The Facebook Effect Pdf

How the GDPR will disrupt Google and Facebook. Google and Facebook will be disrupted by the new European data protection rules that are due to apply in May 2. This note explains how. Google and Facebook will be unable to use the personal data they hold for advertising purposes without user permission. This is an acute challenge because, contrary to what some commentators have assumed, they cannot use a service wide opt in for everything. Nor can they deny access to their services to users who refuse to opt in to tracking. Some parts of their businesses are likely to be disrupted more than others. The GDPR Scale. When one uses Google or Facebook. These businesses have the right to process these data to provide their services when one asks them to. However, the application of the GDPR will prevent them from using these personal data for any further purpose unless the user permits. The GDPR applies the principle of purpose limitation, under which personal data must only be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. Google and Facebook cannot confront their users with broad, non specific, consent requests that cover the entire breadth of their activities. Data protection regulators across the EU have made clear what they expect A purpose that is vague or general, such as for instance Improving users experience, marketing purposes, or future research will without further detail usually not meet the criteria of being specific. A business cannot, for example, collect more data for a purpose than it needs and then retroactively ask to use those data for additional purposes. It will be necessary to ask for consent, or present an opt out choice, at different times, and for different things. This creates varying levels of risk. We estimate these risks on the GDPR scale, shown below. The Facebook Effect Pdf' title='The Facebook Effect Pdf' />The scale ranges from zero to five. Five, at the high end of the scale, describes the circumstances that many adtech companies that have no direct relationship with Internet users will find themselves in. They need to get the consent of the people whose data they rely on. Google and Facebook will be disrupted by the new European data protection rules that are due to apply in May 2018. This note explains how. Google and. We would like to show you a description here but the site wont allow us. But they have no channel of communication through which they can do so. Four, next highest on the scale, refers to companies that have direct relationships with users, and can use this to ask for consent. However, users have little incentive to opt in to being tracked for advertising. Whereas a user might opt in to some form of profiling that comes with tangible benefits, such as a loyalty scheme, the same user might not be willing to opt in to more extensive profiling that yields no benefit. The extensiveness of the profiling is important because, as the note at the bottom of this page shows, users will be aware of the uses of their data when consent is sought. Thus adtech tracking across the web might rank as four, but a loyalty scheme might rank as three on the GDPR scale. A slightly more attractive prospect, from Google and Facebooks perspective, is to inform a user about what they want to do with the personal data, and give the user a chance to opt out beforehand. This is two on the scale. This opt out approach has the benefit from the companys perspective that some users inaction may allow their data to be used. The GDPR permits the opt out approach when the purposes that the companies want to use the data for are compatible with the original purpose for which personal data were shared by users. In addition to the opt out notice, users also have to be told of their right to object at any time to the use of their data for direct marketing. One on the scale refers to activities that currently involve the processing of personal data, but that do not need to do so. With modification, these activities could be put beyond the scope of the Regulation. Activities at the zero end of the scale are outside the scope of the Regulation, because they use no personal data. Google. Our estimate of Google, when applied to this scale, shows a significant range of products at four on the scale, with the proviso that some part of that set of products can be modified, which would lower their score from four to one. Download PDFAll personalized8 advertising on Google sites such as Search, Youtube, Maps, and the websites where Google provides advertising is scored four because it will require that users opt in to extensive tracking. If, however, users have already signed in to Google Search or Chrome, Google may argue that the purpose of these technologies is compatible with purposes users agreed to, and hope to use an opt out rather than an opt in. Whether this would be successful, however, remains to be seen. The technologies that will be affected include Certain targeting features of Ad. Words such as remarketing,9 affinity audiences,1. Floodlight cross device tracking. Customer Match, which targets users and similar users based on personal data contributed by an advertisers. A prospect would have had to give their consent to the advertiser for this to occur. Remarketing lists for search ads RLSA, retargeting from site visitors by using Google Analytics, is likely to be prevented by the e. PR. 2. 0Gmail, the most popular e mail service in the world, will also be affected. Google mines the content and metadata of each email message sent and received in Gmail to target advertising. This could not have continued under the GDPR and e. PR without each sender and recipient giving their consent. Clearly, few would do so, and Gmail is at four on the scale. This may be the real reason, or at least a contributing reason, why Google has recently announced that it will stop mining peoples emails for ads. In addition, programmatic advertising services that Google provides to advertisers and publishers under its Double. Click business will be affected. Operating these under the GDPR would require not only that a user consents to Googles use of data for advertising targeting purposes, but to the many other companies such as DMPs data management platforms, DSPs demand side platforms, and so forth processing these data too. The Double. Click business is therefore at four on the scale. At two on the scale is location targeting,2. Google Maps that enable advertising to target users based on geographical proximity. This score, however, is based on the assumption that advertising in map search results is accepted as a compatible purpose with the original purpose for which location data were shared by users. Googles Ad. Words product has the benefit that it can be modified to operate entirely outside the scope of the GDPR and e. PR. This is why it appears at four on the scale, and at one. If Google discards personalized targeting features from Ad. Words, then it can continue to target advertisements to people based on what they search for. Finally, at zero on the scale is Googles placement targeted advertisements. These target only by the context of the pages they appear on, rather than by using personal data. Therefore they are out of scope of the GDPR. Facebook. Significant parts of Facebooks business are at two and four on the scale. Download PDFThe Facebook Audience Network is scored four because it requires the processing of personal data from Facebook users to target them on other websites. It is unlikely that this will be regarded as a compatible use. The Benefits of Facebook Friends Social Capital and College Students Use of Online Social Network Sites Ellison 2. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. Authors. Nicole B. Ellison, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media. Michigan State University. Search for more papers by this author. Nicole Ellison is an assistant professor in the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. Her research explores issues of self presentation, relationship development, and identity in online environments such as weblogs, online dating sites, and social network sites. Address 4. 03 Communication Arts and Sciences, East Lansing, MI 4. USACharles Steinfield, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media. Michigan State University. Search for more papers by this author. Charles Steinfield is Professor and Chair of the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. His research interests include the uses of online social networks, individual and organizational collaboration via ICT, and e commerce. Address 4. 09 Communication Arts and Sciences Building, East Lansing, MI 4. USACliff Lampe Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media. Michigan State University. Search for more papers by this author. Cliff Lampe is an assistant professor in the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. His research interests include the social practices and architecture of online communities, online rating systems, social software, and user generated content. Address 4. 19 Communication Arts and Sciences Building, East Lansing, MI 4. USAAbstract. This study examines the relationship between use of Facebook, a popular online social network site, and the formation and maintenance of social capital. In addition to assessing bonding and bridging social capital, we explore a dimension of social capital that assesses ones ability to stay connected with members of a previously inhabited community, which we call maintained social capital. Regression analyses conducted on results from a survey of undergraduate students N 2. Facebook and the three types of social capital, with the strongest relationship being to bridging social capital. In addition, Facebook usage was found to interact with measures of psychological well being, suggesting that it might provide greater benefits for users experiencing low self esteem and low life satisfaction. Introduction. Social network sites SNSs such as such as Friendster, Cy. World, and My. Space allow individuals to present themselves, articulate their social networks, and establish or maintain connections with others. These sites can be oriented towards work related contexts e. Linked. In. com, romantic relationship initiation the original goal of Friendster. My. Space. com, or the college student population the original incarnation of Facebook. Participants may use the sites to interact with people they already know offline or to meet new people. Download Software How To Import Vectorworks Into Autocad. The online social network application analyzed in this article, Facebook, enables its users to present themselves in an online profile, accumulate friends who can post comments on each others pages, and view each others profiles. Facebook members can also join virtual groups based on common interests, see what classes they have in common, and learn each others hobbies, interests, musical tastes, and romantic relationship status through the profiles. Facebook constitutes a rich site for researchers interested in the affordances of social networks due to its heavy usage patterns and technological capacities that bridge online and offline connections. We believe that Facebook represents an understudied offline to online trend in that it originally primarily served a geographically bound community the campus. When data were collected for this study, membership was restricted to people with a specific host institution email address, further tying offline networks to online membership. In this sense, the original incarnation of Facebook was similar to the wired Toronto neighborhood studied by Hampton and Wellman e. Hampton, 2. 00. 2 Hampton Wellman, 2. Previous research suggests that Facebook users engage in searching for people with whom they have an offline connection more than they browse for complete strangers to meet Lampe, Ellison, Steinfield, 2. Online SNSs support both the maintenance of existing social ties and the formation of new connections. Much of the early research on online communities assumed that individuals using these systems would be connecting with others outside their pre existing social group or location, liberating them to form communities around shared interests, as opposed to shared geography Wellman, Salaff, Dimitrova, Garton, Gulia, Haythornthwaite, 1. A hallmark of this early research is the presumption that when online and offline social networks overlapped, the directionality was online to offlineonline connections resulted in face to face meetings. For instance, Parks and Floyd 1. As they write, These findings imply that relationships that begin on line rarely stay there n. Although this early work acknowledged the ways in which offline and online networks bled into one another, the assumed online to offline directionality may not apply to todays SNSs that are structured both to articulate existing connections and enable the creation of new ones. However, because there is little empirical research that addresses whether members use SNSs to maintain existing ties or to form new ones, the social capital implications of these services are unknown. An Overview of Facebook. Created in 2. 00. Facebook was reported to have more than 2. Needham Company, 2. The site is tightly integrated into the daily media practices of its users The typical user spends about 2. Cassidy, 2. 00. 6 Needham Company, 2. Capitalizing on its success among college students, Facebook launched a high school version in early September 2. In 2. 00. 6, the company introduced communities for commercial organizations as of November 2. Facebook directories Smith, 2. In 2. 00. 6, Facebook was used at over 2,0. United States colleges and was the seventh most popular site on the World Wide Web with respect to total page views Cassidy, 2. Much of the existing academic research on Facebook has focused on identity presentation and privacy concerns e. Gross Acquisti, 2. Stutzman, 2. 00. 6. Looking at the amount of information Facebook participants provide about themselves, the relatively open nature of the information, and the lack of privacy controls enacted by the users, Gross and Acquisti 2. Other recent Facebook research examines student perceptions of instructor presence and self disclosure Hewitt Forte, 2. Mazer, Murphy, Simonds, 2. Golder, Wilkinson, Huberman, 2. Lampe, Ellison, Steinfield, 2. In contrast to popular press coverage which has primarily focused on negative outcomes of Facebook use stemming from users misconceptions about the nature of their online audience, we are interested in situations in which the intended audience for the profile such as well meaning peers and friends and the actual audience are aligned. We use Facebook as a research context in order to determine whether offline social capital can be generated by online tools.