Our online digital footprint may never be washed away that easily. Online identities take the form of how much we reveal ourselves and share information through interacting and exchanging information with others. We may not know the shape or form or what fragments of information pieces will reside online and in third-party data repositories (Me & My Shadow, n.d.). The decision to disclose information online is based on the individual’s perceived risks and benefits (Adjei et al., 2020, p. 4). Social media networking platforms offer users the convenience of the platform’s features to engage and volunteer information about themselves among peers and followers with the perception that they are in a safe environment, free of judgment upon their actions (Greenwald, 2014). Revealing their thoughts, feelings, and experiences to maintain a social network to initiate interactions and facilitate richer, deeper levels of engagement by exchanging personal information (Nosko et al., 2010). However, the information revealed, knowingly and unknowingly, can accumulate a large amount of aggregated data describing an individual’s characteristics, behaviours and psychological traits that form their digital online identity.

Notably, users believe they do not fall into the vulnerable category, and the likelihood of a negative connotation associated with being online may never happen to them (Feher, 2021, p. 202). This may be because some users lack the awareness and appreciation of online security and privacy settings. In saying that, the perception may have changed over time, considering we are becoming more active online. The events that have been publicised discuss matters such as free speech, government and platform censorship, and NSA surveillance revelations, which have confirmed that we are under surveillance and vulnerable to some degree. When subjected to consistent surveillance and monitoring, we moderate our behaviours to comply with social conformities (Greenwald, 2014). Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon experiment uses this concept to illustrate the proclivity of discipline and subjugation of its citizens (McMullan, 2005). A prison cell design with a central monitoring unit, where prisoners know they are monitored but cannot see the guard, changed their actions and behaviours. Considering these events and actions on social media sites being monitored by regulators and peers, we tend to tactfully control what is published to regulate our digital identity to others to prevent embarrassment or at risk of being hacked. Regulators have acted, imposing online entities to offer more options for users to opt out of cookies and location tracking when using their website or application.

405 words

References:

Feher, K. (2021). Digital identity and the online self: Footprint strategies – An exploratory and comparative research study. Journal of Information Science, 47(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551519879702

Greenwald, G. (2014). Why privacy matters. TEDTalk. [Video]. https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters

McMullan, T. (2005). What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance? The Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham

Me & My Shadow. (n.d.). What are digital traces? https://myshadow.org/

Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.012