Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 105 references

Measuring, Modeling, and Helping People Account for Privacy Risks in Online Self-Disclosures with AI

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Most Reddit users said an imperfect AI disclosure detector helped them weigh privacy risks.

desk verdict First genuine user evaluation of span-level disclosure detection; useful design insights, but the recruitment filter conditions the headline findings on model hits and deserves a stated limitation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15047 v1 pith:M4LRUROP submitted 2024-12-19 cs.HC cs.AI

Isadora Krsek , Anubha Kabra , Yao Dou , Tarek Naous , Laura A. Dabbish , Alan Ritter , Wei Xu , Sauvik Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords self-disclosuredetectionprivacyriskhuman-AIinteractionRedditusablenaturallanguageprocessingtechnologyprobeinformeddecisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Many people disclose personal details in pseudonymous forums like Reddit, reaping social support while taking on hard-to-see re-identification risks. This paper tries to establish that AI tools that flag risky self-disclosures can help these users make informed decisions, even when the AI makes mistakes, if the tool is evaluated with real users and designed around their context. It reports a qualitative study in which 21 Reddit users reviewed the outputs of a span-level disclosure-detection model on their own posts. The central finding is a positive one: despite rejecting or ignoring many model outputs, 17 of 21 participants said they would use or recommend the tool, valued it for self-reflection and catching mistakes, and preferred the categorical version whose labels acted as 'coarse' explanations. The paper argues that future tools must account for posting context, disclosure norms, and users' lived threat models to be genuinely useful.

What carries the argument

The central object is the span-level self-disclosure detection model developed in prior work, used as a technology probe: it flags consecutive words in a post as potential disclosures, in either a binary version (risky or not) or a categorical version (19 categories such as age, health, location). The mechanism that carries the argument is the guided-review procedure: participants saw the model's highlighted spans on their own posts, were asked to accept or reject each span, rate it on helpfulness, importance, sensitivity, and riskiness, and explain their reasoning. The categorical labels are the key explanatory device the study identifies: they function as a 'coarse' explanation that helps users see why a span was flagged, which is what makes imperfect outputs useful for reflection.

What would settle it

Re-run the same interview protocol on a sample of Reddit posters recruited without requiring the model to have flagged disclosures, or on posts deliberately chosen to be low-disclosure. If participants whose posts receive few or no flags (or mostly false positives) do not show the same willingness to use the tool and do not report reflection benefits, then the positive finding is an artifact of pre-screening on model-detectable disclosures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an imperfect NLP self-disclosure detector can still shift users toward more reflective privacy decisions, and that users judge the tool by how well it fits their rhetorical and social context, not by raw accuracy. Using a span-level disclosure detection model as a technology probe, the authors ran 75-minute interviews with 21 Reddit users who assessed the model's flags on two of their own posts. Participants accepted 58% of the detected disclosure spans as genuine self-disclosures, altered only 15% of all detected spans (and 23% of the ones they accepted), and rated the spans they chose to alter as significantly more risky and sensitive and less important to the post's meaning than the ones they left unchanged. The majority (17/21) said they would use the tool or recommend it, describing its value as catching mistakes, surfacing unseen risks, and prompting self-reflection. The paper also finds that category labels serve as coarse explanations that raise acceptance (65% vs 46% for binary flags) and that users want finer-grained explanations, suggested rephrasings, and context-aware detection that respects subreddit norms and privacy-mitigation tactics such as deliberate lies or hypotheticals.

Load-bearing premise

The study only invited Reddit users whose shared posts the model had actually flagged as containing a disclosure, so all the positive responses were measured in situations where the tool had something to say, and the paper does not treat this selection as a limitation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, privacy-support AI should be evaluated with the people it protects, not only on benchmark F1 scores, and such evaluation is feasible in practice.
  • Tools that flag disclosures should be designed to support reflection and informed choice rather than to discourage disclosure altogether; users will disregard over-warning tools.
  • Providing category labels as coarse explanations increases user acceptance of AI-flagged risks and should be a baseline feature of disclosure-detection interfaces.
  • Future models need to incorporate posting context and subreddit norms, distinguish factual from hypothetical content, and respect users' existing privacy strategies such as perturbed details.
  • Users want actionable de-risking help in the form of suggested rephrasings that preserve meaning, alongside fine-grained risk explanations such as worst-case scenarios or k-anonymity estimates.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 58% acceptance and 23% alteration rates suggest that the tool's main effect is cultivating reflection rather than editing; a field deployment measuring actual posting changes over time would test whether reflection translates into behavior.
  • Because recruitment required the model to have detected at least one disclosure, the positive response is conditional on the model being 'heard'; users whose posts the model leaves unflagged might judge it useless or falsely reassuring, so the reported 82% willingness-to-use likely overstates the tool's appeal in the general case.
  • The preference for categorical labels hints that explanation design matters more than detection accuracy for user trust, which could generalize to other AI-assisted content moderation or self-censorship tools.
  • The study's Reddit-specific findings suggest that context-aware disclosure detection is essentially a community-norms problem; a promising extension is to condition detection on the target subreddit's rules and typical disclosure practices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an interview study with 21 Reddit users who used a span-level NLP self-disclosure detection model on two of their own posts. The authors measure users' acceptance and rejection of detected disclosure spans, whether users would alter their posts, and users' preferences for binary versus categorical model outputs. The main reported findings are that 17/21 participants said they would use or recommend the tool, 58% of model-detected spans were accepted as genuine self-disclosures, categorical labels were preferred as coarse explanations, and users valued the model for self-reflection and catching mistakes despite its imperfections. The paper concludes with design and modeling implications for AI-assisted privacy tools. The study is framed as the first user-centered evaluation of such disclosure-detection tools.

Significance. If the findings hold, this is a useful and timely contribution: prior work on NLP disclosure detection has focused on F1 improvements without end-user evaluation, and this paper provides qualitative evidence about how users interpret, accept, and act on model outputs. The qualitative themes—self-reflection, posting context, disclosure norms, lived threat models, and coarse explanations—are valuable for future system design. The paper also reports inter-rater reliability on coding and uses both parametric and non-parametric tests for rating comparisons. However, the quantitative claims are weakened by a selection filter that conditions every participant on the model having detected at least one disclosure, by an arithmetic inconsistency in the headline willingness-to-use statistic, and by the lack of a controlled comparison between the two model variants. These issues are local and fixable, but they affect the strength of several central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 (Recruitment)] The recruitment procedure conditions the entire study on the model having at least one hit: participants were invited only after researchers ensured that the model was able to detect potentially identifying disclosures in the shared posts. Consequently, the headline statistics (17/21 willingness to use, 58% accepted spans, 65% vs. 46% acceptance for categorical vs. binary output) and the positive qualitative reactions are measured only for cases in which the model detected at least one disclosure span. The common real-world cases in which the model returns no detections, or returns mostly false positives, were excluded by design. Section 7 does not discuss this as a limitation, and the abstract and conclusions present the positive response as a general result. Please report how many of the 158 pre-study respondents were excluded at each stage for model-detection failure, and either explicitly restrict the claims to posts with model detections or add a limitation and adjust the conclusion wording.
  2. [Section 5 (RQ1 results, first paragraph)] The central willingness-to-use statistic is internally inconsistent. The text says that 17/21 participants wanted to use the model or recommend it, then breaks this down as 14/21 using it personally and 2/21 recommending it, which sums to 16/21. The abstract and introduction cite 82%, which corresponds to 17/21. This is load-bearing because the positive-response result is one of the paper's principal claims. Please correct the count and recompute any aggregate percentages and any statements derived from them.
  3. [Section 5.2 (RQ2) and Figure 5] The claim that 'higher-granularity classifications resulted in greater user acceptance' is presented as a finding, but the comparison is not controlled: the binary and categorical model variants detected different spans, and the binary model was always shown first. Section 7.1 acknowledges these confounds and states that no direct statistical comparisons were made, yet the Results section draws the comparative conclusion from the unadjusted 46% versus 65% rates. Please either hedge the RQ2 conclusion to a descriptive observation or provide a matched-span analysis that controls for span identity and presentation order. As written, the RQ2 conclusion about granularity is not adequately supported.
  4. [Table 3 (Summary of disclosure span detection issues)] The accounting in Table 3 is not internally consistent. The text reports 851 total disclosure spans and 495 accepted plus 356 rejected, which is 851, but the table header reports a total of 868 occurrences. The table note says that 486 (57.1%) tags with no mistakes are not listed, yet 851 - 486 = 365, while the listed issue rows sum to 418. Since the acceptance and rejection rates are central descriptive statistics, the denominator and overlap handling must be unambiguous. Please correct the table or provide a clear explanation of how multiple issues per span are counted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states that the binary model acceptance rate (46%) 'was lower than those accepted (54%)'; the comparison should be against the categorical model's 65% acceptance rate. Please correct the wording.
  2. [Section 3 and Table 1] The paper alternates between '17 categories' and '19 categories'. Section 3 says the model detects 17 distinct categories, while the introduction and Table 1 say 19; the difference appears to come from the added Name and Contact categories, but the text should state this explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 5, descriptive statistics paragraph] The sentence 'The remaining 486 (57.1%) of tags that contained no mistakes are not listed in this table' is confusing because Table 3 also reports a total of 868 occurrences. Consider replacing this row with a clear 'no issues identified' count that reconciles with the 851-span total.
  4. [Section 5.2, 'Alteration rates' paragraph] The note that the two model variants did not always detect the same spans is helpful, but it appears only after the alteration-rate comparison. Consider moving that caveat before the percentages to prevent readers from interpreting the chi-square test as a direct model comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the study's claims are measured user reactions to a technology probe, not quantities derived from the probe's own parameters.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain in which an output is defined in terms of an input. It uses Dou et al.'s self-disclosure detection model as a technology probe, and the central dependent variables—span acceptance, alteration decisions, helpfulness/importance/sensitivity/riskiness ratings, and willingness to use or recommend—are independently elicited user judgments about the probe's outputs. The performance figures for the probe (75%/82% F1) are cited from the authors' prior work, but they are not used to construct the study's conclusions; the conclusions rest on interview and rating data. The recruitment filter in Section 4.1, which required the model to detect at least one potentially identifying disclosure before inviting a participant, is a genuine sample-selection and generalizability limitation: the acceptance and utility estimates are conditional on the model having at least one hit, and null-detection cases are unmeasured. However, this conditioning does not make the outcome equivalent to the input by construction—the participants still independently accepted or rejected the detected spans, and the paper does not fit any parameter and then rename that fit as a prediction. There is minor author-overlapping self-citation in adopting the Dou et al. model, but it is not load-bearing in a circular sense: the paper explicitly states its goal is not to introduce a new state-of-the-art model, and the evaluation could in principle be run with any span-level disclosure detector. No uniqueness theorem, hidden ansatz, or renamed known result is present. Overall, no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No mathematical free parameters are fitted. The study rests on qualitative and behavioral assumptions rather than a derivation. The central claim is supported by measured user reactions, so circularity burden is low.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Dou et al. model's detected spans are a reasonable operationalization of self-disclosure risk for a user study.
    The entire probe depends on treating model outputs as the thing users assess; the paper does not compare against a gold-standard notion of disclosure risk.
  • domain assumption Participants' stated willingness to alter a post during an interview corresponds to real editing behavior.
    Alteration rate (15%) is based on hypothetical reactions to highlights, not observed edits.
  • standard math Likert ratings can be compared with Welch's t-test and Mann-Whitney U.
    The paper cites de Winter and Dodou for this equivalence; this is a standard but debated assumption.
  • domain assumption Thematic saturation is reached with 21 interviews.
    The paper cites prior work on 6-12 interviews for saturation; this is a standard qualitative assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring, Modeling, and Helping People Account for Privacy Risks in Online Self-Disclosures with AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4LRUROP

@misc{pith2026241215047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring, Modeling, and Helping People Account for Privacy Risks in Online Self-Disclosures with AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4LRUROP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15047}
}
read the original abstract

In pseudonymous online fora like Reddit, the benefits of self-disclosure are often apparent to users (e.g., I can vent about my in-laws to understanding strangers), but the privacy risks are more abstract (e.g., will my partner be able to tell that this is me?). Prior work has sought to develop natural language processing (NLP) tools that help users identify potentially risky self-disclosures in their text, but none have been designed for or evaluated with the users they hope to protect. Absent this assessment, these tools will be limited by the social-technical gap: users need assistive tools that help them make informed decisions, not paternalistic tools that tell them to avoid self-disclosure altogether. To bridge this gap, we conducted a study with N = 21 Reddit users; we had them use a state-of-the-art NLP disclosure detection model on two of their authored posts and asked them questions to understand if and how the model helped, where it fell short, and how it could be improved to help them make more informed decisions. Despite its imperfections, users responded positively to the model and highlighted its use as a tool that can help them catch mistakes, inform them of risks they were unaware of, and encourage self-reflection. However, our work also shows how, to be useful and usable, AI for supporting privacy decision-making must account for posting context, disclosure norms, and users' lived threat models, and provide explanations that help contextualize detected risks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15047 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AI-powered, span-level self-disclosure detection helps users in reviewing their posts to improve privacy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The model classifies each word to a label. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Image depicting how the disclosure detection spans of both versions of the model were presented to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flowchart depicting the interview methodology flow. Participants first answered general questions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A horizontal bar graph depicting the percentage of disclosure detection spans that participants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mark S Ackerman. 2000. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human–Computer Interaction 15, 2-3 (2000), 179–203

    2000

  2. [2]

    Alessandro Acquisti, Idris Adjerid, Rebecca Balebako, Laura Brandimarte, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Saranga Komanduri, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Norman Sadeh, Florian Schaub, Manya Sleeper, et al. 2017. Nudges for privacy and security: Understanding and assisting users’ choices online. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50, 3 (2017), 1–41

    2017

  3. [3]

    Drew Afualo. 2023. Help! I found my boyfriend’s reddit history. dear god. https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/02/ boyfriend-reddit-history-dear-prudence-advice.html

    2023

  4. [4]

    Chandan Akiti, Anna Squicciarini, and Sarah Rajtmajer. 2020. A semantics-based approach to disclosure classification in user-generated online content. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020 . 3490–3499

    2020

  5. [5]

    Tawfiq Ammari, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Daniel Romero. 2019. Self-declared throwaway accounts on Reddit: How platform affordances and shared norms enable parenting disclosure and support. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–30

    2019

  6. [6]

    Dhananjay Ashok and Zachary C Lipton. 2023. PromptNER: Prompting For Named Entity Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15444 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Marieke Bak, Vince Istvan Madai, Marie-Christine Fritzsche, Michaela Th Mayrhofer, and Stuart McLennan. 2022. You can’t have AI both ways: balancing health data privacy and access fairly. Frontiers in Genetics 13 (2022), 1490

    2022

  8. [8]

    Dina Bass and Ellen Huet. 2017. Researchers Combat Gender and Racial Bias in Artificial Intelligence . https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/researchers-combat-gender-and-racial-bias-in-artificial-intelligence

    2017

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    Michael Bernstein, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Drew Harry, Paul André, Katrina Panovich, and Greg Vargas. 2011. 4chan and/b: An Analysis of Anonymity and Ephemerality in a Large Online Community. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 5. 50–57

    2011

  2. [10]

    Taylor Blose, Prasanna Umar, Anna Squicciarini, and Sarah Rajtmajer. 2020. Privacy in Crisis: A study of self-disclosure during the Coronavirus pandemic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09717 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Laura Brandimarte, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein. 2013. Misplaced confidences: Privacy and the control paradox. Social psychological and personality science 4, 3 (2013), 340–347

    2013

  4. [12]

    Alex Braunstein, Laura Granka, and Jessica Staddon. 2011. Indirect content privacy surveys: measuring privacy without asking about it. In Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security . 1–14

    2011

  5. [13]

    Kelly Caine. 2016. Local standards for sample size at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 981–992

    2016

  6. [14]

    Gerardo Canfora, Andrea Di Sorbo, Enrico Emanuele, Sara Forootani, and Corrado A Visaggio. 2018. A NLP-based solution to prevent from privacy leaks in social network posts. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on A vailability, Reliability and Security. 1–6

    2018

  7. [15]

    Baiyun Chen and Justin Marcus. 2012. Students’ self-presentation on Facebook: An examination of personality and self-construal factors. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 6 (2012), 2091–2099

    2012

  8. [16]

    Christy Cheung, Zach WY Lee, and Tommy KH Chan. 2015. Self-disclosure in social networking sites: the role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence. Internet Research 25, 2 (2015), 279–299

    2015

  9. [17]

    Won Ik Cho, Soomin Kim, Eujeong Choi, and Younghoon Jeong. 2022. Assessing How Users Display Self-Disclosure and Authenticity in Conversation with Human-Like Agents: A Case Study of Luda Lee. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: AACL-IJCNLP 2022 , Yula...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Won Ik Cho, Soomin Kim, Eujeong Choi, and Younghoon Jeong. 2022. Assessing How Users Display Self-Disclosure and Authenticity in Conversation with Human-Like Agents: A Case Study of Luda Lee. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: AACL-IJCNLP 2022 . 145–152

    2022

  11. [19]

    Arijit Ghosh Chowdhury, Ramit Sawhney, Puneet Mathur, Debanjan Mahata, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2019. Speak up, fight back! detection of social media disclosures of sexual harassment. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the Association for Comput...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Kate Crawford, Meredith Whittaker, Madeleine Clare Elish, Solon Barocas, Aaron Plasek, and Kadija Ferryman. 2016. The AI now report. The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Near-Term 2 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Bhavana Dalvi, Oyvind Tafjord, and Peter Clark. 2022. Towards teachable reasoning systems: Using a dynamic memory of user feedback for continual system improvement. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 9465–9480

    2022

  14. [22]

    Sauvik Das and Adam Kramer. 2013. Self-censorship on Facebook. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 7. 120–127

    2013

  15. [23]

    Sauvik Das, Hao-Ping Lee, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2023. Privacy in the Age of AI. Commun. ACM 66, 11 (2023), 29–31

    2023

  16. [24]

    Munmun De Choudhury and Sushovan De. 2014. Mental health discourse on reddit: Self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 8. 71–80

    2014

  17. [25]

    Joost CF De Winter and Dimitra Dodou. 2010. Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.Practical assessment, research & evaluation 15 (2010), 1–12

    2010

  18. [26]

    Judith Donath. 1999. S.(1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. Communities in cyberspace (1999), 29–59

    1999

  19. [27]

    Yao Dou, Isadora Krsek, Tarek Naous, Anubha Kabra, Sauvik Das, Alan Ritter, and Wei Xu. 2023. Reducing Privacy Risks in Online Self-Disclosures with Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09538 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bushra Ebadi. 2018. Artificial Intelligence Could Magnify Social Inequality . https://www.cigionline.org/articles/ artificial-intelligence-could-magnify-social-inequality/

    2018

  21. [29]

    Malik ERGİN and Ozgur KOSKAN. 2023. Comparison of Student–t, Welch’st, and Mann–Whitney U Tests in Terms of Type I Error Rate and Test Power. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences 37, 2 (2023), 223–231

    2023

  22. [30]

    Cori Faklaris, Laura Dabbish, and Jason I Hong. 2022. Do They Accept or Resist Cybersecurity Measures? Development and Validation of the 13-Item Security Attitude Inventory (SA-13). arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03114 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Joseph L Fleiss, Bruce Levin, and Myunghee Cho Paik. 2013. Statistical methods for rates and proportions . john wiley & sons

    2013

  24. [32]

    Jill J Francis, Marie Johnston, Clare Robertson, Liz Glidewell, Vikki Entwistle, Martin P Eccles, and Jeremy M Grimshaw. 2010. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and health 25, 10 (2010), 1229–1245

    2010

  25. [33]

    Kevin Gallagher, Sameer Patil, and Nasir Memon. 2017. New Me: Understanding Expert and{Non-Expert} Perceptions and Usage of the Tor Anonymity Network. In Thirteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017) . 385–398

    2017

  26. [34]

    Fabrizio Gilardi, Meysam Alizadeh, and Maël Kubli. 2023. Chatgpt outperforms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15056 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Thomas Gries and Wim Naudé. 2022. Modelling artificial intelligence in economics. Journal for labour market research 56, 1 (2022), 12

    2022

  28. [36]

    Ralph Gross and Alessandro Acquisti. 2005. Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society . 71–80

    2005

  29. [37]

    Alfonso Guarino, Delfina Malandrino, and Rocco Zaccagnino. 2022. An automatic mechanism to provide privacy awareness and control over unwittingly dissemination of online private information. Computer Networks 202 (2022), 108614

    2022

  30. [38]

    Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods 18, 1 (2006), 59–82

    2006

  31. [39]

    Greg Guest, Emily Namey, and Mario Chen. 2020. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PloS one 15, 5 (2020), e0232076

    2020

  32. [40]

    Ashley K Hagaman and Amber Wutich. 2017. How many interviews are enough to identify metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research? Another perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) landmark study. Field methods 29, 1 (2017), 23–41

    2006

  33. [41]

    Mariea Grubbs Hoy and George Milne. 2010. Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of interactive advertising 10, 2 (2010), 28–45

    2010

  34. [42]

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design 24 ... Accepted for publication at CSCW ’25, October 1...

    2003

  35. [43]

    Jun Li Jeung and Janet Yi-Ching Huang. 2023. Correct Me If I Am Wrong: Exploring How AI Outputs Affect User Perception and Trust. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 323–327

    2023

  36. [44]

    Adam N Joinson. 2001. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European journal of social psychology 31, 2 (2001), 177–192

    2001

  37. [45]

    Cameron F Kerry. 2020. Protecting privacy in an AI-driven world. (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Anton Khritankov. 2023. Positive feedback loops lead to concept drift in machine learning systems.Applied Intelligence 53, 19 (2023), 22648–22666

    2023

  39. [47]

    Hanna Krasnova, Sarah Spiekermann, Ksenia Koroleva, and Thomas Hildebrand. 2010. Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of information technology 25, 2 (2010), 109–125

    2010

  40. [48]

    J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics (1977), 159–174

    1977

  41. [49]

    Noam Lapidot-Lefler and Azy Barak. 2015. The benign online disinhibition effect: Could situational factors induce self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 9, 2 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    This is a Throwaway Account

    Alex Leavitt. 2015. " This is a Throwaway Account" Temporary Technical Identities and Perceptions of Anonymity in a Massive Online Community. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 317–327

    2015

  43. [51]

    Hao-Ping Lee, Yu-Ju Yang, Thomas Serban von Davier, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sauvik Das. 2023. Deepfakes, Phrenology, Surveillance, and More! A Taxonomy of AI Privacy Risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07879 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Jooyoung Lee, Sarah Rajtmajer, Eesha Srivatsavaya, and Shomir Wilson. 2023. Online Self-Disclosure, Social Support, and User Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic. ACM Transactions on Social Computing (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Jacob Liedke and Luxuan Wang. 2023. Social Media and News Fact sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/ fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/

    2023

  46. [54]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Grigorios Loukides, Joshua C Denny, and Bradley Malin. 2010. The disclosure of diagnosis codes can breach research participants’ privacy. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 17, 3 (2010), 322–327

    2010

  48. [56]

    M Granger Morgan. 2002. Risk communication: A mental models approach . Cambridge University Press

    2002

  49. [57]

    John X Morris, Justin T Chiu, Ramin Zabih, and Alexander M Rush. 2022. Unsupervised Text Deidentification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11528 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Blake Murdoch. 2021. Privacy and artificial intelligence: challenges for protecting health information in a new era. BMC Medical Ethics 22, 1 (2021), 1–5

    2021

  51. [59]

    Kanchan Naithani and Shrikant Tiwari. 2024. Deep Learning for the Intersection of Ethics and Privacy in Healthcare. In Machine Learning Algorithms Using Scikit and TensorFlow Environments . IGI Global, 154–191

    2024

  52. [60]

    Emily Namey, Greg Guest, Kevin McKenna, and Mario Chen. 2016. Evaluating bang for the buck: a cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. American Journal of Evaluation 37, 3 (2016), 425–440

    2016

  53. [61]

    OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. ArXiv abs/2303.08774 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 257532815

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sunghyun Park, Han Li, Ameen Patel, Sidharth Mudgal, Sungjin Lee, Young-Bum Kim, Spyros Matsoukas, and Ruhi Sarikaya. 2020. A scalable framework for learning from implicit user feedback to improve natural language understanding in large-scale conversational AI systems. arXiv p...

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Eyal Peer, Laura Brandimarte, Sonam Samat, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2017. Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of experimental social psychology 70 (2017), 153–163

    2017

  56. [64]

    James W Pennebaker and Cindy K Chung. 2007. Expressive writing, emotional upheavals, and health. Foundations of health psychology (2007), 263–284

    2007

  57. [65]

    Strategic Plan. 2016. The national artificial intelligence research and development strategic plan. National Science and Technology Council, Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Subcommittee (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Kevin Proudfoot. 2023. Inductive/Deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 17, 3 (2023), 308–326

    2023

  59. [67]

    Charles Pulliam-Moore. 2021. Simu Liu’s alleged old reddit account is why you should never post. https://gizmodo. com/simu-lius-alleged-old-reddit-account-is-why-you-should-1847708695

    2021

  60. [68]

    Catharine H Rankin, Thomas Abrams, Robert J Barry, Seema Bhatnagar, David F Clayton, John Colombo, Gianluca Coppola, Mark A Geyer, David L Glanzman, Stephen Marsland, et al. 2009. Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of ha...

    2009

  61. [69]

    Shailendra Rathore, Pradip Kumar Sharma, Vincenzo Loia, Young-Sik Jeong, and Jong Hyuk Park. 2017. Social network security: Issues, challenges, threats, and solutions. Information sciences 421 (2017), 43–69

    2017

  62. [70]

    Rachael A Record, Will R Silberman, Joshua E Santiago, and Taewook Ham. 2018. I sought it, I Reddit: Examining health information engagement behaviors among Reddit users. Journal of health communication 23, 5 (2018), 470–476

    2018

  63. [71]

    Elissa M Redmiles, Sean Kross, and Michelle L Mazurek. 2019. How well do my results generalize? comparing security and privacy survey results from mturk, web, and telephone samples. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1326–1343

    2019

  64. [72]

    Elissa M Redmiles, Amelia R Malone, and Michelle L Mazurek. 2016. I think they’re trying to tell me something: Advice sources and selection for digital security. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) . IEEE, 272–288

    2016

  65. [73]

    Ann-Katrin Reuel, Sebastian Peralta, João Sedoc, Garrick Sherman, and Lyle Ungar. 2022. Measuring the language of self-disclosure across corpora. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022 . 1035–1047

    2022

  66. [74]

    Luc Rocher, Julien M Hendrickx, and Yves-Alexandre De Montjoye. 2019. Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 1–9

    2019

  67. [75]

    Bryan Semaan, Lauren M Britton, and Bryan Dosono. 2017. Military masculinity and the travails of transitioning: Disclosure in social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 387–403

    2017

  68. [76]

    Manya Sleeper. 2016. Everyday online sharing. Ph. D. Dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University

    2016

  69. [77]

    Manya Sleeper, Rebecca Balebako, Sauvik Das, Amber Lynn McConahy, Jason Wiese, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2013. The post that wasn’t: exploring self-censorship on facebook. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 793–802

    2013

  70. [78]

    Alison Smith-Renner, Ron Fan, Melissa Birchfield, Tongshuang Wu, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Daniel S Weld, and Leah Findlater. 2020. No explainability without accountability: An empirical study of explanations and feedback in interactive ml. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference ...

    2020

  71. [79]

    Robin Staab, Mark Vero, Mislav Balunović, and Martin Vechev. 2023. Beyond Memorization: Violating Privacy Via Inference with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07298 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Jaimee Stuart and Riley Scott. 2021. The Measure of Online Disinhibition (MOD): Assessing perceptions of reductions in restraint in the online environment. Computers in Human Behavior 114 (2021), 106534

    2021

  73. [81]

    Evdoxia Taka, Yuri Nakao, Ryosuke Sonoda, Takuya Yokota, Lin Luo, and Simone Stumpf. 2023. Exploring the Impact of Lay User Feedback for Improving AI Fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08064 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  74. [82]

    David G Taylor, Donna F Davis, and Ravi Jillapalli. 2009. Privacy concern and online personalization: The moderating effects of information control and compensation. Electronic commerce research 9 (2009), 203–223

    2009

  75. [83]

    Tjong Kim Sang and Jorn Veenstra

    Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Jorn Veenstra. 1999. Representing Text Chunks. In Ninth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , Henry S. Thompson and Alex Lascarides (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Bergen, Norway, 173...

    1999

  76. [84]

    Manuel Tonneau, Dhaval Adjodah, Joao Palotti, Nir Grinberg, and Samuel Fraiberger. 2022. Multilingual Detection of Personal Employment Status on Twitter. InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) . 6564–6587

    2022

  77. [85]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Prasanna Umar, Anna Cinzia Squicciarini, and Sarah Michele Rajtmajer. 2019. Detection and Analysis of Self-Disclosure in Online News Commentaries. The World Wide Web Conference (2019). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 86467407

    2019

  79. [87]

    Mina Valizadeh, Xing Qian, Pardis Ranjbar-Noiey, Cornelia Caragea, and Natalie Parde. 2023. What Clued the AI Doctor In? On the Influence of Data Source and Quality for Transformer-Based Medical Self-Disclosure Detection. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European C...

    2023

  80. [88]

    Mina Valizadeh, Pardis Ranjbar-Noiey, Cornelia Caragea, and Natalie Parde. 2021. Identifying Medical Self-Disclosure in Online Communities. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Te...

    2021

  81. [89]

    Mina Valizadeh, Pardis Ranjbar-Noiey, Cornelia Caragea, and Natalie Parde. 2021. Identifying medical self-disclosure in online communities. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech...

    2021

  82. [90]

    Anthony J Viera, Joanne M Garrett, et al. 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam med 37, 5 (2005), 360–363. 26 ... Accepted for publication at CSCW ’25, October 18 — 22, 2025, Bergen, Norway

    2005

  83. [91]

    Nazar Waheed, Muhammad Ikram, Saad Sajid Hashmi, Xiangjian He, and Priyadarsi Nanda. 2022. An empirical assessment of security and privacy risks of web-based chatbots. In International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering. Springer, 325–339

    2022

  84. [92]

    Yang Wang, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Alain Forget, and Norman Sadeh. 2014. A field trial of privacy nudges for facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2367–2376

    2014

  85. [93]

    Yang Wang, Gregory Norcie, Saranga Komanduri, Alessandro Acquisti, Pedro Giovanni Leon, and Lorrie Faith Cranor

  86. [94]

    Rachel Wicks and Matt Post. 2021. A unified approach to sentence segmentation of punctuated text in many languages. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Proces...

    2021 doi

  87. [95]

    Justin Wu and Daniel Zappala. 2018. When is a tree really a truck? exploring mental models of encryption. In Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2018) . 395–409

    2018

  88. [96]

    Ikuya Yamada, Akari Asai, Hiroyuki Shindo, Hideaki Takeda, and Yuji Matsumoto. 2020. Luke: deep contextualized entity representations with entity-aware self-attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01057 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Diyi Yang, Zheng Yao, and Robert Kraut. 2017. Self-disclosure and channel difference in online health support groups. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 11. 704–707

    2017

  90. [98]

    Diyi Yang, Zheng Yao, Joseph Seering, and Robert Kraut. 2019. The channel matters: Self-disclosure, reciprocity and social support in online cancer support groups. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–15

    2019

  91. [99]

    Haejin Yun. 2006. The creation and validation of a perceived anonymity scale based on the social information processing model and its nomological network test in an online social support community . Michigan State University

    2006

  92. [100]

    Eric Zeng, Shrirang Mare, and Franziska Roesner. 2017. End user security and privacy concerns with smart homes. In thirteenth symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2017) . 65–80

    2017

  93. [101]

    Xing Zhang, Shan Liu, Xing Chen, Lin Wang, Baojun Gao, and Qing Zhu. 2018. Health information privacy concerns, antecedents, and information disclosure intention in online health communities. Information & Management 55, 4 (2018), 482–493

    2018

  94. [102]

    Xinyan Zhao, Deahan Yu, and VG Vinod Vydiswaran. 2019. Identifying adverse drug events mentions in tweets using attentive, collocated, and aggregated medical representation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Social Media Mining for Health Applications (# SMM4H) Workshop & Shared Ta...

    2019

  95. [103]

    Verena Zimmermann and Karen Renaud. 2021. The nudge puzzle: matching nudge interventions to cybersecurity decisions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 28, 1 (2021), 1–45

    2021

  96. [104]

    Name" and

    Shi Zong, Alan Ritter, Graham Mueller, and Evan Wright. 2019. Analyzing the perceived severity of cybersecurity threats reported on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.10680 (2019). 27 Accepted for publication at CSCW ’25, October 18 — 22, 2025, Bergen, Norway Krsek, et al...

    2019 arXiv

  97. [2011]

    I regretted the minute I pressed share

    " I regretted the minute I pressed share" a qualitative study of regrets on Facebook. In Proceedings of the seventh symposium on usable privacy and security . 1–16

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.