1.
WEʼRE IN IT TOGETHER Interpersonal Management of Disclosure in Social Network Services#Airi Lampinen, Vilma Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio & Sakari Tamminen!

2.
PHOTO CREDIT: NCINDC ON FLICKR!

3.
BOUNDARY REGULATION (ALTMAN 1975 & 1977)#privacy as a process of interpersonal boundary control that paces and controls interaction!

4.
MEDIATED CONTEXTFour 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 searchMultiple co-present audiences (Lampinen et al. 2009)

5.
THE PROBLEM#People are free to decide what they share insocial network services.!BUT they are dependent on what otherschoose to disclose about them.!ALSO: What they disclose may affect others.!

6.
RESEARCH QUESTIONSHow do SNS users …! … perceive control over disclosure in social network services?! … regulate boundaries both individually and in collaboration?!

7.
QUALITATIVE STUDY IN 2009-201027 university technology, arts & design students in Finland!Semi-structured individual interviews!Focus groups with prompts to provoke discussion!“My friends act in social network services withconsideration 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.”

8.
MANAGING SHARINGON SOCIAL NETWORK SERVICESThe key social network service:People tend to try to manage on their own what isdisclosed.BUT they are aware of the limits of this approach: scarcemeans to control what others share about oneself.

9.
MUTUAL CONSIDERATIONSNS users rely on mutual consideration: trusting andbeing trustworthy.!BUT meaning well isn’t necessarily enough – difficultyof predicting consequences for another person.

10.
(UN)SPOKEN EXPECTATIONS“We at least had an unspoken deal that ifthere is a bad picture it is enough thatone person asks for it to be deleted andas soon as that request is noticed, thepicture is removed.”!

11.
(UN)SPOKEN EXPECTATIONS“We at least had an unspoken deal that ifthere is a bad picture it is enough thatone person asks for it to be deleted andas soon as that request is noticed, thepicture 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.” !!

12.
PHOTO CREDIT: STITCH ON FLICKR

13.
STRATEGIES FORBOUNDARY REGULATION Collaborative ↔ Individual! Preventive ↔ Corrective! Mental ↔ Behavioral!

14.
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE INDIVIDUALCOLLABORATIVE

15.
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE INDIVIDUALCOLLABORATIVE

16.
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE INDIVIDUALCOLLABORATIVE

17.
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE INDIVIDUALCOLLABORATIVE

18.
PREVENTIVE CORRECTIVE INDIVIDUALCOLLABORATIVE

19.
DESIGNING FOR PREVENTIVECOLLABORATION PREVIEW SPACE:! SHARING ACCESS FOR A WITH WIDER LIMITED AUDIENCE(S)! AUDIENCE!

20.
CONCLUSIONSReliance on mutual considerationShared rules of disclosure are rarely discussedCorrective strategies are problematicCurrently little support for preventive collaboration

21.
CONCLUSIONSReliance on mutual considerationShared rules of disclosure are rarely discussedCorrective strategies are problematicCurrently little support for preventive collaborationThank you! # Acknowledgements: Funding: OtaSizzle research project / Helsinki University of Technology TKK’s “Technology for Life” campaign,Airi Lampinen# SOVAKO & ASLA Fulbright. Comments & Support: Colleagues at Helsinki Instituteairi.lampinen@hiit.fi! for Information Technology HIIT, at UC Berkeley’s School@airi_! of Information and at Berkeley Design Institute, as well as the anonymous reviewers.