Key Points

• This commentary ties in with an emerging field in privacy scholarship that focuses on collective rather than individualistic viewpoints: recent debates address privacy in digital markets in terms of individual rights to choose between different options, such as between Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or Twitter, while users of digital platforms try to make sense of who they are and how they fit into networked contexts.
• In such contexts, audiences are hidden and almost anything that users share is in plain view. Privacy is thus to be found within public environments rather than in opposition to them—that is, by controlling access to meaning rather than by controlling access to content.
• While legal scholarship is mostly built around the assumption that consumers have to choose to be private or to be public, in digital markets, privacy and publicity are inevitably muddled.
• Drawing on the German Federal Court of Justice’s recent Facebook decision, the commentary observes that reclaiming privacy in digital markets depends not just on selecting between different options but also on being able to make choices in relation to them.

中文翻译：

---

关于社交媒体空间中的社交隐私（的某些方面）

关键点

• 该评论与关注集体而非个人观点的隐私学术新兴领域相关联：最近的辩论涉及数字市场中的隐私问题，涉及在不同选项之间进行选择的个人权利，例如在 Facebook、Instagram、Snapchat 或 Twitter 之间进行选择，而数字平台的用户试图理解他们是谁以及他们如何适应网络环境。
• 在这种情况下，受众是隐藏的，用户分享的几乎所有内容都清晰可见。因此，隐私是在公共环境中发现的，而不是与公共环境相对立——也就是说，通过控制对意义的访问而不是通过控制对内容的访问。
• 虽然法律学术主要建立在消费者必须选择私人或公共的假设之上，但在数字市场中，隐私和宣传不可避免地被混淆了。
• 根据德国联邦法院最近对Facebook 的裁决，该评论指出，在数字市场中恢复隐私不仅取决于在不同选项之间进行选择，还取决于能够做出与它们相关的选择。