Information sharing online functions as publicity, not privacy loss
Evidence
Rather than looking at social media use as an intrinsic privacy violation, lifestreaming needs to be understood as an act of publicity. Lifestreaming can be used to publicize knowledge; to gain emotional benefits, social capital, and information; or to shore up support in an argument, but it is rarely used as a way to disregard or eliminate privacy. Most lifestreamers have sophisticated understandings of what they would or would not share online. They balance their need for publicity with their desire to control their own online image. The necessity of presenting an edited self to the world requires a careful understanding of the risks and benefits of information sharing. — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 530
Categorization
- XREF: Complicates the popular ‘privacy is dead’ discourse; dovetails with danah boyd’s networked publics scholarship and self-branding accounts (e.g., Hearn, Banet-Weiser). — connects to: Online information disclosure does not imply a lack of concern for privacy — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 640; Revealing more online can paradoxically conceal what one keeps private — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 624; Broadcasting personal data creates audience obligation that enforces behavior — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 567 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Online information disclosure does not imply a lack of concern for privacy
#corroborates(0.90) — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 640 - Even the most public online selves are managed through deliberate disclosure choices
#expands(0.85) — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 630 - Revealing more online can paradoxically conceal what one keeps private
#expands(0.80) — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 624 - Broadcasting personal data creates audience obligation that enforces behavior
#complicates(0.75) — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update, 567