“You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.”
-Scott McNealy
Each week in the MALAT course, we receive various reading materials to help foster a deeper understanding of learning technology and apply critical thinking. Although these readings discuss thoughtful and vital points, one particular observation stood out to me from all the rest. This was not from an author or lecturer but instead from a member of the crowd who spoke during a YouTube video, The Participatory Open: Can we build a Pro-Social, pro-Social web? (Stewart et al., 2019, 10:00).
Phipps (Stewart et al., 2019) posed a question to the crowd in the context of social media: “Have you pulled back participation? Where?” A crowd member mentions a few points, such as envy from family photos and not wanting to share pictures of their child accidentally. However, what caught my attention was the mention of their political views on Donald Trump, whom they did not like. The concern is that their political views may divide their network.
What I find intriguing about this situation is the paradox it presents. Despite their fear of being ostracized for their political views, this audience member was comfortable enough to voice their opinion in front of strangers, even knowing they were being recorded. This raises the question: Why do they feel more at ease expressing their political views with an unknown audience, including on social media, but refrain from doing so where their close network may disagree? Is the risk of losing a relationship in their network not equal to upsetting strangers in a formal setting? There is more to unpack here.
Not only did this audience member voice an opinion their network and the audience may not agree with, but Phipps also stated he did not agree with Brexit in this forum. There is something to say about the comfort of seeing your audience and engaging with them. It allows you to change the context and convey your message as you see your audience react (Boyd, 2011). Although Boyd disagrees that privacy is now dead (Garfinkel, 2001), this situation is a strong example of it being dead. Sure, maybe the audience knew the video was being recorded, but did they know the degree to which their remarks would be reviewed? If so, would they have said what they said and have their opinion forever etched in social media? Did these members know that I, Allie Munro, would be writing a blog, analyzing these fleeting comments five years later, and providing the audience with citations to watch them? Would they have made these comments if they knew that I and potentially others would critically analyze their comments?
If the answer is yes, and they knew how much this would be analyzed, then why would you pull back from social media? If not, then privacy may be dead, or our understanding of its limitations needs to be better understood.
These comments on Trump and Brexit may seem harmless, but opinions which are out of context regarding the target audience and time can have drastic implications for the person who speaks them. This is why social media terrifies me, but I must embrace it.
References
Boyd, D. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. https://www.danah.org/papers/2010/SNSasNetworkedPublics.pdf
OpenAI. (2024). Friends share a secret while people post information on social media. https://chat.openai.com/
Purdue University. (2015, July 8). Is Privacy Dead? And the Survey Says. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/technology-data/tamaradull/2015-07-08/privacy-dead-and-survey-says
Stewart, B., Phipps, L., & Cormier, D. (2019, April 10). The Participatory open: Can we build a Pro-Social, Pro-Societal web? [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D4tg1FnE_s
Hey Allie!
Your text presents a thoughtful reflection on the complexities of online expression and privacy, raising pertinent questions about the dynamics of social interaction in digital spaces; prompting us all to think critically about the nuances of digital communication and privacy.
As I navigate my own path forward and consider caution in my thoughts, it could be interesting and worthwhile to investigate strategies one might use to manage their identity across different platforms. There is definitely tension between being authentic and self-censorship for privacy reasons, based on audience.
Or maybe not, but it got me thinking about True Authenticity…
Great Read,
Darren
Being mindful of how you present yourself is key, and it also helps you grow your perspective. I find when I have a position, and I begin to write it down; I will notice negative tones in my writing. This immediately tells me something is missing; the negativity tells me I am pushing back against an alternative opinion. To be open-minded, I tend to soften my tone, but this also causes me to consider other perspectives, which genuinely changes my position. So, if I could see the output upon starting my writing, I would think I was unauthentic; however, going through this process changes my perspective. Being firm and standfast on opinions is not always authentic, it ok to allow your opinions to sway and see error in your original positions. That is being authentic.
Interesting read. While I was going through it I was thinking about the contrast of privacy vs public persona. Living a completely private life is going to make growing personal connections challenging. Living a completely public life leaves one open and vulnerable. I think in our global society, the continued issue will be be learning the proper balance between the two. However, I do feel that children should have private lives to enjoy normal childhoods.
I agree, but the word “normal” is always changing. If the next generation follows the lead of their parents, normal would be to be glued to a phone. I agree, there needs to be a balance, but with this phone so readily accessible and push notifications, making sure you’re always connected makes this really difficult!