Can social media data be freely used? Participants’ ethical perceptions toward using their social media data in research

Abstract

French

In the big data environment, various systems and platforms have provided billions of data points to researchers. The large amount of user data on social media platforms has become a source for research data for many kinds of research. However, few scholars realize the ethical risks in the collection and utilization of social media data, and many ignore the ethical needs of users themselves. Users’ concerns should be considered when formulating ethical guidelines. This study takes Sina Microblog (the world’s largest Chinese social media platform) users as the research subject, hoping to provide data from Chinese users and provide evidence for differences in users’ ethical perceptions in different cultural contexts. Within our survey sample, few users had previously known that their microblogs could be collected and used by researchers, and the majority believed that researchers should not use their microblogs without consent. We also found differences in cognition regarding ethical issues in social media data research across groups.

Keywords

ethics Internet research perception social media data

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al Zou’bi

Khatatbeh

Alzoubi

, et al. (2020) Attitudes and knowledge of adolescents in Jordan regarding the ethics of social media data use for research purposes. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 15(1–2): 87–96.

Barocas

Nissenbaum

(2014) Big data’s end run around anonymity and consent. In: Lane

Stodden

Bender

al.

(eds) Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement, pp. 116–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beaulieu

Estalella

(2012) Rethinking research ethics for mediated settings. Information, Communication & Society 15(1): 23–42.

Brown

Weilenmann

Mcmillan

, et al. (2016) Five provocations for ethical HCI research. In Proceeding of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May, pp.852–863. New York: ACM.

Bruckman

(2002) Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Available at: https://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2003/cs6470_fall/bruckman-names.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

Bryce

Klang

(2009) Young people, disclosure of personal information and online privacy: Control, choice and consequences. Information Security Technical Report 14(3): 160–166.

Chen

(2021a) Determining factors of participants’ attitudes toward the ethics of social media data research. Online Information Review. Epub ahead of print 21 June. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-11-2020-0514.

Chen

Sun

(2021b) Ethical reflection on microblog data research. Information and Documentation Service 1: 50–56.

Dou

(2017) Who has the right to use microblog? China Intellectual Property News, 22 September, p.011.

10.

Ess

and AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2002) Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

11.

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (2016) The ethics of big data: Balancing economic benefits and ethical questions of big data in the EU Policy context. Available at: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/qe-02-17-159-en-n.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

12.

Fiesler

Lampe

Bruckman

(2016) Reality and perception of copyright terms of service for online content creation. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW). Available at: https://cmci.colorado.edu/~cafi5706/CSCW2016_Fiesler.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

13.

Fiesler

Proferes

(2018) ‘Participant’ perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media + Society 3: 1–14.

14.

Floridi

Taddeo

(2016) What is data ethics? Available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2016.0360 (accessed 16 December 2021).

15.

Franzke

Bechmann

Zimmer

, et al. (2019) Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. Available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

16.

Hoy

Milne

(2010) Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising 10: 28–45.

17.

James

Busher

(2015) Ethical issues in online research. Educational Research & Evaluation 21: 89–94.

18.

Koene

Perez

Carter

, et al. (2015) Research ethics and public trust, preconditions for continued growth of internet mediated research: Public confidence in internet mediate research. In: 2015 International Conference on Information Systems Security and Privacy (ICISSP), Angers, 9–11 February, pp.163–168. New York: ACM.

19.

Lease

Hullman

Bigham

, et al. (2013) Mechanical Turk is not anonymous. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2228728 (accessed 16 December 2021).

20.

Lin

Wang

(2015) An empirical analysis of users’ privacy disclosure behaviors on social network sites. Information & Management 52(7): 882–891.

21.

Litt

(2013) Understanding social network site users’ privacy tool use. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 1649–1656.

22.

Liu

(2012) Copyright of the works on the Microblogging Platform. Chinese Journal of Law 34(06): 119–130.

23.

Malhotra

Kim

Agarwal

(2004) Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research 15(4): 336–355.

24.

Markham

Buchanan

(2012) Association for Internet Researchers’ Ethics Working Committee – Ethical decision making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

25.

Martin

Shilton

(2015) Why experience matters to privacy: How context-based experience moderates consumer privacy expectations for mobile applications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(8): 1871–1882.

26.

May

Bayer

Ross

(2007) A survey of ‘young social’ and ‘professional’ users of location-based services in the UK. Journal of Location Based Service 1(2): 112–132.

27.

Mikal

Hurst

Conway

(2016) Ethical issues in using Twitter for population-level depression monitoring: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics 17: 22.

28.

Milne

Rohm

(2000) Consumer privacy and name removal across direct marketing channels: Exploring opt-in and opt-out alternatives. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(2): 238–249.

29.

Moreno

Goniu

Moreno

, et al. (2013) Ethics of social media research: Common concerns and practical considerations. Available at: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/cyber.2012.0334 (accessed 16 December 2021).

30.

Nissenbaum

(1997) Toward an approach to privacy in public: Challenges of information technology. Ethics & Behavior 7(3): 207–219.

31.

Omand

Miller

Bartlett

(2014) Towards the Discipline of Social Media Intelligence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

32.

Park

(2013) Digital literacy and privacy behavior online. Communication Research 40(2): 215–236.

33.

Phelps

Nowak

Ferrell

(2000) Privacy concerns and consumer willingness to provide personal information. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 19(1): 27–41.

34.

Proferes

(2017) Information flow solipsism in an exploratory study of beliefs about Twitter. Social Media + Society. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117698493 (accessed 16 December 2021).

35.

Ravn

Barnwell

Barbosa

(2020) What is ‘Publicly available data’? Exploring blurred public–private boundaries and ethical practices through a case study on Instagram. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 15(1–2): 40–45.

36.

Ronn

Soe

(2019) Is social media intelligence private? Privacy in public and the nature of social media intelligence. Intelligence & National Security 34(3): 362–378.

37.

Sheehan

(1999) An investigation of gender differences in on-line privacy concerns and resultant behaviors. Journal of Interactive Marketing 13(4): 24–38.

38.

Sheehan

(2002) Toward a typology of internet users and online privacy concerns. The Information Society 18(1): 21–32.

39.

Shilton

Sayles

(2016) ‘We aren’t all going to be on the same page about ethics’: Ethical practices and challenges in research on digital and social media. Available at: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~kshilton/pdf/ShiltonSaylesHICSS.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

40.

Special

Li-Barber

(2012) Self-disclosure and student satisfaction with Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 28(2): 624–630.

41.

Swirsky

Hoop

Labott

(2014) Using social media in research: New ethics for a new meme? The American Journal of Bioethics 14(10): 60–61.

42.

Vaccaro

Karahalios

Sandving

, et al. (2015) Agree or cancel? Research and terms of service compliance. In: 2015 CSCW workshop on ethics for studying sociotechnical systems in a big data world. Available at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~csandvig/research/Vaccaro-CSCW-Ethics-2015.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

43.

Vindu

(2014) As data overflows online, researchers grapple with ethics. The New York Times, 13 August. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/technology/the-boon-of-online-data-puts-social-science-in-a-quandary.html.

44.

Vitak

Shilton

Ashktorab

(2016) Beyond the Belmont principles: Ethical challenges, practices, and beliefs in the online data research community. In: ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing, 27 February–2 March, San Francisco, CA, pp.941–953. New York: ACM.

45.

Wang

Zhu

Wen

(2013) Research on the relationship between user satisfactions and behaviors: The case of Sina-Microblog. China Soft Science 7: 184–192.

46.

Warrell

Jacobsen

(2014) Internet research ethics and the policy gap for ethical practice in online research settings. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 44(1): 22–37.

47.

Williams

Burnap

Sloan

(2017) Towards an ethical framework for publishing Twitter data in social research: Taking into account users’ views, online context and algorithmic estimation. Sociology 51(6): 1149–1168.

48.

Zhang

(2017) User community detection and community topic evolution based on the network characteristics of emergency. Information Studies: Theory & Application 40(5): 94–98.

49.

(2013) Research on predicting methods based on network user sentiment analysis. Journal of Library Science in China 39: 96–107.

50.

Yang

Chen

Zhang

, et al. (2014) Analysis of micro-blogging application in disease control and prevention. Chinese Journal of Health Education 30(9): 856–857.

51.

Zimmer

(2010a) ‘But the data is already public’: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology 12(4): 313–325.

52.

Zimmer

(2010b) Is it ethical to harvest public Twitter accounts without consent? Available at: http://www.michaelzimmer.org/2010/02/12/is-it-ethical-to-harvest-public-twitter-accounts-without-consent/ (accessed 16 December 2021).

53.

Zimmer

(2015) Research ethics in big data era: Addressing conceptual gaps for researchers and IRBs. Available at: https://bigdata.fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Zimmer-Research-Ethics-in-the-Big-Data-Era.pdf (accessed 16 December 2021).

54.

Zimmer

Proferes

(2014) A topology of Twitter research: Disciplines, methods, and ethics. Aslib Journal of Information Management 66(3): 250–261.