Dede Ibiere Peter1 & Ben-Collin Emeka Ndinojuo2
University of Port Harcourt. Port-Harcourt, Nigeria
Received: 29 February 2024 | Revised: 18 May 2024 | Accepted: 30 May 2024
Abstract
This study investigated the level of awareness of personal data protection among Facebook** and Instagram** users. The research evaluated the number of Facebook and Instagram users who have taken precautions to secure their personal data, why they did so, and the identification of regulatory authorities responsible for data protection in Nigeria. The Privacy Calculus Theory was used as the theoretical framework. The survey research design was used for this study, with the web-based questionnaire as the instrument for data collection. A sample size of 396 was drawn fr om the student population at the University of Port Harcourt. The data were analyzed in tables using frequency and percentage. The results indicated that users are strongly aware of the significance of safeguarding personal data on Facebook and Instagram. The users acknowledged implementing precautionary steps to safeguard their personal data. However, they still need to determine the specific agencies and regulatory entities accountable for ensuring the safety of personal data. In order to tackle this problem, the study recommended that the University management and student bodies should organize specific educational workshops to promote understanding of the pertinence of safeguarding personal data on social media platforms (Solove, 2021), create easily accessible materials and guidelines on the University of Port Harcourt portal designed for social media users, outlining the best methods for protecting personal data, including personal data protection awareness in its orientation programs and student events and also set up a system for reporting potential data breaches and offer assistance to affected users.
** – A social network owned by “Meta”, which is recognized as extremist in Russia
Keywords
Privacy Awareness; Social Media; Facebook; Instagram; Data Security; Privacy Settings; Privacy Education
1Email: pdede[at]mmcasafo.com
2Email: ben.ndinojuo[at]uniport.edu.ng ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4163-7756
Питер Деде Ибиер1, Ндиноджуо Бен-Коллин Эмека2
Университет Порт-Харкорта. Порт-Харкорт, Нигерия
Рукопись получена: 29 февраля 2024 | Пересмотрена: 18 мая 2024 | Принята: 30 мая 2024Аннотация
В этом исследовании изучался уровень осведомленности относительно защиты персональных данных среди пользователей Facebook** и Instagram**. Исследование оценивало количество пользователей Facebook и Instagram, которые приняли меры предосторожности для защиты своих персональных данных, причины принятия этих мер, а также регулирующие органы, ответственные за защиту данных в Нигерии. В качестве теоретической основы была принята теория Privacy Calculus Theory. В работе был использован дизайн опросного исследования с веб-анкетой в качестве инструмента для сбора данных. Выборка в 396 человек была взята из студенческого контингента Университета Порт-Харкорта. Данные были проанализированы и отражены в таблицах с указанием частоты и процента. Результаты показали, что пользователи хорошо осведомлены о важности защиты персональных данных на Facebook и Instagram. Однако им еще предстоит определиться с конкретными агентствами и регулирующими организациями, ответственными за обеспечение безопасности персональных данных. Для решения этой проблемы в статье рекомендуется, чтобы руководство университета и студенческие организации организовали специальные образовательные семинары для повышения понимания важности защиты персональных данных на платформах социальных сетей (Solove, 2021), создали легкодоступные материалы и руководства на портале Университета Порт-Харкорта, предназначенные для пользователей социальных сетей, в которых излагались бы лучшие методы защиты персональных данных, включая повышение осведомленности о защите персональных данных в программах ориентации и студенческих мероприятиях, а также создали бы систему сообщения о потенциальных утечках данных и предлагали помощь пострадавшим пользователям.
** – Социальная сеть, принадлежащая компании “Meta”, которая признана экстремистской на территории Российской Федерации
Ключевые слова
осведомленность о конфиденциальности; социальные сети; Facebook; Instagram; безопасность данных; настройки конфиденциальности; просвещение в области конфиденциальности
1Email: pdede[at]mmcasafo.com
2Email: ben.ndinojuo[at]uniport.edu.ng ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4163-7756
The invasion of personal data on social networking sites has skyrocketed due to the undying quest by ICT companies to possess users’ data (Barrett-Maitland & Lynch, 2020; Venugeetha et al., 2022). In the tech world, data is the key to every lock; it is a core determinant of what happens in the future of technology. Itisanasset determining which ICT companies stay or get eliminated in the game. Data is the enabler for everything; you might call it the new currency, you might call it the new gold, you might call it the new oil. It is a fundamental part of the future, abasic part of the auto industry, and all the industries that are surrounding and integrating with it (Bhageshpur, 2019; Eludu et al., 2016; Shubladze, 2023). Data protection is highly regarded in Nigeria; Lambo et al. (2023) reviewed the principal data protection legislation and the relevant data protection sections in the Nigerian Constitution:
The principal data protection legislation in Nigeria is the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (“NDPA”) which was signed into law by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on 14 June 2023. The following laws and regulations impact data protection in Nigeria: TheConstitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The Nigeria Data Protection Regulation 2019 (“NDPR”). The NDPR Implementation Framework 2020, issued by the National Information Technology Development Agency (“NDPR Implementation Framework”). The Child Rights Act 2003. The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015. The Freedom of Information Act, 2011. The National Health Act, 2014. The HIV and AIDS (Anti-Discrimination) Act, 2014. The following sector-specific laws, regulations and guidelines have an impact on data protection in Nigeria: The Consumer Code of Practice Regulations 2007 (“NCC Regulations, 2007”) published by the Nigerian Communications Commission (“NCC”). The Registration of Telephone Subscribers Regulations 2011, published by the NCC. The Consumer Protection Regulations 2020, issued by the Central Bank of Nigeria (“CBN”), Nigeria’s apex bank. The Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019 which was issued by the NCC. The Guidelines for the Management of Personal Data by Public Institutions in Nigeria 2020, issued by the NITDA. The Official Secrets Act 1962. TheCBN Guidelines on Point of Sale Card Acceptance Services 2011. The CBN Regulatory Framework for Bank Verification Number Operations and Watch-List for TheNigerian Banking Industry 2017. The NITDA Guidelines for Nigerian Content Development in Information and Communication Technology 2019 (as amended). TheCredit Reporting Act 2017 (para. 1 – 2).
Social media has sparked extensive discussions about protecting user privacy because these platforms store personal information online. On Facebook1, user-generated content plays a significant role as individuals freely express their thoughts, share personal photos, disclose their whereabouts, and provide details about their age and gender (Ihejirika et al., 2015; Keskin et al., 2023; Nwagwu & Akintoye, 2023). Unfortunately, many users are unaware of the potential risks of sharing personal data. They often trust Facebook as a secure platform, but this is only sometimes the reality (Barth et al., 2019; Das, 2022). One alarming concern is thepossibility of hackers creating fake accounts or duplicating existing useraccounts to gain access to personal information (Nyoni & Velempini, 2018).According to Kemp (2023), in January 2023, “the online presence of Nigeriansonthetwo meta-platforms Facebook and Instagram2 massively increased to28.85million, Facebook having 21.75 million and Instagram 7.10 million respectively”.
As much as these Ads follow us everywhere, they do not. It is the website that hosts HTTP Cookies to track Users’ browser history in order to target users. TheAds jumble up on our screens between scrolls on web pages we visit. As much as it has revolutionized how we communicate and share information, social media has also introduced numerous risks to our privacy and personal safety (Barrett-Maitland & Lynch, 2020; Ndinojuo & Ihejirika, 2015). In 2018, there were reports of data breaches affecting well-known brands like Facebook, Panera Bread, and Sacramento Bee, putting millions of personal records at risk of being misused by criminals. This suggests a profitable market for data, and hackers often sell stolen data toprofessional scammers. These statistics and incidents have led to widespread concerns about improving security systems for the personal data we provide. Itisimportant to note that data protection laws cannot fully guarantee complete protection against malicious attacks, so users are encouraged to understand thebasics of data privacy and take personal responsibility for their data security. Google, Uber, and Facebook have all experienced breaches that exposed users’ private data over the years. In each case, these trusted companies failed to disclose the breaches promptly, preventing customers fr om taking necessary steps toprotect themselves. Failing to report these violations emphasizes the importance of users taking personal data security seriously (Hill & Swinhoe, 2022; Obi, 2020; Siegel, 2018). This research aims to address Users’ awareness of the risks associated with personal data on Facebook and Instagram, as well as provide solutions to foster the safeguarding of personal data to control cyber-attacks. It aims to assess thelevel of awareness among users regarding how their personal data is collected, stored, and used on these platforms and to identify key areas wh ere improvements or educational efforts may be needed. The study examines how users are aware of personal data protection on Facebook and Instagram. The specific objectives include:
To evaluate the level of awareness of personal data protection among Facebook and Instagram Users.
To know how many users have taken precautionary measures to protect their personal data on Facebook and Instagram.
To find out the reason for the precautionary measures taken by Users toprotect personal data.
To identify the agencies and regulatory bodies responsible for personal data protection.
Based on the research objectives, the following research questions were proposed:
What is the personal data protection awareness level among Facebook and Instagram Users?
How many users have taken precautionary measures to protect their personal data on Facebook and Instagram?
What are the reasons for the precautionary measures taken by users toprotect personal data?
What are the agencies and regulatory bodies responsible for personal data protection?
The Privacy Calculus Theory, formerly Behavior Calculus, was propounded byLaufer and Wolfe (1977). It postulates that individuals assess perceived privacy hazards and advantages before divulging personal data. They associated theconcept of privacy with how individuals view specific events in their daily lives. Where the individuals perceive utility, they are willing to give up some of their privacy, while in contrast, if an individual perceives a greater level of danger associated with disclosing information in this specific context compared to other scenarios, they will be less inclined to provide information due to excessive concern about privacy issues. Based on the concept of privacy calculus, individuals using theInternet logically assess the disadvantages of privacy and the advantages of disclosing personal information (Fu et al., 2023; Princi & Krämer, 2020). The fundamental concept of the privacy calculus posits that when individuals perceive substantial advantages in a given circumstance, they are more inclined to engage inself-disclosure due to the outweighing of benefits over risks (Butori & Lancelot Miltgen, 2023; Tang & Ning, 2023).
In their study, a preregistered online experiment by Meir and Krämer (2022), participants (N = 485) were instructed to envision three disclosure scenarios where a privacy score indicated privacy risks. The study evaluated rational and intuitive decision-making approaches, as well as privacy resignation, as personality characteristics. The findings fr om a within-between random effects model indicated apositive relationship between benefit perceptions and self-disclosure intentions atboth the between-person and within-person levels. The efficacy of the privacy score in facilitating users to make more privacy-conscious decisions at an individual level was determined. Ultimately, the rational decision-making style positively correlates with the sense of privacy risk. On the other hand, those who possess aparticularly intuitive decision-making approach can derive advantages from decision-making tools such as the privacy score.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) places personal data at its core. It defines personal data as any information that pertains to a known or identifiable individual, also referred to as a data subject. Personal data is information specifically about a person (Finck & Pallas, 2020; Gazi, 2020). The GDPR further specifies that personal data includes any information that can identify a person directly or indirectly, such as their name, identification number, location data, online identifier, or factors unique to their physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity. Depending on the context, this covers a wide range of information, including someone’s IP address, hair colour, occupation, or political opinions (Irwin, 2022; Lynskey, 2023). McDonald (2023) further explains that data protection refers to laws regulating access to personal information. Data protection typically grants individuals the right to access and request the rectification of data about themselves. Data protection governs the processing of data by organizations and restricts third-party access to personal data.
According to Crocetti et al. (2021), personal data can include various things such as names, photos, email addresses, bank account details, social media posts, biometric data, and even the IP address of a person’s computer. Data protection is the process of safeguarding this valuable information from being corrupted, compromised, or lost. With the rapid growth of data being created and stored, the importance of data protection continues to elevate (McDermott, 2023; Paul et al., 2023). Minimizing any downtime that could prevent access to important information is crucial. Therefore, a significant aspect of a data protection strategy is ensuring that data can be quickly restored in case of corruption or loss. Aside from that, protecting data from compromise and ensuring data privacy are also essential elements of an effective data protection approach (Acquisti et al., 2016; Marelli, 2023; Obi, 2020).
In a study conducted by Ee (2023), itwas shownthat a significant proportion of social media users in Malaysia are inclined to reveal personal details about their family and finances.Thisis because they perceive social media as a secureplatform,as long as they restrict access to their social media profiles tojust those individuals whomthey know and trust. A similar outcome arose from the study of Das(2022) regarding the awareness of data privacy while using social networks inBangladesh. The research conducted by Külcü and Henkoğlu (2014) demonstrates that information professionals in Turkey are concerned about privacy, andamajority ofusers actively modify the default settings to safeguard their private data.Thiswas reinforcedby Gogus and Saygin (2019)thathigh school students in Turkey were very concerned about their privacy online. ThePewResearch Centre found that 80% of social media users expressed apprehension over advertising and corporations accessing their personal information onsocial media platforms. Additionally, a significant majority of 74% of users place great importance on having control over the individuals who can gain privy to their private data (Rainie, 2018). Madden(2012) statedthatprivacyisaprimary concernfor users of social media platforms, while Benisch et al. (2011) aver that social media users perceive a lack of control over theirprivacy as one of their biggest worries.
Awareness refers to having knowledge, being conscious, staying informed and alert. It represents the state or capability to perceive, feel, or be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns (Pala, 2023; Sattin et al., 2021). In this state of consciousness, an observer can confirm the presence of sensory information without necessarily having a deep understanding of it. While possessing knowledge requires having awareness, it is important to note that mere awareness does not necessarily equate to knowing any kind (Majolo et al., 2023; Tisserand et al., 2023). Jati et al. (2019) specify that “Awareness is more about personalization, perceiving, and self-focus; therefore, it depends on and directs to personal concerns torespond to something” (p. 3). Bhasin (2022) explains that awareness is the cognitive state in which an individual consciously understands a specific circumstance or object. It can also be interpreted as the capacity to perceive or comprehend something.
Therefore, when organizations or brands endeavor to enhance awareness regarding their products or services, they strive to provide information and educate the intended audience about them (Coronado-Maldonado & Benítez-Márquez, 2023; Maddocks, 2023). Awareness is the cognitive state characterized by a thorough understanding of the subject or circumstance. For instance, self-awareness would involve becoming cognizant of various facets of your emotional intelligence, behavioural tendencies, emotions, personality characteristics, etc., through introspection and contemplation.
One’s awareness can be enhanced by knowing one’s surroundings. It aids inperceiving information about one’s environment and facilitates the direction of related ideas (London et al., 2023; Pretorius & Plaatjies, 2023).
Since the invention and proliferation of the internet, it has significantly transformed how we share information and eliminate barriers. Nonetheless, as technology continues to progress and becomes more advanced, we must also acknowledge the potential hazards linked to digital privacy breaches, cybersecurity threats, and the responsible and ethical handling of data (Gielens & Steenkamp, 2019; Milligan, 2022; Warren, 2022). Oturu (2019) reveals that historically, organizations employed several techniques such as anonymization, pseudonymization, encryption, key-coding, and data sharing to separate data from actual identities. Dataprotection and privacy are an amplification of the inherent entitlement of individuals to privacy (Westin, 2003), Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution (as modified) safeguards the rights of individuals to maintain the confidentiality of their personal information and the privacy of their residences, written communications, phone conversations, and telegraphic messages. In addition to the Constitution, various other legislations include rules pertaining to safeguarding data and privacy. One of these laws is the Freedom of Information Act No. 4 of 2011, which grants the public access to public records and information. It also prohibits public institutions from exposing personal information to the public without the approval of the individuals affected.
King’ori (2023) informs that the President of Nigeria signed the Data Protection Bill into law on June 12, 2023, after it passed the third reading in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Data Protection Act of 2023, often known astheAct, has received executive and legislative backing. It is a significant achievement in Nigeria’s nearly twenty-year effort to establish comprehensive data protection legislation. In September 2022, the National Commissioner of the Nigeria Data Protection Bureau (NDPB), now known as the National Data Protection Commissioner (NDPC), declared that the office would pursue legal assistance to establish anew law as a component of the Nigeria Digital Identification for DevelopmentProject. The statute was, after that, subjected to a certification process inOctober2022. After validation, the Act was submitted to the Federal Executive Council for approval, which prepared the path for its transmission to the National Assembly. The Nigeria Data Protection Bill, 2023, was introduced in both chambers of Nigeria’s bicameral legislature as the 2022 Data Protection Bill. The Act took effect immediately after being signed by the President. The Act encompasses data protection concepts widely shared among several international data protection regimes. The term “personal data” is defined to cover legal responsibilities for both data controllers and processors, which are defined comparably to the majority of data protection laws globally.
It is undeniable that Facebook and Instagram are among the most popular platforms, generating the highest number of likes (Dixon, 2023; Lyons, 2023). However, despite their enormous user base, these applications have yet to assure users of their privacy. Facebook, in particular, has faced intense scrutiny in recent years due to its failure to create a secure environment wh ere user accounts and profiles remain private. This has resulted in various actions taken by Facebook without user consent, jeopardizing the privacy of its users (Lauer, 2021; Quach et al., 2022). The current generation of users is greatly concerned about their online image and the impression they make on their profiles. Thus, some users must verify who they are adding to send friend requests to as many people as possible. Also, in their attempts to expand their friend list, some users accept requests fr om strangers or receive friend requests from strangers due to technical glitches. These users easily access private information about others, including sensitive details like location. Regrettably, Facebook frequently updates its privacy policies without adequately considering user opinions (Lajnef, 2023; Marcelline, 2023). When a platform with asmany users as Facebook plans to change its privacy policy, it should inform users in advance. Personal notifications should be sent to all users, allowing them toadjust their privacy settings accordingly to avoid any negative impact caused by the policy changes (Dennis, 2019; Nissenbaum, 2010; Schneier, 2015).
Ja’han (2023) informs that Ireland’s authorities imposed a fine of over $400 million on Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, for breaching European Union regulations regarding acquiring and managing user data by technology companies. Furthermore, the social media giant may have other challenges in the future. The primary concern centers on Facebook and Instagram’s dependence on users’ data to inundate them with tailored advertisements. The very intrusive advertisements are a significant revenue stream for most social platforms. However, like other countries in the European Union, Ireland enforces stringent regulations around accessing and utilizing users’ private information by social networking platforms and other technology businesses. Ireland’s substantial penalties arise from two complaints against Meta in 2018, alleging that the business coerced customers into consenting to utilize their data for personalized advertisements.
Lomas (2021) discloses that recent research by Fairplay, Global Action Plan, andReset Australia reveals that Facebook continues to monitor teenagers fortargeted advertising on its social media platforms. This finding contradicts Facebook’s earlier announcement during the summer, in which the technology giant asserted that it would restrict advertisers’ ability to target children. Following acontinuous series of controversies, Facebook recently changed the name of its group business to “Meta” in an apparent attempt to rehabilitate its reputation. Facebook/Meta is facing a new issue as it has been accused of not truly discontinuing adtargeting for teenagers. According to research, the company has kept its algorithms’ capacity to monitor and focus on children, allowing its artificial intelligence systems to surveil young individuals. This enables Facebook/Meta to utilize online activity data to determine the most suitable advertisements to display, increase user interaction, and enhance its advertising revenues.
Vilic and Radenkovic (2015) clarified that on further scrutiny of Facebook, itbecomes apparent that the primary inclination is to maximize the accessibility of users’ data to the general public browsing the virtual realm of the Internet. Thisisbecause, upon user registration, all personal data are initially set tothelowest level of privacy protection, and it is only when the users establish specific restrictions that this changes. Users of this social network can customize their privacy settings, allowing them to safeguard their privacy to varying extents. To register for a Facebook account, users must provide their name, email address, date of birth, and gender, as stated in Facebook’s Privacy Policy. The data above, encompassing the profile image, username, and password, becomes accessible tothe general public on the Internet. Whenever a user registers to access their personal Facebook page, views the profiles of others, searches for a specific page or friend, clicks on an advertisement on the page, or interacts with any application, Facebook acquires, gathers, and retains this data. Additionally, if a user uploads apicture or video, Facebook logs the precise time, date, and location of when therespective media appeared. Data is gathered and stored irrespective of themethod or origin from which it was transmitted to the profile.
Curtberthson (2021) identified Instagram at the top of the list of “invasive apps” that collect and share users’ data. pCloud, a cloud storage company, identified this finding by analyzing the newly implemented app privacy labels, now mandatory forfirms to include in Apple’s App Store. According to the report, Instagram acquires and shares 79 percent of its users’ personal information with external entities, such as search history, location, contacts, and financial details. When you agree to share information with an app during the sign-up process, they can analyze ittotheir advantage and share it with others. In a blog post, Ivan Dimitrov, a digital manager at pCloud, stated that apps can retain, utilize, or sell many types of personal data, including browsing history, location, financial details, contact information, and fitness levels. Given its staggering 1 billion monthly active users, itisconcerning that Instagram is a central platform for disseminating a substantial volume of personal data belonging to its oblivious users. Walker (2023) adds that regarding first-party usage, Instagram, a photo-sharing app owned by Facebook, isaprominent violator as it tracks user data to gain insights into app usage and provides suggestions for enhancement. Instagram ranks second in data collection for internal usage, with 86% of user data being utilized within the company, trailing only its parent company. Instagram collects a range of information comparable towhat it shares with third parties and encompasses Apple’s “other data” category.
Considering the growing privacy concerns, it is natural that an increasing number of social media users are questioning how online platforms handle and utilize their supplied data. Facebook’s recent admission that its Messenger app stored call and text logs of Android users who consented to sharing their contact list prompts us to consider how other similar social media platforms handle the data they are granted access to (Langone, 2018; McMillan, 2018). Dangerfield (2023) explains how Facebook uses targeted ads to track users’ data online. Targeted adverts utilize your browser’s data to enhance marketing efforts by tailoring them toyour specific preferences and interests. Advanced algorithms analyze your website visits and searches over some time to anticipate your preferences and display advertisements that align with your interests. We have all experienced thesituation. If you are browsing the internet for a camera, a pair of shoes, orakitchen gadget, you may see an advertisement for the same item appearing promptly on Facebook, YouTube, or your web browser. If you are looking for a trip to the Bahamas, you may notice increased advertisements from airlines and swimwear brands. The customized advertisements are generated based on cookies and an IP address. Cookies are digital files stored in your web browser that record and store information about your online activities and searches. An IP address functions similarly to a residential address, as it indicates the user’s geographical location. The equilibrium between two entities is what provides advertisers with thenecessary data.
Like many other social networks, Instagram collects and stores user data primarily to personalize advertisements displayed on your feed. These ad targeting adjustments are based on various data types, including your account information, usage patterns, and location (Burgess, 2020; Eg et al., 2023). However, it is important to note that your data is not the sole factor influencing the ads you see. Instagram also gathers similar data from a wide range of users and employs it to optimize thetiming and placement of specific ads. Moreover, Instagram automatically utilizes facial recognition data to automatically identify your presence in photos (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Sprout Social, 2023). The additional data gathered by Instagram serves multiple purposes, such as conducting strategic market research, facilitating direct communication with users, and addressing any suspected misuse of the platform (Jones, 2023). Janssеn (2023) provides insights into the phenomenon of fееling observed or stalked on Instagram in the context of personalized advertisements. The еxpеriеncе is articulated as individuals browsing the internet for specific products, such as headphones, and subsequently еncountеring targeted advertisements for these products upon accessing Instagram. The sеnsе of being observed arises from the smilingly tailored nature of thеsе advertisements, leading to a perception of unsееn surveillance. This practice is attributed to Instagram’s rеvеnuе gеnеration model, which rеliеs heavily on the sale of personalized advertisements. The significant financial implications of this model arr highlighted, with Instagram’s advertising rеvеnuе demonstrating substantial growth over the years. For instance, in2019, Instagram’s advertising income in the United States еxcееdеd $16 billion, this rose to over $50 billion in 2023, and is projected to rise further to $59 billion in2024 (Iqbal, 2024; Zote, 2024).
Terms and conditions establish the connection between social media companies and their users. Nevertheless, these legal agreements are often lengthy and written in complicated language. It raises doubts regarding user comprehension of these terms and conditions and their awareness of the potential outcomes of participating in such a network (Schneble et al., 2021; Stasi, 2019). When people decide to join a service, they usually agree by reading or quickly going through theterms and conditions and clicking the agree button. However, these terms and conditions are lengthy and in complex legal jargon. This makes it unclear whether users, especially young people and teenagers, fully grasp the meaning of these terms or understand the potential repercussions of joining a network (Ducato, 2020; Mladinić et al., 2021). While most platforms offer their services for free, users often have to accept a set of conditions with limited privacy choices to access these services (Schneble et al. 2021). Koebert (2023) observes that social media has become an integral aspect of contemporary existence, as statistics indicate that astaggering 58% of the global population, equivalent to 4.6 billion individuals, presently engage with at least one social media platform. Billions of individuals are dedicating countless hours to engaging in activities such as posting, scrolling, liking, and commenting on social media sites, with a growing number of people joining these platforms daily.
Social media platforms possess the authority to utilize the content you share and continuously gather data from various sources, which you may need to be aware of (Stasi, 2019; Yaqub & Alsabban, 2023). For instance, Facebook can access information from all devices wh ere its services are installed or accessed. Depending on the permissions granted to Facebook, it can collect data like device location obtained through GPS, Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi signals (Sapiezynski et al., 2019; VanHoboken & Fathaigh, 2021). Additionally, it may gather details such as the name of your mobile provider, internet service provider, language, and time zone, as specified in its data policy. Similarly, X (formerly Twitter) obtains comparable metadata and can track users’ locations even if their location services are disabled. This may be achieved by utilizing publicly broadcasted information fr om the user’s wireless access point, such as a MAC Address, to estimate their approximate location, asindicated on Twitter’s website (Khader & Karam, 2023; Ndinojuo & Ihejirika, 2018; Nguyen et al., 2022). Also, both platforms accumulate data about users from third-party websites that employ these social media services. For instance, if you visit awebsite with a “like” button or a site utilizing Facebook’s advertising service, thesocial media company acquires data about your interactions with that site. BradFrazer, an Internet IP and IT lawyer at Hawley Troxell, emphasized that users relinquish certain rights to their big data by accepting the terms of service and clicking on the “I agree” button (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Thompson, 2015).
The survey research design was employed to conduct the investigation. Thisinvolves selecting a representative sample from the population to gather data on their characteristics, which can be generalized to the entire population. Thesurvey method is an appropriate approach to obtain information on the level of awareness of the study group (Liao, 2023; Mishra et al., 2023). The population of this study comprises all current undergraduate students enrolled in the three campuses of the University of Port Harcourt (Choba, Abuja, and Delta). According to the Office of the Registrar, University of Port Harcourt, the total number of registered undergraduate students at the university is 37,893. The large size of the population led tothe utilization of the Taro Yamane statistical formula to determine the sample size for the study (Yamane, 1973). The formula is stated as follows:
n =
Where:
n = sample size
N = population size
e = the level of precision (degree of variability of 0.5)
Thus: substituting the values in the equation yields
n = 395.8, the sample size for this survey was approximated to 396 respondents.
The instrument used to gather data from the respondents is the web-based questionnaire using Google Form. The questionnaire was designed in unison with the research questions to maintain alignment between the research and survey questions. This is crucial for achieving clear, reliable results for easy and swift data analysis and comparison. The instrument consists of two sections (section A and section B), with section A containing four questions on the respondents’ demographic information and section B consisting of 31 questions, for which respondents were expected to provide appropriate answers. Questions 1 – 6 of section B of thequestionnaire cover research question 1, questions 6 – 11 cover research question 2, questions 12 – 16 cover research question 3, and questions 17 – 31 cover research question 4, respectively. The items on the questionnaire were structured using a four-point Likert rating scale made up of Strongly Agree (SA) = 4-point, Agree (A) = 3-point, Disagree (D) = 2-point and Strongly Disagree (SD) = 1-point and, Very high level= 4, high level = 3, Low level = 2 and Very low level= 1. Data employed the use of the mean and criterion mean. A mean score below the criterion of 2.5 was rejected while mean score from 2.5 upwards was accepted. The criterion mean is calculated thus: Criterion mean = 4+3+2+1 = 10/4 = 2.5.
The researcher’s supervisor was given a copy of the measuring instrument (questionnaire), including the research objectives and questions. This was done tohave the questionnaire undergo proper content and face review to ensure validity. To ensure the reliability of the study, several measures were implemented; first, a pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted with a small group of similar participants to identify and correct any ambiguous questions. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with a value of 0.7 or higher indicating acceptable reliability, the results gave 0.72 as supported by Taber (2018) and Bujang et al. (2018). Test-retest reliability was ensured by administering the same questionnaire to the same group of participants at two different points in time and calculating thecorrelation between the two sets of responses (Kennedy, 2022; McCrae et al., 2011). Additionally, split-half reliability was examined by dividing the questionnaire into two halves and comparing the scores, ensuring a high correlation between them; these steps were collectively implemented to ensure that the research instrument provided consistent and stable results, enhancing the overall reliability of thestudy. Data for this research was collected by administering the web-based questionnaire to respondents (undergraduate students of the University of Port Harcourt). Descriptive statistics (including frequencies and percentages) and explanatory notes were employed during data analysis to determine the extent of awareness of personal data protection among Facebook and Instagram users.
This section discussed the data gathered and findings from copies of questionnaires retrieved from the currently registered undergraduate students of theUniversity of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. A total of 396 copies of the questionnaire were administered, and 124 responses were retrieved, representing a 31% success rate. Thе low rеtriеval ratе was primarily attributed to thе timе constraints facеd bythе rеsеarchеrs, stеmming from thе nееd to adhеrе to stringеnt timеlinеs and projеct dеadlinеs. Thе dеmanding schеdulе imposеd limitations on thе outrеach and еngagеmеnt еfforts, as thеrе was a prеssing rеquirеmеnt to collеct data within a comprеssеd timеframе. This timе constraint not only impactеd thе rеsеarchеrs’ ability to dеploy thе quеstionnairе еffеctivеly but also rеstrictеd thе duration availablе for potеntial rеspondеnts to participatе. This, however, did not negatively affect the overall results as the findings provided a glimpse into the awareness levels of social media users of privacy and personal data on Facebook and Instagram. Thisstudy utilized a 90% confidence level; this was chosen to balance precision and certainty, providing narrower confidence intervals for more precise estimates while accepting a 10% chance that the true population parameter might fall outside these intervals, it is deemed appropriate given the practical time constraints and theexploratory nature of the research.
The demographic characteristics illustrated the distribution of respondents’ categories in relation to gender, age range, level of study and faculty of the students that completed the survey.
Demographics |
Variables |
Frequency |
Percent |
Gender |
Female |
87 |
70.2 |
Male |
36 |
29.0 |
|
Rather Not Say |
1 |
0.8 |
|
Age |
18-24 |
98 |
79 |
25-34 |
26 |
21 |
|
35-44 |
- |
- |
|
45-above |
- |
- |
|
Level of Study |
100 level |
6 |
4.8% |
200 level |
16 |
12.9% |
|
300 level |
24 |
19.4% |
|
400 level |
65 |
52.4% |
|
500 level |
13 |
10.4% |
|
600 level |
- |
- |
|
Faculty of Study |
Humanities |
61 |
49.2% |
Engineering |
13 |
10.5% |
|
Science |
13 |
10.5% |
|
SSLT* |
7 |
5.6% |
|
Management |
5 |
4.0% |
|
Education |
6 |
4.8% |
|
Law |
2 |
1.6% |
|
Agriculture |
3 |
2.4% |
|
Social Sciences |
3 |
2.4% |
|
Basic Medical Sciences |
5 |
4.0% |
|
Clinical Sciences |
3 |
2.4% |
|
Pharmaceutical Sciences |
3 |
2.4% |
|
Total |
124 |
100% |
SSLT – School of Science Laboratory Technology
Table 1. Gender of respondents
Data in Table 1 show that most respondents are females, while 0.8% preferred not to mention gender. Most of the respondents’ 98 (79.0%) were under the age range of 18 – 24, indicating the ages typically associated with students. Ages above 35 recorded no entries, showing that most people of that age range are expected tohave completed undergraduate studies. A majority of the respondents were 400‑level students, with a 52.4% response rate; the lowest response was from 100‑level students, who had 4.8%, and 600-level students had zero response. Mostrespondents, comprising 61 individuals (49.2% response rate), were from theFaculty of Humanities. The lowest response rate was observed in two faculties, namely the Faculty of Clinical Sciences and the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, with 3 (2.4%) response rates each.
Research Question one: What is the awareness level of personal data protection among Facebook and Instagram Users?
S/N |
Items |
SA 4 |
A 3 |
D 2 |
SD 1 |
Total |
Mean (X) |
Decision |
1 |
I am aware of the importance of protecting my personal data while using Facebook. |
62
248 |
60
180 |
2
4 |
-
- |
124
432 |
3.5 |
Agreed |
2 |
I am aware of the importance of protecting my personal data while using Instagram. |
64 256 |
58 174 |
2 4 |
- - |
124 434 |
3.5 |
Agreed |
3 |
I understand the potential risks associated with sharing my personal information on Facebook and Instagram. |
68
272 |
56
168 |
-
- |
-
- |
124
440 |
3 .5 |
Agreed |
4 |
I am knowledgeable about the privacy settings and options available to protect my personal data on Facebook and Instagram. |
56
224 |
59
177 |
8
16 |
1
1 |
124
418 |
3.4 |
Agreed |
5 |
I am aware of my rights regarding my personal data on Facebook and Instagram, including the ability to control and access my data. |
41
164 |
70
210 |
12
24 |
1
1 |
124
399 |
3.2 |
Agreed |
6 |
I have read the user privacy statements of Facebook and Instagram. |
27
108 |
68
204 |
4
8 |
25
25 |
124
345 |
2.7 |
Agreed |
CUMULATIVE |
411.3 |
3.3 |
Agreed |
Table 2. Mean (x) analysis on the awareness level of personal data protection among Facebook and Instagram Users
Basеd on thе data prеsеntеd in Tablе 2, it is еvidеnt that a significant majority of thе rеspondеnts еxprеss awarеnеss and undеrstanding of thе principlеs of pеrsonal data protеction on thе social mеdia platforms Facеbook and Instagram. Itеms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 collеctivеly indicatе a consеnsus among thе rеspondеnts rеgarding thеir awarеnеss of thе importancе of safеguarding pеrsonal data whilе using thеsе platforms. This alignmеnt with thе importancе of pеrsonal data protеction rеflеcts a hеightеnеd consciousnеss among thе rеspondеnts about prеsеrving thеir privacy and controlling thе dissеmination of thеir pеrsonal information inthеdigital sphеrе. Thе clеar agrееmеnt across thеsе itеms еmphasizеs awidеsprеad acknowlеdgmеnt of thе nееd for vigilancе rеgarding pеrsonal data sеcurity on Facеbook and Instagram, highlighting thе rеlеvancе of this issuе within thе usеr community.
Research Question two: How many Users have taken precautionary measures to protect their personal data on Facebook and Instagram?
S/N |
Items |
SA 4 |
A 3 |
D 2 |
SD 1 |
Total |
Mean (X) |
Decision |
7 |
I actively review and adjust my privacy settings on Facebook and Instagram to protect my personal data
|
27
108 |
68
204 |
25
50 |
4
8 |
124
370 |
3.0 |
Agree |
8 |
I am careful about the amount of personal information I share on Facebook and Instagram
|
61
224 |
61
183 |
2
4 |
-
- |
124
431 |
3.5 |
Agree |
9 |
I make use of strong unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication on both Facebook and Instagram.
|
61
244 |
52
156 |
9
18 |
2
2 |
124
400 |
3.2 |
Agreed |
10 |
I am aware of the potential risks associated with third-party applications and carefully consider their access to my personal data on Facebook and Instagram
|
52
208 |
70
210 |
1
2 |
1
1 |
124
421 |
3.4 |
Agreed |
11 |
I educate myself about the latest privacy features and settings offered by both Facebook and Instagram, and make use of them to protect my personal data
|
30
120 |
63
189 |
27
54
|
4
4 |
124
367 |
3.0 |
Agreed |
CUMULATIVE |
399.6 |
3.2 |
Agreed |
Table 3. Mean (x) analysis on the number of users who have taken precautionary measures toprotect their personal data on Facebook and Instagram users
According to thе data in Tablе 3, many rеspondеnts havе takеn aggrеssivе stеps to protеct thеir pеrsonal information on thе social mеdia sitеs Facеbook and Instagram. Thе rеspondеnts’ agrееmеnt on sеcuring thеir pеrsonal data on thеsе sitеs is dеmonstratеd by itеms 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Thе collеctivе agrееmеnt strеssеs thе rеspondеnts’ strong fееlings of pеrsonal rеsponsibility and awarеnеss in activеly controlling thеir privacy and sеcurity sеttings. Thеir rеsolutе еfforts dеmonstratе an awarеnеss of thе possiblе hazards linkеd to intеrnеt data еxposurе and a dеdication to rеducing thеsе risks through proactivе mеasurеs. Thе rеspondеnts’ agrееmеnt with thеsе itеms dеmonstratеs thеir proactivе and vigilant approach tosafеguarding thе confidеntiality and sеcurity of thеir pеrsonal information onFacеbook and Instagram.
Research Question three: What are the reasons for the precautionary measures taken by Users to protect personal data?
S/N |
Items |
SA 4 |
A 3 |
D 2 |
SD 1 |
Total |
Mean (X) |
Decision |
12 |
I take precautionary measures because they are important for the protection of my personal data
|
43
172 |
71
213 |
10
10 |
-
- |
124
405 |
3.3
|
Agreed |
13 |
I believe that protecting my personal data helps prevent identity theft and fraud
|
65
260 |
59
177 |
-
- |
-
- |
124
437 |
3.5 |
Agreed |
14 |
I take precautionary measures to protect my personal data because I want to have control over my privacy and the information I share
|
51 204 |
70 210 |
3 6 |
- - |
124 420 |
3.4 |
Agreed |
15 |
I am more comfortable to share personal information when I know that I have already taken precautionary measures
|
31 124 |
57 171 |
31 61 |
5 5 |
124 361 |
3.0 |
Agreed
|
16 |
I have implemented precautionary measures because it enables me to maintain privacy and confidentiality |
42 168 |
71 213 |
11 22 |
- - |
124 502 |
4.0 |
Agreed |
CUMULATIVE |
425 |
3.4 |
Agreed |
Table 4. Mean (x) analysis on the reasons for the precautionary measures taken by Users to protect personal data
Tablе 4 data indicatеs that most rеspondеnts havе proactivеly protеctеd thеir pеrsonal information and privacy on Facеbook and Instagram. Thе rеspondеnts’ collеctivе agrееmеnt highlights thеir acknowlеdgmеnt of thе potеntial risks associatеd with idеntity thеft, fraud, and thе unauthorizеd usе of thеir pеrsonal information. Thе rеspondеnts dеmonstratе rеsponsibility and undеrstanding by agrееing totakе prеcautionary mеasurеs to prеsеrvе thеir privacy and pеrsonal data onlinе. Thеir proactivе approach dеlinеatеs a commitmеnt to minimizing thе risks associatеd with unauthorizеd accеss and misusе of thеir pеrsonal information, еmphasizing thе significancе of privacy and data sеcurity within thе contеxt of Facеbook and Instagram usagе.
Research Question four: What are the agencies and regulatory bodies responsible for personal data protection?
S/N |
Items |
SA 4 |
A 3 |
D 2 |
SD 1 |
Total |
Mean (X) |
Decision |
17 |
I know that the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) is a personal data protection and regulatory Agency in Nigeria. |
9
36 |
62
186 |
49
98 |
4
4 |
124
324 |
2.6 |
Agreed |
18 |
I have contacted the NITDA concerning privacy issues in the past. |
2
8 |
9
27
|
84
168 |
29
29 |
124
232 |
1.9 |
Disagreed |
19 |
I know someone who has contacted the NITDA concerning privacy issues in the past.
|
4
16 |
10
30 |
78
156 |
32
32 |
124
234 |
1.8 |
Disagreed |
20 |
I know that the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) is a personal data protection and regulatory Agency. |
15
60 |
57
171 |
47
94 |
5
5 |
124
330 |
2 .7
|
Agreed |
21 |
I have contacted the NCC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
5
20 |
9
27 |
78
156 |
28
28 |
124
234 |
1.9 |
Disagreed |
22 |
I know someone who has contacted the NCC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
5
20 |
13
39 |
78
156 |
28
28 |
124
243 |
2.0 |
Disagreed |
23 |
I know that the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) is a personal data protection and regulatory Agency in Nigeria. |
25
100 |
64
192 |
28
56 |
7
71 |
124
419 |
Disagreed |
|
24 |
I have contacted the NIMC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
9
36 |
29
87 |
58
116 |
28
28 |
124
264 |
2.2 |
Disagreed |
25 |
I know someone who has contacted the NIMC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
11
44 |
17
51
|
70
140 |
26
26 |
12
261 |
2.1 |
Disagreed |
26 |
I know that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is a personal data protection and regulatory agency. |
25
100 |
56
168 |
33
66 |
10
10 |
124
344 |
2.8 |
Agreed |
27 |
I have contacted the EFCC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
33
132 |
11
33 |
74
148 |
10
10 |
124
319 |
2.6 |
Agreed |
28 |
I know someone who has contacted the EFCC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
9
36 |
20
60 |
62
124 |
32
32 |
124
252 |
2.0 |
Disagreed |
29 |
I know that the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) is a personal data protection and regulatory agency. |
10
40 |
51
153 |
42
84 |
21
21 |
298 |
2.3 |
Disagreed |
30 |
I have contacted the NDPC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
4
16 |
11
33 |
78
156 |
31
31 |
124
236 |
1.9
|
Disagreed |
31 |
I know someone who has contacted the NDPC concerning privacy issues in the past. |
6
24 |
8
24 |
86
172 |
24
24 |
124
244 |
2.0 |
Disagreed |
CUMULATIVE |
282 |
2.3 |
Disagreed |
Table 5. Mean (x) analysis on the identification of the agencies and regulatory bodies responsible for personal data protection
Tablе 5 prеsеnts thе survеy data rеgarding rеspondеnts’ knowlеdgе and intеractions with various rеgulatory agеnciеs rеlatеd to pеrsonal data protеction inNigеria. Most rеspondеnts agrееd that Nigеria’s National Information Tеchnology Dеvеlopmеnt Agеncy (NITDA) and thе Economic and Financial Crimеs Commission (EFCC) arе pеrsonal data protеction and rеgulatory agеnciеs, indicating rеlativеly high awarеnеss of thеsе organizations. On thе othеr hand, thеrе was a largеr disagrееmеnt among rеspondеnts rеgarding thеir knowlеdgе of thе Nigеria Data Protеction Commission (NDPC), thе National Idеntity Managеmеnt Commission (NIMC), and thе Nigеrian Communications Commission (NCC) as pеrsonal data protеction and rеgulatory agеnciеs. Thе data shows that a rеlativеly low numbеr of rеspondеnts had prеviously contactеd thе rеgulatory agеnciеs concеrning privacy issuеs, with a highеr lеvеl of disagrееmеnt.
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in Table 2 were used to answer this research question. Respondents in item 1 confirmed that they know the importance of protecting their personal data while using Facebook. Respondents in item 2 agreed that they are aware of the importance of protecting their personal data while using Instagram. The respondents in item 3 also agreed that they understand the potential risks of sharing their personal information on Facebook and Instagram. This view is supported by the Privacy Calculus Theory, as stated by various scholars (Fu et al., 2023; Laufer & Wolfe, 1977; Meir & Krämer, 2022; Princi & Krämer, 2020). The theory assumes people weigh perceived risks and benefits before disclosing personal information. The findings agree with the authors (Gogus & Saygın, 2019; Külcü & Henkoğlu, 2014) looking at privacy in Turkey, and Rainie (2018). Madden (2012) and Benisch et al. (2011) from a North American perspective that users consider data previous a serious issue, compared to Asia users who agreed that online data may not be safe, but so long as some restrictions are in place, they can live with the consequences (Das, 2022; Ee, 2023).
In item 4, the respondents affirmed that they are knowledgeable about theprivacy settings and options available to protect personal data on Facebook and Instagram. Then, in item 5, the respondents agreed that they are aware of their rights regarding personal data on Facebook and Instagram, including the ability tocontrol and access their data. This result was backed up by Warren (2022), who said, “The dot com boom brought about an exponential increase in the amount of data created and stored across the internet. As a result, the security of personal data shared online has become a real national concern, with state actors, organizations, and hackers constantly attempting to exploit information of data subjects that should be handled ethically for commercial or malicious purposes. Most of the data the world has produced are personal data (or data that can be traced back tospecific individuals)”. Respondents in item 6 agreed that they had read the User privacy statements of Facebook and Instagram. This result was in total agreement with the postulations of Schneble et al. (2021), which say that when people decide tojoin a service, they usually agree by reading or quickly going through the terms and conditions and clicking the agree button. However, these terms and conditions are lengthy and in complex legal jargon. This makes it unclear whether users, especially young people and teenagers, fully grasp the meaning of these terms or understand the potential repercussions of joining a network.
Items 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in Table 3 were used to answer this research question. In item 7, the respondents affirmed that they actively review and adjust privacy settings on Facebook and Instagram to protect their personal data. This result contrasts with Koebert’s (2023) view that, while the terms of service for social media sites and apps are available for review, how many people look at them before signing up? More importantly, how many could understand them if they did? Terms of service for all sorts of things are relatively easy to read and understand. They are full of page after page of legalese and jargon that is inaccessible to the average person. Regarding social media, these statements are just as confusing”. In item 8, therespondents confirmed that they were careful about how much personal information they share on Facebook and Instagram. In item 9, the respondents agreed touse strong, unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication on Facebook and Instagram. In item 10, the respondents agreed that they know the potential risks associated with third-party applications and carefully consider their access toUsers’ data on Facebook and Instagram. This result supported the views of West and Zuboff (2019), who asserted that self-disclosure will be more likely in a particular situation if a person perceives high benefits in a particular case because thebenefits outweigh the risks. Contrarily, if this person anticipates higher risks with disclosure compared to other situations, information revelation will be less likely in this particular situation due to an overweight of the privacy risk perception. In item 11, the respondents affirmed that they educate themselves about the latest privacy features and settings offered by Facebook and Instagram and use them toprotect their personal data.
Items 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Table 4 were used to provide answers to this research question. In item 12, the respondents affirmed that they take precautionary measures because they are important for protecting personal data. This result is supported by Warren (2022); as technology progresses and becomes more advanced, we must also acknowledge the potential hazards linked to digital privacy breaches, cybersecurity threats, and the responsible and ethical handling of data. Item 13 shows that Respondents believe protecting their personal data helps prevent identity theft and fraud. In item 14, respondents agree that one of thereasons they take precautionary measures is to protect their personal data because they want to have control over their privacy and the information they share. In item 15, Respondents affirmed that they are more comfortable sharing personal information when they know they have taken precautionary measures toprotect their personal data. This result is supported by Crossman (2020). TheSocial exchange theory is a framework that helps us understand society asaseries of interactions between individuals, wh ere the anticipated rewards and punishments influence our actions. This theory suggests that we evaluate thepotential outcomes of our interactions using a cost-benefit analysis, whether consciously or subconsciously. Item 16 Respondents confirmed that they have implemented precautionary measures because it enables them to maintain privacy and confidentiality.
Items 17–31 in Table 5 were used to answer the research question 4. In item 17, the respondents affirmed that Nigeria’s National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) is a personal data protection and regulatory agency. Item18show that respondents disagreed that they had contacted the NITDA concerning privacy issues. In item 19, respondents disagreed that they knew someone who had contacted the NITDA concerning privacy issues. In item 20, therespondents affirmed that the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) isapersonal data protection and regulatory agency. In item 21, the respondents disagreed that they had contacted the NCC concerning privacy issues. Respondents in item 22 also disagreed that they knew someone who had contacted the NCC concerning privacy issues. Item 23 showed respondents agreed that the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) is Nigeria’s personal data protection and regulatory agency. In item 24, the respondents disagreed that they had contacted the NIMC concerning privacy issues. Respondents in item 25 also disagreed that they knew someone who had contacted the NIMC concerning privacy issues. Item26 shows respondents agreed that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is a personal data protection and regulatory agency. In item 27, the respondents agreed that they had contacted the EFCC concerning privacy issues. Respondents in item 28 disagreed that they knew someone who had contacted the EFCC concerning privacy issues in the past. Item 29 shows that Respondents disagreed that they knew that the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) is a personal data protection and regulatory agency. In item 30, therespondents disagreed that they had contacted the NDPC concerning privacy issues. Respondents in item 31 also disagreed that they knew someone who had contacted the NDPC concerning privacy issues in the past. These results were supported by Lambo et al. (2023) in a careful review of the principal data protection legislation, which included a list of the agencies and regulatory bodies as mentioned in Table 5. Despite the list provided, users were still unable to identify the agencies. The study’s results indicate that social media users possess a general understanding of personal data protection but lack awareness of the specific regulatory authorities that are significant. This emphasizes a crucial deficiency in the current awareness programs and indicates a necessity for more focused education (Ducato, 2020; Mladinić et al., 2021). The authors suggest that the agencies concerned should conduct instructional workshops and provide easily available guidelines that guide internet users on the privacy of online data.
This research was conceptually and theoretically designed on the awareness of personal data protection among Facebook and Instagram users. This study effectively evaluated the awareness level of personal data protection among Facebook and Instagram Users, the number of Users who have carefully taken precautionary measures to protect their personal data on Facebook and Instagram, the reasons why Users have taken such precautionary measures, and the identification of theagencies and the regulatory bodies responsible for personal data protection. The following are the key findings from the research:
Students know the importance of personal data protection on both Facebookand Instagram.
Students are knowledgeable about the potential risks associated with personal data.
Students took precautionary measures to protect their personal data and have reasons for taking such measures.
Students need training and proper provision of information regarding theprotection of personal data, and more awareness campaigns should be held for proper introduction and identification of the Agencies and regulatory bodies responsible for the protection of personal data.
This study has elucidated the diverse degrees of consciousness regarding thesafeguarding of personal data among the undergraduate students of the University of Port Harcourt. It was clear that although several students had a strong grasp of the need of safeguarding their personal information, a significant section of thestudent population might have benefitted from additional instructional and awareness campaigns. In order to prepare for the future, it is crucial for the University to prioritize the implementation of focused campaigns and educational programs. These initiatives should aim to improve students’ understanding and awareness of personal data protection on social media. This can be achieved by providing students with the necessary information and resources, as well as fostering a secure and privacy-conscious environment within the University of Port Harcourt student community.
Thе study’s limitations includе sеvеral factors that influеncеd thе rеsеarch procеss and outcomеs; thеy arе еxplainеd furthеr. The study facеd a low response rate leading to data collеction challеngеs duе to a lim itеd rеsponsе fr om thеwеb‑basеd quеstionnairе. Thе cautious approach of studеnts towards pеrsonal information sharing rеsultеd in a low rеsponsе ratе, impacting thе rеprеsеntativеnеss of thеdata. Respondents also mentioned having trust issues with external links. Their skеpticism and rеluctancе to click on links in thе quеstionnairе stеmmеd from gеnuinе concеrns about onlinе scams. Somе participants’ еxprеssеd having bееn prеviously targеtеd by fraudulеnt activitiеs disguisеd as acadеmic survеys, lеading to a hеsitancy to еngagе with similar rеquеsts. Thе low rеtriеval ratе of thе rеsеarch instrumеnt, constituting only 31% of thе samplе sizе, indicatеs asignificant limitation in thе rеprеsеntativеnеss and generalizability of thе findings. Thе rеducеd participation compromisеd thе brеadth and dеpth of thе data collеctеd. Thеconstraints еxpеriеncеd likеly impactеd thе validity and rеliability of thе study, raising quеstions about thе accuracy and comprеhеnsivеnеss of thе gathеrеd data. However, the findings provided some insight into the awareness levels of privacy and personal data on Facebook and Instagram, and by extension, social media platforms. Finally, thе lim itеd rеsponsе ratе may hindеr thе gеnеralizability of thе findings, as thе samplе may not fully rеprеsеnt thе broadеr population, crеating potеntial biasеs in thе rеsults. The following recommendations are proposed after analyzing the data and discussing the findings:
Organize specific educational workshops to promote understanding of thepertinence of safeguarding personal data on social media platforms.
The University of Port Harcourt Administration should include personal data protection awareness in its orientation programs and student events.
Create easily accessible materials and guidelines on the University of Port Harcourt Portal designed for Facebook and Instagram users, outlining thebest methods for protecting personal data.
Set up a system for reporting potential data breaches and offer assistance toaffected users, as well as organising campaigns for the proper identification of the Regulatory bodies and Agencies responsible for the protection of personal data.
The findings highlight the immediate need for enhanced awareness and educational campaigns to safeguard users’ personal data (Mohammad et al., 2022), particularly on Facebook and Instagram; an important revelation is the exposition of the different levels of awareness of data protection rules and practices among undergraduate students at the University of Port Harcourt, focusing on its wider significance. These support the implementation of initiatives such as educational workshops, integrating data protection awareness into educational programs and the development of east-to-read guidelines for social networking sites users. Thestudy emphasizes the significance of deploying strong reporting systems forsuspected data breaches and promoting cooperation and data sharing with regulatory agencies to improve the data protection legislation.
The authors would like to thank colleagues who provided moral support and guidance in this study and also appreciate the reviewers of this paper for their valuable advice.
Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442–492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442
Barrett-Maitland, N., & Lynch, J. (2020). Social Media, Ethics and the Privacy Paradox. In C. Kalloniatis & C. Travieso-Gonzalez (Eds.), Security and Privacy From a Legal, Ethical, and Technical Perspective. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90906
Barth, S., De Jong, M. D., Junger, M., Hartel, P. H., & Roppelt, J. C. (2019). Putting the privacy paradox tothe test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003
Benisch, M., Kelley, P. G., Sadeh, N., & Cranor, L. F. (2011). Capturing location-privacy preferences: Quantifying accuracy and user-burden tradeoffs. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(7), 679–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0346-0
Bhageshpur, K. (2019, November 15). Data is the new oil—And that’s a good thing. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/11/15/data-is-the-new-oil-and-thats-a-good-thing/?sh=788fcad87304
Bhasin, H. (2022, January 7). Awareness—Definition, meaning and examples. Marketing91 Academy. https://www.marketing91.com/awareness/
Bujang, M. A., Omar, E. D., & Baharum, N. A. (2018). A Review on Sample Size Determination for Cronbach’s Alpha Test: A Simple Guide for Researchers. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(6), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2018.25.6.9
Burgess, M. (2020). How to stop Instagram** from tracking everything you do. Wired. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/instagram-story-ads-privacy-delete
Butori, R., & Lancelot Miltgen, C. (2023). A construal level theory approach to privacy protection: Theconjoint impact of benefits and risks of information disclosure. Journal of Business Research, 168, 114205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114205
Coronado-Maldonado, I., & Benítez-Márquez, D. (2023). Emotional intelligence, leadership, and work teams: A hybrid literature review. Heliyon, 9(10), e20356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20356
Crocetti, P., Peterson, S., & Hefner, K. (2023). What is data protection and why is it important. Tech Target. https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatabackup/definition/data-protection
Crossman, A. (2020, January 14). Understanding social exchange theory. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/social-exchange-theory-3026634
Dangerfield, K. (2023). Facebook**, Google and others are tracking you. Here’s how to stop targeted ads. https://globalnews-ca.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/globalnews.ca/news/4110311/
Das, M. C. (2022). Data Privacy on the Internet: A Study on Awareness and Attitudes among theStudents of the University of Chittagong in Bangladesh. Advances in Journalism and Communication, 10(2), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajc.2022.102006
Dennis, M. (2019). Facebook** and Instagram**: Privacy challenges. https://www-coursebb-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.coursebb.com/2019/03/05/
Dixon, S. J. (2023). Global social networks ranked by number of users 2023. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
Ducato, R. (2020). Data protection, scientific research, and the role of information. Computer Law & Security Review, 37, 105412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105412
Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., Jain, V., Karjaluoto, H., Kefi, H., Krishen, A. S., Kumar, V., Rahman, M. M., Raman, R., Rauschnabel, P. A., Rowley, J., Salo, J., Tran, G. A., & Wang, Y. (2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 59, 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102168
Ee, C. J. (2023). Analysis of privacy awareness among social media users in Malaysia. Jurnal Pengajian Media Malaysia / Malaysian Journal of Media Studies, 25(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.22452/jpmm.vol25no1.6
Eg, R., Demirkol Tønnesen, Ö., & Tennfjord, M. K. (2023). A scoping review of personalized user experiences on social media: The interplay between algorithms and human factors. Computers inHuman Behavior Reports, 9, 100253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100253
Eludu, S., Mbazie, S., & Ndinojuo, B.-C. (2016). Application of ICT in television broadcasting: A study of NTA Port Harcourt. International Journal of Science Inventions Today, 5(2), 169–182.
Finck, M., & Pallas, F. (2020). They who must not be identified—Distinguishing personal from non-personal data under the GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 10(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz026
Fu, J., Zhang, J., & Li, X. (2023). How do risks and benefits affect user’ privacy decisions? An event-related potential study on privacy calculus process. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1052782. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1052782
Gazi, T. (2020). Data to the rescue: How humanitarian aid NGOs should collect information based on the GDPR. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-020-00078-0
Gielens, K., & Steenkamp, J. E. (2019). Branding in the era of digital (dis)intermediation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2019.01.005
Gogus, A., & Saygın, Y. (2019). Privacy perception and information technology utilization of high school students. Heliyon, 5(5), e01614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01614
Hill, M., & Swinhoe, D. (2022, November 8). The 15 biggest data breaches of the 21st century. CSO. https://www.csoonline.com/article/534628/the-biggest-data-breaches-of-the-21st-century.html
Ihejirika, W., Mbazie, S., & Ndinojuo, B. (2015). Use of social media by political parties in Nigeria: An analysis of Facebook** and Twitter. International Journal of Communication: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication Studies, 16(9), 16–30.
Iqbal, M. (2024, July 8). Instagram** revenue and usage statistics (2024). Business of Apps. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/instagram-statistics/
Irwin, L. (2022, June 11). The GDPR: What exactly is personal data? IT Governance. https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/the-gdpr-what-exactly-is-personal-data
Ja’han, J. (2023). Privacy rules are Meta’s biggest obstacle to world domination. MSNBC. https://www.msnbc.com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.msnbc.com/msnb/
Janssen, D. (2023, November 28). What does Instagram** know about me. VPNOverview. https://vpnoverview.com/privacy/social-media/what-does-instagram-know-about-me/
Jati, H. F., Darsono, S. N. A. C., Hermawan, T., Yudhi, W. A. S., & Rahman, F. F. (2019). Awareness and knowledge assessment of sustainable development goals among university students. Jurnal Ekonomi & Studi Pembangunan, 20(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.18196/jesp.20.2.5022
Jocelli, J. O. (2016). Cookies policy and social media. Janna Joceli Omena. https://thesocialplatforms.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/cookies-policy-and-social-media/
Kemp, S. (2023, February 13). Digital 2023: Nigeria. Data Reportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2023-nigeria
Kennedy, I. (2022). Sample Size Determination in Test-Retest and Cronbach Alpha Reliability Estimates. British Journal of Contemporary Education, 2(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.52589/BJCE-FY266HK9
Keskin, A. D., Kaytez, N., Damar, M., Elibol, F., & Aral, N. (2023). Sharenting syndrome: An appropriate use of social media? Healthcare, 11(10), 1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101359
Khader, M., & Karam, M. (2023). Assessing the effectiveness of masking and encryption in safeguarding the identity of social media publishers from advanced metadata analysis. Data, 8(6), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/data8060105
King’ori, M. (2023, June 28). Nigeria’s new data protection act explained. Future of Privacy Forum. https://fpf.org/blog/nigerias-new-data-protection-act-explained/
Koebert, J. (2023, August 24). You’ll need a college education to read the terms of service for these social media sites. All about Cookies. https://allaboutcookies.org/social-media-terms-of-service
Külcü, Ö., & Henkoğlu, T. (2014). Privacy in social networks: An analysis of Facebook**. International Journal of Information Management, 34(6), 761–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.07.006
Lajnef, K. (2023). The effect of social media influencers’ on teenagers beh * avior: An empirical study using cognitive map technique. Current Psychology, 42(22), 19364–19377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04273-1
Lambo, J., Okolie, C., & Chukwuma, C. (2023). Data protection laws and regulations in Nigeria. https://iclg.com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/iclg.com/practice-areas/
Langone, A. (2018, March 26). Facebook** admits it may collect data about your calls and text messages. Here’s how to turn it off. Time. https://time.com/5215274/facebook-messenger-android-call-text-message-data/
Lauer, D. (2021). Facebook’s** ethical failures are not accidental; they are part of the business model. Ai and Ethics, 1(4), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00068-x
Laufer, R. S., & Wolfe, M. (1977). Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x
Liao, C.-H. (2023). Exploring the Influence of Public Perception of Mass Media Usage and Attitudes towards Mass Media News on Altruistic Behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 13(8), 621. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13080621
Lomas, N. (2021). Facebook** accused of continuing to surveil teens for and targeting. https://techcrunch-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/techcrunch.com/2021/11/16/
London, M., Sessa, V. I., & Shelley, L. A. (2023). Developing Self-Awareness: Learning Processes for Self- and Interpersonal Growth. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-044531
Lynskey, O. (2023). Complete and Effective Data Protection. Current Legal Problems, 76(1), 297–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuad009
Lyons, K. (2023). 28 top social media platforms worldwide. Semrush Blog. https://www.semrush.com/blog/most-popular-social-media-platforms/
Maddocks, J. (2023). Introducing an attitude-based approach to emotional intelligence. Frontiers inPsychology, 13, 1006411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1006411
Majolo, M., Gomes, W. B., & DeCastro, T. G. (2023). Self-Consciousness and Self-Awareness: Associations between Stable and Transitory Levels of Evidence. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020117
Marcelline, M. (2023, May 14). Facebook** fixes bug that sent friend requests if you looked at a profile. PC Magazine. https://www.pcmag.com/news/meta-fixes-facebook-bug-that-sent-automatic-friend-requests
Marelli, M. (2023). The law and practice of international organizations’ interactions with personal data protection domestic regulation: At the crossroads between the international and domestic legal orders. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, 105849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105849
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal Consistency, Retest Reliability, and Their Implications for Personality Scale Validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310366253
McDermott, A. (2023, November 8). Why safeguarding customer information has never been more critical. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/11/08/why-safeguarding-customer-information-has-never-been-more-critical/?sh=2d74748f59ef
McDonald, A. (2023). Data protection privacy law. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/data-protection
McMillan, R. (2018, March 26). Facebook** logs text, call histories for some android users. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-logs-text-call-histories-for-some-android-users-1522072657
Meier, Y., & Krämer, N. C. (2024). The Privacy Calculus Revisited: An Empirical Investigation of Online Privacy Decisions on Between- and Within-Person Levels. Communication Research, 51(2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221102101
Milligan, I. (2022). The Transformation of Historical Research in the Digital Age (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009026055
Mishra, M., Kushwaha, R., Gupta, N., Sinha, A., & Dwivedi, H. (2023). Survey data to evaluate consumer behaviour and consumption pattern of sustainable apparel: A study on consumer awareness level. Data in Brief, 49, 109350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109350
Mladinić, A., Puljak, L., & Koporc, Z. (2021). Post-GDPR survey of data protection officers in research and non-research institutions in Croatia: A cross-sectional study. Biochemia Medica, 31(3), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2021.030703
Mohammad, T., Mohamed Hussin, N. A., & Husin, M. H. (2022). Online safety awareness and human factors: An application of the theory of human ecology. Technology in Society, 68, 101823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101823
Ndinojuo, B.-C., & Ihejirika, W. C. (2015). A review of Facebook** followership for political parties inNigeria. International Journal of Banking, Finance & Digital Marketing, 1(1), 42–54.
Ndinojuo, B.-C., & Ihejirika, W. C. (2018). Nigerian political parties and their social media followership: Aftermath of 2015 general elections. Media and Communication Currents, 2(2), 39–58.
Nguyen, H. L., Tsolak, D., Karmann, A., Knauff, S., & Kühne, S. (2022). Efficient and Reliable Geocoding of German Twitter Data to Enable Spatial Data Linkage to Official Statistics and Other Data Sources. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, 910111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.910111
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804772891
Nwagwu, W. E., & Akintoye, A. (2023). Influence of social media on the uptake of emerging musicians and entertainment events. Information Development, 026666692211511. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669221151162
Nyoni, P., & Velempini, M. (2018). Privacy and user awareness on Facebook**. South African Journal of Science, 114(5/6), 5. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2018/20170103
Obi, U. V. (2020, September 16). Data privacy and data protection law in Nigeria. Alliance Law Firm. https://alliancelawfirm.ng/data-privacy-and-data-protection-law-in-nigeria/
Oturu, D. (2019). An overview of big data protection in Nigeria. https://www.aelex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/An-overview-of-Big-Data-and-data-protection-in-Nigeria-1-compressed.pdf
Pala, K. (2023). The interplay of indexicality between essence and meanings: An interconnection of experiences and memory. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 556. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02036-8
Paul, M., Maglaras, L., Ferrag, M. A., & Almomani, I. (2023). Digitization of healthcare sector: A study on privacy and security concerns. ICT Express, 9(4), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2023.02.007
Pretorius, A., & Plaatjies, B. O. (2023). Self-Awareness as a Key Emotional Intelligent Skill for Secondary School Principals’ Leadership Toolkit. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 5(2), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2023.9
Princi, E., & Krämer, N. C. (2020). Out of Control – Privacy Calculus and the Effect of Perceived Control and Moral Considerations on the Usage of IoT Healthcare Devices. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 582054. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.582054
Quach, S., Thaichon, P., Martin, K. D., Weaven, S., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Digital technologies: Tensions in privacy and data. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), 1299–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00845-y
Rainie, L. (2018). Americans’ complicated feelings about social media in an era of privacy concerns. The Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2018/03/27/americans-complicated-feelings-about-social-media-in-an-era-of-privacyconcerns/
Sapiezynski, P., Stopczynski, A., Lassen, D. D., & Lehmann, S. (2019). Interaction data from the Copenhagen Networks Study. Scientific Data, 6(1), 315. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0325-x
Sattin, D., Magnani, F. G., Bartesaghi, L., Caputo, M., Fittipaldo, A. V., Cacciatore, M., Picozzi, M., & Leonardi, M. (2021). Theoretical Models of Consciousness: A Scoping Review. Brain Sciences, 11(5), 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11050535
Schneble, C. O., Favaretto, M., Elger, B. S., & Shaw, D. M. (2021). Social Media Terms and Conditions and Informed Consent From Children: Ethical Analysis. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 4(2), e22281. https://doi.org/10.2196/22281
Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. W.W. Norton & Company.
Shubladze, S. (2023, May 27). How to make use of the new gold: Data. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/03/27/how-to-make-use-of-the-new-gold-data/?sh=7e5653502bbf
Siegel, R. (2018, April 4). Panera’s data breach puts attention on risks of loyalty programs. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/04/04/paneras-data-breach-puts-attention-on-risks-of-loyalty-programs/
Social media advertising: How it works and tips for success. (2023, May 2). Sproutsocial. https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-advertising-strategy/
Solove, D. J. (2021). Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press.
Stasi, M. L. (2019). Social media platforms and content exposure: How to restore users’ control. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 20(1), 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1783591719847545
Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Tang, Y., & Ning, X. (2023). Understanding user misrepresentation behavior on social apps: Theperspective of privacy calculus theory. Decision Support Systems, 165, 113881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2022.113881
Thompson, C. (2015, May 20). What you really sign up for when you use social media. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/20/what-you-really-sign-up-for-when-you-use-social-media.html
Tisserand, A., Philippi, N., Botzung, A., & Blanc, F. (2023). Me, Myself and My Insula: An Oasis in the Forefront of Self-Consciousness. Biology, 12(4), 599. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12040599
Van Hoboken, J., & Fathaigh, R. Ó. (2021). Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators. Computer Law & Security Review, 41, 105557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105557
Venugeetha, Y., Rathod, R., & Kumar, R. (2022). Social networking sites in daily life: Benefits and threats. In S. Hiranwal & G. Mathur (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Communication Technologies (pp. 51–64). Soft Computing Research Society. https://doi.org/10.52458/978-81-955020-5-9-5
Vilić, V., & Radenković, I. (2015). Privacy Protection on Facebook**, Twitter and LinkedIn. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference – Synthesis 2015, 735–738. https://doi.org/10.15308/Synthesis-2015-735-738
Walker, S. C. (2023, February 9). Instagram** is sharing 79% of your personal data with third parties. Cybernews. https://cybernews.com/privacy/instagram-is-sharing-79-of-your-personal-data-with-third-parties/
Warren, O. (2022, September 26). The emergence and evolution of the Nigerian data protection regulation. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emergence-evolution-nigerian-data-protection-warren-oluwasanya
West, S. M. (2019). Data Capitalism: Redefining the Logics of Surveillance and Privacy. Business & Society, 58(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317718185
Westin, A. F. (2003). Privacy and freedom. IG Publishing.
Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis (3rd ed.). Harper and Row.
Yaqub, M., & Alsabban, A. (2023). Knowledge Sharing through Social Media Platforms in the Silicon Age. Sustainability, 15(8), 6765. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086765
Zote, J. (2024, Feb. 22).Instagram** statistics you need to know for 2024 [Updated]. Sproutsocial. https://sproutsocial.com/insights/instagram-stats/
** – A social network owned by “Meta”, which is recognized as extremist in Russia
1Here and hereafter: A social network owned by “Meta”, which is recognized as extremist in Russia
2Here and hereafter: A social network owned by “Meta”, which is recognized as extremist in Russia