References
- Acker, A., & Kriesberg, A. (2017). Tweets may be archived: Civic engagement, digital preservation and Obama White House social media data. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401001
- Berners-Lee, T. (2018, September 29). One small step for the web … . Retrieved from https://medium.com/@timberners_lee/one-small-step-for-the-web-87f92217d085
- Beurskens, M. (2014). Legal questions of Twitter research. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 123–133). New York: Peter Lang.
- boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
- Braman, S., & Roberts, S. (2003). Advantage ISP: Terms of Service as media law. New Media & Society, 5(3), 422–448. doi: 10.1177/14614448030053007
- Brewster, T. (2014, August 6). Aaron’s Law is doomed leaving US hacking law ‘broken’. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2014/08/06/aarons-law-is-doomed-leaving-us-hacking-law-broken/
- Bruns, A. (2013). Faster than the speed of print: Reconciling ‘big data’ social media analysis and academic scholarship. First Monday, 18(10). doi: 10.5210/fm.v18i10.4879
- Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2016). Methodological innovation in precarious spaces: The case of Twitter. In H. Snee, C. Hine, Y. Morey, S. Roberts, & H. Watson (Eds.), Digital methods for social science (pp. 17–33). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Buchanan, E. A., & Ess, C. (2008). Internet research ethics: The field and its critical issues. In K. E. Himma & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 245–272). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Cai, C., Li, L., & Zeng, D. (2017). Detecting social bots by jointly modeling deep behavior and content information. In proceedings of the 2017 ACM on conference on Information and knowledge Management (pp. 1995–1998), New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3132847.3133050
- Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Koehl, A., Wang, H., & Jajodia, S. (2013). Blog or block: Detecting blog bots through behavioral biometrics. Computer Networks, 57(3), 634–646. doi: 10.1016/j.comnet.2012.10.005
- Constant, S. A. (2013). The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: A prosecutor’s dream and a hacker’s worst nightmare: The case against Aaron Swartz and the need to reform the CFAA. Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 16, 231–313.
- Coughlan, T., & Perryman, L.-A. (2015). A murky business: Navigating the ethics of educational research in Facebook groups. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 146–169. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/special/2015/Coughlan_Perryman.pdf
- Dougherty, D. S., & Kramer, M. W. (2005). A rationale for scholarly examination of Institutional Review boards: A case study. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(3), 183–188. doi: 10.1080/00909880500149270
- Driscoll, K., & Walker, S. (2014). Working within a black box: Transparency in the collection and production of big Twitter data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1745–1764. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2171
- Dwyer, C., & Davies, G. (2010). Qualitative methods III: Animating archives, artful interventions and online environments. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1), 88–97. doi: 10.1177/0309132508105005
- Ess, C., & Jones, S. (2002). Ethical decision-making and internet research. Association of Internet Researchers. Retrieved from https://aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf
- Feinn, L. (2016). How french fries can be used to explain consent. Retrieved from https://www.bustle.com/articles/178198-planned-parenthood-graphic-uses-fries-to-explain-consent-in-a-way-anyone-can-understand
- Fisher, J. B., & Fortmann, L. (2010). Governing the data commons: Policy, practice, and the advancement of science. Information & Management, 47(4), 237–245. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2010.04.001
- Foth, M. (2006). Network action research. Action Research, 4(2), 205–226. doi: 10.1177/1476750306063992
- Freelon, D. (2018). Computational research in the post-API age. Political Communication. Advance Online Publication. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2018.1477506
- Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Gonzalez, R. (2018, May 28). Facebook is giving scientists its data to fight misinformation. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-is-giving-scientists-its-data-to-fight-misinformation/
- Gray, K. L. (2012). Deviant bodies, stigmatized identities, and racist acts: Examining the experiences of African-American gamers in Xbox live. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 18(4), 261–276. doi: 10.1080/13614568.2012.746740
- Halavais, A. (2011). Social science: Open up online research. Nature, 480, 174–175. doi: 10.1038/480174a
- Halavais, A. (2015). Bigger sociological imaginations: Framing big social data theory and methods. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 583–594. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008543
- Halavais, A. (2016). The blogosphere and its problems: Web 2.0 undermining civic Webspaces. First Monday, 21(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i6.6788
- Hayden, E. C. (2012). Informed consent: A broken contract. Nature, 486(7403), 312–314. doi: 10.1038/486312a
- Humphries, M. (2016). ‘Web of Trust’ browser extension cannot be trusted. PCMAG. Retrieved from https://www.pcmag.com/news/349328/web-of-trust-browser-extension-cannot-be-trusted
- Jarrett, H. M., & Bailie, M. W. (2015). Prosecuting computer crimes. Washington, DC: Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for United States Attorneys. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ccmanual.pdf
- Jaszi, P., & Aufderheide, P. (2010). Code of best practices in fair use for scholarly research in communication. International Communication Association. Retrieved from http://cmsimpact.org/code/code-best-practices-fair-use-scholarly-research-communication/
- Jones, R. A. (1994). The ethics of research in cyberspace. Internet Research, 4(3), 30–35. doi: 10.1108/10662249410798894
- Kelley, B. (2016). Toward a goodwill ethics of online research methods. Tranformative Works and Cultures, 22. doi: 10.3983/twc.2016.0891
- Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320040111
- Lampe, C., & Resnick, P. (2004). Slash(dot) and burn: Distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. CHI 2004, April 24-29, Vienna.
- Lomborg, S., & Bechmann, A. (2014). Using APIs for data collection on social media. The Information Society, 30(4), 256–265. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2014.915276
- Luka, M. E., & Millette, M. (2018). (Re)framing big data: Activating situated knowledges and a feminist ethics of care in social media research. Social Media + Society, 4(2), 205630511876829. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118768297
- Lynch, C. (2017). Stewardship in the ‘Age of Algorithms’. First Monday, 22(12), doi: 10.5210/fm.v22i12.8097
- Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers. Retrieved from https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
- Marlow, C. (2004). Audience, structure and authority in the weblog community. Presented at the International Communications Association, New Orleans, LA.
- Marres, N., & Weltevrede, E. (2013). Scraping the social? Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(3), 313–335. doi: 10.1080/17530350.2013.772070
- McPeak, A. (2017). Social data discovery and proportional privacy. Cleveland State Law Review, 65, 17.
- Menchen-Trevino, E., & Karr, C. (2012). Researching real-world web use with Roxy: Collecting observational web data with informed consent. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(3), 254–268. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2012.664966
- Mislove, A., Gummadi, K. P., & Druschel, P. (2006). Exploiting social networks for internet search. In 5th workshop on hot topics in networks (hotnets06) (p. 79). Irvine, CA.
- Morey, T., Forbath, T., & Schoop, A. (2015, May 1). Customer data: Designing for transparency and trust. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/05/customer-data-designing-for-transparency-and-trust
- Morrow, O., Hawkings, R., & Kern, L. (2015). Feminist research in online spaces. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(4), 526–543. doi: 10.1080/0966369X.2013.879108
- Obar, J. A., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2018). The biggest lie on the Internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society. Published online 3 July 2018. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870
- Park, H. W., & Thelwall, M. (2003). Hyperlink analysis of the world wide web: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(4), JCMC843.
- Perez, S. (2018). Facebook is now a major mobile browser in U.S., with 10%+ market share in many states. TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://social.techcrunch.com/2018/08/06/facebook-is-now-a-major-mobile-browser-in-u-s-with-10-market-share-in-many-states/
- Puschmann, C., & Burgess, J. (2014). The politics of twitter data. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 43–54). New York: Peter Lang.
- Renzi, A., & Langlois, G. (2015). Data activism. In G. Langlois, J. Redden, & G. Elmer (Eds.), Compromised data: From social media to big data (pp. 202–225). New York: Bloomsbury.
- Rogers, R. (2010). Internet research: The question of method. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7, 241–260. doi: 10.1080/19331681003753438
- Rogers, R. (2019). Periodizing web archiving: Biographical, event-based, national and autobiographical traditions. In N. Brügger & I. Milligan (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of web history (pp. 42–56). London: Sage Publishing.
- Russell, M. A. (2013). Mining the social web: Data mining Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, GitHub, and more (2nd ed). Beijing: O’Reilly Media.
- Rutgers University. (2018). Internet research. Retrieved from https://orra.rutgers.edu/internet-research
- SIGCHI Research Ethics Committee. (2017, December 1). Do researchers need to follow TOS? Retrieved from https://medium.com/sigchi-ethics-committee/do-researchers-need-to-follow-tos-f3bde1950d3c
- Sinn, D., & Syn, S. Y. (2014). Personal documentation on a social network site: Facebook, a collection of moments from your life? Archival Science, 14(2), 95–124. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1007/s10502-013-9208-7
- Stevenson, L. E. (2017). Social media and eDiscovery: Practice Tips and Case Law Developments. Computer and Internet Lawyer; Frederick, 34(9), 1–8.
- Stutzman, F., Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2013). Silent listeners: The evolution of privacy and disclosure on Facebook. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 4(2), 7–41. doi:10.29012/jpc.v4i2
- Swartz, A. (2008). Guerrilla open access manifesto. Retrieved from http://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto
- Trump, D. J. (2018, October 26). ‘Twitter has removed so many … ’ [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1055822810940129283
- Twitter. (n.d.). Tweet object. Retrieved from https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/tweets/data-dictionary/overview/tweet-object.html
- Underwood, M. K., Ehrenreich, S. E., More, D., Solis, J. S., & Brinkley, D. Y. (2015). The BlackBerry project: The hidden world of adolescents’ text messaging and relations with internalizing symptoms. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 101–117. doi: 10.1111/jora.12101
- Vis, F. (2013). A critical reflection on big data: Considering APIs, researchers and tools as data makers. First Monday, 18(10). doi: 10.5210/fm.v18i10.4878
- Williams, J. (2018, April 12). D.C. Court: Accessing public information is not a computer crime. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/dc-court-accessing-public-information-not-computer-crime
- Zhang, A. X., Blum, J., & Karger, D. R. (2016). Opportunities and challenges around a tool for social and public web activity tracking. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW ‘16 (pp. 911–923), San Francisco, California, USA: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2818048.2819949
- Zimmer, M. (2015). The Twitter Archive at the Library of Congress: Challenges for information practice and information policy. First Monday, 20(7). doi: 10.5210/fm.v20i7.5619