Skip to main content

Slumdog romance: Facebook love and digital privacy at the margins

Payal Arora ; Laura Scheiber (2017) — Media, Culture & Society

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1177/0163443717691225 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Netherlands
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Brazil, Cross Cultural, Digital Privacy, Facebook, India, Internet Governance, Internet Romance Scams, Low Income Youth, Online Dating Platforms, Online Deception, Online Romance, Platform Policy, Revenge Porn, Romance Scams
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This study frames Facebook as a central arena for social life among economically disadvantaged populations in the global South, consolidating a range of online activities into a single, dominant platform. It notes that intimate topics such as sex, romance, and love motivate the use of mobile and Internet technologies for this demographic, a pattern that mirrors what has been observed in wealthier regions. By foregrounding digital romance as a key context, the work offers a lens through which to rethink Internet governance in a setting characterized by a rapidly expanding, globally entwined digital public. The analysis therefore positions the platform not merely as a communication tool but as a pivotal site where social norms, desire, and governance intersect within a broader, evolving public sphere. The discussion also recognizes that harms like revenge porn, slut-shaming, and online romance scams are widespread and on the rise around the world. It argues that tracing how these phenomena appear in diverse digital cultures can inform the development of new Internet laws that aim to be more inclusive and culturally plural. In this sense, the article treats the cross-cultural variation of online harms as a critical input for policy design, rather than focusing solely on technical solutions or universal norms. The objective is to illuminate how governance mechanisms might adapt to a heterogeneous user base whose intimate online practices are inseparable from broader social and moral concerns. Methodologically, the article concentrates on low-income youth in two BRICS countries, Brazil and India, to examine how they articulate and negotiate ideas about digital privacy, surveillance, and trust through the framework of romance. This approach enables a more layered exploration of how sexuality, morality, and governance interact within Facebook’s broader ecosystem. The findings prompt reflection on whether the ascent of Facebook as the dominant virtual public sphere for the world’s poor enhances inclusion while potentially constraining the diversity of platforms accessible to and used by marginalized communities. In sum, the work interrogates the trade-offs between expanding access and preserving platform plurality in a global landscape where a single site increasingly shapes public return on digital life.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies a geographic and population gap: research on online privacy, digital romance, and Internet regulation predominantly focuses on the West, with little data beyond it and even less among low-income youth. It also notes sparse research on recipients’ detection of deception, especially online. The authors argue that treating BRICS, the global South, or regional blocs as unified privacy cultures obscures important differences.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The article draws on a larger qualitative study of privacy perceptions and online behavior among 44 low-income youth aged 14–27: 22 in Brazilian peripheral neighborhoods (Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro) and 22 in peri-urban India (Isnapur and Ludhiana). Researchers used semi-structured audio-recorded interviews, subsequent focus groups, participant observation of Facebook activity, and photo-documentation of phones, homes, and neighborhoods. Phone documentation recorded privacy settings and triangulated reported usage with installed apps. Participants were recruited through schools, community leaders, public spaces, and low-income college/blue-collar networks; pseudonyms protected anonymity.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The evidence is based on a small, non-random group of 44 youth from selected low-income sites in Brazil and India, recruited through locally accessible institutions and spaces. Findings therefore reflect these participants’ accounts and observed practices rather than all youth, countries, or BRICS contexts. The article itself cautions that low-SES youth are deeply diverse and states that explaining contrasting Brazilian and Indian women’s responses is outside its scope.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Further explore why Indian and Brazilian female participants differed in responses to released sexual content, including the wider ecology of state, gender norms, and public/private culture. Study privacy as a dynamic literacy, including how youth learn to identify Facebook romance deception and negotiate sexual expression. Develop more globally inclusive, rights-based approaches to Internet regulation that account for cross-border trends while avoiding monolithic regional categories.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.