Questions you can ask to get a conversation about public vs. private started in your community

• What do you share publicly and what do you keep private? How do you decide? 
• Do you use social media to share you thoughts with a larger public? Why or why not? 
• Do you decide to keep some things to yourself or a small circle of friends? 
• What is the advantage of sharing more about yourself with a broader public? 
• Have you ever experienced any consequences from sharing something publicly? 
• Can sharing personal information about yourself help get people to support you when you take action on a particular issue? Do you have an example of when this happened to you or someone you know?

Suggested key points to include

• Our use of social media is governed by terms and conditions. While it is difficult to read everything, we can endeavor to be as informed as possible every-time we hit “accept”.Let’s learn to actively weigh the benefits (we can connect, express, mobilize) and risks (unexpected audiences) of the social media we use. 
• Consider how we can be mindful of the “digital afterlife” of what we share online. Where may the media we share travel and how may it be interpreted? 
• Rethink our definition of “control” when it comes to publicly sharing materials online. 
• Understand that we do still care about privacy and that there are nuanced, strategic ways, to apply it. Private vs. public is not a binary. There are many ‘shades of grey” between choosing to share everything and not sharing at all. Engage with the considerations we need to weigh in these in-between spaces. 
• Both decisions we make and the architecture of the platforms we use determine how we handle privacy considerations.

Key term definitions

Private

• What do you share publicly and what do you keep private? How do you decide? 
• Do you use social media to share you thoughts with a larger public? Why or why not? 
• Do you decide to keep some things to yourself or a small circle of friends? 
• What is the advantage of sharing more about yourself with a broader public? 
• Have you ever experienced any consequences from sharing something publicly? 
• Can sharing personal information about yourself help get people to support you when you take action on a particular issue? Do you have an example of when this happened to you or someone you know?
  • Our use of social media is governed by terms and conditions. While it is difficult to read everything, we can endeavor to be as informed as possible every-time we hit “accept”.Let’s learn to actively weigh the benefits (we can connect, express, mobilize) and risks (unexpected audiences) of the social media we use. 
  • Consider how we can be mindful of the “digital afterlife” of what we share online. Where may the media we share travel and how may it be interpreted? 
  • Rethink our definition of “control” when it comes to publicly sharing materials online. 
  • Understand that we do still care about privacy and that there are nuanced, strategic ways, to apply it. Private vs. public is not a binary. There are many ‘shades of grey” between choosing to share everything and not sharing at all. Engage with the considerations we need to weigh in these in-between spaces. 
  • Both decisions we make and the architecture of the platforms we use determine how we handle privacy considerations.
• Social media and youth culture scholar danah boyd says: “Fundamentally, privacy is about having control over how information flows. It's about being able to understand the social setting in order to behave appropriately. To do so, people must trust their interpretation of the context, including the people in the room and the architecture that defines the setting. When they feel as though control has been taken away from them or when they lack the control they need to do the right thing, they scream privacy foul.” (boyd 2010)

  Context Collapse

  Context collapse is a situation where “the imagined audience might be entirely different from the actual readers of a profile, blog post, or tweet.” (boyd and marwick 2010) As social media scholars Alice Marwick and danah boyd further explain:

  We present ourselves differently based on who we are talking to and where the conversation takes place – social contexts like a job interview, trivia night at a bar, or dinner with a partner differ in their norms and expectations. The same goes for socializing online…. Every participant in a communicative act has an imagined audience. Audiences are not discrete; when we talk, we think we are speaking only to the people in front of us or on the other end of the telephone, but this is in many ways a fantasy. (Social norms against eaves- dropping show how ‘privacy’ requires the participation of bystanders.) Technology complicates our metaphors of space and place, including the belief that audiences are separate from each other. We may understand that the Twitter or Facebook audience is potentially limitless, but we often act as if it were bounded. Our understanding of the social media audience is limited. While anyone can potentially read or view a digital artifact, we need a more specific conception of audience than ‘anyone’ to choose the language, cultural referents, style, and so on that comprise online identity presentation. In the absence of certain knowledge about audience, participants take cues from the social media environment to imagine the community (boyd, 2007: 131). This, the imagined audience, might be entirely different from the actual readers of a profile, blog post, or tweet. (Marwick and boyd 2010)

   

  Digital After-Life

  Lissa Soep, Youth Radio producer and researcher of youth discourse, learning, and digital media culture, defines digital afterlife as a “context of user-driven content” where “original intentions of media producers are reinterpreted, remixed and sometimes distorted by users and emerge into a recontextualized form.” Soep further explains that: “digital afterlife has particular implications for youth-made media that originates in schools and community-based organizations. Social media environments are governed by a different set of players, agendas, stakes, consequences, and rules of engagement than those associated with youth-serving institutions. Youth media organizations typically aim to promote youth development, literacy and social justice. Users who join the production process in the afterlife –bloggers, commenters, etc.– do not necessarily share those orientations or pro-social goals.” (Soep 2012)
   

  Take It to the Next Level

  If the HitRecord Public vs Private video and information contained here inspired you to action, you may want reach to the original call for submissions that inspired this video to be made in the first place. While the deadline for submissions has expired, you are always free to create your own responses to it!

  Included resources on public vs. private

  boyd, danah and Alice Marwick. 2011. “Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teen’s Attitudes, Practices, and Strategies.” Paper presented at the Privacy Law Scholars Conference, Berkeley, California, June 2.
  
  boyd, danah. 2010. "Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity." SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13.
  
  boyd, danah. 2014. “What is Privacy?” Apophenia.
    
  Marwick, Alice and danah boyd. 2010. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media Society. July 7.
  
  Soep, Lissa. 2012. “The Digital Afterlife of Youth-Made Media: Implications for Media Literacy Education.” Comunicar Scientific Journal of Media Education 38, no. XIX: 93-100.
  
  You can download "Conversation Starter Topic: Public vs. Private in the Digital Age" resource packet here.