Facebook and Privacy: The Balancing Act of Personality, Gender, and Relationship Currency

  • 476 views
Uploaded on

Paper on privacy and facebook …

Paper on privacy and facebook
http://tinyurl.com/77yzf2c

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
476
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • notes
  • notes
  • notes
  • notes
  • notes
  • notes

Transcript

  • 1. Facebook and Privacy:The Balancing Act of Personality, Gender, and Relationship Currency@danielequercia
  • 2. <who am i>
  • 3. daniele quercia
  • 4. offline & online
  • 5. social media language personality social media
  • 6. The Social World of Twitter WEDNESDAY 12:101. Brokers tend to cover diverse topics2. Users have a “typical” geo span3. “Happy” (“sad”) users do cluster together
  • 7. YOU YOUR FRIENDS
  • 8. Talk of the City TODAY 5:30 social media environment sports health wedding parties Spanish/Portuguese celebrity gossips
  • 9. <goal>
  • 10. focus on privacy…
  • 11. Assign a number to each Facebook user
  • 12. Assign a number to each Facebook user = user’s disposition to disclose & conceal what is considered private and public in Facebook
  • 13. Easiest way: Count! looking education residence political religion hometown position employer X disclosed all 8 Y disclosed only 1
  • 14. Our way: Item Response Theory (IRT)Traditional Goal: Design tests & build scales respondent’s disposition to answer difficult questions
  • 15. Our way: Item Response Theory (IRT)Traditional Goal: Design tests & build scales Goal here: Design disclosure&concealment models & build scales
  • 16. Our way: Item Response Theory (IRT)Traditional Goal: respondent’s disposition to answer difficult questionsGoal here: user’s disposition to disclose(conceal) what is private(public)
  • 17. Our way: Item Response Theory (IRT) fields ( ) users 1..0.. field i discriminative power field i sensitive score user j disclosure attitude
  • 18. DATA representative for age, gender, #contacts, distribution of traits N=1,323 Facebook Users in US (58% women) Age [18,60] median 24 #contacts [32,998]Apply IRT to what’s disclosed to * Facebook Community at large * Facebook Friends (one’s Social Circle)
  • 19. 1 Smart Privacy Mob2 Who are they3 What they disclose
  • 20. 1 Smart Privacy MobPreviously: Westin has divided people in 1. privacy fundamentalists 2. pragmatic majority 3. marginally concerned
  • 21. 1 Smart Privacy MobPreviously: Westin has divided people in 1. privacy fundamentalists 2. pragmatic majority 3. marginally concerned We
  • 22. 2 Who are they? Those who share more sensitive info are: • Open to new experience • Self-monitoring • Male • More Active • Younger
  • 23. 2 Who are they? Those who share more sensitive info are: • Open to new experience • Open to new experience • Self-monitoring • Male • Male • More Active • Younger
  • 24. 2 Who are they? Those who share more sensitive info are: • Open to new experience • Open to new experience • Self-monitoring • Male • Male • More Active • Younger
  • 25. 2 Who are they? Those who share more sensitive info are: • Open to new experience • Open to new experience • Self-monitoring • Male • Male • More Active • Younger
  • 26. 2 Who are they? Those who share more sensitive info are:Results: Good new experience analysis; not for (linear) prediction • Open to for descriptive • Open to new experienceBUT… • Self-monitoring • Male • Male • More Active • More Active • Younger
  • 27. 3 What’s sensitive
  • 28. 3 What’s sensitive
  • 29. 3 What’s sensitive Social Currency OK to disclose OK to conceal
  • 30. 3 What’s sensitive Community vs. Social Circle
  • 31. So what?
  • 32. Theoretical Implications
  • 33. Practical Implications
  • 34. Short term - Language & RecSys & Crime
  • 35. Example 1: Twitter & Personality 1 listeners, popular, & influential: extrovert & emotionally stable 2 highly-read: open to new experiences
  • 36. predicting personality with twitter
  • 37. predicting personality with twitter YES, we can!
  • 38. predicting personality with twitter st ed! , li ing low , fol ers low YES, we can! g fol sin y u onl And
  • 39. Predicting Personality with Twitter
  • 40. Estimate number of people in a place
  • 41. share it all[by Facebook CEO]
  • 42. share it all [by Facebook CEO] share nothing[by Wisdom of the Granmother’s Foundation]
  • 43. share it all [by Facebook CEO]share fake data [by Us] share nothing[by Wisdom of the Granmother’s Foundation]
  • 44. share fake data [by Us]
  • 45. Idea:
  • 46. true location ++ “99” fake locations
  • 47. true location ++ “99” fake locations true location + + “99” fake locationstrue location ++ “99” fake locations
  • 48. #phones?
  • 49. (random)fake locations
  • 50. Tube passengers in London & car drivers in Zurich: accurately estimate #people
  • 51. @danielequercia