# Toward Addressing Location Privacy Issues: New Affiliations with Social and Location Attributes
## 4 Discussion  
In a nutshell, reviewing the aforementioned studies and taking into consideration the previous analysis of our results, a number of issues regarding location privacy within social media are discussed. Deepening our understanding of geosocial networks, we have observed that geosocial services are provided in the most common social media applications that were used as case studies in different research papers, such as: Facebook, Foursquare, Twitter, and Google Latitude. At the same time, they are also available in other less popular applications, such as Grindr, Flickr, Gowalla, Loopt, and MyTown, so in that way, we can observe the dynamic presence of geosocial services dynamic in social media applications, which endorses the need for further research. Up to this point, we have observed that geotagging services are available in social media applications, but how can users benefit in identifying themselves through representations of space? Geospatial descriptions that include social characteristics are under discussion in the definition of geosocial networks (GeoSNs), according to which geosocial networks \"combine real-time location capabilities with traditional social network functionality\" (p. 1) [14]. That is to say, users are willing to disclose personal information as \"user-generated content\". This content can include information for both a user's location, which is called \"geotagging\" and the presence of other users, which is called \"user tagging\" [14]. This definition can be linked both to [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] argument about users option to turn their privacy into extimacy for social and entertainment purposes [7] in order to be part of the online world through representing themselves in social media applications and to the privacy paradox [40], which despite the conflict in users' minds, seems to withdraw in practice [41], as users seem to disclose private location information for both entertainment and practical reasons. At this point, it is also interesting to discuss online relationships between users, which in most geosocial networks (GeoSNs) can be symmetric; in others words, two users should mutually accept each other before sharing information [14]. An example of that can be the \"Friend\" notion as it is used in Facebook. On the other hand, another type of relationship between users can be the asymmetric one, meaning that users can follow other users without being mutually accepted; approval is not required before being able to obtain access to a user's personal information. An example of that type of relationship could be the notion of followers on Twitter. This observation creates space for revising the question of who has access to our information, for what reason, and under which circumstances [21; 22]. According to [1], the authors identify three attributes of location privacy: namely, identity, position, and time--in other words, information related to who, where, and when, respectively,Regarding the attribute 'who', the user can be identified as far as his/her name, gender, or member of a community/population/geographic position are concerned. The attribute 'where' signifies information referring to the user's exact x and y: the neighborhood, city, island, or municipality. The attribute 'when' reveals information concerning exact time in hours and minutes, a part of the day description, and reference to the day, week, month, and year. In our analysis, activity was also included as an attribute to identify the fourth attribute of location information: the attribute 'what', which is linked to the user's activity, i.e., his/her occupation, recreation time, sleeping, eating, walking, etc. activities [1].