I hope it's OK to create a new entry for the after-class discussion...(please correct me if I should have done it in a different way...)
I just wanted to say that to define privacy as contextual integrity made sense to me. When the professor asked "would you feel that your privacy was violated if you posted sth bad about sb on Facebook but was accidentally found out by this person," my immediate response was "no." Because if I wanted this message to be accessible to some of my friends only, I could have customized my privacy setting (e.g., made wall posts or status update accessible to my friends only). So since I made it accessible to everyone, I would expect that everyone would have a chance to see the message. And the fact that I did nothing about the privacy setting probably reflected that I felt the comment I made was not too nasty (in other words, it was still within an acceptable norm. I wouldn't have made it accessible to everyone had I used words such as fxxx or bxxxx I guess). So maybe I wouldn't feel that my privacy was violated because I could expect the information flow and because I felt that the message was contextually acceptable to be seen by other people. And therefore for me, the contextual integrity was not threatened and neither was my privacy.
Hopefully my interpretation/understanding of the idea is correct.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, i am trying not to make comments and dictate you guys' discussions to a certain direction, because i want you to freely share your thoughts in your way here and make this blog your playground.
ReplyDeleteOne comment, though, on Chia-Chen's--Note that users' "appropriation" (in this case, publicly private/privately public) is a way to cope with the (relatively) collapsed contexts in CMC. It should be understood as a way to manage one's "contextual integrity" in CMC, in face with (potential or perceived) violation of contextual integrity. Also note that this is a sort of coping mechanism. Technical structure still limits the options of changes, the way people appropriate.