Savvas Zannettou

Online platforms increasingly offer ''paid'' ad-free subscriptions as an alternative to the traditional ''free'' ad-based model. The transition to ad-free models ostensibly removes advertising as a key justification for data processing under the GDPR. So, normatively, platforms should collect less user data. However, platforms may justify continued data collection as a means to provide an improved, personalized experience. This tension between privacy principles and platform incentives raises a critical underexplored question: do data collection practices vary between ad-free and ad-based subscription models? In this paper, we shed light on this important privacy issue by investigating the alignment between platform data collection practices and related user expectations. With respect to data collection process, our analyses of data exports from three major online platforms — Instagram, Facebook, and X — reveal that these platforms continue to retain or collect some ad-related data, even in ad-free subscriptions. With respect to user expectations, our survey among 255 participants on Prolific reveals that 69% of the participants normatively expect data collection to be reduced, indicating their expectation of improved digital privacy in an ad-free model. However, when asked what they think actually happens, 63% of these participants believed that platforms would still collect about the same amount of data, highlighting skepticism about platform practices. Our findings not only indicate a significant disconnect between data practices and normative user expectations, but also raise serious questions about platform compliance with core GDPR principles, such as purpose limitation, data minimization, and transparency.

Online platforms increasingly offer "paid" ad-free subscriptions as an alternative to the traditional "free" ad-based model. The transition to ad-free models ostensibly removes advertising as a key justification for data processing under the GDPR. So, normatively, platforms should collect less user data. However, platforms may justify continued data collection as a means to provide an improved, personalized experience. This tension between privacy principles and platform incentives raises a critical underexplored question: do data collection practices vary between ad-free and ad-based subscription models? In this paper, we shed light on this important privacy issue by investigating the alignment between platform data collection practices and related user expectations. With respect to data collection process, our analyses of data exports from three major online platforms - Instagram, Facebook, and X - reveal that these platforms continue to retain or collect some ad-related data, even in ad-free subscriptions. With respect to user expectations, our survey among 255 participants on Prolific reveals that 69% of the participants normatively expect data collection to be reduced, indicating their expectation of improved digital privacy in an ad-free model. However, when asked what they think actually happens, 63% of these participants believed that platforms would still collect about the same amount of data, highlighting skepticism about platform practices. Our findings not only indicate a significant disconnect between data practices and normative user expectations, but also raise serious questions about platform compliance with core GDPR principles, such as purpose limitation, data minimization, and transparency.

The growth of social networks has raised concerns about the misuse of these platforms by disinformation campaigns, social bots, and coordinated activities. Among these platforms, WhatsApp has become a focal point for this abuse, particularly in Brazil, one of the countries with the highest use of the platform. Despite acknowledging the presence of coordinated campaigns and implementing restrictions on the number of messages forwarded per user, the platform continues to be abused. Due to its private nature and the difficulty of collecting information, little is known about these campaigns and the messages they disseminate. Given this context, our study investigates the presence of coordinated activities on WhatsApp in Brazil, identifying their content and purpose, especially how these messages relate to recent Brazilian political events. To answer these questions, we analyzed 13 million messages from 1,444 political groups over seven months from July 2022 to January 2023. Using network analysis, our findings suggest a significant prevalence of coordinated activity in the propagation of news messages, 26% of which originate from misinformation sites. Furthermore, we found that images play a key role in coordinated activity, accounting for 15% of messages, which are also used to mislead. Finally, coordinated accounts were used to organize collective actions, including attacks and protests against election results.

We are witnessing a significant shift in social media platforms; we are transitioning from chronological social media feeds to feeds that are driven by AI recommendation systems. While the main goal of AI recommendation systems is to suggest engaging content to users, there are also some associated risks: AI recommendation systems can promote extreme content, causing negative consequences like online polarization and user radicalization. Overall, there is a pressing need to design powerful techniques that allow us to audit AI recommendation systems. Motivated by this, our work introduces ClipMind, a scalable and generalizable framework using advanced AI models to audit these recommendation algorithms on short-format video platforms like TikTok and YouTube Shorts. We demonstrate the merits of our framework by collecting social media feeds from TikTok. Our analysis shows that TikTok’s recommendation algorithm increasingly recommends similar videos when a user expresses interest in mainstream topics like Food and Beauty Care. On the other hand, by investigating niche interests (War and Mental Health), we find no evidence of informational rabbit holes of extreme content on TikTok. Our work contributes to efforts that leverage AI for social good, as our framework can be used by several interested stakeholders, including users, social media platforms, regulators, and researchers, to understand and audit video-based algorithmic recommendations.