skip to main content
10.1145/3272973.3274089acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster
Public Access

Vulnerable and Online: Fandom's Case for Stronger Privacy Norms and Tools

Published:30 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

When social media platforms do not offer adequate privacy and safety features, users construct their own strategies for protecting private information and avoiding harassment. Women and LGBTQIA people are vulnerable targets if their privacy is violated, leading to situations that can compromise their safety both online and off. In an initial exploration of privacy and safety concerns of participants in online fan communities, we find that they avoid engaging online to preserve their privacy and safety, thus limiting the involvement of already marginalized voices in public discourse. LGBTQIA people in particular practice non-use for fear of being outed in personal spaces if recognized. In response to challenges users face, we recommend that developers consider finer controls over user content in addition to thoughtful practices among researchers and journalists when it comes to sharing "public" data.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Mary Elizabeth Ballard and Kelly Marie Welch. 2017. Virtual Warfare?: Cyberbullying and Cyber-Victimization in MMOG Play. 12, 5: 466--491.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Pyschology 3: 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Kristina Busse. 2018. The Ethics of Studying Online Fandom. In The Routledge Companion to Media Fandom, Melissa A. Click and Suzanne Scott (eds.). Routledge, New York, 9--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Casey Fiesler, Shannon Morrison, and Amy S. Bruckman. 2016. An Archive of Their Own: A Case Study of Feminist HCI and Values in Design. Proc. CHI 2016: 2574--2585. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Casey Fiesler and Nicholas Proferes. 2018. "Participant" Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics. Social Media + Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Samantha Jaroszewski, Danielle Lottridge, Oliver L. Haimson, and Katie Quehl. 2018. "Genderfluid " or " Attack Helicopter ": Responsible HCI Practice with Non- ­Binary Gender Variation in Online Communities. Proc. CHI 2018: 307--321. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Abigail De Kosnik. 2016. Rogue Archives: Digital Cultural Memory and Media Fandom. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Eden Litt. 2012. Knock, Knock. Who's There? The Imagined Audience. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 56, 3: 330--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jeanine Warisse Turner, Jean A. Grube, and Jennifer Meyers. 2001. Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communication 51, 2: 231--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Vulnerable and Online: Fandom's Case for Stronger Privacy Norms and Tools

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '18 Companion: Companion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
      October 2018
      518 pages
      ISBN:9781450360180
      DOI:10.1145/3272973

      Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 October 2018

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '18 Companion Paper Acceptance Rate105of385submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader