Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Relationship between Facebook and Its Users: Analysis of
Term and User’s Behaviors
Ryoju Hamada*, Chawin Sungwalngern, Kattaleeya Whama, Kanittha
Seesura and Nitiporn Pechpom
Facebook is one of the largest social network services (SNS) in the world. Its service
is constantly evolving, with no options available users have to follow, or are forced to
follow, the new rules and contracts (terms) without  any outstanding claims. The
legal relationship between users and Facebook are managed by the terms and
conditions. These terms are divided into many different policies and frequently revised.
For example, on January 30, 2015, Facebook added a new policy entitled "Facebook
Privacy Basics", revised its data policy, and announced to users. The reason is that it
is considered important and acceptable to develop the user’s security mind by updating
terms in an effective way. However, it seems that both Facebook’s announcements
and user’s reactions are insufficient. Not only service, but also increases in risk. In this
paper, a literature review on Facebook’s terms was conducted and analyzed its
structures. The complexity and variety of terms was also pointed out. A questionnaire
for 400 users of Facebook, before and after the reversion of the policy was initiated. It
was found that many users have some concerns regarding their safety in Facebook
and feel dissatisfied with the current privacy protection. However, users seem to ignore
these concerns and continue to use Facebook. It is an endless cycle of development
of both variety of service and data-related risk. The more service evolved, the more
terms became difficult to understand, and an increasing number of people have less
motivation to comprehend the terms. Based on research from September 2014 to
March 2015, it was aimed to offer a practical solution for Facebook and its users for
improved safety and convenience.
JEL Codes: K12, K39 and K42
1. Introduction
Today is an era of global communication. People tend to focus on social hierarchy,
property and beauty anywhere, at any time and without any limitations to access
information. The young generation spend most of their time on the internet unlike the
earlier generation which dedicate for more tangible activity. The internet turn to be part
of our life as a source for information and Social gathering where people share same
interest, conversed, and enjoyed themselves in a convivial atmosphere. The
information on literature, art, philosophy, politic and news has been shared on Social
Network Service (SNS).
In this paper, the relationship between Facebook users and its terms/contracts is
discussed. Facebook is the one of the most successful SNS. Facebook can be used
to upload and share information, status, and photographs. It can be read by friends
instantly (Timeline Function). For example, a smart phone can be used detect the
location of the place that pictures were uploaded. The individual holiday experience
____________________
*Ryoju Hamada, Chawin Sungwalngern, Kattaleeya Whama, Kanittha Seesura and Nitiporn Pechpome,
School of Management Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat
University, Thailand,
*Email: hamada@siit.tu.ac.th
pg. 1
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
can be shared among friends in real-time. Peer to Peer communication is also
available (Messaging Function). Facebook has made communication more
convenient. However, many people cannot express their reasons for using Facebook.
Additionally, Facebook has always been increasing its functions and as well as the
number of users. Despite, the cutting-edge technological innovations of Facebook’s
functions, most users use Facebook without full comprehension of all facilities. This is
considered to be critical for two reasons; firstly, Facebook gathers a lot of personal
and private information from users. Secondly, Facebook’s service is continuously
expanding to an unknown extent, and it is an implementation of advanced exploitation
of user’s personal information. In other words, people are using Facebook without
knowing its full implications and consequences. Instead of subscribing money, users
often provide personal and private information to Facebook.
In order to consider data safety in Facebook, terms between users and Facebook are
one of the most important systems. Figure 1 shows the structure of Facebook’s terms.
It can be seen that there are many different kinds of terms. Moreover, on January 30,
2015, Facebook changed three important terms. Facebook announced to users as
follows. “By using our services after January 30, 2015, you agree to our updated terms,
data policy, and cookies police” It is commonly accepted that Facebook intends to
change some policies. The effectiveness of this move is uncertain but it can claimed
that after January 30th, 700 million Facebook users would be forced to accept the new
policy, and agreed that any new terms have been understood. Despite the launch of
new terms, it has not become easier to understand. Technological description and
legal articles are intermingled. Some of the terms include many hyperlinks and
graphical user interfaces. On the other hand, some still stay in pure legal document
style. Some minor terms are not translated into a local language. We have no method
of surveying all Facebook’s users. However, we know it is not correct to assume every
Facebook user understands the framework of the terms or frequently check the
revision or amendments of the terms.
Figure1: Facebook’s Terms Structure
pg. 2
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
According to Facebook’s annual report of 2013, it is stated that: “We generate
substantially all of our revenue from advertising and from fees associated with our
Payments infrastructure that enables users to purchase virtual and digital goods from
our developers with applications on the Facebook website”(p.44). This is typical big
data business that is to gather, process, optimize, and to deliver business
opportunities to customers. This process is like a black box from normal users. In the
black box, which is toll free, personal information is used in unknown way? We are
afraid of three hypotheses as follows:
1) There are only a few people who understand the structure of the terms before joining
Facebook.
2) Many users give up full comprehension.
3) Existing users rarely check the revision or amendment of terms.
What can be done in these situations? In this paper, we have applied two approaches.
One is a term-related approach. To clarify what is going on within Facebook’s terms,
especially for those of 2015. In this paper, we have carefully analyzed those terms and
established some constructive ideas. The aim is to share these with Facebook in order
to improve its service. (Chapter 4).
The second idea is to include a facility for hidden complaints and provision of
expectations to Facebook by users. We conducted a Paper-Based questionnaire
survey in Thailand from 2014 to 2015. There were many disconcerting results which
should encourage Facebook to improve (Chapter 4). Based on those overall results,
we will be able to create a conclusive solution both for Facebook and Users.
(Chapter 5).
2. Literature review
SNS has been recognized as a target of research since its birth, and the issue of issue
has also been recognized as one of the most important issues. In the context of
computer mediated communication research, Boyd and Elison (2008) summarized a
history of SNS, started from SixDegrees.com in 1997. They pointed out five categories
of SNS related academic researches, and the privacy issue has been designated as
one of them. In context of Social Science, Wilson et al. (2012) introduced an overall
research of literatures of Facebook. 412 papers were surveyed and categorized into
five classifications. The privacy issue was also one of them. Facebook started its initial
service in Harvard University in 2004, and the first research on Facebook privacy had
already appeared in 2005. Jones and Soltren (2005) conducted a paper survey
(n=419) in Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and a web-based survey at
MIT, Harvard, New York University and the University of Oklahoma. According to their
paper survey in MIT, Facebook was in common use. (91% of students had Facebook
accounts. Students tended to disclose their personal information while paying little
attention to their privacy. However, they lacked collective understanding. For example,
91% of students had never read the Terms of Service, and 89% had never read the
Privacy Policy.
pg. 3
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
There were some scholarships which tried to find a common attitude of users. Acquisti
and Gross (2006) conducted a survey (n=294) of present college or institute
personnel. This is a comparative study between Facebook users and other service
users. Similar to Jones and Soltren, they found user's possessed a low awareness of
privacy, but accepted its convenience positively. According to their survey, 77% had
not read the Privacy Policy, 67% were unaware that Facebook might collect user's
data from other sources, 70% didn’t realize that Facebook might combine information,
and 56% didn’t know that Facebook shared personal information with third parties.
However, respondents claimed that the privacy policy was a highly important issue
(5.411 in 7-Point Lakert scale, 1 was "Not important at all", and 7 was "very important).
Tuunainen et al. (2009) has also conducted a survey (n=210) on privacy concerns of
Facebook users in Finland. We can find similar comparisons. 85% of respondents had
not read terms of use, and 79% for Privacy Policy. 73% didn't know that Facebook
could share personal information with a third party. Considering technological usage,
the Privacy setting is understood by 94% and 84% had experience in using it.
However, 99% disclosed their real name, 89% for dates of birth and 62% for friend's
photographs. Debatin et al. (2009) conducted an online survey of 119 undergraduate
students and interviewed eight respondents in the first survey. According to their
research, 91% were familiar with Facebook privacy issues and 77% aimed to restrict
their profiles. Lastly, but not least, by Pirom Pabu and Mongkon Deeudom (2013) in
Thailand aimed to study the behavioral traits from expectation and satisfaction on
communicating in Facebook from Samples inside the Faculty of Applied Science’s
students with the sampling size of 400 students whom enrolled in the academic year
of 2012 The Data were collected using the questionnaires and analyzed. Finally, Dey
et al. (2012) is a unique work with comparative studies based on the same survey held
both in 2010 and in 2011.Their samples of Facebook users in New York City are 1.67
million in 2010 and 1.47 million in 2011. They proved that privacy awareness of users
had been increased: for example, in 2010, only 17.2% were hiding their friend’s list,
but 52.6% were hidden in 2011. How can a common user of Facebook be typified?
She/he recognizes there is a privacy risk to use Facebook. She/he knows how to use
privacy settings. However, she/he still lacks an understanding on how to protect
themselves, especially in terms of the privacy policy. Barnes (2006) described these
conflicted demands in her work. Users aim to use Facebook comfortably, but also
hope to keep their privacy. Barnes named it "Privacy Paradox"; this might be an
important keyword to provide some solutions on privacy issues on Facebook.
3. Methodology
Facebook requires users to read and agree to its Terms and Data Policy during initial
registration. Acceptance to the agreement is indicated by checking a box with a link to
the privacy policy. In order to test our hypothesis at casting a light on the motivations
of privacy policy we designed three approaches to gathering information for our
research. First was collecting information and constructing a Facebook business
model that related to SNSs which would help enlighten us more about our point of
interest (Chapter 4.1). Second, gathering information based on Facebook terms and
rewrite in an easier manner for users to comprehend (Chapter 4.2). Third was
collecting the information first hand by conducting one-on-one personal surveys. The
survey questionnaire contained around 30 questions (Chapter 4.3). The survey was
pg. 4
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
divided into two sections: Set A and B. In set A, the survey included a question related
to demographics, frequency of usage and Attitudes of self. Then in set B, we
intentionally end for additional information of changes which were applied during
January 2015. We planned to survey 400 respondents in both sets. The respondent
were randomly picked not only in campus but also in public areas before we distributed
the questionnaires to a sample of 400 respondents, we conducted some pilot tests
first. The pilot tests were rechecked by the person being interviewed to check their
understanding of the questions; if they replied yes then we would permit them to
complete the questionnaire. Respondents received somewhat different questions
depending on whether they were current FB members, previous members, or
nonmembers. The survey is available on request from the authors. We planned to use
two types of analysis as by Descriptive statistic concept by analysis set A and set B
under two categories: Demographic information, Usage’s frequency and Attitudes of
self (Chapter 4.3.1), then additional question (Chapter 4.3.2)
4. Findings
The findings were analyzed in accordance with the research questions posited in the
previous chapter. The findings of the research will be divided into:
4.1 Business Facebook Model
As our research target. First, we have to understand that Facebook is a SNS. What is
Facebook, This is a rhetorical question and needs an answer. In Facebook case we
can summarize its business models as follows.
1) Facebook has two target groups. Users and Firms.
2) Facebook has a corporate vision provide a platform easy to connect.
3) To sustain the company, Facebook create database of users and permit firms to
make advertisement. First, we have to understand that Facebook is a SNS. What is
SNS? If you try once, you can understand easily.
pg. 5
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Figure 2: indicated nine majors idea of SNSs business model
4.2 Terms
The authors studied briefly Facebook rules and regulations. When discussing the
current situation of rules and legalities for the online world in southern Asia region
(Thailand), they can be divided into two categories: Privacy and Consumers rights.
Unfortunately, there is no rule to enforcement under the section to protect social media
users. If any problem appears, the complainant would have to use US laws. Therefore
the Facebook wall will protect your copyright and privacy rights. However, as indicated
in figure1: The structure of Facebook. We divided The Facebook Principles into 4
major parts which are “Community Standards (CS)” and its related terms, and
“Statement of Right and Responsibilities (SRR)” and its related terms. “Data Policy” is
one of them. Let us confirm its contents.
1) The Facebook Principles
This is a description of corporate vision and mission of Facebook Services. It
introduces ten basic ideas of Facebook. They are rare ideas in terms of human's
fundamental rights which may prevail beyond borders, "One world"(Article 10). Article
1 states "People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want...”
Article 3 and 6 mention that access to information should be reserved. Article 4
encourages that equality should have to be respected. Article 9 orders Facebook itself
that it should have transparency on its policy making.
2) Community Standards
These policies will help you understand what type of sharing is allowed on Facebook,
and what type of content may be reported to us and removed. Because of the diversity
pg. 6
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
of our global community, please keep in mind that something that may be disagreeable
or disturbing to you may not violate our Community Standards.
3) Statement of Right and Responsibilities
The Statement of Right and Responsibilities help users understand how the
advertising works, including the use of the user’s profile photo, not to stop it. The key
content is, “you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or
profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you.” It
adds a statement that if the user is a legal minor, merely using Facebook confirms that
the approval of a parent or guardian has been obtained. And it finishes with the
understanding that “we may not always identify paid services and communications as
such.”
4) Data Policy
The Data Use Policy describes which information is collected and shared, in which
way and for what purpose. These terms apply to all Facebook services, including its
website and Messenger app, but also to products directed at advertisers, such as
‘’Audience Insights’’.
Throughout our analysis, we can point out some characteristics of terms as follows.
1) There is no fixed style of descriptions. Some terms are conventional article format.
Some are expressed as if it is a kind of technical manual. Some are displayed like
a normal web page using a lot of images and hyperlinks.
2) Fragmentation often appears even in names of terms. “Term”, “guideline”, and
“policy” are mingled. Some terms have different names than true names.
3) Structure of terms are not clear. For example, which terms are most important?
Which terms are under which terms? There is no website to list all of terms.
4) There are quite a lot of similar documents, and it increase confusions. For example,
“Facebook Privacy Basics” is just an explanation or tutorial of “Data Policy”.
Amazingly, “Data Policy” has two editions. Most people find “Data Policy” as a web
format, but there is also “Data Policy Full version” as an article format.
5) Each contents are very convenient for Facebook. For example, SRR mentions that
security is duty of users, by using phrase “to help you make informed decision”
(SRR Ar.2). When Facebook revises its terms, continuing using Facebook would
be deemed as users has agreed all revises. Facebook also makes itself free from
any kind of compensation. Users can make a lawsuit against Facebook only in U.S
or Ireland SRR (Article 15).
As far as we researched, we have to assert that this structure of terms are too
difficult for common users, and it is not strange that users would give up
understandings. As we mentioned, they introduced “Privacy Basic” in major revise of
terms on January 30, however, it did not contribute for user’s understandings, just
increased information. Facebook should reconsider and improve its terms regarding
its importance.
pg. 7
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
4.3 Questionnaires
Our questionnaire divided into three categories Demographic information, Usage’s
frequency and Attitudes of self (Chapter 4.3.1), Additional question (Chapter 4.3.2)
and at the end of each sections will included evaluation.
4.3.1 Demographic information
Table 3: Frequency and percentage of sample’s Location.
Location
Campus
Public area
Total
Frequency
283
117
400
Percentage
70.8
29.3
100.0
N=400
Table 3: shows that the most respondents are in Campus for (70.8%; N =283) higher
than Public area (29.3%; N=117), the authors survey both campus areas and public
area identified as hospital and convenience mall.
Table 4: Frequency and percentage of sample’s Gender
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Frequency Percentage
216
54.0
184
46.0
400
100.0
N=400
Table 4: shows the majority of respondents are male (54.0%; N =216) and the
remainder female (46%; N=184).
Table 5: Frequency and percentage of sample’s Nationality.
Nationality
Thai
Other
Total
Frequency Percentage
279
69.8
121
30.3
400
100.0
N=400
Table 5: illustrate the nationality of respondents: Thai (69.8%; N =279), followed by
other (30.3%; N =121), which other means mostly German, Japanese followed by
Singaporeans and Korean.
pg. 8
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 6: Frequency and percentage of sample aging.
Age
>13
13-20
21-30
<31
Total
Frequency Percentage
64
16
284
71
44
11
8
2
400
100.0
N=400
Table 6: displays that main respondents are between the age of 13 and20 (71%; N
=284), followed by under 13 (16%; N =64), followed those between 21 and30 (11%; N
=44) and finally over 31 which is (2%; N =8), or in other words Facebook can be said
to be the tool and place for the future generation.
Table 7: Frequency and percentage of sample’s Education
Education
Bachelor
degree
Master
degree
PhD. degree
Total
Frequency Percentage
256
64.0
131
32.8
13
400
3.3
100.0
N=400
Table 7: indicates that the most respondents were Bachelor degree level at (64.0%; N
=256), followed by Master degree (32.8%; N =131) and the last are PhD. degree
(3.3%; N =13), respectively. The results correspond to the previous table (table 4),
most Bachelor degree recipients were between 13 and 20, therefor the result
emphasizes even stronger that Facebook is the tool of 20th century.
Table 8: Frequency and percentage of sample’s Facebook account
Facebook account
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
393
98.3
7
1.8
400
100.0
N=400
Table 8: shows that most respondents had a Facebook account (98.3%; N =393).
pg. 9
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 9: Facebook’ user access to Facebook (device)
access to Facebook Frequency Percentage
PC
61
15.7
Mobile
206
52.5
Both
126
32
Total
393
100.0
N=393
Table 9: shows that most respondents access Facebook via Mobile (52.5%; N =206),
followed by both (32%; N =126) and the last by PC only (15.7%; N =61). The table
above shows the results as we expected that is, the users tend to use Facebook on
mobile phone or both Mobile phone and PC rather than PC alone. Mobile phone users
have been exceeding PC internet usage around the world, as indicated on CNN:
Mobile app overtakes PC Internet usage in U.S. by O’Toole (2014). Which showed the
same result.
Table 10: Frequency and percentage of Facebook’ user access to Facebook
(frequency)
Frequency of
Frequency Percentage
access to Facebook
Monthly
26
6.5
Weekly
35
9
Daily
147
36.75
Several times a day
187
47.75
Total
393
100.0
N=393
Table 10: presents that the most users access the site several times a day at (47.75%;
N =187), followed by Daily (36.75%; N =147), then Weekly (9%; N =35) and finally
Monthly (6.5 %; N =26)
Table 11: Frequency and percentage of posting/Sharing on your Facebook
Posting/Sharing on
Frequency Percentage
Facebook
Monthly
153
39
Weekly
98
25
Daily
61
15.7
Several times a day
88
20.65
Total
393
100.0
N=393
Table 11: indicate that most Facebook users are posting/sharing not so often; Monthly
(39%; N =153), followed by Weekly (25%; N =98), then Daily (15.7%; N =61) and
pg. 10
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
finally, several times a day. (20.65%; N =88)The results are quite impressive and if we
compare Table 8 and Table 9 we would notice that user’s access several times a day
but not for posting or sharing something for public viewing, users are more likely to
comment or broadcast their information on Facebook Monthly.
Table 12: Frequency and percentage of reasons for using Facebook
Reason for using
Facebook
To spread user’s
point of interest
To share user’s
point of interest
Communication
among friends
Peer pressure
Other
Total
Frequency Percentage
16
4
59
15
208
53
71
39
393
18
10
100.0
N=393
Table 12: shows users primarily use Facebook for Communication among friends
(53%; N =208), followed by peer pressure (18%; N =71) and lastly to spread user’s
perspective (4%; N =16), At this point the data shows that most Facebook’s users
used Facebook for communication whereas we initially estimated that people would
use Facebook to spread their information public, but the experiment illustrated that
Facebook’s users might be motivated by three primary factors of need (ABRAHAM
MASLOW HIERARCHY OF NEEDS): 1.Self-esteem, 2.the need to belong, and
3.Safety. The result of this table also corresponded with table 9 whereby users are not
solely on Facebook to share or post.
Table 13: Frequency and percentage of Like increase
Like increase
disappointing
don’t mind
Total
Frequency Percentage
55
14
338
86
393
100.0
N=393
Table 13: shows that most respondents don’t mind (85.7%; N =338), followed by
disappointing (13.75%; N =55), the result clearly signifies that users have no
motivation on like.
pg. 11
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 14: Frequency and percentage of user habit under Friend request
approach.
Friend requests
Always accept
Mostly accept
Mostly reject
Total
Frequency Percentage
22
5.5
316
80.5
55
14
393
100.0
N=393
Table 14: shows that most users choose to accept (80.5%; N =316), followed by Mostly
reject (14%; N =55) and lastly Always accept (5.5%; N =22). This indicates that users
basically determine first before accepting any friend request as a significant result from
mostly accept and mostly reject.
Table 15: Frequency and percentage of Personal setting; article, photo, friend
list.
Personal setting
Only me
Close friend
Friend
Public
Total
Frequency Percentage
25
6.3
43
10.9
266
67.8
59
15.0
393
100.0
N=393
Table 15: displays that most Facebook users choose to share their interest with a
friend (67.8%; N =267), a fact supported but our result in Table11.
Table 16: Frequency and percentage of user’s know how to access policy and
terms
Access to policy
and terms
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
232
161
393
59
41
100
N=393
Table 16: shows that more than half of respondents know how to access the policy
and terms section (59%; N =232) 18% higher than those that do not know.
pg. 12
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 17: Frequency and percentage of Facebook’ user who read the terms
Read the term
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
132
33.5
261
66.5
393
100
N=393
Table 17: shows that many Facebook users are not willing to read the terms (66.5%;
N =262) which is 33% more than those that do read the terms. According to Table 15
and Table 16, if we cross comparison by using statistic testing in Statistical Package
for the Social Science, we find that out of a total of 393 there are only 78 users who
read the access term or about 20%.
Table 18: Frequency and percentage of users opinion; Does Facebook provide
enough to protect privacy?
Enough privacy
protection
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
165
228
393
42
58
100
N=393
Table 18: illustrates most users thought Facebook did not provide enough protect to
them (58.4%; N =230) higher than those who think Facebook provided enough user
protection (41.6%; N =164). Furthermore, the authors compared Table16 and
Table17, and found that out of 132 users who read the term carefully only 56 of them
thought Facebook provided enough protection.
Table 19: Frequency and percentage of user’s opinion; Does Facebook provide
suitable advertisement for users?
suitable
advertisement
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
193
200
393
49
51
100
N=393
Table 19: indicates that most users thought Facebook provided unsuitable advertising
(51%; N =200) followed by suitable advertising (49%; N =193), or in other words
Facebook’s advertisements are not matched with their life style. However Facebook
is one of the leading advertisement companies in the world therefore the users might
misinterpret Facebook and its user functions and expect more information from
Facebook.
pg. 13
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 20: Frequency and percentage of user’s opinion; Do users know about
Facebook collecting personal information?
knowing about
collect personal
information
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
189
204
393
48
52
100
N=393
Table 20: supports the author’s critiques from table 16 in terms that Facebook users
don’t really understand about Facebook functions, most respondents did not know
about Facebook collecting personal information (52%; N =204).
Table 21: Frequency and percentage of user’s opinion; Do users question what
Facebook does with their information?
deal with
information
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
200
193
393
51
49
100.0
N=393
Table 21: Fifty percent of users questioned what Facebook did with their valuable
information.
Table 22: Frequency and percentage of user’s opinion; Does the user think
that content might by government monitoring.
monitoring by the
government
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
220
173
393
56
44
100
N=393
Table 22: shows that most respondents thought that any article might by surveyed by
the government (55.8%; N =220), but in fact this has never been confirmed. Suffice to
say that users should be extremely careful.
pg. 14
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 23: Frequency and percentage of user’s opinion; Do users think that
using Facebook can cause any harmful effect on computer
cause harmful
effect on computer
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
294
97
393
75
25
100.0
N=393
Table 23: shows that most respondents thought that using Facebook could have a
detrimental effect on their computer (75.4%; N =294), For Example: a virus or spam
ware.
Table 24: Frequency and percentage of money spent on Facebook
spend a money on
Facebook
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
22
371
393
5.6
94.4
100.0
N=393
Table 24: shows that most respondents never spend money on Facebook (94.4%; N
=371), the result clearly demonstrates that users have no motivation to spend money
to Facebook.
Evaluation
Throughout the observation we found some common tendency of users and problem
of terms. Facebook users decide to join Facebook based on his / her intention, not just
following some others. Their main purpose is to communicate with their existing friend.
Moreover, they don’t mind about their read. They understand their technical risk well
(Table 23) and basic skill to manage friends (Table 14 and 15). However, risk on their
personal information is less recognized (Table 19 and 20). More than 60% of users
don’t read (Table 17) terms in spite of 59% know where terms are despite lack of
understanding of terms, they still desire Facebook to keep themselves safe, users are
frustrated (Table 18) on Facebook operation (Table 21) users are afraid of commission
of government (Table 22).
pg. 15
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
4.3.2 Additional questions
Table 25: Frequency and percentage of user notification of Facebook updating
a new policy on January 2015
Facebook updated
a new policy on
January 2015
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
110
290
400
27.5
72.5
100.0
N=400
Table 25: shows that more than half the respondents were not aware that Facebook
updated a new policy on January 2015 (72.5%; N =290), It might be suggested that
Facebook make a better effort.
Table 26: Frequency and percentage: If yes, where did user receive such
information?
way to receive such
Frequency
an information
Facebook itself
29
Word of mouth
32
Branch site of
22
Facebook
Media
27
Total
110
Percentage
26.5
28.3
20.3
25.0
100.0
N=110
Table 26 is a linked question from Table 24, it illustrates that most respondents
received information by word of mouth (28.3%; N =32), not from Facebook itself or
affiliated website. Facts supported by the results in table 24.
Table 27: Frequency and percentage: if yes, what kind of changes were made
from previous policies to new policies?
Change from
previous to new
policies
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
36
74
110
32.8
67.3
100.0
N=110
pg. 16
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 27 is a linked question from Table 24, and shows that most respondents do not
know what policy changes were made (67.3%; N =74), this might be acceptable as it
might take some time before users fully comprehend user terms and new functions.
Table 28: Frequency and percentage of opinions for new policy terms could
provide a better standard of help to user’s people better than previously.
Help to people
better than previous Frequency Percentage
one
Yes
54
49
No
56
51
Total
110
100
N=400
Table 28: shows that the most users disagreed about this (51.3%; N =205), in user
opinions the new update was not better than the old version.
Table 29: Frequency and percentage of users who accept the new term
Accept the new
term
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
278
122
400
69.5
30.5
100.0
N=400
Table 29: indicates that most users accept the new terms (69.5%; N =278). It could be
said that users have to agree to the new terms if they want continued involvement with
an app
Table 30: Frequency and percentage if yes: do users read the new terms?
Read before accept
Frequency Percentage
the new terms
Yes
34
30.5
No
76
69.5
Total
110
100.0
N=110
Table 30: shows that most users do not read before accepting the new terms (69.5%;
N =76.45), and if we cross analyze between Table 28 and Table 29 by statistic
software only 8 users from a total of 400read the new terms.
pg. 17
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 31: Frequency and percentage of satisfaction with Facebook new terms
and policies
Satisfied with
Facebook new term Frequency Percentage
and policies
Yes
54
49
No
56
51
Total
110
100
N=110
Table 31: illustrates the number of users not satisfied with new terms (51%; N =56),
which is marginally higher than those who were satisfied.
Table 32: Frequency and percentage of users opinions; does the user think the
new term policy could save privacy information more than previous terms
Save privacy
information more
Frequency Percentage
than previous terms
Yes
60
54.5
No
50
45.5
Total
110
100.0
N=400
Table 32: shows that most respondents agree with the new term policy whereby it
could save privacy information more than previous terms.
Table 33: Frequency and percentage of users opinions; does the user of know
that Facebook cooperates with other applications? For example: Retrieving
forgotten Facebook password.
Co-operate with
other application
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
269
131
400
67.3
32.8
100.0
N=400
Table 33: indicates that most respondents were aware that Facebook cooperates with
other applications. (67.3%; N =269)
pg. 18
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Table 34: Frequency and percentage of users opinions; do users think
Facebook violates personal rights that decisions automatically apply to all
devices that use Facebook access?
Violate personal
right
Yes
No
Total
Frequency Percentage
259
141
400
64.8
35.3
100.0
N=400
Table 34: shows the number of respondents who thought that Facebook violated
personal rights by automatically applying to all devices used to access Facebook
(64.8%; N =259). For example when we update software on CP it also means the
mobile phone is updated automatically.
Table 35: Frequency and percentage of users aware of the violation while
using Facebook.
Aware of the
violation while using Frequency Percentage
Facebook
Yes
254
63.5
No
146
36.5
Total
400
100.0
N=400
Table 35: shows the number of respondents aware of the violation of using social
network but still intentionally ignoring it and continuing to use Facebook (63.5%; N
=254).
Evaluation
Facebook’s campaign to spread a policy revise on January 2015, didn’t work well
(Table 26). We feel desolated on user’s poor understanding. More than 70% users
don’t know the revise (Table 25).Focus only on people who knows the revise, more
than 60% don’t know what has been changed, and nearly 70% didn’t read new terms
(Table 30) previously (Table 29). We have to recommend Facebook to review its
management style, at least issues of terms. Terms should be able to read, have more
simple structure and announced more effectively.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, the authors have reviewed earlier research on privacy issues related to
Facebook and presented the results of our empirical study among Facebook users.
There is no doubt that Facebook is the best successor on SNS market, and it is
pg. 19
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
expected to sustain. However, many users are left behind its technology. Terms are
not arranged well and its structure is difficult, and we have to assert that it is beyond
user’s capability to understand correctly .Since Facebook is extending its services, we
can understand that Facebook has to user’s encourage security mind. However, terms
are not understood well, and we found miserable result on the latest amendment of
terms. Looking for the future usage of Facebook .We are afraid that this might be an
origin of endless cycle. The more service evolved, the more term difficult. It makes
users less concerned of terms. Under such circumstances, once Facebook start
arbitrary operation, there are no way to protect users. We should recognize this
possibility and we should continue to illuminate both Facebook and users.
We have viewed the privacy behavior from Questionnaire results. The aspects were
analyzed and used in an attempt to comprehend behavior and any signs of violation,
especially privacy awareness, which coerces users to disclose valuable information
on Facebook.
Our results illustrate, that most respondents, who seem to be active users of
Facebook, access Facebook typically by mobile phone several time a day but would
not post their personal perspective so often. They use Facebook because they want
to increase communication amongst s and "Like" doesn’t have any effect on their
feelings.
Facebook's users disclose a considerable amount of private information about
themselves, and contrary to their own belief, are not fully aware of the visibility of their
information to people they do not necessarily know. Furthermore, the privacy policy
and terms of use of Facebook were largely not known or understood by our
respondents. This was particularly true as regards to Facebook’s policy of allowing
third party application. Also, not many responders know how to access user privacy
and terms. Moreover, users tend to intentionally ignore the rules and regulations
basically because the structures are too complex and varied. However, according to
our survey, users feel that Facebook is still misleading on the provision of advertising
and their personal information might be monitored by government and Facebook. This
could create a detrimental effect on computers. Also it was shown that not many users
spend money on Facebook. Furthermore, we had sufficient opportunity to compare
new and previous terms. We discovered that not many users were aware of the
evolution of terms and did not expect any benefit and still believed Facebook violated
their personal rights no matter how important Facebook was to them.
Users are not particularly aware of the visibility of their information to people they do
not necessarily know. Overall, the privacy policy and terms of Facebook usage were
largely unknown or not understood by our respondents.
References
Acquisti, A. and Gross, R. (2006). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information
Sharing, and Privacy on the Facebook. [Online] Available
from:http://dataprivacylab.org/dataprivacy/projects/facebook/facebook2.pdf/
[Accessed: 28th April 2015].
pg. 20
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Barnes, B S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States.First
Monday, Vol.11, No. 9, 4 September (2007). [Online] Available from:
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394 [Accessed: 28th April 2015].
Boyd, M.D. and Ellison, B.N. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 13, Issue 1,
pp.210–230, October 2007. [Online] Wiley Online Library Available from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/full [Accessed:
28th April 2015].
Debatin, B., LOVEJOY, P.J., Horn, K.A. and Hughes, N.B. (2009). Facebook and
Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication: Harvard University Vol. 15 (2009), pp. 83–108.
[Online] Available from: http://dblp1.uni-trier.de/db/journals/jcmc/jcmc14.html
[Accessed: 28th April 2015].
Dey, R., Jelveh, Z. and Ross, K. (2012). Facebook Users Have Become Much More
Private: A Large-Scale Study: Forth International Workshop on SECurity and SOCial
Networking,Lugano(19 March 2012),pp.346-352. [Online] Available from:
http://cis.poly.edu/~ratan/facebookusertrends.pdf [Accessed: 28th April 2015].
FACEBOOK, INC. (2013). Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act.
United States Securities and Exchange Commision, Washington, D.C. 20549.
Jones, H. and Soltren, H.J. (2005). Facebook: Threats to Privacy. December 14,
2005. Privacy and Technology. [Online] Available from:
http://www.brooklyn.edu/pub/departments/bcurj/pdf/nehmad.pdf [Accessed: 28th
April 2015].
Pabu, P. and Deeudom, M. (2013) การวิเคราะห์พฤติกรรมการสือ่ สารในเฟซบุ๊ค (Facebook)
ของนักศึกษาคณะวิทยาศาสตร์ประยุกต์ An analysis of the Behavior of Communication in Facebook
of the Student’s at Faculty of Applied Science. The Journal of Applied Science, Vol.
12, No. 2, pp.68-82, 2013: [Online] Available from:
http://www.journal.sci.kmutnb.ac.th/doc/7_2_2556.pdf
Toole, O.J. (2014). Mobile apps overtake PC Internet usage in U.S., CNNMoney
(New York) February 28, 2014: 11:00 AM [Online] Available from:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/28/technology/mobile/mobile-apps-internet/
Tuunainen,K.V. , Pitkanen, O. and Hovi, M. (2009). Users’ Awareness of Privacy
on Online Social Networking sites – Case Facebook. June 14 - 17, 2009; Bled
Slovenia 2009 Proceedings. [Online] Available
from:http://aisel.aisnet.org/bled2009/42/ [Accessed: 28th April 2015].
WILSON, E.R, GOSLING, D.S., and GRAHAM, T.L. (2012). A Review of Facebook
Research in the Social Sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science Vol. 7,No.
pg. 21
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
3, pp. 203– 220. [Online] www.sciencedirect.com. Available from: http://dblp1.unitrier.de/db/journals/jcmc/jcmc14.html [Accessed: 28th April 2015].
Appendix
Set A questions
Location
o
o
Nationality
o
o
Age
o
o
o
o
o
Gender
o Male
o Female
o
Campus
Public area
Thai
Other nationality
Education
Under13
13-20
21-30
31-40
Over 41
Do you have a Facebook account?
o Yes
o No
o Bachelor Degree
o Master Degree
o PhD. Degree
How do you access Facebook?
o PC
o Mobile
o Both
How often do you access to Facebook?
o Monthly
o Weekly
o Daily
o Twice a day
o Several times a day
How often do you post/share on
Facebook?
o Monthly
o Weekly
o Daily
o Twice a day
o Several times a day
What are the reasons for using How do you feel when ‘Like’ increases?
Facebook?
o Very disappointed
o Spread my point of interest
o Disappointed
o To share my point of
o Don’t mind
interest
o No preference
o To
increase
communication amongst
friends
o Peer pressure
What is your ‘friend request’ setting?
What is your personal setting?
o Always except
o Only me
o Mostly except
o Close friend
o Depend on circumstances
o Friend
o Mostly reject
o Public
pg. 22
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
o Not willing to except any
friend request
Do you know how to access to policy and
terms?
o Yes
o No
Did you think Facebook provides enough
privacy protection?
o Yes
o No
Do you know Facebook collects your
personal information?
o Yes
o No
Do you think your entries might by
monitored by the government
o Yes
o No
- Have you spent any money on
Facebook
o Yes
o No
Did you read the terms?
o Yes
o No
Do you think Facebook provides suitable
advertisements for you?
o Yes
o No
Have you considered what they did with
your information?
o Yes
o No
Do you think that using Facebook can
cause a harmful effect on your computer
o Yes
o No
Set B questions
Do you know Facebook updated a new If yes, do you know what changed from
policy in January 2015?
previous to new policies?
o Yes
o Yes
o No
o No
If yes, what kind of changes do you
expect from news policy?
o More security
o Better performance of the
package
o Easier to use
o Easier to understand
Do you think that the new policy terms
could provide better help to users than
previously?
o Yes
o No
Will you read the new terms before
accepting?
o Yes
o No
If yes, which way did your receive such
an information?
o Facebook itself
o Word of mouth
o Subsidiary
site
of
Facebook
o Media
Will you accept the new terms?
o Yes
o No
Are you satisfied with Facebook’s new
terms and policies?
o Yes
o No
pg. 23
Proceeding of Global Business and Social Science Research Conference
11-13 May 2015, Grand Mirage Hotel, Bali, Indonesia
ISBN: 978-1-922069-75-7
Do you think the new terms policy could Do you know that Facebook cooperates
save privacy information more than with another application, in case you
previously?
forgot password so that Facebook can
o Yes
recover your password?
o No
o Yes
o No
Your decision will automatically apply to If yes, after you are aware of this
all devices which you use to access violation, will you still use Facebook?
Facebook. Do you think this violates your
o Yes
personal rights?
o No
o Yes
o No
pg. 24