The screenshot feature has offered human communication researchers a way to document participants’ digital lives without technical expertise nor compromising ecological validity. Despite its widespread utility, there have been limited remarks on the perils of the screenshot feature as a methodological tool to capture the digital world. This article reflects on human communication research which has leveraged the screenshot feature. In doing so, I focus on bystanders, or non-consenting participants whose data are implicated by researchers’ use of the screenshot feature. Considering relevant US law, internationally recognized ethics frameworks, and user expectations across digital platforms from which screenshots are collected, this article offers guidelines for researchers and policymakers about usage of and building formal restrictions around the screenshot feature, respectively. I argue usage of the screenshot feature in human communication research must (1) obscure sensitive and extraneous participant data, (2) recognize platform-specific user expectations, and (3) protect bystander privacy.
AhmadIFarzanRKapadiaA, et al. (2020) Tangible privacy: towards user-centric sensor designs for bystander privacy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4(CSCW2): 1–28.
3.
AlmeidaDShmarkoKLomasE (2022) The ethics of facial recognition technologies, surveillance, and accountability in an age of artificial intelligence: a comparative analysis of US, EU, and UK regulatory frameworks. AI and Ethics2(3): 377–387.
BayerJBEllisonNBSchoenebeckSY, et al. (2015) Sharing the small moments: ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication and Society19(7): 956–977.
6.
Beneito-MontagutRBegueriaACassiánN (2017) Doing digital team ethnography: being there together and digital social data. Qualitative Research17(6): 664–682.
7.
BhandariABimoS (2020) TikTok and the “algorithmized self”: a new model of online interaction. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research1–3.
8.
BoeschotenLAusloosJMöllerJE, et al. (2022) A framework for privacy preserving digital trace data collection through data donation. Computational Communication Research4(2): 388–423.
BrinbergMRamN (2021) Do new romantic couples use more similar language over time? Evidence from intensive longitudinal text messages. Journal of Communication71(3): 454–477.
12.
BrinbergMRamNYangX, et al. (2021) The idiosyncrasies of everyday digital lives: using the Human Screenome Project to study user behavior on smartphones. Computers in Human Behavior114: 106570.
13.
CattoEA (2020) The spoof is in the evidence: obtaining electronic records to corroborate text message screenshots. Army Law34–39.
14.
ChiattiAChoMJGagnejaA, et al. (2018) Text extraction and retrieval from smartphone screenshots: building a repository for life in media. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM symposium on applied computing, Pau, 9–13 April, pp. 948–955. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
15.
ChristnerCUrmanAAdamS, et al. (2022) Automated tracking approaches for studying online media use: a critical review and recommendations. Communication Methods and Measures16(2): 79–95.
16.
ColemanEG (2010) Ethnographic approaches to digital media. Annual Review of Anthropology39: 487–505.
17.
CorbettMDavid-JohnBShangJ, et al. (2024) Securing bystander privacy in mixed reality while protecting the user experience. IEEE Security & Privacy22(1): 33–42.
18.
CostelloLMcDermottMLWallaceR (2017) Netnography: Range of practices, misperceptions, and missed opportunities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods16(1): 1609406917700647.
19.
CorryF (2021) Screenshot, save, share, shame: making sense of new media through screenshots and public shame. First Monday26(4). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v26i4.11649.
20.
CramerEMJenkinsBMSangY (2022) What’s behind that screenshot? Digital windows and capturing data on screen. Convergence29(2): 467–480.
21.
DeVitoMABirnholtzJHancockJT (2017) Platforms, people, and perception: using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland,OR, 25 February–1 March, pp. 740–754. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
22.
EvansSKPearceKEVitakJ, et al. (2017) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication22(1): 35–52.
23.
FieslerCBeardNKeeganBC (2020) No robots, spiders, or scrapers: legal and ethical regulation of data collection methods in social media terms of service. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media14: 187–196.
24.
FigeacJChauletJ (2018) Video-ethnography of social media apps’ connection cues in public settings. Mobile Media & Communication6(3): 407–427.
GerrardY (2021) What’s in a (pseudo) name? Ethical conundrums for the principles of anonymisation in social media research. Qualitative Research21(5): 686–702.
27.
GilbertSShiltonKVitakJ (2023) When research is the context: cross-platform user expectations for social media data reuse. Big Data & Society10(1): 20539517231164108.
28.
GurrinCSmeatonAFDohertyAR (2014) Lifelogging: personal big data. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval8(1): 1–125.
29.
HammelburgE (2021) Being there live: an ethnographic approach for studying social media use in mediatized live events. Social Media+ Society7(1): 2056305120984454.
30.
HartzogW (2014) Reviving implied confidentiality. Indiana Law Journal89: 763.
31.
HartzogW (2018) Privacy’s Blueprint: The Battle to Control the Design of New Technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
HartzogWStutzmanF (2013) Obscurity by design. Washington Law Review88: 385.
33.
HaydenLCarahNRobardsB, et al. (2024) Screenshot methodologies to collect and analyse social media platform advertising. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research1–4.
34.
HineC (2017) Ethnography and the internet: taking account of emerging technological landscapes. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences10: 315–329.
35.
HintzEADeanM (2019) Best practices for returning research findings to participants: methodological and ethical considerations for communication researchers. Communication Methods and Measures14(1): 38–54.
36.
HoWYJ (2021) ‘I knew that you were there, so I was talking to you’: the use of screen-recording videos in online language learning research. Qualitative Research21(1): 120–139.
37.
HuangXVitakJ (2022) “Finsta gets all my bad pictures”: Instagram users’ self-presentation across finsta and rinsta accounts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6(CSCW1): 1–25.
38.
Huh-YooJRaderE (2020) It’s the wild, wild West: lessons learned from IRB members’ risk perceptions toward digital research data. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4(CSCW1): 1–22.
39.
HussongAMJensenMRMorganS, et al. (2021) Collecting text messages from college students: evaluating a novel methodology. Social Development30(1): 3–22.
40.
IngberAS (2024) Protecting private communications through law and policy: the case of the screenshot feature. Communication Law and Policy29(1–2): 1–23.
41.
IngberAS (2025) Understanding screenshot collection and sharing on messaging platforms: a privacy perspective. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication30(1). DOI: 10.1093/jcmc/zmae023.
42.
JaynesV (2020) The social life of screenshots: the power of visibility in teen friendship groups. New Media & Society22(8): 1378–1393.
43.
KarlsonAKIqbalSTMeyersB, et al. (2010) Mobile taskflow in context: a screenshot study of smartphone usage. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10–15 April, pp. 2009–2018. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
44.
KmettyZStefkovicsÁSzámelyJ, et al. (2024) Determinants of willingness to donate data from social media platforms. Information, Communication and Society28(7): 1324–1349.
45.
KobayashiTBoaseJ (2012) No such effect? The implications of measurement error in self-report measures of mobile communication use. Communication Methods and Measures6(2): 126–143.
KuruvillaR (2019) Between you, me, and Alexa: on the legality of virtual assistant devices in two-party consent states. Washington Law Review94: 2029.
48.
LaneJ (2021) Chapter seven social media and ethnographic relationships. In: HargittaiE (ed.) Research Exposed: How Empirical Social Science Gets Done in the Digital Age. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 143–159.
49.
LassenJM (2025) Screenshots as data and documentation. Journalistica19(1): 249–254.
50.
LiaoSHeHChenH, et al. (2025) Bystander privacy in video sharing era: automated consent compliance through platform censorship. In: Proceedings of the 2025 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, Japan, 26 April–1 May, pp. 1–16. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
51.
LightBBurgessJDuguayS (2018) The walkthrough method: an approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society20(3): 881–900.
52.
LutzCBaruhLQuinnK, et al. (2025) Comparative approaches to studying privacy: introduction to the special issue. Social Media+ Society11(2): 20563051251344460.
53.
MancosuMVegettiF (2020) What you can scrape and what is right to scrape: a proposal for a tool to collect public Facebook data. Social Media+ Society6(3): 2056305120940703.
54.
MarkhamAN (2006) Ethic as method. Journal of Information Ethics15(2): 37–55.
55.
MarkhamAN (2016) Ethnography in the digital internet era. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 650–668.
56.
MarwickAE (2023) The Private is Political: Networked Privacy and Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
MassoAGerassimenkoJKasapogluT, et al. (2025) Research ethics committees as knowledge gatekeepers: the impact of emerging technologies on social science research. Journal of Responsible Technology21: 100112.
58.
MetcalfJCrawfordK (2016) Where are human subjects in big data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society3(1): 2053951716650211.
59.
MeurkCHallWCarterA, et al. (2014) Collecting real-time data from substance users raises unique legal and ethical issues: reply to Kuntsche & Labhart. Addiction109(10): 1760.
60.
MoonR (2021) Moto-taxis, drivers, weather, and WhatsApp: contextualizing new technology in Rwandan newsrooms. Digital Journalism10(9): 1569–1590.
61.
MottelsonA (2023) Why do people take screenshots on their smartphones? In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM designing interactive systems conference, Pittsburgh PA, 10–14 July, pp. 740–752. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
62.
MuiseDLuYPanJ, et al. (2022) Selectively localized: temporal and visual structure of smartphone screen activity across media environments. Mobile Media & Communication10(3): 487–509.
63.
MurthyD (2008) Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology42(5): 837–855.
64.
OhmeJAraujoTBoeschotenL, et al. (2023) Digital trace data collection for social media effects research: APIs, data donation, and (screen) tracking. Communication Methods and Measures18(2): 124–141.
65.
OttoLPLoecherbachFVliegenthartR (2023) Linkage analysis revised–linking digital traces and survey data. Communication Methods and Measures18(2): 186–204.
66.
PengYLockIAli SalahA (2023) Automated visual analysis for the study of social media effects: opportunities, approaches, and challenges. Communication Methods and Measures18(2): 163–185.
67.
PenneyJ (2017) Internet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: a comparative case study. Regulation, and chilling effects online: a Comparative Case Study. Internet Policy Review6(2): 1–23.
68.
ReevesBRamNRobinsonTN, et al. (2021) Screenomics: a framework to capture and analyze personal life experiences and the ways that technology shapes them. Human–Computer Interaction36(2): 150–201.
69.
ReevesBRobinsonTRamN (2020) Time for the human screenome project. Nature577(7790): 314–317.
70.
ReynoldsMVan AlstyneMAralS (2009) Functions that preserve privacy but permit analysis of text. MIT Center for Digital Business Working Paper 246.
71.
RitterCS (2022) Rethinking digital ethnography: a qualitative approach to understanding interfaces. Qualitative Research22(6): 916–932.
72.
RobbinsML (2017) Practical suggestions for legal and ethical concerns with social environment sampling methods. Social Psychological and Personality Science8(5): 573–580.
73.
RomneyMJohnsonRG (2018) Show me a story: narrative, image, and audience engagement on sports network Instagram accounts. Information, Communication & Society23(1): 94–109.
SchaferJSHalperinBAGhoshS, et al. (2024) To screenshot or not to screenshot? Tensions in representing visual social media platform posts. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research1–7.
76.
ShiltonK (2009) Four billion little brothers? Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection. Communications of the ACM52(11): 48–53.
77.
ShoreACummingsJ (2024) A push for obscurity: the role of social influence on mobile location data disclosure. In: Proceedings of the 57th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/106525
78.
ShoreACummingsJJ (2023) An exploratory analysis of interface features influencing mobile location data disclosure. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction39(19): 3758–3773.
79.
ShoreAPrenaK (2023) Platform rules as privacy tools: the influence of screenshot accountability and trust on privacy management. New Media & Society27(2): 1053–1072.
80.
SkatovaAGouldingJ (2019) Psychology of personal data donation. Plos One14(11): e0224240.
81.
SoloveDJ (2007) The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
StåhlMRuskF (2022) Maintaining participant integrity–ethics and fieldwork in online video games. In: RussellLBarleyRTummonsJ (eds) Ethics, Ethnography and Education (Vol. 19). Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 87–107.
84.
SutropMLõukK (2020) Informed consent and ethical research. In: IphofenR (ed.) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Cham: Springer, pp. 213–232.
85.
TanejaHWebsterJGMalthouseEC, et al. (2012) Media consumption across platforms: identifying user-defined repertoires. New Media & Society14(6): 951–968.
86.
TaylorTLBoellstorffTNardiB, et al. (2013) Ethnography and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
87.
TengSD’AlfonsoSKostakosV (2024) A tool for capturing smartphone screen text. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 11–16 May, pp. 1–24. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
88.
TrepteS (2021) The social media privacy model: privacy and communication in the light of social media affordances. Communication Theory31(4): 549–570.
UnderwoodMKRosenLHMoreD, et al. (2012) The BlackBerry project: capturing the content of adolescents’ text messaging. Developmental Psychology48(2): 295–302.
van DrielIIGiachanouAPouwelsJL, et al. (2022) Promises and pitfalls of social media data donations. Communication Methods and Measures16(4): 266–282.
93.
VarisP (2015) Digital ethnography. In: GeorgakopoulouASpiliotiT (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 55–68.
94.
VitakJShiltonKAshktorabZ (2016) Beyond the Belmont principles: ethical challenges, practices, and beliefs in the online data research community. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing, San Francisco, CA, 27 February–2 March, pp. 941–953. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
95.
WaldmanAE (2021) Industry Unbound: The Inside Story of Privacy, Data, and Corporate Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
96.
WirthWBöckingTKarnowskiV, et al. (2009) The WEBNAS analysis method: a holistic approach to the analysis of web navigating and searching behavior. Communication Methods and Measures3(3): 115–146.
97.
Wong-LoMBullockLM (2014) Digital metamorphosis: examination of the bystander culture in cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior19(4): 418–422.
98.
YadavTKGosainDSeamonsK (2023) Cryptographic deniability: a multi-perspective study of user perceptions and expectations. In: 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), Anaheim CA, 9–11 August, pp. 3637–3654. Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
99.
YangXRamNRobinsonT, et al. (2019) Using screenshots to predict task switching on smartphones. In: Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, 4–9 May, pp. 1–6. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
100.
YeykelisLCummingsJJReevesB (2014) Multitasking on a single device: arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between media content on a computer. Journal of Communication64(1): 167–192.
101.
ZidaniS (2021) Messy on the inside: internet memes as mapping tools of everyday life. Information, Communication & Society24(16): 2378–2402.
