

As a test of low level filtering, our first question asked respondents if they had ever “untagged” a picture on Facebook for any reason and as projected an overwhelming majority responded saying they had done so. Next as a more moderate test of censorship, we inquired of the level of removal of personal information from one’s page. We found, in comparison to the level of detagging, the proportion of people who censored their personal data was significantly less. We found polarities within the next question framing the use of specific, individual filters according to specific friends. Either respondents set up several filters for family, friends, coworkers, relatives, etc, or they did not use any filters at all.

Analysis of results in reference to demographic

In reference to the raw data gathered through the survey and the deductions gathered based on the demographic, we were able to generate three levels of censorship and the typical types of individuals who associated each level respectfully.

As the gender response was heavily weighted with female respondents, we took this into consideration in regards to some filters. We noticed that females were much more likely to untag a photo on Facebook due to the nature of it being “unflattering” opposed to inappropriate. Males, overall, were less likely to remove tags at all. The image females project of themselves is different than that of males. Females tend to feel that Facebook is a platform for outsider judgment and thus by constructing one with the best possible image of themselves, they can evade such judgment. Males, in contrast, seemed indifferent to judgment. Most of the photos deemed inappropriate were categorized as humorous. Both genders, do however censor their profiles. Whether it is to evade judgment by friends based on appearance or by future employers or family, most people have a means to which they cut certain people out of the general ability to access all of their information. Uniformly, both genders, also fear their personal information being leaked to the world wide web and used without their direct consent or knowledge.

Mild censoring

Mild censorship is commonly done through filtering one’s own information and groups and monitoring their appropriateness. The most common form of censorship and thus data filtering is seen in the “untagging” of tagged photos. People often remove the tag of these photos due to their displeasure with the photo overall, however it is often very common for people to remove themselves from pictures with alcohol, at parties or clubs, or when they were in an outfit that could be potentially deemed as inappropriate. People’s motive for this censoring is typically due to group affiliation that associates with rules and standards of professional appearance (i.e. sport teams, fraternities/sororities, and many other clubs). These motives are also the reason why many individuals censor their personal information (make it very generic), as well as keep their wall-to-wall personal interactions relatively harmless in nature. The mild censoring individuals do not go out of their way to shield their profile from others, they focus more on filtering information altogether.

Moderate censoring

The moderate censoring individuals both filter and shield parts of the profiles. Many people who are friends with relatives and colleagues will set them as a “limited profile”, thus disallowing them to view certain parts of their profile information, photos, or wall activity. Beyond this, in terms of filtering, these individuals will not only “untag” a photo but will ask for it to be removed altogether. To avoid the process often those who used mild censorship during their undergraduate years will evolve into moderate censoring individuals. This is due to the nature of entering the workforce and the ease of access to information that employers hold. To evade employer searches, many people will change their name on Facebook. The most common is to use the capital first letter of one’s last name, or to use a maiden name or middle name. This use of censorship also becomes more prominent upon graduating college and entering the workforce because the concept and use of Facebook tends to change. When Facebooks are initially created there is a sense of a “friending” frenzy, where individuals want to have high numbers of friends regardless of their actual relationship with the “friend”. This mentality often carries into or is revived in the college setting as students meet many new people and generate a sense of excitement associated with the setting. We found, as students prepare to graduate and enter the workforce, they first become more prone to censorship, and they second lose interest in expanding their friend base. Many individuals at this point weed through their “friends” and remove people they barely know or have no intention to contact. This shift in Facebook use mentality, makes the process of censoring less of a burden, as it does not impede one’s primary agenda when using it.

High censoring

Finally, high levels of censorship are displayed in users who have to hide the majority of their lives from individuals and not merely facets of it. This extreme censoring is displayed with individuals who have two separate accounts, one typically projecting their surface persona and the other with their normal, unfiltered identity. The surface persona is the account in which these individuals interact with the people who are the initial reasoning for them to use dual accounts. These accounts are extremely generative and impersonal; typically they are used only to appease people who they feel uncomfortable friending on their real account, yet still obligated to friend them. This is predominately seen with relatives, immediate family, and coworkers. Other forms of high censorship result in an individual prohibiting their friends to write on their wall altogether. This eases the amount of policing one must do to their own profile and subsides feelings of anxiety when one cannot access their site to ensure its level of appropriateness.

Interviews and analysis of respondents

In reference to the levels of censorship generated by the survey results, we were able to further understand individual reasoning for censoring through interviews.

Interview 1

The first interviewee was a twenty seven year old female who was of post graduate educational level. She had been an active member on Facebook for eight years (since the beginning of her undergraduate career and the creations of Facebook altogether). Her reasoning for Facebook use was mainly networking which followed accordingly to career opportunities. She also used the site for some correspondence with friends from high school and people from her hometown.

In regards to privacy, the interviewee stated she commonly untagged unflattering pictures as well as removed any inappropriate posts (based in sexuality, swearing, etc). She also cited that she employed the use of filters through grouping individuals according to specific classifications. Some groups can see her wall and access it, while others cannot as well as some can only see her profile picture and hometown, while others can access all the information she presents on her page. She also explained that she hides her tagged pictures from everyone.

This interviewee is classified as using moderate censorship. She limits what can be seen by certain groups through the understanding and utilizing of filters. This is mainly attributed to her age and agenda of seeking professional employment. Her first stated reason for using Facebook was networking and thus a professional image is valued to her. Facebook, overall, to her is not about expanding friendships but more so about staying connected. She takes no issue with a generic representation of herself due to this. This reinforces the notion that individuals with different priorities in their lives, maintain different uses for Facebook and therefore have varying levels of self presentation and thus levels of overall censorship.

Interview 2:

The second interviewee was a 21 year old female undergraduate at the University of California, Irvine. She had been an active member of Facebook since she was a junior in high school. Her uses for Facebook spanned from friendships to networking.

This interviewee explained how she had many regulatory beings in her life, which encouraged her to police her profile and privatize many elements of it. She utilized groups such as “gov” for when she worked for the state and “semi” for relatives, older individuals, and some coworkers, in order to distinguish levels of allowed Facebook interaction and access to information each group or friend within a group had. She also stated that as a member of a sorority, she had to abide by a media agreement and therefore in the past she had been asked to privatize Facebook albums or remove pictures altogether.

This interviewee is classified within the moderate to high level levels of censorship. She categorized the majority of her friends to censor every element of her profile. She had not gone as far as to change her name or create multiple accounts, however as she leaves the undergraduate sphere and enters the completely professional sphere, we predict she is on course of doing so. This should also follow suit with her shift in priorities and use for Facebook overall.

Interview 3:

The third interview was a 22 year old male undergraduate at the University of California, Irvine. He had been an active member of Facebook since public inception in 2006. His main use of Facebook was for friends and family, there was no not of professional or network use.

This interview practiced high level censorship in regards to delimiting the use of his information on the web or access of it by other sites or outsiders altogether. When asked if he had ever adjusted his privacy settings and which ones he had done so with he cited:

“Absolutely. I have adjusted all of them. I configured them manually myself and I also used another web app that find security gaps. Then I went in and modified those too.”

He stated that he had performed this level of privatization because the initial privacy agreements on Facebook were vague and did not cover the future additions to Facebook which inevitably overrode the initial agreement altogether. In reference to filters, he explained his main use for them was to censor his family from virtually everything on his page. When prompted about untagging pictures, the interviewee explained that he untags on a regular basis. He explained that Facebook is a representation of yourself however, you cannot control all the outside content that is added that also attributes to one’s perception of you and your overall representation. He therefore finds it necessary to police things such as photos, to ensure he is self representing as he would like to be generally perceived by all.

This interviewee added a new facet to the motives of censorship established in the survey and past interviewees. He privatized his information for more than just his personal representation, he did it to evade the world wide web as a whole. He isolated his profile to be self contained and virtually unable to breach by any outside network that he has not approved. His understanding of overall Facebook censorship and privacy settings put his level of use as high censorship.

Interview 4:

The final interviewee was a 19 year old female, who attends Orange County Community College. She had been a member of Facebook for three years. She stated that her main use of Facebook was to “stalk” individuals and access gossip. She, by no means, alluded to any use of Facebook as a tool other than a social entity.

Her take on privacy and overall censorship revolved around the individual not posting things “your mom wouldn’t want to see.” She did not use filters, and her only setting for privacy was that only her friends could see her page. Overall, she stated that one’s Facebook should not need to be extremely private or filled with lists if one did not post inappropriate pictures, statuses, or information. She claimed to not be phased by the privacy and perception of her overall friend’s list because she felt in control of the image she projected into the Facebook community. She finally noted that she had little knowledge of how the privacy settings

This interviewee utilizes very mild levels of censorship. She is unversed and apathetic towards privacy settings. This follows suit with her priorities, as she is 19 and claims to use Facebook only as a gossiping tool. Beyond this she has not conceptualized Facebook as a tool with any other regard and with this is mind, her motive to censor her information and block everyone out of her profile would be low.

Analysis of Interviews overall

Altogether, the interviews displayed examples of the spectrum of censorship. They also provided examples of the reasoning an individual has for censoring at each level. There is an obvious correlation to age and placement in school or work. As seen, a 19 year old has very different priorities opposed to a twenty seven year old. This is inevitable due to age and experience gap. It is interesting to note that Facebook as one social networking site can be utilized for many different agendas, however each agenda does agree that to some degree their personal information must be censored or filtered at some point.

Conclusion

The idea of censorship is part of the new frontier of the world wide web. As individuals acclimate to the new concepts of sharing information and easy access to said information, we evolve into more private beings. When the idea of our own private lives working against us in our future endeavors is presented, we quickly can see the need to censor the overt evidence of many facets of our lives. Even the freest spirited beings can be negatively affected for their lack of censorship. We have seen that younger ages are permitted some form of “free pass” with regards to the data being used against them in the profession sector, however there is no pass for relatives and immediate family members. There is also no stopping of personal information being used against an individual who does not abide by common regulatory forces within our everyday lives. Though each person has differing levels and forces altogether, we all have them. If not now, the information can still be used in the future to impede one’s goals and aspirations. Judgment is an important element in life, and therefore to appear neutral and generic is a common goal many Facebook users are beginning to adopt. Our research has shown that as technology advances and access to information becomes easier, more and more individuals are changing their Facebook agendas and thus redefining the scope of Facebook altogether.

Bibliography

Govani, Tabreez and Harriet Pashley

2005 Student Awareness of Privacy Implications When Using Facebook, http://lorrie.cranor.org/courses/fa05/tubzhlp.pdf

Helft, Miguel

2010 Critics Say Google Invades Privacy With New Service. New York Times.

Lipford, Heather with Andrew Besmer and Jason Watson

2008 Understanding Privacy Settings in Facebook with an Audience View. University of North Carolina, http://www.usenix.org/event/upsec08/tech/full_papers/lipford/lipford.pdf

Thompson, Clive

2008. Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. New York Times.

Tong, Stephanie T. with Brandon Van Der Heide, Lindsey Langwell, and Joseph B. Walther

2008 Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3):531–49.

Steinkuehler, Constance and Dimitri Williams

2006 Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(4), article 1, 2006.