Department of Informatics and Media
Master’s Programme in Social Sciences, Digital Media and Society specialization
Two-year Master’s Thesis
The Social Media Dilemma: Millennials Dealing With Data Tracking in a Mediatized Society
Hannah Volman
June 2021
Abstract
Through its growing popularity, social media platforms have become influential in our society. Data tracking allows social media platforms to continue providing free and personalized services. Scholars and professionals have argued that data tracking can be harmful to individual privacy and can be used to change peoples’ behaviour without them being aware of this. This thesis focusses on how millennials deal with data tracking dilemmas in their social media use. As digital natives, millennials have grown up in a digital society, and therefor are often suggested to have a unique perspective on issues such as data tracking. This study is focused on why millennials use social media platforms, what dilemmas they identify regarding data tracking, how millennials act upon these dilemmas and how millennials reflect on their own behaviour compared to that of other generations. Based on 16 semi-structured interviews and 4 focus groups, this thesis relates the behaviour of Dutch millennials regarding data tracking and social media use to theories such as mediatization, platformization, the privacy paradox and media generations. This thesis finds that besides communication, entertainment and social engagement are also deeply shaped by mediatization and platformization. The participants identified three interrelated aspects of the privacy dilemma: the filter bubble, monetization and power. In acting upon these dilemmas, the behaviour of some participants confirms the notion of the privacy paradox. However, another group of participants indicated that they do not experience the dilemmas as such, and therefore do not act upon them. A last group of participants shared that they have found multiple ways in which to act upon the dilemmas they identify. This study thus concludes that the privacy paradox seems more nuanced than its conceptualization, because the participants find ways to deal with the dilemmas they identify.
Keywords: social media, data tracking, privacy paradox, media dilemmas, millennials
2 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank a few people who have supported me during the process of writing this thesis. First of all, I would like to thank the participants for their continuous cooperation. Their insights, experiences and stories have made this thesis what it is. I enjoyed both the interviews and the focus groups very much. Secondly, I would like to thank my parents Monique and Yolant for their continued support and encouragement and my partner Lisanne for her incredible patience and making the many hours spend writing a more fun. Thirdly, I would like to thank my friends both in the Netherlands and in Sweden, for listening to my struggles and providing some much-needed distractions and advice. Lastly, I would also like to thank Peter Jakobson for his advice and guidance the past four months. I would also like to thank the Digital Media and Society class of 2021. Although time together was cut short due to a global pandemic, I enjoyed getting to know everyone and the classes we shared. I hope that in different times we find each other in the same country once more.
3 Table of contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 6
Chapter 2. Context ...... 8 2.1 Data Tracking ...... 8 2.2 Historical Context ...... 10 2.3 Profiling and Algorithms ...... 11 2.4 Social Media ...... 12 2.5 The GDPR ...... 12
Chapter 3. Literature Review ...... 14 3.1 Millennials and Social Media Use ...... 14 3.2 Social Media and Privacy ...... 16 3.3 The Privacy Paradox ...... 17
Chapter 4 Theoretical Framework ...... 19 4.1 Mediatization ...... 19 4.1.1 Mediatization Conceptualized ...... 20 4.1.2 Platformization ...... 22 4.2 Privacy Dilemmas...... 24 4.2.1 Mediatization of privacy ...... 25 4.2.2 Privacy and Data tracking ...... 27 4.2.3 The Privacy Paradox Theorized...... 31 4.4 Media generations ...... 33 4.3.1 Generations and generational theory ...... 33 4.3.2 Millennials and Digital Technology ...... 34
Chapter 5. Methodology ...... 36 5.1 Research Design ...... 36 5.2 Participants...... 38 5.3 Data Collection ...... 39 5.4 Reliability and Validity ...... 40 5.5 Limitations and Ethics ...... 41
Chapter 6. Analysis of Results ...... 42 6.1 Social media platforms ...... 43 6.1.1 Communication ...... 44 6.1.2 Entertainment ...... 47 6.1.3 Societal Engagement ...... 48 6.1.4 Summary ...... 50 6.2 Dilemmas regarding data tracking ...... 51 6.2.1 Privacy ...... 51 6.2.2 The Filter Bubble ...... 52 6.2.3 The Revenue Model ...... 54 6.2.4 Power ...... 56 6.2.5 Summary ...... 58
4 6.3.1 Trapped in a Paradox ...... 59 6.3.2 What Paradox? ...... 61 6.3.3 Challenging the Paradox...... 62 6.3.4 Summary ...... 65 6.4 The Media Generation ...... 66 6.4.1 Digital Natives ...... 67 6.4.2 A Comparison ...... 68 6.4.3 Summary ...... 69
Chapter 7. Conclusion ...... 69
Literature ...... 73
Appendix A. List of participants ...... 84
Appendix B. Topic List Interviews ...... 85
Appendix C. Topic List Focus Groups ...... 87
Appendix D. List of codes ...... 88
Lists of figures and tables
Figure 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………..31 Table 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………43
5 Chapter 1. Introduction
A few months ago, I made a passing comment to some of my friends that I would like to buy an inflatable paddle board. Living next to a canal, this seemed like the perfect activity for this summer. The following day, I was bombarded with advertisements for inflatable paddle boards on various social media platforms. Although I was fairly certain I had never looked up this product before, I knew these advertisements were not a coincidence. As a digital media and society student, I am well aware of the fact that social media platforms track the online activities of its users on the platforms and other digital environment, amongst others, to target individuals with personalized ads. This is called data tracking. Based upon my location, previous searches and perhaps even digital conversations, the social media platforms were able to deduce that I might be interested in inflatable paddle boards. The use of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Tiktok, has increased incredibly over the past decade or two (Kennedy et al., 2017, p. 271; de Keyzer et al., 2015, p. 1; Ruppert et al., 2017, p. 1). These free to use platforms allow users to communicate with one another, create and consume content and more. Social media platforms have become so popular that we can no longer imagine our society without its presence. However, professionals, scholars and users themselves have started to speak up about issues regarding social media use. One such issue concerns data tracking. Data tracking is the practice of following, gathering and interpreting the online behaviour digital media users. The amount of information that is gathered through data tracking on social media platforms can be used in a number of ways. Data tracking can be used to target individuals with personalized advertisement (Parra-Arnau et al., 2017, p. 1; De Keyzer et al., 2015, p. 1; Segijn and van Ooijen, 2021, p. 1), for example, about inflatable paddle boards, influence the specific behaviour of individuals (Zuboff, 2019, p. 13), and with consent from individuals (as per the General Data Protection Regulation), data can be sold to third parties by data brokers (Oh et al., 2019, p. 40130). In 2020, Netflix came out with a new documentary on the current state of social media platforms, called “The Social Dilemma”. The documentary claimed that “every single action you take [online], is carefully monitored and recorded” (Orlowski, 2020). Through documentaries such as these, social media users have become more knowledgeable about concerns and dilemmas regarding social media platforms. As awareness among users and audiences seems to grow, the question remains: how do people deal with these concerns and dilemmas in their social media use?
6 In order to find out how social media users deal with these dilemmas, this thesis is focused on answering the main question “How do millennials in the Netherlands deal with dilemmas associated with data tracking on social media platforms?”. In doing so, this thesis aims to contribute to the field of study that concerns the influence of data tracking on society which has previously been studied, amongst others, by van Dijck (2014; 2020), Poell et al. (2017) and more. Using theories such as mediatization, platformization, the privacy paradox and media generations, this thesis addresses the behaviour of Dutch millennials regarding their social media use, and the powerful grip of corporate social media platforms. This study is specifically focused on late-millennials, born between 1990 and 1999, because as some of the first digital natives, they are often presumed to have a unique perspective on social media. Millennials have often been studied in regards to their social media use. However, very few projects have focused on how millennials themselves deal with dilemmas regarding data tracking on social media platforms. Thus, using the qualitative research methods semi-structured interviews and focus groups, this thesis aims to determine how millennials deal with dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use. In an effort to answer the main question, this thesis focusses on answering four research questions: 1. For what reason do Dutch millennials use social media platforms? 2. What dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use are identified by Dutch millennials? 3. How do/don’t Dutch millennials act upon dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media in their use of corporate social media platforms? 4. How do Dutch millennials reflect on how they act upon the dilemmas as a characteristic of their generation? The first research question, is aimed at establishing why Dutch millennials use social media platforms. This question provides insight into the current state of social media use amongst the participants. The second research question is focused on the dilemmas regarding data tracking that the millennials have identified, and why they consider these a dilemma. In the third research question, the previously identified dilemmas are related to social media behaviour in order to find out how and if the dilemmas are reflected in the behaviour of the Dutch millennials, and how this is related to the privacy paradox. The fourth and last research question provides insights into why millennials are a unique generation to focus on in regards to social media and data tracking behaviour.
7 The thesis is structured as follows: first this thesis will provide some context into what data tracking is and what consequences data tracking has on society. Then, previous literature related to the central topics of this thesis will be discussed. In the fourth chapter, a theoretical framework is constructed. In the fifth chapter, I discuss the methodological research approach used throughout the research. Then, the sixth chapter discusses the analysis of results based on the semi-structured interviews, focus groups and the theoretical framework. The seventh and concluding chapter discusses an overview of all findings, provides an answer to the main question and suggests some future research possibilities based on this work.
Chapter 2. Context
In this chapter I will introduce the broader context in which this thesis is positioned, in doing so, I will introduce, define and conceptualize the central theme of this work, data tracking, and several concepts related to data tracking. Data tracking is the core subject of this work and therefore requires a carefully thought through definition. As this thesis is focused on social media, this chapter will also further establish and describe the relationship between social media and data tracking.
2.1 Data Tracking
In 2012 a story was published about a father whose teenage daughter was continuously targeted with ads for products related to pregnancy and babies. The father complained to the online retailer that he thought it was ridiculous to target his young daughter with these ads. However, as it turned out, his daughter was indeed pregnant. Through tracking the online searches of the young woman, the retailer had correctly identified the woman’s pregnancy (Xu et al., 2014, p. 1150; Kennedy et al., 2017, p. 271). The example might be extreme, but this example shows us what data tracking technology does. By following someone’s online behaviour, they can be targeted with personalized content. In the case of the example, the personalized advertisements, tailored to the woman’s presumed interests, were a give-away to her family. Based on data tracking, personalized advertisement can take place, in which personal ads are directed at an individual, based on their online behaviour to identify their presumed interests, characteristics or tastes (Parra-Arnau et al., 2017, p. 1; de Keyzer et al., 2015, p. 1; Segijn and van Ooijen,
8 2021, p. 1). Instead of a one size fits all approach to marketing, personalized advertising is specifically tailored to the preferences and interests of individuals (Parra-Arnau et al., 2017, p. 1). But how does this work? How does your activity on a specific webpage influence what you see on other websites? The answer to this question is data tracking. Data tracking is a process in which information (data) about someone’s online activity is actively sought after, followed, gathered and interpreted for the purpose of learning about this person’s behaviour. This information can then be used in multiple ways, for instance, for governance and profit (Ruppert et al., 2017, p. 1). Data tracking has often been used interchangeably with the concept of data mining throughout numerous academic works (Coenen, 2011, p. 25), however, data mining should be understood as a step in the process of data tracking. Data tracking describes the process of tracking or following someone’s (online) behaviour in order to find patterns in their behaviour (Xu et al., 2014, p. 1149; Ge et al., 2017, p. 20590). Data mining describes the process of gathering raw material. In this thesis, data is used to describe the digitally encoded information that describes a person’s online activities. The concept data tracking describes the process is of gathering the digitally encoded information in order to detect patterns of human digital behaviour. The digitally tracked and stored behaviour makes up the digital footprint. A digital footprint is the traceable account of a person’s online activities (Thatcher, 2014 in Buchanan et al., 2017, p. 277; Weaver and Gahegan, 2007, p. 324) and includes “comprehensive information from demographics to the anticipated lifestyle” (Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 1). When using the internet, your actions (and thus your data) can be and probably are followed through tracking technologies. Every action, movement and transaction is woven together in a virtual database and comprised in the digital footprint (Weaver and Gahegan, 2007, p. 329), which can be used to identify an individual. Although this thesis will not discuss the technological specifics of these tracking tools, I will quickly introduce two very different examples of forms of tracking technology, Google Analytics and Matomo. Google Analytics is Google’s own tracking tool. A standard version is available for free and promises its user insights into the data their company generates in order to analyse the data which will result into making better decisions (Google Analytics, 2021). Another example of an application of data tracking technology is the open-source data tracking tool Matomo. This tracking tool advertises itself as the “Google Analytics alternative that protects your data and your customers’ privacy” (Matomo, 2021). Google analytics and Matomo are very different versions of the same technology. For example, unlike Google Analytics, Matomo is provides an open-source technology. Open-source technology allows
9 users access to the entire production chain, all the way to its source in an effort to provide full transparency. Google Analytics also differs from Matomo in that the tracking tool provides its users with a detailed description of the online activities the connected webpages attract, whereas Matomo only provides anonymized information about the website’s visitors. Lastly, Google Analytics and Matomo are different because in the case of Google Analytics, Google is the owner of all data collected. Matomo “gives” ownership of data to the respective website hosts.
2.2 Historical Context
In order to further illustrate data tracking, it is important to understand its historical context. People have always had a need for categorizing and finding patterns in the information that is available. Examples of categorization can be traced back to hunters seeking patterns in animal migration behaviour, or politicians seeking patterns in voter behaviour (Witten and Frank, 2002, p. 76). In contemporary society, categorizing is taking place on a much larger scale in the form of data tracking. Nowadays, most information (data) is produced online due to the exponential growth in digital media use, and the capability to both generate and store data is beyond anything that was imaginable some 10 to 15 years ago (Wu at al., 2012, p. 2). The word data mining first surface around the late 1980’s in the research community. However, there was little consensus about what data mining actually entailed (Coenen, 2011, p. 25). In the 1990’s data tracking, then referred to only as data mining, gained more attention and was mostly understood as a sub-process within a larger process: Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD), and was defined as “the nontrivial process of identifying valid, novel, potentially useful, and ultimately understandable patterns in data” (Fayyad et al., 1996 in Coenen, 2011, p. 25). Over time, data tracking, the concept of data tracking was introduces, and became a popular marketing strategy used by companies, for example in the form of supermarket discount passes. These passes allow the supermarket access to the data that reveals a person’s shopping behaviour (Coenen, 2011, p. 26). After its first use in a commercial fashion, the process of data tracking has become more and more popular due to increased availability of the process (Coenen, 2011, p. 26). As popularity of the platforms grew, so did the popularity of data tracking practices. Over the past decade, data tracking has been researched in a number of contexts, allowing scholars and professionals a more in depth understanding of both the practice of data tracking and its consequences for society.
10 2.3 Profiling and Algorithms
The homepage of online television/movie provider Netflix looks different for each user. For example, the “recommended for you” section on Netflix suggests different shows or movies to watch for each individual. This phenomenon is a called personalized advertising. Personalized advertising is a form of advertising where a person is targeted with ads for products or services, they are expected to find interesting, based on their online activities (Parra-Arnau et al., 2017, p. 1). In the Netflix example, a similar process is taking place. Based on the online activity of an individual, in this case Netflix, the online service will recommend other content and individual is presumed to like, through the use of algorithms (Hallinan and Striphas, 2016, p. 118). Algorithms are applied in software in order to predict what content might be relevant to an individual (Gillespie, 2014, p. 1). Algorithms can be trained using machine learning. Machine learning refers to the technology used to teach machines how to deal with large amounts of data as efficiently as possible (Dey, 2016, p. 1174), and can teach itself based on that data (Alzubi, Nayyar and Kumar, 2018, p. 1). In other words, the more data that is collected, the more efficient this software becomes. Thus, through collecting data and analysing, the software that predicts what Netflix show you might be interested in, is teaching itself more about you as a user. Based on this, the algorithm is able to predict a recommendation specified to your interests. All forms of data tracking use machine learning. Data tracking uses machine learning to establish a powerful form of data tracking. Another data tracking adjacent process is the process of profiling. Based on the digital footprint a profile is created. The profile is made up of individual characteristics and other identifiers which can be used for marketing purposes such as personalized advertising (Mavriki and Karyda, 2018). The digital footprint is left behind by those participating in online environments. The information that becomes available is then used to categorize digital users into profiles. For example, an “Uppsala University Digital Media and Society student” profile would contain any online user who adheres to the signifiers of this profile. Based on these categories personalized advertising can take place. Data tracking is very lucrative businesswise. The financial aspect of data tracking can be understood in two-fold. On the one hand, practices such as personalized advertising, using algorithms and profiling are rather fruitful due to their ability to deliver a product or service to those people who are most interested in them, and willing to pay most for them (Parra-Arnau et al., 2017, p. 1). On the other hand, data itself currently holds value (Liang et al., 2018, p.
11 15135). The data that is collected on, for example, social media platforms is often sold to businesses who are interested in profiling or personalized advertising (Barbier and Lui, 2011, p. 331). This process has created a multi-billion-dollar industry in trading data (Liang et al., 2018, p. 15133).
2.4 Social Media
The process of data tracking can take place in all digital spaces, however, a particularly fruitful area of data tracking is social media, because these platforms are designed to have individuals share a lot of information. Social media should be understood as “a group of internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technical foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user generated content” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Social media platforms are used for communication, entertainment, work, education, content creation and more (Grau and Kleiser, 2019, p. 202), and in doing so, have integrated into our personal and professional lives (Liang et al., 2018, p. 15132). The popularity of these platforms has allowed a considerable increase in the amount of data generated on these platforms (Kennedy et al., 2017, p. 271; de Keyzer et al., 2015, p. 1; Ruppert et al., 2017, p. 1). The more social media platforms are used, the more data these platforms can gather about you as a person (Barbier and Lui, 2011, p. 327). Social media data is made up of “what is said and shared on social media, who is saying and sharing it, where they [users] are located, to whom they are linked, how influential and active they are and what their previous activity patterns look like” (Kennedy et al. 2017, 271). This type of information is of incredible relevance, marketing wise (de Keyzer et al., 2015, p. 1). Social media platforms remain free to use because of a revenue model based on data (Zuboff, 2019, p. 19). Social media platforms can therefore be understood as the site where the circle of data tracking takes place: data is produced on these platforms, this data is then gathered, and lastly, the analysed data is applied in the form of personalized advertising.
2.5 The GDPR
Big technological companies such as Google, Facebook, Amazon and more have grown exponentially due to the popularity of social media platforms. The surplus gained through data tracking, has made these companies some of the biggest, powerful and influential in the world.
12 Rapid digital developments and different countries having different laws and regulations (Albrecht, 2016, p. 287), have allowed data tracking and trading to take place relatively unquestioned, resulting in large tech companies that sometimes even transcend the economic powers of nations (Moore in van Dijck, 2020, p. 2). In an effort to further protect personal data of digital users, the European Union implemented the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on May 25th in 2018. The GDPR was designed to “protect consumers and users from harms resulting from unauthorized and excessive use of their personal data (…), in ways that might negatively affect human dignity and well-being, including but not limited to price discrimination, other forms of discrimination, blackmail, intangible nuisances, identity theft, and harm to autonomy” (Gal and Aviv, 2020, p. 351). The GDPR enforces limitations for the handling of personal data in order to strengthen individual fundamental rights in the digital age (Sanchez-Rola et al., 2019, p. 340-341). A key change in data protection is a standard for asking for consent. According to the GDPR consent must be given freely, specific, informed and evidenced by clear affirmative action (Goddard, 2017, p. 704). Before the implementation of the GDPR, data tracking could take place at any time, data brokers were able to collect data based on an opt in agreement which often contained long illegible terms and conditions. Now, data can only be collected and shared after acquiring consent from individuals concerning the specific purpose of the tracking and sharing (Oh et al., 2019, p. 40130). This continent-wide regulation is one of the first attempts at protecting individuals’ data rights and privacy on such a scale, and is based upon six protection principles “Fairness and lawfulness; purpose limitation; data minimization; accuracy; storage limitation; and integrity and confidentiality” (Goddard, 2017, p. 703). Data Protection Authorities can now charge big tech companies a fine of up to 4% of their annual revenue or up to €100 million when failing to adhere to the GDPR (Albrecht, 2016, p. 287). The GDPR is a first step towards legislating the growing power and influence of technological giants. As the first of its kind the cross-national regulation has had effect across the globe. However, some suggest that the GDPR is not consequential enough to fundamentally impact big tech companies, as the impact of the GDPR is relatively small (Jia et al., 2018, p. 20). Other research suggests the opposite, stating that the GDPR has affected the choices companies make in regards to data tracking (Gal and Aviv, 2020, p. 376). It is difficult to measure the full effects of the GDPR, however, it should be considered as a step in the right direction in regards to protecting the personal information of users and consumers.
13 Chapter 3. Literature Review
In this chapter I will further elaborate the current state of the research field regarding data tracking and social media use. The different elements or topics this thesis discusses, millennials, social media use, data tracking and related dilemmas, are not new to this research field. However, they have not yet been researched in connection to one another. This chapter will first introduce some academic works regarding millennials and social media use. Then this chapter will discuss works on the user perspective on data tracking. Lastly, this chapter will discuss how the internet as a private space is conceptualized in previous works.
3.1 Millennials and Social Media Use
Millennials, those born between 1981 and 1999, have often been researched in regards to their social media use. As the first generation to grow up in a mediatized society, their experiences regarding social media are generally considered unique. However, scientific research is often focused on negative aspects of social media use amongst millennials. The cyber risk of participating online is complicated by various characteristics of social media platforms, such as the permanence of the content that is posted, the invisible audience and more (Adjoran and Ricciardelli 2019, p. 9). Another much-studied phenomenon regarding the social media use of millennials is social media addiction. In almost all cases, social media addiction is researched in the context of millennials, adolescents or young people because it is widely believed that this age group is most active on the social media platforms. Currently, the largest group of Facebook users is between 25 and 34 years old, followed by those between 18 and 24 years old (Tankovska, 2021). Curtis et al. (2019, p. 2) stated that across the United States 94% of 18–29- year-olds have access to a smartphone and that 92% use social media platforms. Some scholars have argued that the ever-present smartphone leads to social media addiction. Griffith stated that easy access to the internet could potentially cause a social media addiction in the form of “irrational and excessive use of social media to the extent that it interferes with other aspects of daily life.” (Griffiths, 2000 in Hou et al., 2019, p. 1). Other studies have focused on how excessive use of digital media can negatively affect daily living activities (Tutgun-Ünal and Deniz, 2015, p. 52). Social media addiction studies have found various explanations for this phenomenon. For example, Balakrishnan and Griffiths focused their 2017 study on user gratification and the role YouTube content plays in social media addiction (2017, p. 364). They
14 found that because YouTube facilitates both content viewing and creation activities, it is at least equally as addictive as traditional television, however, Content creation proved to be slightly more addictive due to its dynamic incorporation of personal satisfaction and social approval (2017, p. 373). In another example, Grau and Kleiser explored social media addiction among student millennials, as millennials, college students in particular, seem most affected by social media addiction (2017, p. 200). They stated that symptoms similar to symptoms of depression, such as low self-esteem, disinhibition, anxiety and hostility are found in people with an internet addiction (Grau and Kleiser, 2019, p. 200). Their study concluded that most respondents were able to self-control regarding their social media use. Other research on social media use amongst millennials mainly focused on the marketing aspect of social media platforms. Social media platforms have become an important site for marketing because it provides a platform to both consume and share evaluations of products (Nadeem et al., 2015, p. 1). For retailers, or “e-tailers” it is important to understand how their target groups interact with their online advertisements (Nadeem et al., 2015, p. 1). Millennials are amongst the biggest social media users, therefore, understanding the behaviour of millennials is therefore of great use to these e-tailers. Previous research has focused on defining social media use amongst millennials (Botterill et al., 2015, p. 538), millennials and online marketing (Pitta, 2012, n.d.) and brand perception amongst millennials (Helal et al., 2018, p. 1).Botterill et al. suggest that millennials embrace the “progressive potential that digital technology offers” (2015, p. 538). Their research is aimed at mapping out why millennials use social media by following almost 400 individuals. They conclude that besides entertainment, socializing was the main driving force for millennials to use social media, which mainly happens during school, work, or other extracurricular activities (Botterill et al., 2015, p. 549). Other studies, such as Pitta’s 2021 work, state that a consumer-shift has taken place. Nowadays, millennials are amongst the largest group of consumers, rather than baby boomers (Pitta, 2012, n.d.). This would suggests that access to social media shapes the way millennials think in regards to their consumer behaviour. Social media informs the millennial of what product or service they want. Moreover, this research suggests that digital marketing should be considered as the most effective wat of reaching this generation. Therefore, most marketing strategies are specifically tailored to the social media use of millennials (Pitta, 2012, n.d.). Helal et al. researched the brand costumer relationship in the context of social media, they found that the social identity theory can be used to explain brand perception on social media (2018, p. 1). They found that brands use online marketing strategies that play into the fact that social media contributes to the formation of a social identity amongst millennials (Helal et al., 2018, p. 1).
15 3.2 Social Media and Privacy
Social media platforms are often associated with issues regarding privacy. Therefore, privacy related issues are often the focus of academic research. For example, the 2018 work by Lutz, Hoffmann, Bucher and Fieseler. This research focused on how the sharing economy affects privacy, by focussing on the role of the user in the social media, privacy debate (Lutz et al., 2018, p. 4). They state that by sharing personal information, social media users are putting their own privacy at risk (Lutz et al., 2018, p. 5). Their work suggests that although social media users are aware of privacy risks regarding privacy, their behaviour is often does not represent this awareness. Privacy concerns might limit what personal information people share online but it does not prevent it from happening (Diney and Hart, 2006 in Lutz et al., 2018, p. 6) Others have argued that the manner in which people behave online regarding privacy and social media platforms is dependent on the context of the personal information, the type of service it is uploaded to and how threatening the privacy concerns are (Lutz et al., 2018, p. 6). However, in the same research, Lutz et al. state that “neither online nor physical privacy concerns directly affect sharing behaviour” (Lutz et al., 2018, p. 21). Another example of how academic works discuss privacy and social media use was presented by Han, Jung, Jan and Lee (2018). These scholars focused their research on different types of private information such as job, phone number, postal code, sexual orientation and more and how these types of information are related to privacy concerns (Han et al., 2018, p. 20). The participants rated sexual orientation, political views and relationship status as the most concerning pieces of information regarding an individuals’ privacy. Han et al., suggest that social media platforms are based upon personal profiles where personal information and social connections become publicized. This could potentially expose the social media user to abuse and misuse by the service providers, other social media users and third parties (Han et al., 2018, p. 19). However, Han et al. found that although participants identified many factors as potentially dangerous or harmful to their privacy, their actions do no support these concerns as they did not remove or mask certain items (2018, p. 19). Through their research Han et al. have concluded that the nine privacy items (hometown, education, religion, political views, relationship status, profile photo, favourites/likes, emotions/sentiments, and sexual orientation) they investigated are in need of further protection in order to preserve the privacy of social media users. They suggest that providing a notification feature on social media platforms could help social media users pay more attention to their privacy. However, they acknowledge that
16 people with lower technical skills would require assistance in protecting their online identity (Han et al., 2018, p. 26). Over the past 20 years some quantitative studies were specifically focused on the attitudes of users regarding data tracking and privacy. However, these quantitative studies each paint a slightly different picture about how the public perceives data tracking. A 2005 study suggests that users are more ignorant than concerned about data tracking (Turow et al. in Kennedy et al., 2017, p. 273). A 2010 study found that concern about data tracking was shrinking (Madden and Smith in Kennedy et al., 2017, p. 273). Whereas, in 2012 an EU study provided almost equal numbers for those who were happy with information about data tracking, and those who were unhappy (Lusoli et al. in Kennedy et al., 2017, p. 273). A Norwegian study, also in 2012, found that about three fourth of social media users reported to be concerned about Facebook sharing their interests with their friends in order to personalize their friends’ social media pages (TNS Gallup in Kennedy et al., 2017, p. 273). Most research in this field has focused on the numerous reasons people use social media, e.g., communication, professional live, political debates etc. (Brody, 2018, p. 75) but rather little works have focused on why someone would opt out of using social media, and more specifically, if this is related to data tracking. Therefore, this research will contribute to this aspect of the issue.
3.3 The Privacy Paradox
Research on privacy attitude suggests that privacy is a primary concern for social media users today (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 122), with some research even suggesting that people care more about privacy related issues than issues such as terrorism and the environment (Acquisti and Gross, 2006 in Young and Quan-Haase, 2013, p. 481). However, at the same time, the corresponding behaviour of social media users point to the very opposite, as research shows that social media users reveal personal information in exchange for relatively small rewards such as online exposure to peers (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 122). This discrepancy between knowledge and behaviour has been described as the privacy paradox (Han et al., 2018, p. 19; Kokolakis, 2017, p. 123; Adjoran and Ricciardelli, 2019, p. 9; Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 2). Specifically in the context of social media, the privacy paradox is seemingly prevalent. Social media users constantly face the choice between intention and behaviour (Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 1). Based on their knowledge and concerns for privacy related issues, their intention would be to manage their own privacy (Adjoran and Ricciardelli, 2019, p. 21). However, in the
17 paradoxical world of privacy (Barnes, 2006, n.d.) the actual disclosure of information is often different from the intention (Norberg et al., 2007 in Barth and de Jong, 2019, p. 1039). Social media users continue to construct an online identity through the disclosure of personal information (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013, p. 481), and data tracking and collection practices continue to take place on social media platforms complicating the protection of privacy further (Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 2). Previous works have been dedicated to dissecting the privacy paradox further. Adjoran and Ricciardelli studied how a “nothing to hide” attitude amongst teenagers can be understood as a coping mechanism or adaption to the paradox (2019, p. 21). Kelley et al. have suggested that the discrepancy in the privacy versus sharing debate is due to the considerable popularity of social media platforms (in Barth and de Jong, 2017, p. 1039). Fiesler and Hallinan suggested that the paradox is a deep-rooted societal issue because the attitude-behaviour gap cannot be closed simply by better technology or awareness, as the paradox reflects “underlying behavioural mechanisms related to self-control and instant gratification” (Fiesler and Hallinan, 2018, p. 2). Instant gratification and the notion of self-control over content that is self-produced, keeps social media users from acting upon privacy concerns. Fiesler and Hallinan provided another speculation as to why the privacy paradox continues to exist. They suggest that perhaps social media users simply do not care enough to change their behaviour, therefore maintaining the privacy paradox (Fiesler and Hallinan, 2018, p. 3). Other research however, suggests that individual differences such as gender, cultural background, level of activity and internet experiences are the reason social media users do little to protect their personal data (Taddicken, 2014, p. 249). Other works have studied the privacy paradox in different contexts. Liyanaarachchi studied the privacy paradox in relation to marketing, millennials and culture and found that in order for millennials to escape from the paradox, retailers and organizations should design privacy policies that accommodate individual privacy concerns (2021, p. 7). Others have studied the personalization-privacy paradox, which suggests that consumers are aware of the privacy related issues, but actively looking for personalized products and services (Lee and Rha, 2016, p. 454). Plenty of research has been dedicated to the privacy paradox in a variety of contexts. In this section the concept of the privacy paradox was introduced and has discussed using previous works. The privacy paradox is an important concept in this work. Therefore, in the subsequent theoretical framework, the privacy paradox will be further discussed. However, in this chapter, the privacy paradox will be highlighted and explained how this thesis approaches the privacy paradox as a theory.
18 Chapter 4 Theoretical Framework
The following chapter introduces the theoretical framework that will guide the analysis of this research and help answer the main research question “How do millennials in the Netherlands deal with the dilemmas associated with data tracking on social media platforms?”. In this chapter I discuss the concepts of mediatization and platformization, privacy and the privacy paradox and media generations, and relate them to the research area of this thesis. First, this thesis requires a theoretical framework which introduces the interdependent relationship between digital media and contemporary society. By using the concept of mediatization, this thesis will be able to analyse the role digital media holds in shaping everyday life. Because this thesis is specifically interested in social media platforms, the concept of platformization is introduced, discussing the societal dependency on social media platforms. Second, this thesis requires a theoretical framework which further develops the dilemmas related to social media use and data tracking. In order to analyse dilemmas presented by participants of this study, this thesis uses the notion of privacy and a theoretical approach to the privacy paradox. Lastly, this thesis requires a theoretical framework which explicates media generations and media generational theory, in order to show the unique perspective of the “millennial” on topics such as data tracking.
4.1 Mediatization
Many scholars suggest that society is becoming more and more dependent on digital media in most aspects of daily life, therefore, the digital can no longer be understood as separate from cultural, political and social institutions (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 106). To analyse, discuss, theorise or otherwise interact with this notion, scholars have used the concept of mediatization to indicate the societal changes that have been distinguished over the past twenty-some years at the hands of digital technology (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 1). In this section, based on, amongst others, the works by Couldry and Hepp, I will conceptualize mediatization, and relate it to the context of this work. I will also use platformization as an extension of mediatization in order to specifically focus on the effects of social media platforms on society.
19
4.1.1 Mediatization Conceptualized
Mediatization has become an important topic in communications and media studies. Our world has become intertwined with digital technology in an inseparable way. The concept of mediatization is used in academic research to study the effect of media on societal factors such as economics, politics, culture and more (Couldry and Hepp, 2013, p. 191). It can be used to both analyse and explain the deeply rooted position social media holds in our society. Couldry and Hepp define mediatization as “shorthand for all the transformations of communicative and social processes, and the social and practical forms built from them, which follow from our increasing reliance on technologically and institutionally based processes of mediation” (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 3-4). As a theoretical concept, mediatization is often confused with the latter concept: mediation. Mediation, however, refers to how communication and the construction of meaning are mediated, whereas mediatization refers to a process that describes change or transformation (Couldry and Hepp, 2013, p. 197). In other words, mediation suggests that construction of meaning has become mediated by digital technology and mediatization suggests the changing effects media has on our social world. In order to further understand mediatization it is important to understand how Couldry and Hepp approach the concept of media. Many definitions of media have been used in social sciences and media studies, ranging from very specified definitions on digital media to media in its broadest sense. According to Couldry and Hepp media needs to be considered as both “technologies including infrastructures and as processes of sense-making” (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 5) in order to understand our contemporary social world. Thus, following Couldry and Hepp’s interpretation, this thesis understands media as those technological entities that allow for digital processes of sense-making. Couldry and Hepp add to this, saying that media refers to “technologically based media of communication which institutionalize communication” (2016, p. 32), emphasising the communicational aspect of media. Couldry and Hepp argue that mediatization is a critical concept used to analyse the relationship between the changes in media and communication and the changes in culture and society at large (Couldry and Hepp, 2013, p. 197; Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 35-36). In short, mediatization thus suggests that digital media has become embedded in our lives to the point that we cannot disconnect from it (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 2). In their 2016 book “The Mediated Construction of Reality”, Couldry and Hepp move beyond their conceptualization of mediatization through their introduction of deep mediatization. Deep mediatization suggests an inseparable connection between our social world
20 and media. Where mediatization is focused on the transformative effects of media on society, deep mediatization characterizes how “the more intricately the construction of the social world becomes implicated in our uses of the media, the more intricate are the interdependencies between media themselves” (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 33). Couldry and Hepp suggest that mediatization can be used to describe and analyse society’s dependence on technology, most notably in our social world. The influence of media on society is complex and multi-faceted. Because of this we cannot study the influence of media on society while focusing on one single media at the time (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 34). Rather, all different aspects of digital media should be considered in defining mediatization. Within mediatization two distinct forms can be distinguished that indicate the manner in which societal institutions, practices and processes of sense-making are mediatized. Direct or strong mediatization, and indirect or weak mediatization (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 114-115). Direct medialization can be found in situations where an activity transforms from non-mediated to mediated. Indirect mediatization is used to indicate an activity that is increasingly influenced by media. According to Hjarvard, mediatization should be understood as a double-sided process. In his own words “The media are at once part of the fabric of society and culture and an independent institution that stands between other cultural and social institutions and coordinates their mutual interaction.” (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 106). Meaning that on the one hand, media can be understood as integrated into society and culture while on the other hand, media can be approached as an independent factor. His conceptualization distinguishes how media has influenced social, cultural, political or economic institutions, whilst at the same time being an institution on its own. In a similar fashion, mediatization has also been used to describe the process of long-term social transformation itself (Ekström et al., 2016, p. 1095). For example, mediatization indicates the process of societal institutions becoming more and more dependent on, or more submitted to media (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 113). This is slightly different from Couldry and Hepp’s interpretation which argues that mediatization should be understood as a transformative force where specific technologies are transformed into technologies that shape society (in Ekström et al., 2016, p. 1100). Mediatization can be used to study qualitative and quantitative historical changes (Lundby in Ekström et al., 2016, p. 1100). For example, mediatization can be used as an analytical tool in order to analyse the impact of media on “institutions and spheres of human activity” (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 113). Other interpretations use mediatization to explain specific aspects of media influence on society such as the growth in number, diversity and reach of communication media, the increase of media presence in everyday life, the growing influence
21 of media related organizations (Ekström et al., 2016, p. 1091). Lastly, mediatization is used as a broad unifying concept tying together the two previous interpretations. Mediatization, in this case, indicates a range of “media-embedded processes of social change” (Ekström et al., 2016, p. 1097) which can be used as both an analytical tool and as an explanatory concept. For this work, mediatization will be conceptualized as the latter. On the one hand, mediatization can be approached as an analytical tool to analyse the effects and impact of media on society and distinguish how this varies amongst the perception and experience of millennials in the Netherlands. On the other hand, in order to look at the position of social media in society, mediatization can be used as an explanatory concept to describe the role of digital developments in this case and the dilemmas that stem from this. The concept of mediatization is used to describe the intertwinement and entanglement of media within the social and cultural lives of Dutch millennials. In doing so, mediatization can aid in dissecting what structural impact digital technology has on these people, as well as their social and cultural worlds.
4.1.2 Platformization
This section will expand the concept of mediatization by discussing the concept of platformization. The concept platformization indicates the growing and deliberate influence social media platforms have on our society. Like mediatization, platformization can be used as a descriptive concept and as an analytical tool to approach the relation between society and social media platforms. Where mediatization describes the varied influence of digital media on society, platformization is specifically concerned with the influence of digital media platform design on society. In other words, platformization is an aspect of mediatization which describes how social and cultural practices are often performed through platforms. In a mediatized world the digital platform should be approached as the “programmable digital architecture designed to organize interaction between users – not just end-users but also corporate entities and public bodies” (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4). Platforms can thus be understood as the digital environments constructed to facilitate the interaction between the private and the public sphere (Habermas in Thornham et al., 2009, p. 45). The platform as a concept was first used in the early 2000s to indicate the middle- “man” between people, information and goods (Evans et al., in Casilli and Posada, 2019, p. 293). In 2010, Gillespie defined a platform as an “infrastructure to build applications on”. As an ideological discourse Gillespie suggests platforms encompass the “computational: something to build upon and innovate from; political: a place from which to speak and be heard; (…) and architectural: in
22 that [digital media] is designed as an open-armed, egalitarian facilitation of expression, not an elitist gatekeeper with normative and technical restrictions” (Gillespie, 2010 in Helmond, 2015, p. 2). In short, the digital platform facilitates an environment accessible to anyone, where creation and connection is encouraged. Srnicek (2017) distinguishes different types of platforms: advertising platforms (like Google); product platforms (like Spotify); and renting platforms (like Airbnb), each catering to a different kind of corporate organization and audience (Srnicek, 2017 in Casilli and Posada, 2019, p. 293). Although digital platforms might portray themselves as such, they are neither neutral nor value-free as “they come with specific norms and values inscribed in their architectures” (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 3). In this work, the platforms that are researched are of a social yet corporate nature. Meaning that although everyone is free to use these social media platforms, monetization is inscribed in their architecture (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 3). For example, Facebook, is a platform which connects users, advertisers and third-party developers. The more people use Facebook, the more the value of Facebook increases for each entity (Helmond, 2015, p. 2). Having created an understanding of “the platform”, we can continue to discuss platformization. The concept of platformization describes how, amongst others, culture, economics and politics are performed through platforms, and how this is a consequence of the specific design of these platforms. For example, platformization can be used to indicate the expansion of social media platforms themselves and the expansion of social media platforms into other digital spaces (Helmond, 2015, p. 5), or how increasingly, industries are finding audiences and advertisers through social media platforms (Poell et al., 2017, p. 2). Social media platforms are no longer solely dedicated to communication or the (global) expansion of our social lives. Rather, social media platforms have a far-reaching impact on societal factors such as economics, politics, and culture. Nieborg et al. state that platformization, as a dynamic process, suggests that digital platforms have permeated economic, governmental and infrastructural extensions of society, which has fundamentally affected production practices and how media industries function (2019, p. 85). Thus, not only do digital platforms affect our social world, the entire modus operandi of society changes in order to facilitate the digital platforms. Poell et al. compare platformization to pervasive global developments such as industrialization and electrification because, like industrialization and electrification, platformization is a “multifaceted transformation of globalized societies” (in van Dijck, 2020, p. 2). The distinctive aspect of the platform as a “programmable digital architecture” (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4) suggests that the transformations platformization has brought about are predetermined in the architecture of such a platform, or in the very least a consequence of a specific design.
23 According to some scholars, this process has led to our society transforming into a platform society. “The platforms society” is a term coined by van Dijck et al. and is used to emphasize that platforms have become “an integral part of society, where conflicts of interest are currently played out at various levels.” (2018, p. 2). The platform society is a society where social and economic processes are taking place on global online platforms that are driven by algorithms and fuelled by data (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4). Thus, through the way digital platforms are designed, a society has been created which is dependent on the information that is provided and generated through processes related to these digital media platforms. For example, the platform society suggests that social media platforms have influenced our social lives in such a way that digital communication has become the main mode of communication. Another example of the platform society is that because of algorithmic recommendations, it could be disputed whether the individual would be who they are or think what they think (for example in a political sense), without having consumed the recommended content. In the context of this work, the concept of platformization can be used to analyse the far-reaching impact platforms have on society. Like mediatization, platformization is used as both a descriptive concept and an analytical tool. Platformization can describe that society adheres more and more to digital media platforms, whilst at the same time, the concept can be used to analyse these effects. Platformization is different from mediatization because of its specific focus on the complicated and intricate architecture of the platform itself. Platformization is thus used to dissect how platforms are designed to influence society. Because this work is focused on how Dutch millennials interact with and feel about social media platforms, it is important to theoretically support the notion that social media platforms are designed in a manner that sustains or even promotes continued use.
4.2 Privacy Dilemmas
Privacy is a much-contested topic regarding digital media. Debates on privacy often take place along the lines of the structure agency debate. Some have argued that in the age of digital media, we cannot have privacy at all. Digital media is, in this case, understood as a panopticon which allows digital users to be observed at all times stripping them of their agency (Gandi, 1993 in Barnes, 2006). Others have suggested that our attitudes towards privacy have shifted (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013, p. 502). This section describes and discusses the complicated and often problematic relationship between social media platforms, data tracking and privacy. In this
24 section I will first conceptualize privacy and explain how privacy can be understood in a mediatized context. Then, I will further elaborate the relationship between privacy, social media use and data tracking. In doing so, this chapter will discuss three elements of this relationship; surveillance capitalism, the influence of personalized content and the monopoly of the platform. Lastly, this section will theoretically approach the notion of the privacy paradox.
4.2.1 Mediatization of privacy
Over the last decade, privacy has often been used in relation to digital media, moreover, previous research has shown a lot of interest and concern regarding privacy and digital media (Awad and Krishnan, 2016, p. 14). Privacy holds an important position in many debates regarding our networked society. To conceptualize privacy in a mediatized society is a complicated process because the concept has been studied using many different theoretical lenses and is subject to constant change due to technological developments (Gerlach et al., 2019 in Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 2). For this thesis, privacy is approached from the theoretical perspective of agency, and refers to how the individual retains the power and control over their personal information. Therefore, this thesis defines privacy as “selective control of access to the self” along the definition of Altman (1975 in Taddicken, 2014, p. 249). In other words, privacy means the right to determine who has access to (personal) information and when a person has access to this information. In the context of digital media, it is important to understand concepts such as privacy because rapid developments within these technologies can have far reaching effects on the agency of the individual. Individual privacy awareness entails the “attention, perception and cognition” (Pötzsch, 2008, p. 228) of: a) whether or not other individuals have received or had access to an individual, their presence and/or their activities, b) what type of detailed information other individuals have had access to, c) how personal information was accessed, processed and used, and d) how much information about an individual is available (Pötzsch, 2008, p. 228). Individual privacy awareness thus suggests the individual experience of privacy. The experience of privacy can take place in three different areas; territorial privacy, privacy of a person and informational privacy. Territorial privacy concerns the physical surroundings of an individual. Privacy of a person refers to the protection of a person against undue interference. Lastly and perhaps most relevantly, informational privacy concerns the selective control over how personal data can be “gathered, stored, processed, and disseminated” (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 123). Informational privacy thus indicates the aspect of control over the
25 right to select what personal information becomes public (Pötzsch, 2008, p. 227). In a digital sense, informational privacy can be understood as the mediatization of privacy and has become an important aspect of computer sciences and digital media studies. Large scale data collection and distribution has put informational privacy to the forefront of privacy discussions (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013, p. 481). Over the past decade or three, social norms regarding privacy have evolved due to mediatization (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013, p. 502). Specifically social media platforms have created a sharing economy and a networked society in which privacy concerns have become a pressing issue in two ways. Firstly, the sharing economy has normalized sharing personal information on public (digital) platforms. On Facebook we share pictures, our relationship status, we might engage in a political debate or connect and share our email address or telephone number. However, not without its consequences to our privacy (Pötzsch, 2008, p. 226). This type of personal information can be used in a variety of harmful ways, such as identity theft (Ishrad and Soomro, 2018, p. 43), or online bullying. Over time, social media users become unaware of “who has access to which shared items” (Cetto et al., 2014, p. 1). In this case, the individual is their own agent who shares certain information about themselves, however, because the information then falls into the hands of others, the individual loses agency regarding their personal formation. A second threat that has projected privacy to the forefront of academic debate is related to data tracking. Data tracking causes privacy related issues because the personal information of internet users is collected and stored often without the users’ awareness (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4). Although the GDPR might ensure that the internet user has to give consent before tracking can take place, the boundaries of explicit consent have often been described as questionable, because personal information is still collected from indirect sources such as “browsing history, search quarries and payment records” (Xie et al., in Liyanaarachchi 2021, p. 1) Moreover, the complicated or “misconfigured” privacy settings prevent social media users from fully understanding the consequences causing uninformed consent (Cetto et al., 2014, p. 1). The complex language of privacy policies, difficult to reach privacy settings or untraceable opt out options prevent individual privacy awareness in regards to attention, perception and cognition. In order to use social media platform, one has to agree to the terms of condition in which, using very complicating language, the data tracking practices are detailed. If one chooses not to agree to these terms of condition, a person is not able to use the services the social media platform provides (Zuboff, 2019, p. 10). Approaching privacy using agency as a theoretical lens we can state that the individual loses some of their agency the moment they interact with social media platforms. These platforms cannot be used without
26 giving up some form of control and power over personal information, and therefore without giving up some form of agency. In some cases, it is even suggested that contemporary society has become so dependent on social media platforms that it is no longer a choice to use the services of these platforms (Hargittai and Marwick, 2016, p. 3739). For this work, it is important to understand how social media platforms are connected to privacy issues and the experience of privacy because privacy is currently often understood to be the most important dilemma regarding data tracking and social media platforms. Whilst some research has revealed that Facebook users increasingly manage their online personas by removing information that might place them in a negative light (Young and Quan-Haase, 2013, p. 485), data tracking remains a threat to privacy.
4.2.2 Privacy and Data tracking
The process of data tracking, which allows technology access to the online activities of individuals, is often discussed in relation to privacy, or more specifically, privacy violations. The internet is never neutral, value free or unbiased (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4), and is therefore at the core of a conflict of interests regarding data tracking and privacy. The revenue model of social media platforms is based on data of individuals (Liang et al., 2018, p. 15133). These commercial interests are at odds with individual privacy because data can be used to identify personal information about an individual, for example, Facebook likes were able to correctly identify personal characteristics such as “sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious and political views, personality traits, intelligence, happiness, use of addictive substances, parental separation, age and gender” (Kosinski et al., 2013 in van Dijck, 2014, p. 200), or sold to third parties, in which case, social media platforms can no longer guarantee that the information is safe (Xu et al., 2014, p. 1153). Other privacy concerns that have been discussed in regards to data tracking are, for example, “unauthorized access to personal data, the undesired discovery of one’s embarrassing information, the use of personal data for purposes other than the one for which data has been collected” to name a few (Xu et al., 2014, p. 1150). Some might say that in a society where people are willingly sharing personal information online, the concept of privacy no longer matters, others however, suggest that privacy concerns have been ignored by those who profit off of personal data, but should in no way be abandoned (Madden, 2012, p. 4). In any case, it is clear that data tracking causes serious concern for privacy related issues. Throughout the literature, several aspects of the privacy and data tracking dilemma have been discussed such as surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019),
27 influence of personalized content (van Dijck and Poel, 2013, p. 3) and the monopoly of the platform (Srinivasan, 2019, p. 55). In this section, I will discuss these three phenomena.
In this section, I will introduce the concept of surveillance capitalism. Due to its popularity and under the guise of a promise of power to the people and equal measure, social media platforms have caused a select group of people to become immensely wealthy trading our information (in the form of data) (Zuboff, 2019, p. 12-13; p. 17). These people, according to Shoshana Zuboff, are surveillance capitalists, thriving on surveillance capitalism; “a new economic order that claims human experiences as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction and sales” (Zuboff, 2019, p. 1). In other words, the information that is gathered about the online activity of, for example, social media users, is used in commercial practices that are often not known to the public. Therefore, surveillance capitalism is part of the dilemma regarding data tracking, social media and privacy. Surveillance capitalism provides an environment where those in power, have continuously chosen commercial gain over the protection of digital media users. To solve this issue, non-corporate media platforms are needed (Fuchs, 2017, p. 102), in order to de-privatize the internet and move back to a public sphere that is independent of economic and political power (Fuchs, 2014, p. 58). Privacy and capitalism in the context of social media and data tracking should be understood in two-fold. On the one hand, social media users lose track of who has access to their information (Cetto et al., 2014, p. 1). Whilst on the other hand, the private information provides corporate organisations with a lot of money and power. economic model that substantiates free social media platforms such as Facebook is everything but transparent. The protection of the details of this revenue model maintains the privacy of these companies.
Privacy, social media use and data tracking are also related in the context of personalized advertisement. Personalized content, is content which is specifically tailored to the personal preferences of an individual. The personalized content is recommended to the individual based on a profile that is created through data tracking. Personalized content can then be used to influence peoples’ behaviour. For example, showing someone advertisements of a product they might be interested in, might influence them to buy this product. At the same time, this has a far bigger impact on society because these practices can be used to influence peoples’ interaction and professional routines and societies institutional structures such as politics, economics, culture and more (van Dijck and Poell, 2013, p. 3). Or, in the words of Zuboff: “Surveillance capitalists discovered that the most-predictive behavioural data come from
28 intervening in the state of play in order to nudge, coax, tune, and herd behaviour towards profitable outcomes.” (2019, p. 13). This profitable outcome does not have to be financial. The 2008 presidential elections in the United States were the first US election where social media was used extensively. Researchers were even able to show a correlation between the amount of social media used by candidates and the ultimate victor Barack Obama (Barbier and Liu, 2011, p. 331). Social media and data tracking were able to predict the outcomes of the election, which left some to believe it might be able to influence its eventual outcome. The most striking example of this practice can be found in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Cambridge Analytica was a data firm, meaning that they were the third-party buying data from data tracking companies such as Facebook (Isaak and Hanna, 2018, p. 56). Cambridge Analytica figured that they were able to use data to “micro-target” individuals, specifically concerning and influencing their voting behaviour. By targeting individuals with personalized ads regarding exactly those topics that could politically sway them in a specific direction, Cambridge Analytica was able to influence politics (Isaak and Hanna, 2018, p. 57). In other words, data tracking technology has the ability to influence human behaviour because based on an individual’s data, this person can be targeted with content they might be vulnerable to. A different aspect to this issue regards so called internet echo chambers. Internet echo chambers are the result of “the use of internet-generated personal data to provide target groups with tailor-made information fitting their specific preferences and expectations” (Hennen et al., 2020, p. 4). Thus, personalized content creates a situation in which social media users are constantly confirmed in their own worldviews, because the content they are shown reiterates their own perspective. Pariser worded it perfectly, stating that the internet echo chamber creates “a unique universe of information for each of us (Pariser, 2011 in Zuiderveen Borgesius et al., 2016, p. 2). This is considered problematic because it can create a separation in society. In a democratic society, it is important for people to have shared experiences in order to make informed decisions (Sustain in Zuiderveen Borgesius et al. 2016, 4), however, through the internet echo chamber, these shared experiences online become fewer and fewer. The personalized content a person consumes on their social media platforms was targeted towards them because of data tracking, and therefore, this issue remains related to privacy.
At first glance, social media platforms may seem to be transparent, because content is produced by the users themselves empowering them as the owner of content (Jenkins, 2006 in van Dijck, 2009, p. 42). However, both surveillance capitalism and the influence of personalized content stem from data tracking, and data tracking provides social media platforms a very important
29 tool: power. As of right now, a few social media platforms, such as Facebook, are often suggested to have almost monopoly-like power (Srinivasan, 2019, p. 55). A monopoly refers to the power to control a certain market (Srinivasan, 2019, p. 54). In the case of social media platforms, few platforms can battle the popularity of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatApp, all of which are owned by Facebook. This sheer popularity has provided a few digital media organizations with access to the data of billions of people because of data tracking practices on these platforms. Social media is deeply embedded in our society (Zuboff, 2019, p. 19). In order to use social media platform, one has to agree to the terms of condition in which, using very complicating language, the data tracking practices are detailed. If one chooses not to agree to these terms of condition, a person is not able to use the services the social media,platform provides (Zuboff. 2019, p. 10). This could be considered problematic due to the popularity of social media in society. Van Dijck has stated that social media have “almost become synonymous with sociality: you can check out any time you ‘like’, but you can never leave” (van Dijck, 2013 in Brody, 2018, p. 75). Because users’ interests are subordinate to the financial gains of surveillance capitalism an unequal power dynamic is established (Zuboff, 2019, p. 19).
The social media and privacy dilemma can be understood in two-fold. On the one hand, sharing personal information on social media platforms threatens the privacy of the individual. On the other hand, like has been explained throughout the section on mediatized privacy, data tracking practices are also part of the social media and privacy dilemma. Sharing personal information and data tracking can be understood as primary aspects of the social media and privacy dilemma. Since this thesis is focused on data tracking, this aspect of the dilemma has been highlighted in previous chapters. Theoretical concepts such as surveillance capitalism, personalized content and power are also related to data tracking in the privacy debate. These three secondary aspects of the social media and privacy dilemma are heavily intertwined and reinforce one another in the context of data tracking. Personalized content is designed to keep the social media user active on the platform, which reinforces the monetization of the data of the individual in a society dictated by surveillance capitalism. These practices reinforce the power of the platform through information (knowledge is power) and money. In turn, the power of the platform ensures that the user remains active on the social media platform. This relationship has been illustrated in Figure 1. This figure shows that personalized content, surveillance capitalism and power are all related to the data tracking aspect of the social media and privacy dilemma.
30
Figure 1 Privacy dilemmas in the context of social media use
Dilemma social media use and privacy
Sharing personal information Personalized content
Data tracking
Surveillance Power capitalism
4.2.3 The Privacy Paradox Theorized
In the literature review, previous work on the privacy paradox has been discussed. Throughout this section, I will elaborate how this thesis approaches the privacy paradox as a theory. In doing so, the privacy paradox will be connected to the concept of agency. Like has been stated before, the privacy paradox refers to the notion that there is a discrepancy between knowledge and behaviour regarding privacy and social media platforms (Han et al., 2018, p. 19; Kokolakis, 2017, p. 123; Adjoran and Ricciardelli, 2019, p. 9; Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 2). In this work, this notion is used as a theoretical lens which explains the behaviour of individuals regarding dilemmas on social media platforms. The privacy paradox can be explained using the concept of agency. Theoretically speaking, the privacy paradox refers to agency in relation to decision making regarding protection of personal information. According to the rational choice theory of human behaviour, decisions are reasonable and logical in order to seek maximize benefits (Simon, 1955 in Barth and de Jong, 2019, p. 1044). However, in the case of the privacy paradox, this seems to be more complicated. On the one hand, the decision-making process is accredited to the agency of the individual social media user, these users make a cost-benefit calculation in order to decide what information they share with whom online. In the case of social media platforms, the benefits of the platforms outweigh the risk of sharing personal information (Barth and de Jong, 2019, p. 1045). This approach thus accredits the individual user with the power and agency to make the informed decision to share personal information (through data tracking
31 or through sharing information themselves), even though they are aware of certain risks. On the other hand, contrary to the risk-benefit calculation, behaviour concerning the privacy paradox, could be explained by the influence of processes out of the control of the individual (Barth and de Jong, 2019, p. 1045). In this explanation, the individual is suggested to not have the agency to make a decision for themselves regarding the information that becomes publicised. The theoretical debate on the privacy paradox concerns the discussion whether or not individuals have the agency, the autonomy or the power to protect their information based on their knowledge of dilemmas related to the use of social media platforms. Agency is also tied to the privacy paradox in a more overarching manner. The importance of social media platforms to society, and in this case specifically to millennials, strips the individual of the agency to decide whether or not to use a certain platform. Social media is used for socialization, education, employment and more, protecting your data and your privacy by not interacting with and on these platforms is therefore nearly impossible (Hargittai and Marwick, 2016, p. 3739; 3753). To approach the privacy paradox as a theoretical concept rather than merely an empirical finding allows this work to further research and explain the behaviour of social media users regarding privacy. Agency is related to this phenomenon because it can be argued that individuals are stuck in the privacy paradox due to a lack of agency regarding online participation, and actively using agency to make an informed decision to continue to use social media platforms due to its benefits, and thus remaining in the paradox. In any case, the privacy paradox describes how the behaviour of social media users does not comply to the knowledge and concerns regarding privacy. It is important to acknowledge the privacy paradox because the paradox has significant consequences for a number of social institutions such as politics, economics and our social world (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 122). In a political sense, the privacy paradox indicates the importance and necessity of political measures taken to protect digital media users. Because of the ever-growing importance of social media platforms in our world, it becomes increasingly difficult for social media users to use their agency to protect themselves and their personal data. The choice to opt out of social media use (meaning not to share, not to communicate, not to post or not to scroll) could have a far-reaching impact on the social lives of individuals in the form of social limitations (Hargittai and Marwick, 2016, p. 3753). It is therefore important that overarching institutions such as governments or other cross-national institutions protect these social media users. However, confronting the privacy paradox is rather complicated. Proof of the privacy paradox could encourage social media platforms to increase the collection and use of personal data because the privacy paradox proves that their invasion of privacy will not be
32 counteracted by individuals (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 122). Rather, the social media user will not alter their behaviour. Therefore, from a commercial aspect, it seems beneficial to play into the privacy paradox and continue to practice data tracking or even increase data tracking. Obviously, sharing personal information of social media platforms is an individual decision and choice. However, refusing to participate in practices such as these could lead to serious social limitations. At the same time, a large part of what makes social media platforms a hazardous place in regards to privacy is out of the control of the individual user.
4.4 Media generations
Concepts such as generation X, generation Y, millennials, boomers, baby boomers and more, are often used in the media. They are used to indicate a group of people who roughly share the same age and roughly the same socio-political space (Bolin, 2016, p. 2-3). In the media, but also in theoretical discourse, concepts that refer to generations are often used to describe a difference between a group of people of certain ages. Generations are a much-contested subject because it refers to a concept that could potentially be used to explain someone’s behaviour (Buckingham, 2006, p. 17). One of the most prominent examples of the generational debate is rooted in digital media. In this section I will introduce media generations as a theoretical concept relying on the works of, amongst others, Göran Bolin (2016). This section will first define what this thesis understands as a generation, and then discuss the notion of the media generation and how this is related to the concept of identity.
4.3.1 Generations and generational theory
Most people will have heard of generations at some point in their lives, some might even feel they belong to a certain generation. Generations in a scientific context were first conceptualized by Mannheim in 1928. He defined generations as “the certain “location” certain individual hold in the economic and power structure of a given society” (Mannheim, 1928 in Bolin, 2014, p. 110). This conceptualization of generation was developed as an alternative to Marx’s class theory to categorize groups of people. To Mannheim, the generation is the social subject due to societal change, whereas Marx understood the social class as the driver of social change (Bolin, 2014, p. 110). This work understands generations along the lines of the definition by Strauss
33 and Howe who have defined a generation as “the aggregate of all people born on the span of a phase of life who share a common location in history and, hence, a common collective persona” (in Drago, 2006, p. 7). In other words, a generation refers to a group of people who were born in the same socio-political space and in the same few years. A few famous examples of generations are: the Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1945, thus born before and during the Second World War, Baby boomers, born between 1946-1960, which was characterized by a post-war mentality, Generation X born between 1961 and 1981, and generation Y, also dubbed Millennials (Bolton et al., 2013, p. 247). The birth years of millennials vary from source to source. However, for this thesis, anyone born between 1981 and 1999 is considered a millennial, with the distinction between early-millennials (1981-1990) and late-millennials (1990-1999) (Ross et al., 2019, p. 6; Dimock, 2019, p. 1). Not only do generations share the same geo-political environment, Don Tapscott has stated that generations “mostly exist in the minds of the people who belong to it. Generations are forged through common experience” (in Drago, 2016, p. 7). Generations can thus be used to indicate a group of people with similar experience, similar geo-political surroundings and the same age. However, because generational belonging mainly exists in the minds of those within that generation, it holds importance mainly to them. Using a generational approach is thus useful to attempt to understand those within a generation. In this work, this elaborate understanding of the generation and generational theory will be applied to generation Y, or millennials, in order to understand how their common experience of a mediatized society has impacted the way they approach dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use. This thesis will focus on late-millennials, born between 1990 and 1999.
4.3.2 Millennials and Digital Technology
In this section, I will explore the notion that millennials can be considered the first digital generation, and thus the first digital natives. However, in order to do so, I first need to establish if there is such a thing as the digital generation. The experience of digital media has become an important aspect of generational theory (Bolin, 2016, p. 4). The introduction and development of digital media as a shared experience has been suggested as a signifier for the millennial generation. This generation is thus differentiated by their experiences of “digital computer technology” (Buckingham, 2006, p. 13). As the only generation to have grown up in a society which transformed from non-mediatized to mediatized, millennials have experienced every stage of the digital society. To be more precise, this generation experienced the “liminal phase”
34 (van Gennep, 1960, n.d.), the in-between stage, of the digital technology whilst themselves being in a liminal phase of their lives. This “shared experience” has formed this generation as the “net generation” (Cabral, 2008, p. 6) or the first “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001 in Bolton et al., 2013, p. 246), as opposed to digital immigrants, those who have come to use digital technology later in life (Hockly, 2011, p. 322). This thus suggests that there is such a thing as the digital generation, a generation formed by their shared experiences in the mediatized society. Younger generations such as generation X and younger are also often considered digital generations. However, unlike their younger counterparts, millennials spent their formative years in a society that itself was adapting to digital media. The shared values and experiences of millennials have contributed to the millennial generation identity (Ross et al., 2019, p. 6). The group identity of millennials contributes to the experience of an “us” and a “them” based on shared similarities and differences (Weiss and Lang, 2009, p. 729). In the case of the digital generations and the first digital natives, the us and them could be characterized by the manner in which they interact with digital media and technology. Millennials have been described as a generation who regularly spends time online (Hockly, 2011, p. 322). The formative experience of early and frequent use and exposure to digital media has impacted this generation in terms of “cognitive, emotional, and social outcomes” (Immordino-Yang et al. in Bolton et al., 2013, p. 247). The individual subjective experience of this generation is thus deeply affected by the impacts of digital media. Sociologists have suggested that social change is rooted in the changes within the shared experience of young individuals, for example, peer-group socialization or historical events. Social media use amongst millennial could therefore potentially lead to changes in social norms and behaviour in the form of political engagement, privacy and public safety (Bolton et al., 2013, p. 255). The relationship between millennials is different than that of other generations because of the tools used to maintain relationships have changed (Cabral, 2008, p. 5). Increasingly, digital media has become the centre of our social lives, and millennials can be understood as the first generation to fully embrace this type of communication. This generation “actively contributes, shares, searches for and consumes content (…) on social media platforms” and is the first generation to do so (Bolton et al., 2013, p. 246). Generation Y, millennials, the net generation or the first digital natives are uniquely equipped to participate in this research due to their shared experience regarding digital media. This generation is thus presumed to experience a form of shared identity because that they share the same experiences regarding digital media as the first digital natives. Millennials are the first generation to embrace the digital society and thrive and find empowerment within everything
35 social media provides (Geraci and Nagy, 2004, p. 20). The lives of this generation are intertwined with the services digital media platforms provide. However, due to their experiences in a non-mediatized society, this generation is able to reflect on the effects of digital media in our society. This work is focused on late-millennials because their lives are most presumed to be mediatized from an early age on. Therefore, their shared identity as the first digital natives was instilled in them at a young age. However, these late-millennials are still aware of a non or less mediaitized world.
Chapter 5. Methodology
5.1 Research Design
Qualitative research is concerned with the meaning and experience of the lives and social worlds of a select group of people (Fossey et al., 2002, p. 717). In order to learn about these things, a different kind of data is needed than can be collected through quantitative methods. Where quantitative methods are focused on numbers, and large amounts of data, qualitative methods are far more specific and directed at micro-level, individual information about people (Neuman, 2016, p. 264). Qualitative methods can be used to shed light on the subjective meaning of participants and the individual contexts of these participants. Therefore, it is the best suited type of method for research that is focused on individual opinion, experience and meaning (Fossey et al., 2002, p. 723). Qualitative research encompasses a number of methodologies, such as ethnographic research, participant observation, in-depth interviews, semi-structured interviews and focus groups, all of which are directed at experiences, behaviours, interactions and social contexts without quantifying these (Fossey et al., 2002, p. 717). Because of the personal and in-depth approach of these methods, this type of research is also exceptionally useful in learning more about complex, lesser known and otherwise marginalized research topics (Fossey et al., 2002, p. 718). Gathering information through conversation has long been central to qualitative research. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups are two methods based on conversational information and allow the participants to respond using their own words (Longhurst, 2003, p. 105). Semi-structured interviews can be placed between structured (closed) interviews and unstructured (open-ended) interviews. The semi-structured interview is based on a topic list
36 which is used as a guide during the interview. The list contains questions and prompts to help the interviewer stay on topic whilst remaining flexible and conversational (Fossey et al., 2002, p. 727; Longhurst, 2003, p. 103). The topic list is to be tailored to the situation of each participant or participating group (Adams, 2015, p. 496). The semi-structured set up of these interviews allows space for the participant to speak of the topics they deem relevant (Longhurst, 2003, p. 103). Focus groups differ from semi-structured interviews in that they are conducted with a group of people, usually of about four to twelve people (Neuman, 2016, p. 287). Focus groups are conversations in a group setting, about a specific subject determined by the researchers (Morgan, 1996, p. 131). Therefore, the data gathered during such a group process reflects the collective view of the group members rather than an individual experience (Fossey et al., 2002, p. 727). In order to substantiate an environment where each participant is able to share equally, the group interaction must be facilitated in a manner that makes all participants feel safe and equally heard (Fossey et al., 2002, p. 727). The researcher acts as a moderator during the focus groups and must therefore be non-directive and facilitate free and open discussion amongst the participants (Neuman, 2016, p. 287).
In order to answer the research question “How do millennials in the Netherlands deal with the dilemmas associated with data tracking on social media platforms?”, this study uses the qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. This study uses these qualitative methods because the research is focused on the personal opinions and experiences of individuals. Rather than having participants agree or disagree with predetermined statements about the dilemmas associated with data tracking on social media platforms, this research is interested in what the participants themselves think or feel. Therefore, this work has asked the participants to identify what dilemmas they experience. This analysis method can best be described as grounded theory. The work has used the systematic collection and analysis of data in order to uncover and study the behaviour of individuals (Glaser and Strauss, 2017, p. 2). Due to Covid-19, both the interviews and the focus groups were held online, using the online communication tool Zoom. Qualitative methods are also employed because of the micro level scale of the research. This study is focused on micro-level everyday interactions (Neuman 2016, 264), such as the individual use of social media platforms. In the Netherlands, and most developed countries, internet access is omnipresent. However, social media use is still a highly individual action.
37 Knowledge, opinions and experiences vary from person to person. Therefore, qualitative methods are used to explore some of these individual opinions and experiences.
5.2 Participants
For this research a sample of N=16 Dutch millennial participants born between 1990 and 1999 have been approached. All participants agreed to participate in both a one-on-one semi- structured interview and a focus group, in an online setting. Because this is an explorative research, the research requires a diverse sample. Participants were approached through convenience sampling. Some participants were found and recruited through personal contact (N=9) and others through the snowball method (N=7). Although this convenience sampling method was used, the participants were selected and approached purposefully, in order to provide a diverse sample. In the convenience sample, participants were selected and approached based on age, gender and educational background in order to provide a diverse sample that spans all birthyears and a variety of approaches to social media and data tracking dilemmas. An anonymized list of participants can be found in appendix A, this list includes age, gender and educational background. This research is interested in millennials because, as the first digital natives (Prensky 2001 in Bolton et al., 2013, p. 246), millennials have been suggested to have a unique perspective on digital media (Bolton et al., 2013, p. 255). Specifically, this research is focused on late millennial participants i.e., those born after 1990, in order to collect a sample of individuals who were still rather young when internet became available to public use1. Therefore, the lives these participants are presumed to, at least to some degree, be intertwined with social media platforms. Focussing on this group of late-millennials offers a unique perspective because their youth was presumably characterized by the introduction of internet services. The 16 participants were first asked to participate in online individual interviews. Then, in groups of three to five participants, they were asked to participate in online focus groups. The focus groups were organised with to put different approaches to the social media dilemmas together in order to encourage discussion. Because the focus groups had to take place online, the focus groups were purposefully kept fairly small. By having small groups, participants were stimulated to continuously participate and every voice was able to be heard.
1 The World Wide Web (2.0) became widely used about halfway through the 1990’s, with many referring to 1995-200 as the dot-com or IT bubble (Han 2012, 23)
38
5.3 Data Collection
Both semi-structured interviews and focus groups can be used on their own as the sole methodological approach, but are also often used to complement one another (Longhurst 2003, 106). In this case, the data gathered through online semi-structured interviews is complemented by data gathered through focus groups. This research has first conducted semi structured interviews. To complement the interviews, they were followed up by focus groups with a diverse group of Dutch millennials from a variety of educational levels. This order of research methods was intended to add to the amount of data collected, and to see if group discussions brought up different dilemmas. To have the interviews first, allowed the participants to familiarize themselves with the topics of the research. Participants were only told the overall topic of this thesis before the interviews in order to secure that their responses were natural and not preconceived or predetermined. During the focus group, all participants were more aware of the topics and able to discuss with one another. The base of a topic list for the interviews and the focus groups can be found in appendix B and appendix C respectively. The questions that have been asked during the semi-structured interviews are based on the research questions as well as the theoretical framework. For example, along the first research question regarding what social media platforms are used and why, the participants were asked to describe themselves as social media users. This question was then followed up by questions regarding what other social media platforms they use and if the participants could describe why they use these platforms. Having already identified dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use in the interviews, the focus groups were designed to encourage discussion amongst the participants. During the focus groups the participants were first asked to respond to the trailer for the Netflix documentary “The Social Dilemma”, in order to get the conversation started. The documentary discusses a multitude of dilemmas regarding social media use, many of which are related to data tracking and privacy. Introducing these dilemmas as a starting point of the focus groups, allows the participants to immediately dive into the topics of the research in an approachable manner. In addition, participants were asked to explain their response as well as answer and discuss questions regarding their personal social media use. Like during the interviews, the questions were designed to be able to connect the research questions to the literature. The focus groups allow for more interaction and therefore provides more data. Both the semi-structured interviews and the focus groups were held in the native
39 language of all participants, Dutch, in order to provide an environment in which participants felt they could express themselves as good as possible. All semi-structured interviews and the focus groups were audio-recorded after informed consent was given by the participants. Then, the recoding was transcribed verbatim and coded using Nvivo, in order to “delve into the phenomenon and determine its meaning (…) after it occurred” (Williams and Moser, 2019, p. 45). As per tradition within grounded theory analysis, the coding process took place in three steps, open, axial and selective coding. First, open coding was used to code the transcripts in specific codes, identifying as much concepts and themes. During this stage, data was ordered along the four research questions. Per question, the data was open-coded in an effort to find overarching concepts and themes. Then, axial coding, was used to align, refine and categorize existing codes more in order to focus on the themes that were identified through open coding (Williams and Moser, 2019, p. 50). For example, actions such as deleting the Instagram app, not accepting cookies and altering privacy settings were coded under “deal with”. Lastly, the data was selectively coded. Categories were integrated into “cohesive and meaning-filled expressions” (Williams and Moser, 2019, p. 52). For example, during this stage, it became clear that some participants are stuck in the privacy paradox, whereas others do not experience the paradox. A final list of axial coding has been added and can be found in Appendix D.
5.4 Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are much-contested subjects in relation to qualitative research methods. Many scholars have suggested that in qualitative research reliability and validity cannot be approached in the same way as quantitative research (Lauri, 2011, p. 2). Qualitative research data is characterized by personal experiences, opinions and histories. It is therefore often difficult to find an objective truth by conducting this type of research. However, qualitative methods can result in a valuable contribution to scientific research as this type of research provides insights into experiences, meaning and ideas of the individual. These insights can be used to highlight what needs to be further addressed in scientific context. In qualitative research, validity should be understood as “appropriateness of the tools, processes, and data” (Leung, 2015, n.d.). Validity thus questions whether the research question sustains the desired outcome, and if the used research methods are appropriate in answering this question. In qualitative research validity answers the question “are you measuring what you
40 intend to measure?”. In order to answer this question, it is important to make sure that the methodological approaches are able to find the phenomena in the appropriate context “with due regard to culturally and contextually variable” (Leung, 2015, n.d.). Through triangulation (usage of multiple methods and sources (Lauri, 2011, p. 2) this research has attempted to enhance the validity. Multiple sources were asked to participate in both a semi-structured interview and a focus group. By using multiple, and diverse sources within the age category this thesis is specifically interested in, a variety of opinions and experiences could be taken into consideration. By using multiple methods, findings from this research could be checked and cross referenced. Testing the reliability of qualitative research can be difficult due to the personal and individual aspects of qualitative research methods such as semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In other words, reliability suggests a that the results of the research are continuous and similar. Reliability in qualitative research therefore depends on the consistency of the researcher (Leung, 2015, n.d.). For this thesis, reliability was enhanced by taking notes during the semi- structured interviews and focus groups as well as recording these interviews and the focus groups, after which these recordings were transcribed verbatim.
5.5 Limitations and Ethics
To any research there are limitations. For this research they are the following. Firstly, one of the primary limitations this research has to deal with is the situation surrounding covid-19. In the Netherlands people are currently not allowed to meet more than one person at the same time and are advised to remain at 1,5-meter distance from one another at all times. Because of this both face-to-face interviews and face-to-face interviews could not take place. Rather these took place in the digital realm through applications such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. I am unable to determine how digital interviews and focus groups has affected the collected data but as a researcher I have done everything in my power to minimize the effect of Covid-19 on this thesis. Secondly, qualitative research is unlikely to gather data on a sample that is large enough to generalize to populations (Trotter, 2002, p. 400; Adams, 2015, p. 293). However, the sample of a qualitative research design is concerned with the richness of information. The small sample enabled me as a researcher to create a deeper connection both with the participants and among the participants themselves, hopefully this has inspired them to share more of their personal
41 opinions and experiences. This work relies on purposeful sampling to seek out enough participants that specifically meet the criteria of this study. Thirdly, the use of a convenience sample could potentially influence on the data findings of this study, as the participants do not represent the entire population of millennials. The convenience sampling method could potentially result in a sample who are more aware of dilemmas concerning digital media, data tracking and society at large. However, this sample does provide for a rich and large amount of data to be collected in a short amount of time. Some ethical limitations can also be found. As was stated before, some of the participants that were recruited are personal connections, such as acquaintances, friends and relatives. Nine of the participants were personal contacts before the interviews. In this case, a potential ethical limitation concerns the previously established relationship between the researcher and the participants, as this may have influenced the data that was gathered through interviews and focus groups. However, I argue that this previously established relationship can also contribute to a safe environment for the participant to share their thoughts, opinions and ideas without feeling judged because a rapport has already been established. Another ethical issue that this study encounters, concerns anonymity of the participants. To ensure anonymity to the highest degree all participants are anonymized. During focus groups all members of the focus group were asked to agree to treat all discussions as confidential. Before participating in the research all participants were asked for informed consent in and been made aware of their right to opt out at any given moment. Another ethical concern that is important to touch upon is the role of the researcher in the context of qualitative research. Qualitative research is characterized, amongst others, by the role of the researcher in the research process. The interaction between participant and researcher might impact the results and the gathered data. As a person and as a researcher it is impossible to remain objective at all times. In order to remain as objective as possible the same topic list was used to ensure the same (main) questions were answered throughout each interview. In addition, the questions were phrased as to not be leading or suggestive in any way.
Chapter 6. Analysis of Results
Throughout this chapter, an analysis of the results from the semi-structured interviews and focus groups will be discussed. In doing so, this chapter is dedicated to answering the four research questions, “For what reasons do Dutch millennials use social media platforms?”, “What
42 dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use are identified by Dutch millennials?”, “How do/don’t Dutch millennials act upon dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media in their use of corporate social media platforms?” and “How do Dutch millennials reflect on how they act upon the dilemmas as a characteristic of their generation?”. This chapter will relate the findings to the theoretical framework, in order to be able to answer the main question “How do millennials in the Netherlands deal with dilemmas associated with data tracking on social media platforms?”.
6.1 Social media platforms
The first research question is focused on the reasons why the participants use social media. Besides the obvious social aspect of social media, there are plenty of other explanations for why people use social media platforms, for example, entertainment, work, education and content creation (Grau and Kleiser, 2019, p. 202). This section therefore focuses on the first research question “For what reasons do Dutch millennials use social media platforms?”. During the interviews, participants identified three main reasons for using social media: communication, entertainment and societal engagement. Using the notions of mediatization and platformization as a conceptual lens, this chapter attempts to further explain why these reasons for using social media are important to the participants. The participants mentioned the use of quite a few social media platforms during the interviews and focus groups. In table 1 an overview is provided in which the different platforms and the number of participants that use that platform, are presented.
Table 1 Social media platforms mentioned Platform Users WhatsApp 16 YouTube 16 Facebook 12 Instagram 11 Snapchat 10 Reddit 3 LinkedIn 3 TikTok 2 Twitter 1
43 6.1.1 Communication
As the name indicates, social media platforms are inherently a social phenomenon, and are often used for communication or other social practices. During the interviews and the focus groups this notion was confirmed each time. All 16 participants shared that they use WhatsApp as a communicative platform. Specifically, platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Snapchat were mentioned as “social” platforms because these platforms each host functions that allow users to communicate with one another. A few interesting patterns regarding communication on social media platforms were noticeable following the interviews and focus groups. A first pattern regarding the use of social media for communication concerns a change in what is understood as communication. Traditional communication is often understood as face-to-face or written communication. However, the participants indicated that social media platforms have introduced other forms of communication. For example, communication using pictures, videos or emoticons have become normalized through social media platforms. One participant shared:
I used to use Snapchat a lot, mainly sent snaps when I was doing fun stuff on vacation”.2 (Male, 21)
In this case, communication takes place through sending “snaps”, temporarily visible pictures or videos taken using the social media platform Snapchat. This is an example of how social media platforms are used to communicate, not only through face-to-face or written communication, but also by sharing pictures, videos or other forms communication that were introduced by social media. This first pattern can be understood as mediatization because it shows how communication has changed or transformed through the interference of social media (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 3). By allowing users to communicate through pictures or videos, social media platforms such as Snapchat have introduced a different form of communication. In doing so, social media platforms have changed what it means to communicate with one another. A second pattern that can be distinguished regarding the use of social media for communication, is that the majority of the participants identified new possibilities for communication in the use of social media platforms. In particular, the use of Facebook (and
2 15-03-2021
44 Facebook Messenger) as a platform for international communication was mentioned. From the 16 participants, 12 are active on Facebook, with most indicating that the communicative aspect of this platform is important to them. Facebook allows its users to post pictures, videos or personal updates, such as starting a new job or education, moving, or other self-created content and Facebook Messenger can be used to privately communicate with others. During the interviews, many participants stated that they mainly use Facebook as a platform to connect with friends, acquaintances or family members who live in other countries.
I don’t use Facebook that often, but I don’t want to delete it. I studied in Hong Kong a few years ago and met a lot of great people. I don’t talk to them every day, but it is nice to see what they are up to through Facebook.3 (Female, 24)
Like many others, this participant uses social media to keep in touch with people around the world. In doing so she identifies the fact that this would not have been possible without Facebook as an internationally used, communicative platform. In the second pattern, an example of direct mediatization can be found (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 114). Constant, free and international communication would be impossible in a non-mediatized world. Therefore, using social media platforms in order to remain connected with others around the world can be understood as direct mediatization. A final pattern regarding the use of social media platforms for communication has to do with constant sociability. Because most people always carry their phones with them, they are constantly available through the apps on their phones. Social media platforms such as WhatsApp allow their users to communicate at any given moment, as long as some form of internet connection is established. Free-Wi-Fi connections and cheap data plans therefore provide the opportunity to be constantly connected. In this sense, social media platforms encourage constant sociability. While many participants identified this as something useful or pleasant, some participants stated they become annoyed or even stressed because they feel forced to always remain connected through social media platforms. One participant shared her annoyance, and also her solution to this issue:
I don’t have WhatsApp on my phone right now because I don’t want to be on my phone all the time. People expect you to answer immediately and I really don’t like that. But I can just use it on my computer whenever I want, also, if I would want it, I could just put in on my phone again
3 06-04-2021
45 easily, but I just don’t want to be interrupted or get distracted by messages all the time.4 (Female, 23).
By distancing herself from the constant availability that is promoted through the use of social media platforms as communication, this individual was able to find a balance between remaining connected with others and the pressure to be “online” at all times. This last pattern illustrates how social media platforms encourage constant communication. This can be understood as deep mediatization. Deep mediatization suggests an inseparable connection between our social world and media (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 33). Communication has become so intertwined with digital media; it can no longer be understood as a separate entity. Communication now refers to digital communication as much as other forms of communication.
Mediatization states that society has been changed, transformed or otherwise influenced by digital technologies (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 3; Hjarvard, 2008, p. 113; Ekström et al., 2016, p. 1097). By analysing the three patterns, we find that the responses of the participants support this claim. Their use of social media platforms for communication shows that social media platforms have influenced and transformed their ideas and practices of communication. The participants not only suggested a change or transformation in communication through social media, but also highlighted the importance of social media. Hjarvard’s understanding of mediatization states that society has become more and more dependent on digital media in regards to our social lives (2008, p. 113). Thus, this notion was also confirmed by the participants as their social lives are increasingly taking place in digital environments. The three patterns can also be analyzed using the concept of platformization. Platformization refers to the specific design of social media platforms which ensures the increasingly dominant position platforms hold in society and the consequences this has (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4). In the case of the previously described patterns, platformization explains how social media platforms are designed to support different forms of communication, sustain international connections and how they promote constant sociability. The ways in which social media platforms are used, indicate that social media platforms are important to society. Platformization suggests that this is a consequence of the design of social media platforms. In other words, the reasons for using social media underline the idea that society has become
4 18-04-2021
46 dependent on social media and thus, that society can now be referred to as a platformed society (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 2).
6.1.2 Entertainment
Besides communicating, entertainment was named as one of the most important aspects of social media use. Many participants shared that they use social media to scroll through content or watch videos. In doing so, social media platforms were often described as a distraction, a pastime, or just plain entertainment.
I definitely think I use YouTube the most, I use it for music in the background, for videos. I think definitely everyday like three or four hours.5 (Male, 21)
This example shows how YouTube is used in multiple ways as a new form of entertainment. The participant stated that he uses the platform to watch videos and listen to music. The amount of time he suggests that he spends on this platform, indicates how important the platform has become in his daily life. Another participant confirms this notion of importance, in relation to Instagram.
It’s just something I do all the time, I just like to scroll, watch funny things, stalk celebrities or something. I don’t know, I do it all the time. I think it’s just easy entertainment, I’m bored of working “let me go on my phone and scroll through Instagram for 10 minutes”, which is never 10 minutes by the way.6 (Female, 24)
In this case, the entertaining value of the platform is indicated through its direct availability and easy accessibility. However, the participant stated that she regularly ends up spending more time on the platform than planned. This emphasises how time consuming, and thus important social media is. Like many other participants, this individual touches upon how social media platforms are designed to keep you scrolling.
I think its purposefully very user-friendly so you’ll use the platform as long as possible. 7 (Male, 25)
5 15-03-2021 6 13-04-2021 7 07-04-2021
47 And, I feel like Instagram is really good at making sure you continue to spend time on the app. I feel like they really play into that, for example, by automatically showing you another story, or things that you find interesting.8 (Female, 24)
The entertaining aspect of social media platforms thus alludes to the fact that social media platforms are designed to keep its users active on the platform by providing them with entertaining content. The participants indicated that they lose control over how long they use the platforms because of its entertaining value. Spending a lot of time on social media because of its entertaining value has often been described as social media addiction (Grau and Kleiser, 2019, p. 200). However, approaching this phenomenon with mediatization as a conceptual lens, suggests that, rather than an addiction, the increased use of social media platforms because of entertainment can be understood as an increased dependence on digital media (Couldry and Hepp, 2018, p. 2). Moreover, the introduction of a new form of entertainment, digital entertainment, can be understood as deep mediatization (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 33), because, as the participants indicate, digital entertainment on social media platforms has become embedded into our lives. Taking platformization as a conceptual lens, we can take this statement even further. The increasingly dominant position of social media as a form of entertainment can be understood as a direct consequence of the design of the platform to be as entertaining as possible, in order to keep the attention of the user (van Dijck et al. 2018, 2). In this case, the user loses control over how much time they spend on the platform. From the perspective of platformization, it can be concluded that this is a consequence of how the platform is designed and society’s increased reliance on these platforms, rather than the consequence of an addiction.
6.1.3 Societal Engagement
During the interviews and focus groups, societal engagement was often suggested as a reason for using social media platforms. Societal engagement such as sharing activist messages, and teaching yourself and others about political ideas and ideologies, have become part of the reason why social media platforms are used. About half of the participants stated to use social media platforms for societal engagement.
8 23-03-2021
48 I think that activist accounts or just news accounts on Facebook or Instagram or even Snapchat are a very accessible way of consuming news. You don’t have to go out and buy a newspaper, or go to nu.nl [Dutch news website] to read the news. It’s already on your Instagram feed. That’s how I do it for myself. I think it’s important to read the news, but sometimes I forget. So, I think this is an important way to keep the news accessible.9 (Female, 25)
This participant, like a few others, emphasized that the accessibility of social media platforms is a driving force behind societal engagement on the platforms. Anyone with access to the platform and an interest in political topics, can consume content related to those topics. The accessibility of political and activist ideas is a consequence of our mediatized society because the ever-growing presence of social media platforms allow users to constantly use digital media for practices such as political sense-making (Couldry and Hepp, 2016, p. 5). Others suggested that social media platforms have become a way to teach themselves and others about political concerns.
Since about a year or something I’ve really started to get into the political side of Instagram because they have a lot of things I agree with, and I want to learn more about it. So politically speaking, I follow quite a few accounts.10 (Female, 24)
This participant showed that by following political social media accounts, she is teaching herself about political issues. Social media platforms thus become an important tool for political activism. Social media platforms are based on user generated content, and therefore, contrary to traditional news outlets, allow the individual to have a voice. In doing so, social media platforms can contribute to larger societal discussions on topics such as discrimination, racism, sexism and more. Using social media to engage societally can also be understood along the conceptualization of platformization by Nieborg et al. (2019, p. 85). Nieborg et al., suggest that social media platforms have permeated economic, governmental and infrastructural extensions of society (2019, p. 85). The participants using social media platforms to teach themselves and others about political discussions on topics such as racism, discrimination, sexism and more, is a consequence of platformization. In some cases, online activism was suggested to replace “normal” activism. During one of the focus groups, the Black Lives Matter movement was discussed in relation to digital
9 08-04-2021 10 06-04-2021
49 activism. While some participants remained critical of digital activism suggesting it is not a “real” form of activism, others identified that during the Covid-19 lockdowns, digital activism could most certainly be understood as a form of activism.
You could see, especially last spring, when people were still really afraid of covid, that Instagram was very important for Black Lives Matter. I think posting a black square is pointless, but I think a lot of people were able to contribute that way.11 (Female, 27)
The debate on whether or not digital activism can be compared to real life activism, remains unresolved. However, using social media for this type of societal engagement reiterates the importance of social media platforms in our society. It also shows how social media platforms have moved beyond their communicative and entertaining aspects and are currently important contributing factors in societal discussions. Turning to social media for political, activist or grassroots movement purposes can be understood as direct mediatization (Hjarvard, 2008, p. 106), because activism, demonstrating and other previously exclusively physical activities have become mediatized in our platform society and have moved to digital environments. It is difficult to say whether this type of digital activism could replace traditional forms of activism, however, like the participants have indicated, social media platforms have become important sites for political discussions.
6.1.4 Summary
Throughout this section, I have discussed multiple ways in which social media platforms were used in order to answer the research question “For what reasons do Dutch millennials use social media platforms? ”. This chapter was focused on mapping out both the social media platforms used by participants and why these platforms are used. Social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Instagram and YouTube were amongst the most used platforms. During the interviews and the focus groups, participants indicated using social media platforms for three distinct reasons: communication, entertainment and societal engagement. Initially, social media use might be associated with communication, or perhaps even entertainment (Grau and Kleiser, 2019, p. 202). However, the participants showed that, for this generation at least, social media plays an important role in their participation in society. Taking
11 16-04-2021
50 mediatization as a conceptual lens, this chapter has concluded that social media has become an inherent part of the lives of the participants. Not only communication, but also entertainment and societal engagement are shaped through the use of social media platforms. Taking platformization as a conceptual lens, this chapter has also concluded that platforms are designed to function in a manner that influences the behaviour of the participants, sometimes without them really wanting it to. Social media platforms are thus used for communication, entertainment and societal engagement. Using social media platforms for these practices shows how important social media platforms have become in our society and have often altered the way we approach communication, entertainment and societal engagement.
6.2 Dilemmas regarding data tracking
In this section I will discuss the second research question “What dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use are identified by Dutch millennials?”. During the semi-structured interviews, and later again during the focus groups, the participants were asked to identify which dilemmas they relate to social media use and data tracking. As has been suggested by plenty of researchers and professionals, privacy was identified as a pressing concern or dilemma in relation to social media use. However, besides the “primary” privacy dilemma, which concerns other accessing your personal information and overall lack of transparency (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 2; Zuboff, 2019, p. 13; Cetto et al., 2014, p. 1; Xu et al., 2014, p. 1153), participants identified three “secondary” dilemmas regarding social media use and data tracking; the filter bubble, the revenue model of social media platforms and power. These dilemmas were identified as consequences of data tracking, and therefore, consequences of the primary privacy dilemma. In the following sections, the four interrelated dilemmas will be further elaborated.
6.2.1 Privacy
Like many scholars and professionals, almost all participants identified privacy as a dilemma regarding data tracking. Following the online activities of social media users for the purposes of targeted advertisement and more is were often suggested as creating a dilemma for social media users. One participant identified:
51 If you click on something once, you immediately get thousands [of ads].12 (Male, 25)
In this case, the participant identified personalized advertising as a privacy dilemma. He is aware of the fact that his online activities are tracked and result into personalized ads. Other participants identified similar processes:
On the one hand, I think it’s a very creepy thought that they follow everything you do and what you say to other people online. But on the other hand, you do use all those things.13 (Female, 25)
This quote shows how the participant is uncomfortable about the idea that data tracking takes place while she uses social media platforms, but that, after weighing her options, she chooses to continue using social media platforms. The fact that the participants identify privacy as a dilemma indicates that they are both aware and sometimes uncomfortable about data tracking. However, the casual or sometimes even negligent approach towards identifying this dilemma confirms what Young and Quan-Haase state; that social norms regarding privacy have changed due to digital intervention (2013, p. 502). Professionals and scholars have suggested that social media platforms can potentially be harmful to privacy. The participants confirm this notion by identifying the fact that their online activities are followed and subsequently used for, amongst others, marketing purposes. However, the participants have also identified other dilemmas which emanate from data tracking, a filter bubble, the revenue model of social media platforms and power. In the following sections, these secondary dilemmas will be discussed further.
6.2.2 The Filter Bubble
Late last year, a famous Dutch news show “Zondag met Lubach” (Sunday with Lubach) discussed an item called the “fabeltjesfuik” or, the “myth trap” (Zondag met Lubach, 2020). The host Arjen Lubach, discusses how conspiracy theorists are confirmed in their believes through algorithmic recommendations. In the episode, he specifically refers to how virus (covid-19) deniers can get sucked into a “rabbit hole” of misinformation. Perhaps this episode inspired some of the participants because many participants identified the filter bubble, or the myth trap, as a dilemma related to data tracking and social media use. The filter bubble, or myth
12 07-04-2021 13 07-04-2021
52 trap, describes a situation in which an individual is presented with content based on their own preferences. Because this individual is no longer confronted with content that argues or debunks a specific frame of thought, the person enters a filter bubble or myth trap. The filter bubble is essentially what is described as echo chambers by Hennen et al., who state that the echo chamber is a result of “The use of internet-generated personal data to provide target groups with tailor-made information fitting their specific preferences and expectations” (2020, p. 4). One participant described how the filter bubble transpires in his own life.
I think it’s quite relaxing to sometimes watch videos of Gordon Ramsey calling people awful names. But I don’t want to be pushed in that direction completely. I watched some videos of this on Facebook and for the next two months I was only shown Gordon Ramsey videos, then it was only poker videos and then it was only chess videos.14 (Male, 21)
Watching Gordon Ramsey videos might not be as problematic, however, another participant described how personalized content creates the dilemma that is the filter bubble.
You are completely pulled towards one direction, I think. And I believe we start seeing each other as the enemy because of our different ideas. This creates a big gap in society because of data tracking and data mining. People become secluded in their ideas which can be very harmful, and can have an influence on our democracy.15 (Female, 24)
The participant identified how personalized content can lead to internet echo chambers (Hennen et al., 2020, p. 4). Specifically, the participant identifies the internet chamber, or filter bubble, as a dilemma because it can potentially lead to a gap in society. The participant also illustrates how data tracking is related to this. Data tracking is inscribed in the architecture of social media platforms (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4), however, using data tracking to target people with personalized content can affect other extensions of society, outside the digital spheres (Nieborg et al., 2019, p. 85). Data tracking is an integral aspect of social media use, and, like the participant suggests, its effects become tangible in real life situation such as political elections (Isaak and Hanna, 2018, p. 57). The participant thus correctly identifies that personalized content can be used to pull you into one direction. According to Zuboff, this is a purposeful practice because “Surveillance capitalists discovered that the most-predictive behavioural data
14 15-03-2021 15 23-03-2021
53 come from intervening in the state of play in order to nudge, coax, tune, and herd behaviour towards profitable outcomes.” (Zuboff, 2019, p. 13). In identifying dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use, participants are thus able to move beyond the privacy dilemma and recognize and experience that the filter bubble is a dilemma that emerges from personalized content.
6.2.3 The Revenue Model
Another dilemma that was identified by multiple participants regards the revenue model of social media platforms. Social media platforms are free to use, however, this means that users pay for the services social media platforms provide in other ways: their data. Through collecting data, social media platforms can continue to provide “free” service by collecting data and monetizing this data (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4). The participants identified the revenue model of social media platforms as the dilemma concerning the monetization of their data. Within this dilemma, three aspects were be distinguished; reselling data, being pushed towards purchases and being tempted to spend more time on the platforms. Multiple participants referred to reselling of data as a dilemma. Although this is technically not possible due to the GDPR, it is an important aspect of the dilemma concerning the revenue model and privacy. One male participant even related this dilemma directly to privacy dilemmas. He stated the following:
When I think of privacy, I think of how they sell information about me, and then inside I’m like, “oh shit”.16 (Male, 25)
The participant makes a clear connection between privacy and monetization of data. The participant is critical of how his privacy is violated and subsequently monetized, because of the revenue model of the social media platforms. This dilemma can be understood as an aspect of a society thriving on surveillance capitalism, where personal information is monetized. Or, in the words of Zuboff, surveillance capitalism is a “new economic order that claims human experiences as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction and sales” (Zuboff, 2019, p. 1). Like Cetto et al. have also stated, a few participants indicated being concerned with the fact that they are no longer aware of who has access to their data (Cetto et
16 07-04-2021
54 al., 2014, p. 1), resulting in a complicated dilemma concerning the revenue model of social media platforms. The dilemma regarding the revenue model was also related to the influence of personalized advertising by a few participants.
I am super sensitive to those advertisements. I think it’s like, I was looking at a shirt for a while, and then when I go on Instagram, I see that same shirt. And even though I decided I wasn’t going to get it, I still do. I think that is quite annoying.17 (Female, 24)
The participant suggested that she is aware of the fact that personalized ads are an aspect of the revenue model of social media platforms (Liang et al., 2018, p. 15133). Because social media platforms are able to identify personal information through data tracking, they can use this information to target you with exactly the content you are interested in (a similar process as the filter bubble described in the previous section), which can be used as an incentive to make someone buy something. The participant is aware of this process, however, due to the personalized and therefore convincing design of personalized content on the social media platforms, she is unable to act on her awareness. The constant confrontation with exactly those products she is interested in, influences her behaviour and push her towards making a purchase she might not have intended to. The participant identifies this as a dilemma regarding the revenue model of social media platforms. Zuboff identifies this as an aspect of surveillance capitalism, where the changes in behaviour based on personalized content most often have a profitable outcome for the platform itself (Zuboff, 2019, p. 13). The last aspect of the revenue model and monetization dilemma that was identified by participants, concerns the amount of time spent on social media platforms. As was briefly discussed in the previous chapter, a couple of participants identified that personalized content can be used to make an individual spend more time on social media.
I think it’s that you don’t stop scrolling because it is designed that way. And they make money off of that.18 (Female, 25)
In this case, the participant stated that she is aware that the platform is specifically designed to keep the attention of its user. Subsequently, she knows that the revenue model of the social
17 13-04-2021 18 07-04-2021
55 media platform is based on gathering as much data as possible. The amount of data that is can be gathered, for the purpose of monetization, increases if social media users are shown the content that they like. In other words, a self-reinforcing effect is created because personalized content leads to more data, and more data leads to better personalized content. In this chapter, the personalized content is used for commercial purposes, however, as we have seen in the previous section, personalized content can also be used for non-commercial purposes such as politics.
6.2.4 Power
The last dilemma that was identified by multiple participants regards the power social media platforms have. We find ourselves so dependent on the services that are provided by social media platforms (and other big tech companies), that we cannot live life as we know it without these platforms. Scientific research has previously been critical of the fact that social media platforms currently almost have a monopoly on digital communication (Srinivasan, 2019, p. 55). Quite a few participants spoke critically of the power that social media platforms have in society. For example, one female participant stated:
Something else I find very wrong is that there is almost a kind of internet monopoly because of those social media companies.19 (Female, 24)
Like some other participants, this individual identified the monopoly-like power of social media platforms as a dilemma. During one of the focus groups power was also discussed further. One participant clearly formulated the notion that big tech companies hold an incredibly powerful position in society.
I think the fundamental problem is even deeper. Because companies such as Google are not just social media. They own the operating system of most phones: Android, and you have Chromebooks and more. Half the internet works on Google servers basically.20 (Male, 23)
Later during the same focus group, another participant responded by saying
19 23-03-2021 20 24-04-2021
56 It doesn’t even matter if you are not on Facebook or not on Google, because just by using internet, they will always know something about you.21 (Female, 22)
In this conversation, the participants discussed that big tech corporations, such as social media platforms, have become so powerful that there is virtually no way of escaping them. In identifying this dilemma, the participants reiterate the effect that the concept of platformization describes; the increasing dependence on social media platforms (van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 4). The conversation on power as a dilemma regarding social media use and data tracking continued.
If we really want to do anything about it, we need to split up these companies.22 (Male, 23)
The participant thus introduced somewhat of a solution to the dilemma he previously identified. In a similar fashion, Fuchs proposes another solution. He states that non-corporate media platforms are needed in order to counteract the power of social media platforms (Fuchs, 2014, p. 58). Thus, by introducing different, non-corporate media platforms, the power of the platform will decrease. During one of the interviews, another participant identified a different aspect of the power dilemma concerning data tracking and social media. The participant drew a connection between the power of social media and American politics as an example of how powerful social media platforms have become. She said:
This has also been discussed before, but this past January, I think it was, when Twitter Blocked Trump. And I understand their decision, but I do question how much influence they can have. How much power do they have if a corporate organization can decide who gets the “platform” and who gets to have their voice heard?.23 (Female, 25)
In other words, even the then-president of the United States could be silenced, suggesting that the power of the social media platform is greater than that of the president of the United States.24 The participant used this example to describe the enormous power social media platforms have.
21 24-04-2021 22 24-04-2021 23 08-04-2021 24 To provide some context, in January, right before the then president of the Unites States would be succeeded by Joe Biden, Trump supporters stormed the United States Capitol. After Trump refused to
57 The participant is thus aware of the fact that the power of social media can influence other institutions such as politics, economics and more. This is similar to how Nieborg et al. envisioned the platformization of society (2019, p. 85).
6.2.5 Summary
Throughout this section I have discussed which dilemmas were identified by the participants during the semi-structured interviews and the focus groups. In doing so I have discussed the second research question, “What dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use are identified by Dutch millennials?”. Almost all participants identified privacy as a dilemma regarding data tracking and social media use. However, upon a closer investigation, three different consequences of data tracking were also identified as dilemmas; the filter bubble, the revenue model and power. The participants thus appear to be quite knowledgeable regarding potential dilemmas concerning data tracking. Because scholars mainly focus on privacy as a dilemma, it might be expected that the participants would solely identify this dilemma. However, this research shows that the privacy dilemma is more nuanced and that these millennials are sensitised to this nuance. Personalized content was suggested to possibly create a gap in society, because people become stuck in a narrow minded world-view (Hennen et al., 2020, p. 4). Making money off of data raised concerns among the participants because of presumed practices such as reselling data (Xu et al., 2014, p. 1153), behavioural nudging (Zuboff, 2019, p. 13) and a design that encourages continuous use of the platforms. Lastly, participants identified the power of the platform as a dilemma. The money and information that is provided to social media platforms through data tracking have allowed these companies to grow beyond measure. So much so that it seemingly does not matter anymore if you use social media or not, because your online activities can still be tracked. Because of the information that is gathered through data tracking, they now have the ability to influence real life politics.
6.3 Acting upon dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use
In order to understand how Dutch millennials deal with the dilemmas related to data tracking and social media use, it is important to see how they act upon these dilemmas. In this section I condemn these actions, and was even suspected to encourage this behaviour, Twitter officials decided that Trump would be banned indefinitely from the platform (Twitter, 2021).
58 will focus on answering the third research question “How do/don’t Dutch millennials act upon dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media in their use of corporate social media platforms?”. Throughout the following sections I will take both the primary and secondary privacy dilemmas that were described in the previous section, and discuss how participants suggested they take these dilemmas into consideration and act upon them. Previously, scholars have identified a so-called privacy paradox in relation to the knowledge and behaviour of social media users. The privacy paradox indicates that although social media users are aware of privacy concerns and dilemmas, they do not act upon these concerns (Han et al., 2018, p. 19; Kokolakis, 2017, p. 123; Adjoran and Ricciardelli, 2019, p. 9; Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 2). However, after analysing the interviews and the focus groups, the relation between knowledge and behaviour appears to be more complex than that is previously suggested in the privacy paradox. Not every participant complies to this paradox. In the following sections, I will discuss how the participants act upon the dilemmas regarding data tracking, and how this is related to the privacy paradox.
6.3.1 Trapped in a Paradox
Like research has suggested, plenty of participants indicated that they felt stuck in acting upon the dilemmas that they had identified. These participants confirm the notion of the privacy paradox as they are aware of certain dilemmas, however, their behaviour does not reflect this awareness.
I tried to [adjust my privacy settings] a while back, but I almost felt like they did not want me to do it. It was so complicated. It’s like with cookies on other websites, the effort to cancel all of it is just a lot, so then I don’t do it.25 (Male, 23)
The participant suggested that the instant gratification that social media provides keeps him from acting upon the privacy dilemma. This is in line with Fiesler and Hallinan’s explanation for the privacy paradox. They state that “underlying behavioural mechanisms related to self- control and instant gratification” are responsible for a privacy paradox (2018, p. 2). The participant is aware of a dilemma regarding privacy; however, his behaviour does not coincide. The instant gratification social media (or other internet services) withhold the participant from
25 29-04-2021
59 protecting his privacy. In another approach to the privacy paradox Fiesler and Hallinan state that the unwillingness to act upon privacy dilemmas can be attributed to the “social cost and inconvenience” of doing so (2018, p. 3). The fact that the participant was discouraged to change his privacy settings can in this case be understood as the inconvenience referenced in Fiesler and Hallinans’s work. Cetto et al. take this notion further in suggesting privacy settings are purposefully difficult, to keep the social media user from fully understanding the effects of consenting to sharing their information (2014, p. 1). One participant illustrated being trapped in the privacy paradox as follows.
If you don’t want it, you cannot use e-mail, no Google, no YouTube, no WhatsApp. And then you think, if you really don’t want it [data tracking] to happen, there’s not really any options where you can go.26 (Female, 25)
In this statement, the participant explained that if you do not want to be tracked during your social media use, you would have to stay off of social media altogether. During one of the focus groups, one participant took this notion even further and stated that,
For me it’s not even really about data tracking anymore because I know that this issue wouldn’t be resolved by deleting all social media. Your data is still going to be somewhere. Maybe if you live on an island without internet or something, but that is just not realistic anymore.27 (Male, 26)
In this example, the participant provided an explanation for the privacy paradox. The participant stated that the role of social media platforms has become so powerful that we can no longer disconnect without shutting every aspect of internet technology off. The participant seems to indicate that their agency is stripped away from them in this mediatized society. In another example, a participant said:
Even though I might not want to, or I am critical of the whole data tracking thing, I still use Facebook because there is not really another option. Because everybody else uses it, the power and the sort of monopoly of these platforms keeps being reinforced.28 (Female, 24)
26 08-04-2021 27 18-04-2021 28 23-03-2021
60 This quote reiterates the explanation Kelley et al. provide for the privacy paradox. According to them, the privacy paradox can be explained by the considerable popularity of social media platforms (2013 in Barth and de Jong, 2017, p. 1039). In the example, the participant stated that although she would prefer to consider privacy dilemmas in her own social media use, the popularity, and therefore the power and influence, of the platforms make it impossible to do so, thus refusing her, her agency.
6.3.2 What Paradox?
While the behaviour of some of the participants indicates that they experience some form of the privacy paradox, others’ behaviour suggests otherwise. In fact, a few participants stated that what others identified as dilemmas regarding social media use, like personalized content or monetization, they embrace. For example, a few participants shared that they prefer personalized content:
I don’t think it’s that bad that there are personalized advertisements.29 (Male, 26)
Another participant said:
When I’m on Instagram, there is so much distraction. On YouTube I just search for whatever I want to watch. So, in a way, it is really nice to have the personal content.30 (Female, 25)
These examples show that there is a group of people who do not mind receiving personalized content and personalized ads, rather, they prefer personalized content over the content that would otherwise be available. Because this group does not identify this particular practice as an issue, they do not experience the privacy dilemma as a paradox. In this case, we cannot state that there is a discrepancy between their behaviour and the dilemmas they identify because they do not experience the dilemma the same way as those mentioned in the previous section. Thus, while this group might identify certain dilemmas regarding social media use, they do not experience these dilemmas as problematic, therefore, they do not act upon these dilemmas. In any other case, this type of behaviour would confirm the notion of the privacy paradox (Han et
29 18-03-2021 30 08-04-2021
61 al., 2018, p. 19; Kokolakis, 2017, p. 123; Adjoran and Ricciardelli, 2019, p. 9; Liyanaarachchi, 2021, p. 2). However, in this case, the attitude of this group of social media users debunks the notion of the privacy paradox.
6.3.3 Challenging the Paradox
Besides those who feel stuck in a privacy paradox, and those who do not experience a privacy paradox, there were quite a few participants who actively challenge the privacy paradox. This group of individuals supports the claim that there is a growing concern for privacy on social media platforms (Fiesler and Hallinan, 2018, p. 1), however, contrary to what the privacy paradox suggests, that this concern is not reflected in the behaviour of social media users (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 123; Fiesler and Hallinan, 2018, p. 2; Taddicken, 2014, p. 249), this group has figured out different ways in which to deal with the privacy dilemma. In other words, quite a few participants might experience privacy and social media use as a dilemma, however, they find ways to deal with this and move against the privacy paradox. These individuals thus reclaim their agency and act upon the dilemmas that they have identified regarding social media use. The following are some interesting examples in which participants describe how they act upon the dilemmas that they identify regarding social media use and data tracking. About half the participants stated to have paid explicit attention to the privacy settings on their social media profiles.
I think I do pay attention to [privacy dilemmas], the other day I turned off a Facebook tracker or something. Because I saw somewhere how you can do it.31 (Female, 24)
The participant has eventually altered the settings on Facebook in order to protect her privacy better. In a conversation in one of the focus groups, a participant shared the following:
I have all of the things that you can shut off, shut off, I think. Like Snapchat, you have a map where you can see where people are or something, I don’t have any of that on.32 (Male, 25) or
31 06-04-2021 32 16-04-2021
62 I don’t think anyone can see my information unless they are friends with me on Facebook. But I don’t think that is enough. Because people or Facebook can probably still figure a bunch out.33 (Female, 27)
Both participants stated that they are consciously acting on the privacy dilemma by limiting the amount of personal information that is available online, and therefore retaining and reclaiming control of who has access to the self (Altman 1975 in Taddicken, 2014, p. 249). The last example can be seen as working against the process that Cetto et al. described, where social media users become less aware of who has access to what data (2014, p. 1). However, the latter participant expresses concerns about the fact that although she tries to protect her information of social media platforms, these platforms will still be able to categorize her. Other participants reclaimed their privacy in different ways. Two participants shared that they use “opt out” technology, which can be used to block data tracking.
I also have some kind of blocker called Ghostery or something, that blocks data tracking I believe. And you get a notification when you are being tracked.34 (Female, 25)
This extension can be interpreted as taking privacy into consideration when using social media platforms because it makes the user more aware of when someone has access to their data and who that is. The participant is then able to make a more informed decision on whether or not she wants to use the platform. Another participant shared that she also has an opt out option.
Besides refusing cookies whenever possible, (…) I have an opt out extension for Google analytics on my browser. But it is a little weird because the tool was made by Google themselves.35 (Female, 24)
In this case, the participant tries to stop data tracking from happening. However, because the extension is created by the company which is known for its data tracking, she is unsure whether she is truly able to opt out.
33 18-04-2021 34 07-04-2021 35 23-04-2021
63 Participants also shared ways in which they counteract the dilemma concerning the filter bubble or internet echo chamber (Hennen et al., 2020, p. 4) and using social media for societal engagement. Participants identified the filter bubble as a dilemma because it can potentially lead to a divided society. One participant shared that he avoids consuming online news altogether in order to avoid getting lost in a filter bubble.
I don’t have any news on my social media. I don’t follow any of those accounts because I just think it’s all very depressing. But also to avoid fake news and to not have such a bubble.36 (Male, 25)
By not consuming any online news, the participant is attempting to protect himself from the influential forces of digital media, such as the filter bubble and fake news. During one of the focus groups, another way of acting upon the dilemma regarding the filter bubble was discussed:
I think I always take news on Facebook with a grain of salt. If it’s not from a reliable source, I just “half-believe” it.37 (Female, 22)
What the participant suggested, is that whenever she encounters news sources that could potentially be unreliable, she disregards the content. In other words, she acts upon the dilemma of the filter bubble, by dismissing news that does not come from established news outlets. These two situations insinuate that at least a few participants are actively avoiding the filter bubble or actively trying to counteract the consequences of this type of personalized content and therefore they do not support the claim of the privacy paradox (Kokolakis, 2017, p. 123; Fiesler and Hallinan, 2018, p. 2; Taddicken, 2014, p. 249). However, due to their continued use of social media platforms, they are unable to fully distance themselves from dilemmas such as the filter bubble. About three participants indicated that they had found a way to act upon the dilemma regarding the revenue model of social media platforms.
36 07-04-2021 37 24-04-2021
64 Whenever I see that something is sponsored, I never click on it, because I know it’s going to bring me a lot of ads later.38 (Female, 27)
Although it is difficult to fully avoid this dilemma, this participant shows that, by refusing to click on the sponsored content, she actively attempts to counteract the revenue model. In doing so, this participant, distances herself from the notion of the privacy paradox. Participants also indicated that they found a few ways to act upon the dilemma regarding the overall power of social media platforms in society. Some participants stated that they refrain themselves from using particular social media platforms. However, this was often not related to a critical perspective on data tracking. Rather, social media use was limited for mental health purposes, to not waste time, or because they did not want to participate in the hype of social media. For example, one participant said:
It was for a number of reasons, maybe a little bit because of data, but mostly because I was just spending a lot of time on [Facebook] and I realized that it wasn’t really adding anything to my life.39 (Male, 23)
Another way in which the power of large corporate social media platforms can be undermined is through the introduction of alternative platforms. However, most participants stated that they were hesitant about the use of alternative platforms. Most often the use of these alternatives does not adhere to the high standards created by corporate social media platforms. Yet, most participants indicated a willingness to use other platforms on the condition that everyone else would do so. The described ways in which the participants act upon the dilemmas they identify can be understood as the participants using their agency. Where some might argue that agency is lost in a mediatized society (Barth and de Jong, 2019, p. 1045), these participants prove that they consciously decide to act upon certain dilemmas.
6.3.4 Summary
Throughout this section I have discussed the ways in which the participants act upon dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media platforms in their use of these platforms. In doing so,
38 12-04-2021 39 24-04-2021
65 this section provides an answer to the third research question, “How do/don’t Dutch millennials act upon dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media in their use of corporate social media platforms?”. Taking the privacy paradox as a starting point, this section has shown that not all participants are part of this paradox. The participants could be categorized in the three different ways in which they act upon the previously established dilemmas. A first group of the participants comply to the notion of the privacy paradox. These individuals identify certain dilemmas however, for a number of reasons, they do not act upon these dilemmas. A second group of participants was able to identify dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use, however, they do not experience these dilemmas. Therefore, we cannot see these people as part of the privacy paradox, because to them, there is no paradox. The behaviour of these people fits the idea of the privacy paradox, because they do not act upon dilemmas. However, this is actually because they do not experience the dilemmas. A last group of participants shared ways in which they act upon the dilemmas they had identified. The actions range from specific privacy settings to deleting social media accounts. In acting upon these dilemmas, the participants use their agency to debunk the notion of the privacy paradox as their behaviour (big or small) reflects the concerns they have in identifying certain dilemmas. Therefore, these participants suggest that the privacy paradox is more nuanced than previous literature indicates.
6.4 The Media Generation
In this section, I will focus on the last research question “How do Dutch millennials reflect on how they act upon the dilemmas as a characteristic of their generation?”. This thesis is based on the assumption that millennials are an interesting and unique generation to focus on and study in regards to data tracking and social media use. In this section I will revisit this assumption. Based on this research, I do not claim to have found that millennials are different than other generation, as this is not a comparative study. However, this study can focus on how participants reflect on their own behaviour in comparison to that of other generations. By having the participants reflect on their own behaviour and compare their behaviour to that of other generations, a few interesting things stand out that seemingly justify the assumption that this generation is indeed unique in regards to data tracking and social media use.
66
6.4.1 Digital Natives
As a generation, millennials are often described as big social media users. In section 6.1, I have elaborated which platforms are used by the participants of this study and why. They often related the use of specific platforms to specific generations. For example, most participants agreed that Facebook use amongst millennials has diminished, while use of other platforms such as Instagram has increased, and platforms such as TikTok were said to be used by a younger generation. Millennials are the first generation to grow up in a mediatized society (Bolton et al. 2013, 246). Because this generation has experienced society as both non- mediatized and mediatized, it has been suggested that millennials have a unique perspective on digital technologies such as social media platforms. Throughout the interviews many participants shared experiences about growing up and the social media platforms that were popular. For example, a few participants spoke about the social media platform Hyves.
I remember Hyves from when we were like 12 of 13, you could put “krabbels” (scribbles) on someone else’s page, and you had these glittery stickers or something. I think that was the first experience I had with social media.40 (Female, 24)
Hyves was a Dutch social media platform which was very popular between approximately 2007 and 2011. The platform eventually lost its popularity to bigger international platforms such as Facebook (van Lier, 2013). Although the platform no longer exists, it was for many millennials their first introduction to social media. The participant later continued,
I also remember that at one point it just died down, and everybody was using Facebook.41 (Female, 24)
The collective transition from platform to platform can be understood as part of the shared experience that make millennials a generation according to Bolin (2016, 3). Relating this to Coomes and DeBards understanding of generations as being shaped by a common experience (2005, 8), we can state that the “net” generation was established (among others) through the common experience of large-scale communication using digital media.
40 15-04-2021 41 15-04-2021
67 The participants often identified themselves as part of a unique generation.
I think for us it was really perfect, because we did have so many experiences without all the digital stuff. But at the same time, we did grow up with it.42 (Female, 27)
The participant thus indicated that her experiences in both a non-mediatized and a mediatized world, provides her with a unique perspective. The shared experiences have contributed to the notion of a shared identity. The participant speaks of “we” in the sense that she feels her experiences within a specific generation have created a sense of “us” and “them”. Thus, suggesting that as the first digital natives, these participants are different from other generations.
6.4.2 A Comparison
Many scholars have stated that besides sharing the same space in history, generations are formed through common experience (Bolin, 2016 p. 3; Coomes and DeBard, 2005, p. 8; Drago, 2006, p. 7). In the case of millennials, mediatization can be understood as a common experience that contributed to the formation of generation Y (millennials). Throughout this thesis I have researched how this group of young adults identify, approach and consider dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use. In order to further explore how this generation specifically differs from others, it is important to understand what differences the millennials themselves identify. In describing and comparing their own behaviour to that of other generations, responses were varied. For example, some participants stated that older generations are more careful in considering their privacy when active on social media platforms, whereas other stated that the naivety and lack of knowledge of older people would make that generation more prone to experiencing privacy violations. Similarly, some participants stated that younger generations have never experienced life without social media and are therefore more knowledgeable about privacy concerns, thus more capable of acting upon those concern. However, other participants implied that because that exact same reason, younger generations do not have any concern for their privacy as they do not know life without privacy violations. One participant stated that she thinks considering privacy dilemmas in online behaviour does not have to do with age or generation, rather, she proposed that it depends on knowledge.
42 29-04-2021
68 I don’t think age influences how you deal with data tracking. In my opinion it’s more about how aware you are about all kinds of issues.43 (Female, 24)
In comparing their behaviour regarding privacy dilemmas, the participants generally put themselves in a positive light because they believe the behaviour of both older and younger generations is less considerate in regards to privacy dilemmas.
6.4.3 Summary
In order to further establish the fact that this research is focused on millennials as a unique and interesting generation in relation to digital media and data tracking, this chapter has focused on how participants reflect on their own behaviour and how they compare this behaviour to that of other generations. This study cannot establish a difference between other generations and millennials because the study does not focus on other generations. However, by having the participants reflect on their own behaviour, and comparing this to other generations, some interesting notions arose. This section has focused on answering the research question “How do Dutch millennials reflect on how they act upon the dilemmas as a characteristic of their generation?” In doing so, this section has found that the participants view their own behaviour rather positive compared to others. Because of their unique position as a generation which knows life both with and without social media platforms, they see themselves as better equipped to deal with dilemmas regarding data tracking and privacy.
Chapter 7. Conclusion
Throughout this thesis I have attempted to answer the main question “How do millennials in the Netherlands deal with the dilemmas associated with data tracking on social media platforms?”. By conducting (online) semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 16 participants, I have researched how millennials deal with dilemmas related to data tracking and social media use in an attempt to contribute to an important field of research. The first research question was focused on what social media platforms were used by Dutch millennials and why. During the interviews and focus groups a wide variety of platforms
43 23-03-2021
69 were mentioned, for example, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube and more. It became clear that besides communication, entertainment and societal engagement are the main reasons for social media use amongst the participants. Some participants described themselves as big social media users, whereas others described themselves as more situational social media user. The use and importance of these platforms and the reasons for using these platforms was then explained through the concepts of mediatization and platformization. Mediatization was used to explain how communication, entertainment and societal engagement have changed due to digital intervention. Platformization was used to explain how the design of the platform can influence the behaviour of the participants, sometimes without them really wanting it to, and how societies’ reliance on social media, should be understood as a consequence of the design of the platform. The second research question was focused on which dilemmas the participants identified in relation to social media use and data tracking. The primary dilemma that was suggested in most cases regarded privacy. Data tracking was identified as a privacy dilemma due to the invasiveness of its practice. The participants were also able to identify three secondary privacy dilemmas: the filter bubble, the revenue model and power. Using examples from the interviews and the focus group, this chapter discussed how the participants understand these dilemmas. This chapter showed how these dilemmas are interrelated and how they can be explained using the concept of mediatized privacy. The filter bubble and personalized content were suggested to create a gap in society because people become stuck in a narrow minded world-view. The revenue model of social media platforms raised concerns as it is based on personal information, advertisements and behavioural nudging. Power was identified as a dilemma because social media platforms have become so important that the choice of using social media is no longer ours. The third research question focused on how the participants act upon the previously identified dilemmas, using the privacy paradox as a theoretical lens. Based on analysis of the interviews and the focus groups, three different ways of acting upon the dilemmas could be distinguished in relation to the privacy paradox. A first group of participants, confirm the notion of the privacy paradox in that they identify certain dilemmas but do not act upon these. A second group of participants debunks the notion of the privacy paradox because they do not experience the dilemmas as such and therefore do not act upon them. A last group contradicts the privacy paradox because they indicated that they found various ways to act upon the dilemmas they identified. This question therefore concludes that the privacy paradox should be considered more nuanced that suggested in previous research. Besides people who feel stuck in the
70 paradox, there are those who use their agency act upon the dilemmas they identify and thus demonstrate behaviour that does not comply with the notion of the privacy paradox. The last research question focused on how millennials reflect upon their own behaviour regarding data tracking dilemmas and if the participants view their behaviour as a characteristic of their generation. This section discussed how the participants compare their own behaviour regarding social media platforms and data tracking to that of other generations. In doing so, this section suggested that a shared identity can be attributed to the generation, and found that in general, the participants were fairly optimistic on how they, as a generation, were able to deal with social media platforms and data tracking. Other generations were expected to be more naïve about the dilemmas. The participants’ views seemed to correspond with the idea that as the first digital natives, millennials have a unique perspective on social media. The main question “How do millennials in the Netherlands deal with the dilemmas associated with data tracking on social media platforms?” can thus be answered by stating that Dutch millennials partially deal with dilemmas regarding data tracking in their social media use. The participants seem to be well aware of dilemmas concerning data tracking and social media use. However, many participants suggest that dealing with the dilemmas they identify is often difficult or partly impossible due to the importance of social media in our society. In a way, we can state that society has become a victim of its own mediatization and platformization. Like one of the participants stated during an interview:
It’s a little bit like Icarus flying too close to the sun. We wanted more digital media, more connections with others, more technology. But now we’ve come to a point where it’s almost too much.44 (Female, 25)
Through conducting semi-structured interviews and focus groups, this research has gained insights into how late-millennials give meaning to the use of social media platforms and their privacy. The interviews and focus groups have, in some cases, even inspired the participants to think about the topics of this thesis more and thus developing a better understanding of their own behaviour. Many participants identified that, although it is important to note that social media platforms have had a positive contribution to our society, they are now at risk of becoming too big, too powerful and too influential. They suggested that alternatives need to be
44 08-04-2021
71 improved in order for society not to be dependent on the services of just a few platforms. Legislation also needs to be developed more in order to protect the individual social media user. Because this is a small-scale study, this research did not intend to generalize the findings to a larger population. However, the study does provide valuable insights into how individuals deal with data tracking dilemmas on social media platforms. The findings from this work contribute to an overall understanding the position of social media platforms in society from the perspective of individuals, as well as how these individuals interact with potential dilemmas regarding these platforms. This work has brought together two research fields, communication and behavioural sciences. By including the perspective of the individual, this research has shown that our understanding of the privacy paradox needs to be more nuanced in the context of late-millennials, because not everyone can be considered as trapped in the paradox. Where previous research suggests that millennials are stuck in the privacy paradox, this thesis shows that some people are actively dealing with the dilemmas they identify and some do not experience these dilemmas at all. Moreover, this work has contributed to understanding that besides communication and entertainment, societal engagement is also an important reason for using social media platforms. The choice of methods, semi-structured interviews and focus groups, have led to these contributions in the sense that they have provided insights into the experiences, meaning and opinions of individuals, and therefore providing a unique individual perspective on topics such as the privacy paradox, data tracking and social media use. There were a few limitations this study encountered. A last focus group had to be cancelled last minute because some of the participants were unable to attend. Like stated in the methodological chapter, the study was also limited by covid-19. During the interview and focus group stage, no more than one person was allowed in another household and one-on-one contact was discouraged by the government. The thesis was also limited by the number of participants. Due to a short amount of time, a limited amount of people could be interviewed and participate in a focus group. Despite collecting a diverse sample through convenience sampling, the participants may not be representative, as they proved to be more than average aware of digital media dilemmas and data tracking. Therefore, the reasons for using social media, the identification of dilemmas, manners of acting upon these dilemmas and reflections upon the generation are not representative for all millennials born between 1990 and 1999. This thesis has focused on millennials as social media users, however, future research could include other generations as well. Moreover, in a future study, other research methods could be used in order to find a larger sample to generalize the findings. Furthermore, many participants identified another dilemma regarding social media use that does not concern data
72 tracking. Many participants identified mental health as a dilemma regarding social media use. Unhealthy beauty standards, social media addiction and pressure to share, were amongst the dilemmas that were identified which were not included in this work because they are not related to data tracking. However, it is important that future research also focusses on these dilemmas.
Literature
Adams W.C. in Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Conducting semi- structured interviews. In Handbook of practical program evaluation, 492-505.
Adorjan, M., & Ricciardelli, R. (2019). A new privacy paradox? Youth agentic practices of privacy management despite “nothing to hide” online. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 56(1), 8-29.
Albrecht, J. P. (2016). How the GDPR will change the world. HeinOnline, 22(3), 87-289.
Alzubi, J., Nayyar, A., & Kumar, A. (2018,). Machine learning from theory to algorithms: an overview. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1142(1), 1-15.
Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30(1), 13-28.
Balakrishnan, J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social media addiction: What is the role of content in YouTube?. Journal of behavioural addictions, 6(3), 364-377.
Barbier, G., & Liu, H. (2011). Data mining in social media. In Social network data analytics, 327-352.
Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9) n.d.
Barth, S., & De Jong, M. D. (2017). The privacy paradox–Investigating discrepancies between
73 expressed privacy concerns and actual online behaviour–A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1038-1058.
Batorski, D., & Grzywińska, I. (2018). Three dimensions of the public sphere on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 21(3), 356-374.
Bolin, G. (2014). Media generations: Objective and subjective media landscapes and nostalgia among generations of media users. Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 11(2), 108-131.
Bolin, G. (2016). Media generations: experience, identity and mediatised social change. Routledge.
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Komarova Y., and Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda. Journal of service management. 24(4), 245-267.
Botterill, J., Bredin, M., & Dun, T. (2015). Millennials' media use: It is a matter of time. Canadian Journal of Communication, 40(3), 551.
Briandana, R., & Dwityas, N. A. (2019). Media literacy: An analysis of social media usage among millennials. International Journal of English Literature and Social Science, 4(2), 488-496.
Brody, N. (2018). Opting out of social media: Online communication attitudes mediate the relationship between personality factors and Facebook non-use. Southern Communication Journal, 83(2), 75-88.
Buchanan, R., Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., Murray, T., & Noble, B. (2017). Post no photos, leave no trace: Children’s digital footprint management strategies. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(5), 275-290.
Buckingham, D. (2006). Digital generations. Routledge.
74
Cabral, J. (2008). Is generation Y addicted to social media? Future of children, 2(1), 5-14.
Casilli, A., & Posada, J. (2019). The platformization of labor and society. Mark C. and Dutton W.H. Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives (second edition), Oxford university Press. 293-306.
Cetto, A., Netter, M., Pernul, G., Richthammer, C., Riesner, M., Roth, C., & Sänger, J. (2014). Friend inspector: A serious game to enhance privacy awareness in social networks. Computers and Society, 1-8.
Coenen, F. (2011). Data mining: past, present and future. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(1), 25-29.
Coomes, M. D., & DeBard, R. (2004). A generational approach to understanding students. New directions for student services, 2004(106), 5-16.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. International Communication Association, 23(3) 191-202.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2016). The mediated construction of reality. John Wiley & Sons.
Curtis, B. L., Ashford, R. D., Magnuson, K. I., & Ryan-Pettes, S. R. (2019). Comparison of smartphone ownership, social media use, and willingness to use digital interventions between generation z and millennials in the treatment of substance use: Cross-sectional questionnaire study. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(4), 1-15.
Dey, A. (2016). Machine learning algorithms: a review. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 7(3), 1174-1179. van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, culture & society, 31(1), 41-58. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific
75 paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & society, 12(2), 197-208. van Dijck, J. (2020). Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualizing platformization and its governance. New Media & Society, 1-19. van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and communication, 1(1), 2-14.
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17(1), 1-7.
Drago, J. P. (2006). Generational theory: Implications for recruiting the millennials. Defense Technical Information Center, 2-28.
Ekström, M., Fornäs, J., Jansson, A., & Jerslev, A. (2016). Three tasks for mediatization research: Contributions to an open agenda. Media, Culture & Society, 38(7), 1090-1108.
Fiesler, C., & Hallinan, B. (2018). "We Are the Product" Public Reactions to Online Data Sharing and Privacy Controversies in the Media. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1-13.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717-732.
Fuchs, C. (2012). The political economy of privacy on Facebook. Television & New Media, 13(2), 139-159.
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media and the public sphere. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(1), 57- 101.
76 Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction. Sage Publications Ltd.
Gal, M. S., & Aviv, O. (2020). The competitive effects of the GDPR. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 16(3), 349-391.
Ge, Z., Song, Z., Ding, S. X., & Huang, B. (2017). Data mining and analytics in the process industry: The role of machine learning. IEEE Access, 5, 20590-20616.
Van Gennep A 1960. The rites of passage: Anthropology and ethnography. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Geraci, J. C., & Nagy, J. (2004). Millennials‐the new media generation. Young consumers, 5(2), 17-24. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. MIT Press, 167, 1-32.
Goddard, M. (2017). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European regulation that has a global impact. International Journal of Market Research, 59(6), 703-705.
Google Analytics. (n.d.). Welcome to Google Analytica. Google. https://analytics.google.com/analytics/web/provision/#/provision
Grau, S., Kleiser, S., & Bright, L. (2019). Exploring social media addiction among student Millennials. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 22(2), 200-216.
Hallinan, B., & Striphas, T. (2016). Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture. New media & society, 18(1), 117-137.
Han, K., Jung, H., Jang, J. Y., & Lee, D. (2018). Understanding users’ privacy attitudes through subjective and objective assessments: An instagram case study. Computer, 51(6), 18- 28.
77
Han, S. (2012). Web 2.0. Routledge.
Helal, G., Ozuem, W., & Lancaster, G. (2018). Social media brand perceptions of millennials. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, (46)10, 1-18.
Hargittai, E., & Marwick, A. (2016). “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International journal of communication, 10, 3737-3757.
Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media+ Society, 1(2), 1-11.
Hennen, L., van Keulen, I., Korthagen, I., Aichholzer, G., Lindner, R., & Nielsen, R. Ø. (2020). European e-democracy in practice. Springer Open.
Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society: A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom review, 29(2), 102-131.
Hou, Y., Xiong, D., Jiang, T., Song, L., & Wang, Q. (2019). Social media addiction: Its impact, mediation, and intervention. Cyberpsychology: Journal of psychosocial research on cyberspace, 13(1), 1-17.
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56-59.
Irshad, S., & Soomro, T. R. (2018). Identity theft and social media. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 18(1), 43-55.
Jia, J., Jin, G. Z., & Wagman, L. (2018). The short-run effects of GDPR on technology venture investment. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2-42.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
78 Kennedy, H., Elgesem, D., & Miguel, C. (2017). On fairness: User perspectives on social media data mining. Convergence, 23(3), 270-288. de Keyzer, F., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2015). Is this for me? How consumers respond to personalized advertising on social network sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 15(2), 124-134.
Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & security, 64, 122-134.
Langlois, G., & Elmer, G. (2013). The research politics of social media platforms. Culture machine, 14, 1-17.
Lauri, M. A. (2011). Triangulation of data analysis techniques. Papers on Social Representations, 20(2), 1-34.
Lee, J. M., & Rha, J. Y. (2016). Personalization–privacy paradox and consumer conflict with the use of location-based mobile commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 453- 462.
Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 4(3), 324.
Liang, F., Yu, W., An, D., Yang, Q., Fu, X., & Zhao, W. (2018). A survey on big data market: Pricing, trading and protection. IEEE Access, 6, 15132-15154. van Lier, H., (2013, 31 October). De opkomst en ondergang van Hyves: hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen? Volkskrant. https://www.volkskrant.nl/cultuur-media/de-opkomst-en- ondergang-van-hyves-hoe-heeft-het-zo-ver-kunnen- komen~b67d0e41/?utm_source=link&utm_medium=app&utm_campaign=shared%20 content&utm_content=free
Liyanaarachchi, G. (2021). Managing privacy paradox through national culture: Reshaping online retailing strategy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 60, 1-10.
79
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in geography, 3(2), 143-156.
Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C. P., Bucher, E., & Fieseler, C. (2018). The role of privacy concerns in the sharing economy. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1-37.
Madden, M. (2012). Privacy management on social media sites. Pew Internet Report, 1-20.
Matamo. (n.d.). Google Analytics alternative that protects your data and your customers’ privacy. Matamo.. https://matomo.org/
Mavriki, P., & Karyda, M. (2018). Profiling with Big Data: Identifying Privacy Implication for Individuals, Groups and Society. Mediterranean Conference on Informatic Systems, n.d. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual review of sociology, 22(1), 129-152.
Nadeem, W., Andreini, D., Salo, J., & Laukkanen, T. (2015). Engaging consumers online through websites and social media: A gender study of Italian Generation Y clothing consumers. International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 2-39.
Neuman, W. L. (2016). Understanding research. Pearson.
Nieborg, D., Poell, T., Deuze, M., & Prenger, M. (2019). The platformization of making media. Making Media: production, Practices, and Professions, 85-96.
Oh, H., Park, S., Lee, G. M., Heo, H., & Choi, J. K. (2019). Personal data trading scheme for data brokers in IoT data marketplaces. IEEE Access, 7, 40120-40132.
Orlowski, J. (Director). (2020). The Social Dilemma [film]. Netflix.
Pandey, A., Sahu, R., & Dash, M. K. (2018). Social media marketing impact on the purchase intention of millennials. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 28(2), 147-162.
80 Parra-Arnau, J., Achara, J. P., & Castelluccia, C. (2017). Myadchoices: Bringing transparency and control to online advertising. ACM Transactions on the Web, 11(1), 1-47.
Pitta, D. (2012). The challenges and opportunities of marketing to Millennials. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 29(2), n.d.
Poell, T., Nieborg, D., Duffy, B., Prey, R., & Cunningham, S. (2017). The platformization of cultural production. In Selected Papers of AOIR, 1-19.
Pötzsch, S. (2008). Privacy awareness: A means to solve the privacy paradox?. The Future of Identity in the Information Society, 226-236.
Ruppert, E., Isin, E., & Bigo, D. (2017). Data politics. Big data & society, 4(2) n.d.
Ross, A. D., Rouse, S. M., & Mobley, W. (2019). Polarization of climate change beliefs: the role of the millennial generation identity. Social Science Quarterly, 100(7), 2625-2640.
Sanchez-Rola, I., Dell'Amico, M., Kotzias, P., Balzarotti, D., Bilge, L., Vervier, P. A., & Santos, I. (2019, July). Can I opt out yet? GDPR and the global illusion of cookie control. Asia CCS, 340-351.
Segijn, C. M., & van Ooijen, I. (2021). Differences in consumer knowledge and perceptions of personalized advertising: Comparing online behavioural advertising and synced advertising. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1-20.
Srinivasan, D. (2019). The antitrust case against Facebook: A monopolist's journey towards pervasive surveillance in spite of consumers' preference for privacy. Berkeley Bus. LJ, 16, 39-101.
Taddicken, M. (2014). The ‘privacy paradox’in the social web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance on different forms of self- disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(2), 248-273.
81 Tankovska, H. (2021, March 15). Facebook: distribution of global audiences 2021, by age and gender. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/376128/facebook-global-user-age- distribution/
Thornham, S., Bassett, C., & Marris, P. (Eds.). (2009). Media studies: a reader. NYU Press.
Trotter II, R. T. (2012). Qualitative research sample design and sample size: Resolving and unresolved issues and inferential imperatives. Preventive medicine, 55(5), 398-400.
Tutgun-Ünal, A., & Deniz, L. (2015). Development of the social media addiction scale. AJIT- e: Bilişim Teknolojileri Online Dergisi, 6(21), 51-70.
Twitter Inc. (2021, 08 January). Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump. Twitter. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html
Weaver, S. D., & Gahegan, M. (2007). Constructing, visualizing, and analyzing a digital footprint. Geographical Review, 97(3), 324-350.
Weiss, D., & Lang, F. R. (2009). Thinking about my generation: Adaptive effects of a dual age identity in later adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 24(3), 729.
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362-369.
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45-55.
Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2002). Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations. Acm Sigmod Record, 31(1), 76-77
Wu, X., Zhu, X., Wu, G. Q., & Ding, W. (2013). Data mining with big data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 26(1), 97-107.
Xu, L., Jiang, C., Wang, J., Yuan, J., & Ren, Y. (2014). Information security in big data: privacy
82 and data mining. IEEE Access, 2, 1149-1176.
Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Privacy protection strategies on Facebook: The Internet privacy paradox revisited. Information, Communication & Society, 16(4), 479- 500.
Zondag met Lubach. (2020, 18 October). Aflevering 5. VPRO. https://www.vpro.nl/zondag-met-lubach/kijk/afleveringen/seizoen-12/aflevering- 5.html
Zuboff. S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Profile Books Ltd.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., De Vreese, C. H., & Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review. Journal on Internet Regulation, 5(1), 2-16.
83 Appendix A. List of participants
NR Gender Age Level of Date Date Focus education interview Groups 1 Male 21 High school 15-03-2021 29-04-2021 (vmbo) 2 Female 25 Bachlor 17-03-2021 18-04-2021 3 Female 27 Hbo 17-03-2021 18-04-2021 4 Male 26 Hbo 18-03-2021 18-04-2021 5 Female 24 Master 23-03-2021 24-04-2021 6 Female 24 Bachelor 06-04-2021 7 Male 25 High school 07-04-2021 16-04-2021 (vwo) 8 Female 25 Bachelor 07-04-2021 9 Female 25 High school 08-04-2021 16-04-2021 (vwo) 10 Male 25 Mbo 09-04-2021 24-04-2021 11 Female 25 Master 09-04-2021 24-04-2021 12 Male 23 Master 12-04-2021 29-04-2021 13 Female 27 Hbo 12-04-2021 16-04-2021 14 Female 22 Bachelor 13-04-2021 16-04-2021 15 Female 23 Master 15-04-2021 16 Female 28 Hbo 21-04-2021 29-04-2021
84 Appendix B. Topic List Interviews
“What corporate social media platforms are used by millennials in the Netherlands and why?” - How would you describe yourself as a social media user? - What social media platforms do you use? - Can you summarize in a few sentences why you use these platforms? o Can you elaborate on …?
- Is social media important to you? - Do you think social media is important to society?
“What dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media use are identified by Dutch millennials?” - Can you describe in your own words what data tracking is? - How do you feel about this practice? - Do you feel like your data is protected on social media platforms? o Are you consciously aware of privacy settings on social media platforms? o Is it easy to protect your data on social media platforms?
- What dilemmas do you identify regarding data tracking and social media use? o Why do you identify these dilemmas? o Can you elaborate on … dilemma?
“How do/don’t Dutch millennials consider dilemmas regarding data tracking and social media in their use of corporate social media platforms?” - How do you relate the previously mentioned dilemmas to your own social media use? - How do you consider the previously mentioned dilemmas in your own social media use? - We have just voted, did you consider data tracking dilemmas in your vote? - Who do you think is responsible for solving the dilemmas you just identified? - What does your ideal social media situation look like regarding data tracking? - Do you use alternative social media platforms? o Why?
85 “How do Dutch millennials reflect on how they act upon the dilemmas as a characteristic of their generation?”. - Do you think your age influences the way you approach data tracking dilemmas? - Do you think your behavior regarding data tracking as a millennial is different than the behaviour of other generations? o Why?
Are there any other things that could be relevant to this work that you would like to share?
86 Appendix C. Topic List Focus Groups
Welcome everyone. Thank you for participating in this research again. In the interviews I discussed with you what dilemmas you all identify regarding data tracking and social media use. Throughout this focus group I would like to have you guys discuss what we talked about during the interviews in a group setting. If at any time, you feel uncomfortable or don’t want to participate anymore, you can let me know in the chat if you want. I would like to start by sharing the following screen with you. This is the trailer to the Netflix documentary “the Social Dilemma”. I would like you to carefully watch this trailer and then after we can discuss this a bit. Watch trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaC57tcci0&ab_channel=Netflix - What are some of the first responses to watching this trailer? o Discuss - Do you see different dilemmas now than what we have discussed during the interviews? o Discuss - Do you think your behaviour regarding data tracking and social media has changed since the interview? o If so, how? o Discuss
If you were to convince someone to stop using social media platforms because of data tracking practices. How would you convince them to do so? I would like one volunteer to try to convince another volunteer to stop them from using social media platforms. First explain them what data tracking is according to you. - Discuss
Are there any other things regarding data tracking dilemmas and social media that you want to discuss?
Thank you so much for participating. If you have any more things that come to mind, please let me know.
87 Appendix D. List of codes
Name
Generation middle user millennials different vs older people vs younger people children others millennials not different Old user young user Research question 1 (social media platforms) Importance social media broadening horizon Good or bad news distribution social contacts time consuming What platform Facebook app deleted Facebook messenger profile deleted Instagram app deleted LinkedIn Reddit Snappchat Twitter Whatsapp YouTube Why activism News because of others
88 Name
Entertainment photo sharing Showing off love interest Social family global communication Why facebook Why instagram why snappchat Why social media (general) Why whatsapp why youtube Why not Facebook Instagram news Snappchat Twitter Research question 2 (Dilemmas) capitalism keep scrolling design Filterbubble Divide in society targeted ads youtube health fomo political influence Fake news power abuse privacy everything saved Identity theft Research question 4 (alternative) no why not which ones
89 Name
Yes Signal telegram Reseearch question 3 (Deal with) capitalism Power abuse How to deal with education not deal with Privacy everything saved how to deal with Cookies GDPR how to deal with no information opt out analytics privacy settings location settings off privacy policy lezen not deal with continued use cookies naive not reading privacy policy public profiles VPN regulation not responsible responisble targeted ads filterbubble how not to deal with liking personalized content not deal with How to deal with hypothetically ignore
90 Name
responsibility why not Do not care feeling powerless no other option not deal with habit
91