.png)
.png)
.png)
Privacy in a cookie-less world
Privacy requires multi-faceted control
While it is not new news that control over private data helps users build trust[1], what I have discovered is that creating a multi-faceted control model for private data for generation z increases interest in personalised advertising. More specifically, a new dimension to our understanding of privacy is that generation z wants more control than simply agreeing or disagreeing to ‘allow all’ data collection. These users want control over what private data is shared and who with, thus the multi-faceted control. A customisable approach is required because one size really does not fit all. The generalisation of ‘giving the user control’ fails to consider a multiplicity of unique preferences. By reassuring generation z consumers of a customisable approach, they embark on a vital mentality shift from “I give away” to “I choose”, which ultimately created a more trusting relationship with their chosen brands.
.png)
Thank you for joining us here today at the EFF. Would you like to start by explaining your first discovery about privacy?
And where did this discovery derive in your research?
.png)
During the first research phase, I became aware of a contradiction in my generation z participants’ thinking toward third-party data collection. James exhibited an ignorance is bliss approach to privacy, explaining that he “couldn’t care less about what they take”. As our conversation progressed to the possibilities of a post-cookie world, he challenged his initial uninterest, saying, “I think I would just need to have more control over what I am being shown in order to want to view ads again”. James was not alone in this sentiment. As mentioned previously, I felt an immediate lack of interest and understanding of my topic from all my participants. A blasé attitude and open negligence to their online private data within existing cookie-full technologies unveiled almost a disbelief that privacy could exist within digital advertising.
.png)
"I think I would need to have more control over what I am being shown in order to want to view ads again"
That's very interesting. Can you recount any specific generation z feelings toward privacy at this stage?
One of the most notable opinions came from Lynn. During the stage one laddering interview, we discussed private browser mode. Immediately met with scepticism, Lynn criticised the classification of the feature as private. Lynn explained a generalised rule of thumb: “I think you’re in control of your own privacy. If you don’t want someone to know something, don’t go on the internet at all”. I found Lynn’s perception of control over privacy interesting because for her to exert control over private data on the internet is simply not using it. Almost an incompatibility between privacy and the online world. Intrusion is something that comes with the territory – “it’s what you sign up for”. It was interesting for me to later identify a degree of optimism during the brand experience workshops. On multiple occasions, Lynn justified her decisions to rank companies highly on the trust scale with the brands that provided a degree of participation in private data control. For example, Gener8 Ads and Apple’s ATT.
So how does this now translate into Social Bubble?
.png)
I wanted to take this degree of control to the extreme with my prototype - Social Bubble. As a result, building a network of bubbles that you can nurture and grow epitomises the precious fragility of both private data and a physical bubble. Giving users control of not just whether they do or do not share their data, but specifically, what data they want to share, whom with, and the reward for doing so built a multi-faceted model of control. While this customisation did add to the complexity of the speculation, it was necessary to allow users the control over their very personal private data preferences.
And it was these personal preferences that came through in the final interview stage. During the prototype testing, I hosted a Social Bubble set-up workshop. I was taken aback by the differing opinions and justification. While Tom was not comfortable sharing his age, Mae said this would be fine. For James, he wouldn't add Next to his brand bubble because he is not into their clothes the way he is with his favourite brand Carhartt. It is within this personal opinion the success of Social Bubble’s customisable control model lies.
Hm...and how did your users respond to such a high level of control?
My decision to side with a generous amount of user control was rewarded during the third research stage, with overarchingly positive feedback. All participants showed a positive sentiment toward the control Social Bubble empowered them to exert. James summarised this sentiment, “definitely [feeling] better…than [being] a passenger”. I found this metaphor of the passenger to be a really nice visual suggesting Social Bubble as the resource to finally hand him the wheel. The overwhelming choice created through the multi-faceted control model comforted users in their understanding that the information they wanted to remain private, would. As a result, they felt more comfortable sharing selected personal information with their chosen brands. As Mae explained, “you choose which sites…you’re not just accepting how other companies want to use your data”.
Privacy belongs to the user
And now with regards to belonging... care to explain?
Building upon my finding that generation z wants a multi-faceted control model for their data, I also discovered a new dimension of ownership over private data management. This discovery builds upon a perceived materialisation of data from a previously unownable entity. As such, the desire for more control ties with a shifting state of psychological ownership over private data[2]. I have found that for generation z, their privacy and private data belongs to them. “My data” is now a common phrase in generation z's vocabulary, which would arguably not have been the case even five to ten years ago. While data was once neutral, the discourse has changed and says private data is a new form of capital. As a result, the violation of a perceived ontologically present private data is what has created dissatisfaction, as the submissive consumer "gives away" their belongings.
My Data
We know all about dissatisfaction toward privacy regulation, what did you find out for generation z?
​The dissatisfaction was epitomised by James’ rather pessimistic rendition of cookies and third-party data collection: “I don’t really care about my data”. For James, similarly to Lynn, true privacy is not something found online. Instead, James defined privacy as somewhere with “no one else in that space”, selecting his bedroom as his “most private place”. Comparatively, in the physical world, “privacy is needed in day-to-day life…it is something you just expect…it’s unconscious”.
It was interesting to explore James' opposing definitions of privacy between the online and real world. Is the online world not also the real world? This discrepancy reminded me of Apple's May 2021 ad, which satirised what online data collection would look like if it were to happen in person[3]. For me, this shifting discourse to apply the same principles in the real world to online, came down to newfound ownership of data. An intrusion of privacy of a now perceptively material and ownable data object occurs in Facebook’s algorithms or The Sun’s “dodgy” cookie pop-ups.
How did Social Bubble address this change in discourse?
For the creation of my prototype, I understood the framing around private data would influence how receptive generation z would be to Social Bubble. My design decisions had to align with the evolving discourse surrounding private data ownership[4]. As is with discourse analysis, language decisions were required to reassure user comfort. I wanted James to feel the same degree of control and seclusion felt in his bedroom that represented privacy to him[5]. The decision to standardise the language of “your data” and “your decision” breaks the shared ownership mentality, which appeared to create a toxic barrier to trust. It helped to create the feeling of isolation all participants associated with privacy. Social Bubble simply sought to be an ally, respecting its users’ ownership of data. This allyship was crucial for reconstructing the currently toxic power relations surrounding private data that places authority and decision-making power with the all-knowing corporation rather than submissive consumer.
Sounds good to us, how did your research participants feel about it?
Mae’s account of Social Bubble as “more private which makes me more likely to share my information” exhibits how trust can grow when the user exercises their psychological ownership. According to Pierce et al., psychological ownership is a “state where an individual feels as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is ‘theirs’”[6]. My Social Bubble prototype successfully met Porteous’ three psychological ownership satisfactions, which include control over space; personalisation to asset identity; and stimulation achieved through, for example, improving or defending possessions[7].
Surprisingly, Tom showed more reservations over what information he was willing to share during the third stage interviews. “I wouldn’t include salary or anything to do with money…area, not exact location…I don’t think I would want them to know my name”. While Tom’s concern for sharing personal data could derive from a lack of trust in Social Bubble, from Porteous’ perspective, Tom is simply exercising his control over space and personalising his asset identity. This expression proves Tom has psychological ownership over his private data and, at Social Bubble, we should respect what belongs to him because this is powerful for brand trust-building.
.png)
.png)
"I wouldn't include salary or anything to do with money... area, not exact location...I don't think I would want them to know my name"
Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us here at the EFF. We look forward to continuing to support your much needed work.
[1] Goldfarb, A., Tucker, C., (2010). ‘Privacy regulation and online advertising.’ Management Science. 57.1, pp.57-71. Version: Author’s final manuscript
[2] Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T., 2003. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), pp.84-107.
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4qPUSG17Y
[4] Fairclough, N., 2013. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
[5] Potter, J. and Wetherell, M., 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage.
[6] Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T., 2003. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), pp.84-107.
[7] Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T., 2003. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), pp.84-107.