Search results

Do existing social inequalities translate into social media privacy management? This study examined racial/ethnic differences in privacy concerns and privacy management behaviors on social media to evaluate empirical evidence for an online privacy divide in the U.S. In addition, we tested two prominent theoretical perspectives–resource-based and identity-based explanations–for such divides. Results from an online survey ( N = 1,401) revealed that compared to White social media users, Latinx and Asian users reported higher horizontal and vertical privacy concerns, Latinx users employed horizontal privacy management strategies more frequently, Black users reported higher horizontal and vertical privacy self-efficacy, and Latinx users reported higher vertical privacy self-efficacy. While unequal distribution of resources (i.e., socioeconomic status) explained some differences among Asian (vs. White) participants, identity-based factor (i.e., perceived discrimination) served to motivate cautious privacy management among Black participants. Theoretical contributions to the privacy and marginalization literature are discussed. Practical implications are provided.

AbstractPolicy debates about the digital divide often focus on the availability and quality of Internet access, despite the fact that device inequities are persistent and widespread. To address this important but often overlooked policy concern, we present findings from a systematic literature review of policy research that informs the supply of low‐cost, large‐screen computers. Using the framework of multisolving innovations, we explore policies from across three disparate sectors—e‐waste, right‐to‐repair, and digital inclusion—to determine whether any of these policies can serve as cross‐sector solutions that work simultaneously to help reduce digital inequalities and e‐waste, while strengthening secondhand device labor markets. As a result, we highlight a wide range of policies that would optimize both the supply and distribution of affordable devices to low‐income consumers and, at the same time, broaden the base of stakeholders invested in digital equity.