UPI Study › Courses › Ethics in Technology › Free lessons › Lesson 4.3 Free with a free account
The Unique Risks That Come with Sharing Information on Social Media Platforms
Ethics in Technology · Chapter 4: Manipulation, Surveillance, and the Laws That Govern Digital EavesdroppingSection 4.3 · lesson 15 of 11614 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Ethics in Technology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Ethics in Technology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: The Legal Framework Governing Electronic Eavesdropping, Interception, and Surveillance →← How Attackers Manipulate Human Psychology Instead of Breaking Through Technical DefensesNext lesson: The Legal Framework Governing Electronic Eavesdropping, Interception, and Surveillance →
In this lesson
Consider the audience, the location, and the combined picture.
- Explain 4 features of online sharing
- Recognize oversharing and location clues
- Explain aggregation and digital permanence
- Review privacy controls and your own presence
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,867 words). Read along, or search it.
Chapter 4
Sharing on Social Media
Social media changes how information travels, even when the story itself seems ordinary. A post can remain searchable, long after the conversation that inspired it has ended. It can also reach people you did not picture, when choosing what to share. This lesson explains four features, that make online sharing different from a spoken exchange. We examine oversharing, including identifiers, documents, travel plans, work details, and children's information. We also examine location clues, beyond an explicit address or a deliberate check-in. Separate posts can combine, producing a more detailed picture than any individual contribution. That process is aggregation, and it matters when reviewing your own public presence. Deleting the original post cannot guarantee, that every copy disappears from other places. Privacy controls help, especially when combined with deliberate content choices and periodic review. The aim is useful participation, with a clearer understanding of the information being exposed.
The Medium Matters
A Post Can Travel Beyond Its Intended Audience
Researcher danah boyd described four features, that help explain information sharing on social media. Persistence means posts are recorded and stored, so an old remark can later resurface. Replicability means content can be copied exactly, through screenshots, downloads, or resharing. Removing your original contribution does not automatically remove, the copies other people already hold. Scalability means a post can spread, far beyond the audience imagined at publication. A joke intended for friends may reach strangers, acquaintances, or people connected to work. Searchability means content can be located, through a platform search or an external search engine. The invisible audience includes people who can see a post, but were not in your mind. It may include future employers, distant acquaintances, or people collecting information for harmful purposes. Actual access depends on settings and sharing, rather than every post automatically being public. The central question is whether your content suits, the audience that could actually encounter it.
Oversharing: Identifiers
Small Details Can Expose Identity or Account Information
Oversharing means revealing more personal information, than is wise for the available audience. It often develops through small, ordinary details, rather than one dramatically revealing post. A birthday greeting with an exact age can reveal information, used in some identity checks. Hiding your birth year reduces that detail, without preventing friends from celebrating with you. A house photograph can disclose numbers, street signs, or other identifying details in its background. Check the whole frame before posting, rather than focusing only on its main subject. Boarding passes, tickets, and identification cards may contain barcodes, booking numbers, or personal records. Keep the document and its codes out of public images, instead of assuming tiny print is harmless. Quizzes about a first pet or family name can reveal, answers used by some recovery systems. Skipping those prompts avoids connecting an account-recovery clue, to an easily searched public profile. Consider both the immediate detail, and what it adds to information you have already shared.
Oversharing: People and Routines
A Post Can Affect Your Household and Other People
Live vacation photographs and return dates can reveal, an apparent period when a home is empty. Sharing the photographs after returning preserves the memory, while reducing that immediate absence clue. Work posts can reveal an employer, a role, or access to sensitive organizational systems. Keep those details general, and follow the applicable workplace social media policy. A child's photograph may disclose a full name, school uniform, location, or daily routine. Those disclosures affect another person, who may not be able to meaningfully consent. Avoid identifying schools and schedules, when sharing material about children with a broad audience. Oversharing also has social consequences, beyond the possibility of identity or account misuse. An angry workplace comment or insensitive joke can damage relationships, and affect future opportunities. Employers or admissions staff may encounter visible material, without being part of your intended audience. Review how the post affects other people, as well as how it represents you.
Location Clues
Coordinates Are Only One Way to Reveal a Place
Geotagging attaches location information to content, but an explicit tag is only one route. Check-ins identify places you visit, and may disclose where you are at that moment. Photo metadata, called EXIF data, can include coordinates and the time of capture. Some large platforms strip that information, while directly shared files or other services may retain it. Review camera location permissions, and examine location information before sending the original file. The visible image can reveal a street, school logo, shop front, or distinctive window view. Removing metadata does not remove those visual clues, because they are part of the picture. Live location features can reveal movement, through mapping, messaging, or social applications. Use intended trusted contacts and a limited duration, then review whether sharing has stopped. Repeated posts can reveal routines, even without an exact coordinate in each contribution. Consider what a timeline communicates about repeated visits, rather than checking each post in isolation.
Historical Case: 2018
Combined Fitness Data Revealed Sensitive Patterns
The Strava example illustrates location exposure, through many records combined into one visible pattern. Public attention in January two thousand eighteen highlighted, sensitive military locations within a global fitness heatmap. The records came from ordinary runs and rides, collected through users' fitness activity. Aggregation made some locations and routes apparent, even without a deliberate public address announcement. The case drew official scrutiny, including concern about wearable devices revealing too much information. Its lesson concerns data collection and sharing, rather than only the wording of an individual post. Avoiding check-ins does not stop a fitness application, from recording a route when authorized to do so. Review activity visibility, and the controls governing separate maps or aggregated sharing features. Private activities and hidden start or end areas can reduce, specific forms of location exposure. The available controls differ, and they should not be treated as a universal anonymity guarantee. Protecting location therefore includes checking settings, collection practices, and what repeated records reveal together.
Aggregation
Riya’s Ordinary Posts Reveal More Together
Open-source intelligence means collecting and analyzing publicly available information, often abbreviated as OSINT. Journalists, researchers, and security professionals use it legitimately, while harmful actors can misuse public details. Aggregation combines scattered contributions, into a picture more revealing than each piece alone. The source illustrates that risk through Riya, a fictional person with a public profile. A birthday greeting naming her age and date suggests birthday details, depending on the posting year. A first-dog caption identifies Biscuit, which could match a recovery-question answer on some services. A reunion tag connects her to Lakeview High, supplying another possible personal-history clue. A payroll announcement identifies Arden Company and her role, making a payment-themed message more plausible. A live vacation post describes a two-week absence, and suggests the house is unattended. These clues do not guarantee account access, or prove that every inferred detail is accurate. The defensive lesson is to review your combined exposure, rather than assuming ordinary posts are isolated.
Digital Permanence
Deleting a Post Does Not Recall Every Copy
Digital permanence describes the tendency of online information, to survive after its original publication disappears. Other people may already have taken screenshots, downloaded content, or photographed their screens. Reshares, quotations, and replies can retain information, after the original post is removed. Web archives or search caches may preserve, earlier versions of a public page. Platforms can also retain records for a period, according to their data policies. Scrapers or data brokers may have copied public material, into a separate database. A temporary story limits its normal display time, without guaranteeing that viewers cannot preserve it. Disappearing messages should likewise not be assumed, to prevent every form of copying. The European Union's data protection regulation provides deletion rights, in specified circumstances and with exceptions. Such rights vary across legal systems, and cannot guarantee recall of every independently held copy. Deletion can still be useful, but prevention reduces exposure before additional copies are created.
Privacy Review: Audience
Choose Who Can See and Find Your Content
Privacy settings allow choices about audience, visibility, discovery, and interaction with your account. Start with profile visibility, including contact details, birth year, photographs, and the visible friends list. The default post audience matters, because it determines the starting choice for each new contribution. Select an intended audience, and still check the setting when publishing unusually sensitive material. Past posts deserve attention, since older public content may remain visible despite a newer default. Use available audience-limiting tools, or review those older contributions individually on the service. Tagging and mention controls can let you review, how another person's post connects to your profile. Searchability controls may govern search-engine indexing, or account lookup by phone number and email. The exact options differ, so use the service's actual controls rather than assume identical menus. A restricted audience reduces direct visibility, but a recipient may still copy or reshare content. Audience selection therefore supports a sharing decision, without replacing careful judgment about the content itself.
Privacy Review: Access
Check Data Collection, Connections, and Login Protection
Location controls include app permissions, recorded history, and any feature that shares your position. Review what is needed, and limit permission or sharing when the function is unnecessary. Connected applications and games may retain account access, after you have stopped using them. Remove connections you no longer need, using the account's available application controls. Multi-factor authentication and login alerts strengthen account protection, alongside privacy choices about publication. The audience selector alone does not describe, every way the platform processes your data. Processing depends on the service and feature, so avoid assuming all functions behave identically. Information can also appear through another person's photograph, tag, or mention of a location. A private account does not control, every contribution made from someone else's account. Platforms may change settings or policies, which makes periodic review useful rather than a one-time task. Combine available controls with careful sharing choices, and discuss sensitive photographs or tags with the people involved.
A Personal Audit
Review Your Own Presence Once or Twice a Year
A personal audit reviews your own presence, rather than gathering information about someone else. The source recommends doing this once or twice a year, with attention to five areas. First, search your own name, and consider what a stranger could discover. Second, use a public-profile preview, where the platform provides that viewing option. Third, review old posts for addresses, routines, recovery clues, or statements you no longer support. Removing or limiting your own posts can reduce visibility, despite the possible existence of earlier copies. Fourth, check location permissions and connected applications, across the accounts and devices you use. Fifth, review followers and friends, whose access no longer matches your intentions. The front-page test asks whether you would accept, wider publication beside your name. Imagine family, teachers, or a future employer seeing it, ten years from now. If that feels inappropriate, revise the content, reconsider the audience, or decide against posting.
Apply the Lesson
Friends Only Still Requires a Sharing Decision
Consider a friend who says a friends-only account, makes any kind of post safe. One reason to disagree is that recipients can screenshot, download, or reshare what they see. A second reason is that other posts and tags, can reveal details beyond that account's controls. Repeated location records and older copies can also add, information missing from one present-day post. Privacy settings remain valuable, because reducing direct exposure is still a meaningful improvement. The remaining task is deciding what the content reveals, and whether sharing it is appropriate. Check the intended audience, while considering the invisible audience that copying or later changes could create. Look for identifiers, document codes, children's details, workplace information, and clues about absence or routines. Review the combined picture, especially when several harmless-looking posts describe the same person. Persistence, replicability, scalability, and searchability explain, why an online contribution can outlast its original context. Use deliberate sharing, location review, and periodic audits, to reduce that exposure while participating online.
About Ethics in Technology at UPI Study
Ethics in Technology (Computer Science 195) is a self-paced online course of 116 video lessons in 15 chapters, from cybersecurity basics, privacy and surveillance to big data, hacking, malware, network defense, intellectual property, cybercrime, encryption, emerging technology and digital citizenship. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Computer Science courses
Compare: Cybersecurity vs Ethics in Technology · Which ethics course?
Why take it here
Why students take Ethics in Technology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Ethics in Technology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Unique Risks That Come with Sharing Information on Social Media Platforms
What features of social media make sharing information risky?
What counts as oversharing on social media?
Can photos posted online reveal your location?
Does deleting a social media post remove it permanently?
About the Ethics in Technology course
How many college credits is Ethics in Technology?
How much does Ethics in Technology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Ethics in Technology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Ethics in Technology.
116 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →