“People I Don’t Even Know Can See This” – Privacy Approaches by Canadians Crowdfunding for Basic Living Needs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The practice of crowdfunding raises many concerns, including the extent to which crowdfunding challenges the privacy of crowdfunding campaigners and beneficiaries. Crowdfunding platforms regularly remind campaigners that an emotionally compelling campaign description that highlights their reasons for creating a campaign is likely to increase their chances of success. As a result, campaigners experience significant pressure to disclose highly personal information. There is a significant lack of empirical research exploring the ways crowdfunding campaigners approach privacy-related decisions and how privacy-related concerns arise. In this paper, we highlight the complex pressures experienced by crowdfunding campaigners and the privacy-related decisions they make while crowdfunding for themselves. Methods We sought to recruit participants who resided within Canada and had used online donation-based crowdfunding to support their own medical and housing-related needs within a year prior to the interview. In total, there were 24 interviews completed. All authors agreed to thematically analyze how crowdfunding campaigners approached privacy in everyday life and how this approach was challenged or affirmed during the process of crowdfunding. Results Our analysis identified three types of approaches participants took to privacy in their everyday lives and further highlighted how these approaches to privacy functioned in the context of crowdfunding. These approaches were: 1. highly guarded and concerned; 2. middle of the road; and 3. mostly open. Conclusions Our study provides evidence indicating the complexity of decisions campaigners make while experiencing various forms of pressures and tensions that challenge their autonomy. While crowdfunding campaigners in our sample used specific strategies from their everyday lives to mitigate the risk of giving up personal information, these strategies were often inadequate in the context of crowdfunding. This could be attributed to the campaigners’ incomplete understanding of crowdfunding Considering this, it is important that government entities and crowdfunding platforms implement policies that better protect crowdfunding campaigns. For example, by clearly communicating terms and conditions and any options available to protect users privacy. There is likely a need for policy to standardize clearer terms of use for technology platforms generally and specifically, and to enact privacy protections for crowdfunding campaigners and recipients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».