The paper presents the results of an empirical research on the topic of personal data awareness, conducted through a survey of a representative sample of the Italian population. Considering five self-perceived levels of digital competence, we investigate the perception of digital footprints people leave online, how they act when apps and platforms demand to share personal data, and whether they are concerned about privacy issues. We discuss these topics and the research data in the light of theoretical frameworks regarding the emerging forms of new digital inequalities, which are broadening to include the awareness gaps, among different users, about how apps and online platforms collect and use personal data.
BuchananR.SouthgateE.Smith ShamusP.MurrayT.NobleB. (2017). Post no photos, leave no trace: Children’s digital footprint management strategies. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(5), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753017751711
2.
BucherT. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
3.
BucherT. (2018). If. . . then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
4.
Cheney-LippoldJ. (2017). We are data. Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York University Press.
DuttonW. H.ReisdorfB. C. (2019). Cultural divides and digital inequalities: Attitudes shaping internet and social media divides. Information Communication and Society, 22(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1353640
7.
EslamiM.RickmanA.VaccaroK.AleyasenA.VuongA.KarahaliosK.HamiltonK.SandvigC. (2015). I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]: Reasoning about invisible algorithms in news feeds [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul Republic of Korea (pp. 153–162). ACM.
GillespieT. (2014). Ch. 9: The relevance of algorithms. In GillespieT.BoczkowskiP. J.KirstenA. F. (Eds.), Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society (pp. 167–193). MIT Press Scholarship Online.
10.
GranA. -B.BoothP.BucherT. (2021). To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide?Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1779–1796. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124
11.
HamiltonK.KarahaliosK.SandvigC.EslamiM. (2014). A path to understanding the effects of algorithm awareness [Conference session]. CHI ’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 631–642). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2578883
12.
HargittaiE.MarwickA. E. (2016). “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737–3757.
13.
HargittaiE.MicheliM. (2019). Internet skills and why they matter. In GrahamM.DuttonW. H. (Eds.), Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives (pp. 109–124). Oxford University Press.
14.
KarabatakS.KarabatakM. (2020). Z generation students and their digital footprints [Conference session]. 8th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDFS49300.2020.9116455
15.
LuptonD.MichaelM. (2017). ‘Depends on who’s got the data: Public understandings of personal digital dataveillance. Surveillance and Society, 15(2), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v15i2.6332
16.
Mayer-ShoenbergerV.CukierK. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
17.
MicheliM.LutzC.BüchiM. (2018). Digital footprints: An emerging dimension of digital inequality. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(3), 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-02-2018-0014
18.
MooreM.TambiniD. (Eds) (2018). Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. Oxford University Press.
19.
PlantinJ. -C.LagozeC.EdwardsP. N.SandvigC. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553
20.
RaderE.GrayR. (2015). Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the facebook news feed [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems - CHI ’15 (pp. 173–182). ACM Press.
21.
RobinsonL.CottenS. R.OnoH.Quan-HaaseA.MeschG.ChenW.SchulzJ.HaleT. M.SternM. J (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
SrnicekN. (2017). Platform capitalism. John Wiley & Sons.
24.
TozziA.CoppolaG. (2020). dlearn–European Digital Learning Network. Digital Footprint awareness. A European survey to analyse EU citizens’ understanding of digital footprint. European Digital Learning Network.
25.
van DijckJ. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society, 12, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776
26.
van DijckJ.PoellT.de WaalM. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
27.
VervierL.ZeissigE. -M.LidyniaC.ZiefleM. (2017). Perceptions of digital footprints and the value of privacy [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security (IoTBDS 2017), (pp. 80–91). https://doi.org/10.5220/0006301000800091
28.
Ytre-ArneB.MoeH. (2021). Folk theories of algorithms: Understanding digital irritation. Media, Culture & Society, 43(5), 807–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720972314
