Abstract
AbstractSocial media data offer a rich resource for researchers interested in public health, labor economics, politics, social behaviors, and other topics. However, scale and anonymity mean that researchers often cannot directly get permission from users to collect and analyze their social media data. This article applies the basic ethical principle of respect for persons to consider individuals’ perceptions of acceptable uses of data. We compare individuals’ perceptions of acceptable uses of other types of sensitive data, such as health records and individual identifiers, with their perceptions of acceptable uses of social media data. Our survey of 1018 people shows that individuals think of their social media data as moderately sensitive and agree that it should be protected. Respondents are generally okay with researchers using their data in social research but prefer that researchers clearly articulate benefits and seek explicit consent before conducting research. We argue that researchers must ensure that their research provides social benefits worthy of individual risks and that they must address those risks throughout the research process.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty,Computer Science Applications,Education,Information Systems,Statistics and Probability
Reference67 articles.
1. Hemphill, L., Hedstrom, M. L. & Leonard, S. H. Saving social media data: understanding data management practices among social media researchers and their implications for archives. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72, 97–109 (2021).
2. Proferes, N., Jones, N., Gilbert, S., Fiesler, C. & Zimmer, M. Studying Reddit: a systematic overview of disciplines, approaches, methods, and ethics. Social Media + Society 7, 20563051211019004 (2021).
3. Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B. & Lampe, C. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 29, 434–445 (2008).
4. Hemphill, L., Russell, A. & Schöpke-Gonzalez, A. M. What drives U.S. congressional members’ policy attention on Twitter? Policy & Internet 13, 233–256 (2020).
5. Antenucci, D. et al. Ringtail: a generalized nowcasting system. Proc. VLDB Endow. 6, 1358–1361, https://doi.org/10.14778/2536274.2536315 (2013).
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献