How Online Privacy Literacy Supports Self-Data Protection and Self-Determination in the Age of Information

Current debates on online privacy are rooted in liberal theory. Accordingly, privacy is often regarded as a form of freedom from social, economic, and institutional influences. Such a negative perspective on privacy, however, focuses too much on how individuals can be protected or can protect themselves, instead of challenging the necessity of protection itself. In this article, I argue that increasing online privacy literacy not only empowers individuals to achieve (a necessarily limited) form of negative privacy, but has the potential to facilitate a privacy deliberation process in which individuals become agents of social change that could lead to conditions of positive privacy and informational self-determination. To this end, I propose a four-dimensional model of online privacy literacy that encompasses factual privacy knowledge, privacy-related reflection abilities, privacy and data protection skills, and critical privacy literacy. I then outline how this combination of knowledge, abilities, and skills 1) enables to individuals to protect themselves against some horizontal and vertical privacy intrusions and 2) motivates individuals to critically challenge the social structures and power relations that necessitate the need for protection in the first place. Understanding these processes, as well as critically engaging with the normative premises and implications of the predominant negative concepts of privacy, offers a more nuanced direction for future research on online privacy literacy and privacy in general

Cultural differences in social media use, privacy, and self-disclosure : research report on a multicultural study

This research report presents comparative results from five nations (United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and China) with regard to social media use, self-disclosure, privacy perceptions and attitudes, and privacy behavior in online environments. The data stemmed from an online survey that was conducted from November, 2011, to December, 2011. Across all five nations, N = 1,800 participants completed the survey. The findings suggest that a broad differentiation between Western and Eastern cultures only partly accounted for differences in social media use and privacy behavior. Rather, the results of this report suggest that European countries (United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands) share similar privacy perceptions and show similar behavioral patterns. Non-European cultures (the USA and China) on the other hand, use social media differently. Participants from European countries had generally smaller audiences on social network sites and microblogging platforms, tended to limit the visibility of their postings and profile information more, and used more privacy settings to safeguard their privacy. In particular, German social media users seemed to be guarded, protective, and rather reluctant to participate in online communication. Users from the US, on the other hand, rated privacy-related behavior as less risky and were hence less likely to imply sophisticated privacy strategies. Apart from these findings, the report also shows that there are more commonalities than differences. People from all five countries think that it is important to protect privacy. Most users consciously decides what to share and what not to share. Accordingly, social media users do not always share intimate and detailed information about their lives

An Agenda for Open Science in Communication

In the last 10 years, many canonical findings in the social sciences appear unreliable. This so-called “replication crisis” has spurred calls for open science practices, which aim to increase the reproducibility, replicability, and generalizability of findings. Communication research is subject to many of the same challenges that have caused low replicability in other fields. As a result, we propose an agenda for adopting open science practices in Communication, which includes the following seven suggestions: (1) publish materials, data, and code; (2) preregister studies and submit registered reports; (3) conduct replications; (4) collaborate; (5) foster open science skills; (6) implement Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines; and (7) incentivize open science practices. Although in our agenda we focus mostly on quantitative research, we also reflect on open science practices relevant to qualitative research. We conclude by discussing potential objections and concerns associated with open science practices