Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 cited by

Information Access of the Oppressed: Freirean Design for Emancipatory Information Access

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Freirean Design exposes information access platforms for co-option by communities to advance their own emancipatory struggles.

desk verdict This is a clean conceptual position paper that names Freirean Design as an alternative frame for IA but leaves the mapping to actual platform mechanics as an unelaborated assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.09600 v3 pith:R5AGEDWA submitted 2026-01-14 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HCcs.IR

Bhaskar Mitra , Nicola Neophytou , Sireesh Gururaja This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HCcs.IR
keywords informationaccessFreireandesignemancipatorypedagogyplatformco-optionsociotechnicalsystemsauthoritariancapturecritical
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquation
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

The paper extends Paulo Freire's theories of emancipatory pedagogy to online information access platforms. It challenges the technologist-user dichotomy that mirrors teacher-student relations and critiques the frame in which technologists act as liberators for marginalized users. The central proposal is Freirean Design, which aims to make platforms structurally open to co-option and co-construction by community members themselves. This matters to a sympathetic reader because it offers an alternative to current approaches focused on fairness, accountability, and transparency when addressing risks like authoritarian capture. If the transfer holds, design priorities would shift from top-down mitigation to enabling bottom-up community action.

What carries the argument

Freirean Design, the proposed approach that structurally exposes information access platforms for co-option and co-construction by community members to support their emancipatory struggles.

What would settle it

An implemented Freirean Design on a real information access platform in which community members do not successfully co-opt or co-construct it for emancipation, or in which authoritarian capture still occurs, would challenge the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By extending Freire's analysis to IA, the paper critiques the technologists-as-liberator frame where it is the burden of altruistic technologists to mitigate risks for marginalized communities. It advocates for Freirean Design whose goal is to structurally expose the platform for co-option and co-construction by community members in aid of their emancipatory struggles.

Load-bearing premise

Freire's theories of emancipatory pedagogy transfer directly and productively to information access platforms to produce emancipatory outcomes without requiring additional empirical validation or adaptation details.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platform development would prioritize features that allow community adaptation and repurposing over predefined protective mechanisms.
  • Technologists would shift from directing solutions to creating conditions for community-driven use.
  • Success metrics would focus on observable community emancipation rather than imposed fairness standards.
  • Design processes would treat users as active co-constructors rather than passive recipients of liberation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Search or recommendation systems could expose internal controls so activist groups can modify ranking or filtering for their needs.
  • This framing connects to existing work on participatory design but applies it specifically to resisting platform capture.
  • A test could involve releasing a platform module with explicit co-option affordances and tracking whether targeted communities adopt and adapt it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies Paulo Freire's theories of emancipatory pedagogy to online information access (IA) platforms. It identifies the technologist-user dichotomy as mirroring the banking model of education, critiques the technologist-as-liberator frame, and proposes 'Freirean Design' whose goal is to structurally expose platforms for co-option and co-construction by community members to support their emancipatory struggles, offering this as an alternative to fairness-accountability-transparency approaches.

Significance. If the proposed extension holds, the work supplies a distinctive theoretical lens for sociotechnical IA research that centers community agency rather than top-down mitigation. It explicitly grounds the argument in Freire scholarship and challenges a common framing in the field; this interpretive contribution could stimulate new design questions even without immediate empirical validation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that Freirean Design produces 'structural exposure' enabling community co-option rests on an unelaborated transfer of concepts such as dialogue and conscientization to IA platform mechanics; no revised query model, ranking objective, data-flow primitive, or access-control mechanism is supplied, leaving the emancipatory outcome as an assertion rather than a derived consequence.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and for recognizing the potential of the theoretical contribution. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that Freirean Design produces 'structural exposure' enabling community co-option rests on an unelaborated transfer of concepts such as dialogue and conscientization to IA platform mechanics; no revised query model, ranking objective, data-flow primitive, or access-control mechanism is supplied, leaving the emancipatory outcome as an assertion rather than a derived consequence.

    Authors: The manuscript is a theoretical intervention that critiques the technologist-user relation and proposes Freirean Design as an orientation, not a concrete system specification. The transfer of dialogue and conscientization is elaborated in the body through explicit mapping: dialogue is positioned as ongoing community-platform negotiation rather than one-way technologist intervention, and conscientization is framed as collective recognition of how platform architectures encode power. These mappings are used to derive the claim that only community co-construction (rather than external mitigation) can produce structural exposure. No query model, ranking objective, or access-control primitive is supplied because the framework deliberately rejects the technologist-as-liberator stance; such mechanisms are to emerge from the co-construction process itself. This is a deliberate design choice consistent with the emancipatory premise, not an omission. We are willing to expand the abstract to foreground this scope distinction if the editor deems it helpful. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: standalone theoretical extension of external scholarship

full rationale

The paper advances a conceptual proposal by extending Freire's existing theories of emancipatory pedagogy to information access platforms. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitions, or derivations appear in the provided text. The argument is grounded in cited external Freire scholarship rather than any self-referential chain or renaming of results. The central claim is an interpretive transfer whose validity can be evaluated against the source material and real-world platform outcomes independently of the paper itself. This is the expected finding for a non-mathematical, non-empirical theoretical work.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on the transferability of educational theory to sociotechnical systems and introduces a new named design approach without independent empirical grounding.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Freire's theories of emancipatory pedagogy are applicable to information access platforms.
    The extension is presented as direct without stated conditions or limitations for the domain transfer.
invented entities (1)
  • Freirean Design
    purpose: A design paradigm that exposes platforms for co-option and co-construction by communities for emancipatory purposes.
    New term and framework introduced to encapsulate the advocated approach.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information Access of the Oppressed: Freirean Design for Emancipatory Information Access." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R5AGEDWA

@misc{pith2026260109600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information Access of the Oppressed: Freirean Design for Emancipatory Information Access},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R5AGEDWA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.09600}
}
read the original abstract

Online information access (IA) platforms are targets of authoritarian capture. We explore the question of how to safeguard our platforms and ensure emancipatory outcomes through the lens of Paulo Freire's theories of emancipatory pedagogy. Freire's theories provide a radically different lens for exploring IA's sociotechnical concerns relative to the current dominating frames of fairness, accountability, and transparency. We make explicit, with the intention to challenge, the technologist-user dichotomy in IA platform development that mirrors the teacher-student relation in Freire's analysis. By extending Freire's analysis to IA, we critique the technologists-as-liberator frame where it is the burden of (altruistic) technologists to mitigate the risks of emerging technologies for marginalized communities. Instead, we advocate for Freirean Design whose goal is to structurally expose the platform for co-option and co-construction by community members in aid of their emancipatory struggles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.09600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The spectrum of user participation in the different paradigms for IA technology development. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Critical IR Theories and Practices

    cs.IR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    IR should shift from liberal to critical theoretical frames centered on nondomination to ground societal good and evaluate progress toward it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

200 extracted references · 200 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Retrieved January 12, 2026 from https://docs.decidim.org/en/develop/index.html

    2025.Decidim Docs. Retrieved January 12, 2026 from https://docs.decidim.org/en/develop/index.html

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Free Our Feeds: Save Social Media From Billionaire Capture

    2025. Free Our Feeds: Save Social Media From Billionaire Capture. https://freeourfeeds.com/

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Veronica Abebe, Gagik Amaryan, Marina Beshai, Ilene, Ali Ekin Gurgen, Wendy Ho, Naaji R Hylton, Daniel Kim, Christy Lee, Carina Lewandowski, et al. 2022. Anti-Racist HCI: notes on an emerging critical technical practice. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–12

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Rachel Adams. 2021. Can artificial intelligence be decolonized?Interdisciplinary Science Reviews46, 1-2 (2021), 176–197

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Yoko Akama, Seth Keen, and Peter West. 2016. Speculative design and heterogeneity in indigenous nation building. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 895–899

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Azadeh Akbari. 2025. Big Tech authoritarianism: Political synergies of an emerging power.Dialogues on Digital Society(2025), 29768640251370968

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Anders Albrechtslund. 2007. Ethics and technology design.Ethics and information technology9, 1 (2007), 63–72

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Mustafa Ali. 2014. Towards a decolonial computing. (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 200 references
  1. [9]

    Syed Mustafa Ali. 2016. A brief introduction to decolonial computing.XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students22, 4 (2016), 16–21

    2016

  2. [10]

    Bobby Allyn. 2025. Legal experts condemn Apple bowing to White House’s request to remove ICE tracking app.NPR(2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Mariam Asad. 2019. Prefigurative design as a method for research justice.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–18

    2019

  4. [12]

    Mariam Asad, Christopher A Le Dantec, Becky Nielsen, and Kate Diedrick. 2017. Creating a sociotechnical API: Designing city-scale community engagement. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2295–2306

    2017

  5. [13]

    James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation.Digital Creativity24, 1 (2013), 11–35

    2013

  6. [14]

    Seyram Avle, Silvia Lindtner, and Kaiton Williams. 2017. How methods make designers. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 472–483

    2017

  7. [15]

    Leif Azzopardi, Charlie Clarke, Paul Kantor, Bhaskar Mitra, Johanne Trippas, and Zhaochun Ren. 2024. The Search Futures Workshop (ECIR2024). https://searchfutures.github.io/

    2024

  8. [16]

    Ethical AI

    Chelsea Barabas. 2020. Beyond Bias: Re-Imagining the Terms of" Ethical AI" in Criminal Law.Geo. JL & Mod. Critical Race Persp.12 (2020), 83

    2020

  9. [17]

    Daniel Barben, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, David H Guston, Edward J Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman. 2008. The handbook of science and technology studies

    2008

  10. [18]

    Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2015. What is Humanistic HCI? InHumanistic HCI. Springer, 13–32

    2015

  11. [19]

    Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2016. Humanistic Hci.Interactions23, 2 (2016), 20–29

    2016

  12. [20]

    Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1301–1310

    2010

  13. [21]

    Shaowen Bardzell. 2018. Utopias of participation: Feminism, design, and the futures.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 25, 1 (2018), 1–24

    2018

  14. [22]

    Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2011. Towards a feminist HCI methodology: social science, feminism, and HCI. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 675–684

    2011

  15. [23]

    Shaowen Bardzell and Jeffrey Bardzell. 2016. Feminist design in computing.The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (2016), 1–7

    2016

  16. [24]

    Shaowen Bardzell, Elizabeth Churchill, Jeffrey Bardzell, Jodi Forlizzi, Rebecca Grinter, and Deborah Tatar. 2011. Feminism and interaction design. InCHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–4

    2011

  17. [25]

    Solon Barocas, Asia J Biega, Benjamin Fish, Jędrzej Niklas, and Luke Stark. 2020. When not to design, build, or deploy. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 695–695

    2020

  18. [26]

    Richard L Baskerville. 1999. Investigating information systems with action research.Communications of the association for information systems2, 1 (1999), 19

    1999

  19. [27]

    Karl Baumann, Benjamin Stokes, François Bar, and Ben Caldwell. 2017. Infrastructures of the Imagination: Community Design for Speculative Urban Technologies. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies(Troyes, France)(C&T ’17). Association...

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code.Social Forces(2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    2015.Social and solidarity economy: Beyond the fringe

    Suzanne Bergeron, Stephen Healy, Carina Millstone, Bénédicte Fonteneau, Georgina Gómez, Marguerite Mendell, Paul Nelson, John-Justin McMurtry, Cecilia Rossel, Abhijit Ghosh, et al. 2015.Social and solidarity economy: Beyond the fringe. Bloomsbury Publishing

    2015

  22. [30]

    Mark Bilandzic and John Venable. 2011. Towards participatory action design research: adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics.Journal of Community Informatics7, 3 (2011), 1–20. Manuscript submitted to ACM Information Access of the Oppressed 17

    2011

  23. [31]

    Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. Power to the people? Opportunities and challenges for participatory AI. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, ...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Simon Bowen. 2010. Critical theory and participatory design. InProceedings of CHI, Vol. 10. Citeseer Atlanta, GA

    2010

  25. [33]

    2007.The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice

    Hilary Bradbury and Peter Reason. 2007.The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage

    2007

  26. [34]

    Jacob Browne and Laurel Green. 2022. The Future of Work is No Work: A Call to Action for Designers in the Abolition of Work. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts. 1–8

    2022

  27. [35]

    Matthew Burtell and Thomas Woodside. 2023. Artificial influence: An analysis of AI-driven persuasion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08721(2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Susanne B𝜑dker, Kaj Gr𝜑nbæk, and Morten Kyng. 1995. Cooperative design: techniques and experiences from the Scandinavian scene. InReadings in human–computer interaction. Elsevier, 215–224

    1995

  29. [37]

    FC Campos and GL Anderso. 2022. An introduction to Paulo Freire and his influence on participatory action research.Sussex: Institute of Development Studies(2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Micah Carroll, Alan Chan, Henry Ashton, and David Krueger. 2023. Characterizing manipulation from AI systems. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–13

    2023

  31. [39]

    Southern Poverty Law Center. [n. d.]. Men’s Rights Activists. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/mens-rights-activists/

  32. [40]

    Daniel Chandler. 1995. Technological or media determinism

    1995

  33. [41]

    2025.How people use chatgpt

    Aaron Chatterji, Thomas Cunningham, David J Deming, Zoe Hitzig, Christopher Ong, Carl Yan Shan, and Kevin Wadman. 2025.How people use chatgpt. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research

    2025

  34. [42]

    Ishita Chordia, Leya Breanna Baltaxe-Admony, Ashley Boone, Alyssa Sheehan, Lynn Dombrowski, Christopher A Le Dantec, Kathryn E Ringland, and Angela DR Smith. 2024. Social justice in HCI: A systematic literature review. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Aleksandr Chuklin, Ilya Markov, and Maarten de Rijke. 2015. Click models for web search.Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services7, 3 (2015), 1–115

    2015

  36. [44]

    Raffaele F Ciriello, Julian Marx, Marc Cheong, Christoph Mueller-Bloch, and Lars Mathiassen. 2025. Decentralized Social Media.Business & Information Systems Engineering(2025), 1–16

    2025

  37. [45]

    Patricia Hill Collins. 1990. Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination.Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment138, 1990 (1990), 221–238

    1990

  38. [46]

    Eric Corbett, Remi Denton, and Sheena Erete. 2023. Power and public participation in ai. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–13

    2023

  39. [47]

    2020.Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020.Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. The MIT Press

    2020

  40. [48]

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2023. The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization(Boston,...

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir

    Fernando Pedro Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael A. Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2021. Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond "Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir".ArXivabs/2111.01122 (2021). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.01122

    2021

  42. [50]

    Fernando Diaz, Ryen White, Georg Buscher, and Dan Liebling. 2013. Robust models of mouse movement on dynamic web search results pages. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 1451–1460

    2013

  43. [51]

    Jesus Diaz. 2022. Using Mastodon is way too complicated to ever topple Twitter.Fast Company(2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    2020.Data feminism

    Catherine D’ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2020.Data feminism. MIT press

    2020

  45. [53]

    2012.Feminist HCI for real: Designing technology in support of a social movement

    Jill P Dimond. 2012.Feminist HCI for real: Designing technology in support of a social movement. Georgia Institute of Technology

    2012

  46. [54]

    Jill P Dimond, Michaelanne Dye, Daphne LaRose, and Amy S Bruckman. 2013. Hollaback! The role of storytelling online in a social movement organization. InProceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 477–490

    2013

  47. [55]

    Mickey Djuric. 2025. Canada’s digital sovereignty push challenges America’s reach.Politico Pro(2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Lynn Dombrowski, Ellie Harmon, and Sarah Fox. 2016. Social justice-oriented interaction design: Outlining key design strategies and commitments. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive systems. 656–671

    2016

  49. [57]

    Paul Dourish and Scott D Mainwaring. 2012. Ubicomp’s colonial impulse. InProceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on ubiquitous computing. 133–142

    2012

  50. [58]

    Marius Dragomir and Minna Aslama Horowitz. 2025. Old Tricks, New Tech: How Legacy Media Capture Fuels Today’s Digital Authoritarianism. Tech Policy Press(2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Ana Maria Bustamante Duarte, Nina Brendel, Auriol Degbelo, and Christian Kray. 2018. Participatory Design and Participatory Research: An HCI Case Study with Young Forced Migrants.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.25, 1, Article 3 (Feb. 2018), 39 pages. doi:10.1145/3145472

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    2021.Double Standards in Social Media Content Moderation

    Ángel Díaz and Laura Hecht-Felella. 2021.Double Standards in Social Media Content Moderation. Report. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Double_Standards_Content_Moderation.pdf

    2021

  53. [61]

    Charles C Earl. 2021. Towards an Abolitionist AI: the role of Historically Black Colleges and Universities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02011(2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Vladimir Egorov and Andrey Inshakov. 2021. Cooperation as an integral part of the social and solidarity economy (SSE). InSHS Web of Conferences, Vol. 94. EDP Sciences, 01009. Manuscript submitted to ACM 18 Mitra et al

    2021

  55. [63]

    Michael D Ekstrand, Afsaneh Razi, Aleksandra Sarcevic, Maria Soledad Pera, Robin Burke, and Katherine Landau Wright. 2025. Recommending with, not for: Co-designing recommender systems for social good.ACM transactions on recommender systems(2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Michael D Ekstrand and Martijn C Willemsen. 2016. Behaviorism is not enough: better recommendations through listening to users. InProceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. 221–224

    2016

  57. [65]

    Seliem El-Sayed, Canfer Akbulut, Amanda McCroskery, Geoff Keeling, Zachary Kenton, Zaria Jalan, Nahema Marchal, Arianna Manzini, Toby Shevlane, Shannon Vallor, et al . 2024. A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404....

    2024

  58. [66]

    Marwa Fatafta. 2024. Big Tech and the risk of genocide in Gaza: what are companies doing?Access Now(2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    Grand visions

    Tom Feltwell, Shaun Lawson, Enrique Encinas, Conor Linehan, Ben Kirman, Deborah Maxwell, Tom Jenkins, and Stacey Kuznetsov. 2018. "Grand visions" for post-capitalist human-computer interaction. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    2018

  60. [68]

    Gerhard Fischer. 2003. Meta-design: Beyond user-centered and participatory design. InProceedings of HCI international, Vol. 4. 88–92

    2003

  61. [69]

    Gerhard Fischer and Eric Scharff. 2000. Meta-design: design for designers. InProceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 396–405

    2000

  62. [70]

    Michael FitzGerald. 2025. ‘Digital sovereignty’: why the EU may be shifting from internet regulation to building homegrown tech.The Conversation (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Christine Floyd, Wolf-Michael Mehl, Fanny-Michaela Resin, Gerhard Schmidt, and Gregor Wolf. 1989. Out of Scandinavia: Alternative approaches to software design and system development.Human–computer interaction4, 4 (1989), 253–350

    1989

  64. [72]

    World Economic Forum. 2024. World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2024. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/

    2024

  65. [73]

    Open Search Foundation. 2025. #FreeWebSearch Charter: Search for the Common Good. https://freewebsearch.org/en/charter/

    2025

  66. [74]

    Dean A Frantsvog. 2012. All Rights Reversed: A Study of Copyleft, Open-Source, and Open-Content Licensing.Contemporary Issues In Education Research5, 1 (2012), 15–22

    2012

  67. [75]

    Rudy Fraser. 2025. Beyond Horseless Carriages: Building Communities for the Decentralized Era. Conference talk at ATmosphere 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZN8y8kVFFI YouTube video

    2025

  68. [76]

    1970.Pedagogy of the Oppressed

    Paulo Freire. 1970.Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder New York

    1970

  69. [77]

    2007.Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing

    Miranda Fricker. 2007.Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press

    2007

  70. [78]

    Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-sensitive design.interactions3, 6 (1996), 16–23

    1996

  71. [79]

    Tony Fry. 2009. Design futuring.University of New South Wales Press, Sydney(2009), 71–77

    2009

  72. [80]

    2013.Design activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world

    Alastair Fuad-Luke. 2013.Design activism: beautiful strangeness for a sustainable world. Routledge

    2013

  73. [81]

    Christian Fuchs. 2009. Towards a critical theory of information.tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society7, 2 (2009), 243–292

    2009

  74. [82]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press

    2018

  75. [83]

    Yana Gorokhovskaia and Cathryn Grothe. 2024. The mounting damage of flawed elections and armed conflict.Freedom House(2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Robert Gorwa. 2019. What is platform governance?Information, communication & society22, 6 (2019), 854–871

    2019

  77. [85]

    Steven Greenhouse. 2021. Amazon fired him–now he’s trying to unionize 5,000 workers in New York.The Guardian(2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Kevin Guyan. 2022. Queer data. (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    Matthias Hagen, Josiane Mothe, Smaranda Muresan, Martin Potthast, Min Zhang, Benno Stein, et al. 2026. Retrieval-Augmented Generation—The Future of Search? (Dagstuhl Seminar 25391).Dagstuhl Reports(2026)

    2026

  80. [88]

    Radsch, Chris Riley, Natasha Tusikov, Heidi Tworek, and Samuel Woolley

    Blayne Haggart, Courtney C. Radsch, Chris Riley, Natasha Tusikov, Heidi Tworek, and Samuel Woolley. 2022. As Elon Musk Upends Twitter, Whither the Digital Town Square?Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)(2022). https://www.cigionline.org/articles/as-elon-musk-...

    2022

  81. [89]

    Amir Haj-Bolouri, Lennarth Bernhardsson, and Matti Rossi. 2016. PADRE: A method for participatory action design research. InInternational Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems. Springer, 19–36

    2016

  82. [90]

    2025.Empire of AI: Dreams and nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI

    Karen Hao. 2025.Empire of AI: Dreams and nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI. Penguin Group

    2025

  83. [91]

    Sabrina Hauser, Audrey Desjardins, and Ron Wakkary. 2013. Design activism in the HCI classroom. InCHI’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2119–2128

    2013

  84. [92]

    Gillian R Hayes. 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)18, 3 (2011), 1–20

    2011

  85. [93]

    Mihály Héder. 2021. AI and the resurrection of Technological Determinism.Információs Társadalom: Társadalomtudományi Folyóirat21, 2 (2021), 119–130

    2021

  86. [94]

    Justin Hendrix and J Flowers. 2022. The whiteness of Mastodon.Tech Policy Press. November23 (2022), 2022

    2022

  87. [95]

    Kyra-lin Hom. 2015. Rage baiting.Westside Seattle(2015). https://www.westsideseattle.com/west-seattle-herald/2015/05/25/rage-baiting

    2015

  88. [96]

    Gerald Imray. 2025. South Africa president says persecution of whites a ‘false narrative’ as Musk repeats genocide claim.Associated Press News (2025). Manuscript submitted to ACM Information Access of the Oppressed 19

    2025

  89. [97]

    Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E Grinter. 2010. Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1311–1320

    2010

  90. [98]

    Lilly C Irani and M Six Silberman. 2016. Stories We Tell About Labor: Turkopticon and the Trouble with" Design". InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 4573–4586

    2016

  91. [99]

    Naomi Jacobs and Alina Huldtgren. 2021. Why value sensitive design needs ethical commitments.Ethics and information technology23, 1 (2021), 23–26

    2021

  92. [100]

    Lenz Jacobsen. 2025. Ein Hitlergruß ist ein Hitlergruß ist ein Hitlergruß.Die Zeit(2025)

    2025

  93. [101]

    2015.Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power

    Sheila Jasanoff and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2015.Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press

    2015

  94. [102]

    Daxin Jiang, Jian Pei, and Hang Li. 2013. Mining search and browse logs for web search: A survey.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST)4, 4 (2013), 1–37

    2013

  95. [103]

    Lauren Johnson and Ryan Joe. 2023. Generative AI has a Digital Blackface problem.Business Insider(2023)

    2023

  96. [104]

    Stephanie T Jones and Natalie Araujo Melo. 2021. We tell these stories to survive: Towards abolition in computer science education.Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education21 (2021), 290–308

    2021

  97. [105]

    2021.We do this’ til we free us: Abolitionist organizing and transforming justice

    Mariame Kaba. 2021.We do this’ til we free us: Abolitionist organizing and transforming justice. Haymarket Books

    2021

  98. [106]

    Amba Kak and Sarah Myers West. 2023. AI Now 2023 Landscape: Confronting Tech Power. https://ainowinstitute.org/2023-landscape AI Now Institute

    2023

  99. [107]

    Shivaram Kalyanakrishnan, Rahul Alex Panicker, Sarayu Natarajan, and Shreya Rao. 2018. Opportunities and challenges for artificial intelligence in India. InProceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 164–170

    2018

  100. [108]

    Gerald C Kane, Amber G Young, Ann Majchrzak, and Sam Ransbotham. 2021. Avoiding an oppressive future of machine learning: A design theory for emancipatory assistants.Mis Quarterly45, 1 (2021), 371–396

    2021

  101. [109]

    Dake Kang and Yael Grauer. 2025. Silicon Valley enabled brutal mass detention and surveillance in China, internal documents show.AP(2025)

    2025

  102. [110]

    Jay Caspian Kang. 2025. The Big Tech takeover of American politics. https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/the-big-tech-takeover-of- american-politics

    2025

  103. [111]

    Jamal Kanj. 2025. Big Tech and the Architecture of the Israeli Genocide Against Palestinians.CounterPunch(2025)

    2025

  104. [112]

    Sucharita Kanjilal. 2023. The digital life of caste: Affect, synesthesia and the social body online.Feminist Media Studies(2023), 1–16

    2023

  105. [113]

    Dara Kerr. 2025. Musk’s AI Grok bot rants about ‘white genocide’ in South Africa in unrelated chats.The Guardian(2025)

    2025

  106. [114]

    Os Keyes, Josephine Hoy, and Margaret Drouhard. 2019. Human-computer insurrection: Notes on an anarchist HCI. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2019

  107. [115]

    Michael Klipphahn-Karge, Ann-Kathrin Koster, and Sara Morais dos Santos Bruss. 2024. Introduction: Queer AI. InQueer Reflections on AI. Routledge, 1–19

    2024

  108. [116]

    Tahu Kukutai, Kyla Campbell-Kamareira, Aroha Te Pareake Mead, Kirikowhai Mikaere, Caleb Moses, Jesse Whitehead, and Donna Cormack. 2023. M¯aori data governance model. (2023)

    2023

  109. [117]

    Creative Reaction Lab. 2018. Equity-Centered Community Design Field Guide

    2018

  110. [118]

    Adrienne LaFrance. 2024. The Rise of Techno-Authoritarianism.The Atlantic(2024)

    2024

  111. [119]

    Paddy Leerssen. 2025. From Murdoch to Musk: Platform ownership and the political economy of online content governance.Platforms & Society2 (2025), 29768624251386260

    2025

  112. [120]

    Sam Levin, Julia Carrie Wong, and Luke Harding. 2016. Facebook backs down from ‘napalm girl’ censorship and reinstates photo.The Guardian (2016)

    2016

  113. [121]

    Kurt Lewin. 1946. Action research and minority problems.Journal of social issues2, 4 (1946), 34–46

    1946

  114. [122]

    Becca Lewis. 2025. ‘Headed for technofascism’: the rightwing roots of Silicon Valley.The Guardian(2025)

    2025

  115. [123]

    Ann Light. 2011. HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers.Interacting with computers23, 5 (2011), 430–438

    2011

  116. [124]

    Conor Linehan and Ben Kirman. 2014. Never mind the bollocks, i wanna be anarCHI: a manifesto for punk HCI. InCHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 741–748

    2014

  117. [125]

    Donna Lu. 2025. We tried out DeepSeek. It worked well, until we asked it about Tiananmen Square and Taiwan.The Guardian(2025)

    2025

  118. [126]

    Astrid Mager and Christian Katzenbach. 2021. Future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology: Multiple, contested, commodified. 223–236 pages

    2021

  119. [127]

    Noëmi Manders-Huits. 2011. What values in design? The challenge of incorporating moral values into design.Science and engineering ethics17, 2 (2011), 271–287

    2011

  120. [128]

    Aarian Marshall. 2021. Google’s New Union Is Already Addressing Political Issues. (2021). https://www.wired.com/story/googles-new-union- addressing-political-issues/

    2021

  121. [129]

    Luiza Prado de O Martins. 2014. Privilege and oppression: Towards a feminist speculative design. (2014)

    2014

  122. [130]

    Mike Masnick. 2019. Protocols, not platforms: A technological approach to free speech.Knight First Amendment Institute19, 5 (2019)

    2019

  123. [131]

    Mastodon. 2025. The people should own the town square. https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2025/01/the-people-should-own-the-town-square/ Manuscript submitted to ACM 20 Mitra et al

    2025

  124. [132]

    Richard Mathenge. 2024. Data Workers Organizing. The African Content Moderators Union.The Data Workers’ Inquiry. Creative Commons BY4 (2024)

    2024

  125. [133]

    Dan McQuillan. 2022. Anti-fascist AI. InResisting AI. Bristol University Press, 135–148

    2022

  126. [134]

    Donald Metzler, Yi Tay, Dara Bahri, and Marc Najork. 2021. Rethinking search: making domain experts out of dilettantes. InAcm sigir forum, Vol. 55. ACM New York, NY, USA, 1–27

    2021

  127. [135]

    Milmo, Daniel. 2022. Instagram Rolls Back Some Changes to App.The Guardian(28 July 2022). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/ jul/28/instagram-rolls-back-some-changes-to-app Technology section

    2022

  128. [136]

    Bhaskar Mitra. 2025. Emancipatory Information Retrieval.Information Retrieval Research1, 2 (2025), 313–339

    2025

  129. [137]

    Bhaskar Mitra. 2025. Search and Society: Reimagining Information Access for Radical Futures.Information Retrieval Research1, 1 (2025), 47–92

    2025

  130. [138]

    Bhaskar Mitra, Henriette Cramer, and Olya Gurevich. 2024. Sociotechnical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Information Access. InInformation Access in the Era of Generative AI. Springer, 161–200

    2024

  131. [139]

    Shakir Mohamed, Marie-Therese Png, and William Isaac. 2020. Decolonial AI: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology33 (2020), 659–684

    2020

  132. [140]

    Rani Molla. 2019. The rise of fear-based social media like Nextdoor, Citizen, and now Amazon’s Neighbors.Vox(2019)

    2019

  133. [141]

    Thema Monroe-White. 2021. Emancipatory data science: a liberatory framework for mitigating data harms and fostering social transformation. In Proceedings of the 2021 on Computers and people research conference. 23–30

    2021

  134. [142]

    2022.Technology of the oppressed: Inequity and the digital mundane in favelas of Brazil

    David Nemer. 2022.Technology of the oppressed: Inequity and the digital mundane in favelas of Brazil. MIT Press

    2022

  135. [143]

    Nicola Neophytou and Bhaskar Mitra. 2026. Open, to What End? A Capability-Theoretic Perspective on Open Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14584 (2026)

    2026

  136. [144]

    Tori Noble and Kit Walsh. 2025. President Trump’s War on “Woke AI” Is a Civil Liberties Nightmare.Electronic Frontier Foundation Deeplinks Blog (2025)

    2025

  137. [145]

    Caroline O’Donovan. 2014. What is clickbait? https://www.niemanlab.org/2014/08/what-is-clickbait/

    2014

  138. [146]

    Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela DR Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    2020

  139. [147]

    Will Oremus. 2017. Big Tobacco. Big Pharma. Big Tech? (2017). https://slate.com/technology/2017/11/how-silicon-valley-became-big-tech.html

    2017

  140. [148]

    Peter S Park, Simon Goldstein, Aidan O’Gara, Michael Chen, and Dan Hendrycks. 2023. AI deception: A survey of examples, risks, and potential solutions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14752(2023)

    2023

  141. [149]

    Kavita Philip, Lilly Irani, and Paul Dourish. 2012. Postcolonial computing: A tactical survey.Science, Technology, & Human Values37, 1 (2012), 3–29

    2012

  142. [150]

    Alina Polyakova and Chris Meserole. 2019. Exporting digital authoritarianism: The Russian and Chinese models.Policy brief, democracy and disorder seriesAugust 2019 (2019), 1–22

    2019

  143. [151]

    Xiang Qi and Junnan Yu. 2025. Participatory design in human-computer interaction: Cases, characteristics, and lessons. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–26

    2025

  144. [152]

    R Rapoport. [n. d.]. Three dilemmas in action research.Human Relations33, 4 ([n. d.]), 488–543

  145. [153]

    Eric Raymond. 1999. The cathedral and the bazaar.Knowledge, Technology & Policy12, 3 (1999), 23–49

    1999

  146. [154]

    Stuart Reeves. 2012. Envisioning ubiquitous computing. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1573–1582

    2012

  147. [155]

    Wessel Reijers and Bert Gordijn. 2019. Moving from value sensitive design to virtuous practice design.Journal of information, communication and ethics in society17, 2 (2019), 196–209

    2019

  148. [156]

    Tony Roberts and Marjoke Oosterom. 2025. Digital authoritarianism: A systematic literature review.Information Technology for Development31, 4 (2025), 860–884

    2025

  149. [157]

    Sabiescu, Salomão David, Izak van Zyl, and Lorenzo Cantoni

    Amalia G. Sabiescu, Salomão David, Izak van Zyl, and Lorenzo Cantoni. 2014. Emerging spaces in community-based participatory design: reflections from two case studies. InProceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1(Windhoek, Namibia)(PDC ...

    2014 doi

  150. [158]

    Nithya Sambasivan, Erin Arnesen, Ben Hutchinson, Tulsee Doshi, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. 2021. Re-imagining algorithmic fairness in india and beyond. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 315–328

    2021

  151. [159]

    Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design.Co-design4, 1 (2008), 5–18

    2008

  152. [160]

    Savera. 2024. HAF Way To Supremacy: How the Hindu American Foundation Rebrands Bigotry As Minority Rights. https://www.wearesavera. org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/HAFWaytoSupremacy.pdf

    2024

  153. [161]

    Deepak Saxena, PJ Wall, and Dave Lewis. 2023. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics: A Critical Realist Emancipatory Approach. In2023 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS). IEEE, 1–5

    2023

  154. [162]

    Nathan Schneider. 2018. An Internet of ownership: Democratic design for the online economy.The Sociological Review66, 2 (2018), 320–340

    2018

  155. [163]

    Trebor Scholz. 2015. Think Outside the Boss Cooperative alternatives to the sharing economy. InPublic Seminar

    2015

  156. [164]

    2017.Uberworked and underpaid: How workers are disrupting the digital economy

    Trebor Scholz. 2017.Uberworked and underpaid: How workers are disrupting the digital economy. John Wiley & Sons

    2017

  157. [165]

    Trebor Scholz and Nathan Schneider. 2016. Ours to hack and to own: The rise of platform cooperativism, a new vision for the future of work and a fairer internet.(No Title)(2016)

    2016

  158. [166]

    Chirag Shah and Emily M Bender. 2024. Envisioning information access systems: What makes for good tools and a healthy Web?ACM Transactions on the Web18, 3 (2024), 1–24. Manuscript submitted to ACM Information Access of the Oppressed 21

    2024

  159. [167]

    Grace Shaw, Margot Brereton, and Paul Roe. 2014. Mobile phone use in Australian indigenous communities: future pathways for HCI4D. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian computer-human interaction conference on designing futures: the future of design. 480–483

    2014

  160. [168]

    Shreeti Shubham. 2022. Caste and the Digital Sphere.Shuddhashar Youth Journal(2022)

    2022

  161. [169]

    Mona Sloane, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. 2022. Participation is not a design fix for machine learning. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–6

    2022

  162. [170]

    Thomas Smyth and Jill Dimond. 2014. Anti-oppressive design.Interactions21, 6 (2014), 68–71

    2014

  163. [171]

    Free Software

    Richard Stallman. 1998. Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”. https://web.archive.org/web/20240929160154/https://www.gnu.org/ philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

    1998

  164. [172]

    Ana Pop Stefanija. 2023. Solid, mastodon, and the risk of overburdening the user.Internet Policy Review(2023)

    2023

  165. [173]

    Patrick Strickland. 2016. White lives matter: A new US hate group shows its face.Al Jazeera(2016)

    2016

  166. [174]

    Cella M Sum, Franchesca Spektor, Rahaf Alharbi, Leya Breanna Baltaxe-Admony, Erika Devine, Hazel Anneke Dixon, Jared Duval, Tessa Eagle, Frank Elavsky, Kim Fernandes, et al. 2024. Challenging Ableism: A Critical Turn Toward Disability Justice in HCI.XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM M...

    2024

  167. [175]

    Huatong Sun. 2013. Critical design sensibility in postcolonial conditions.AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research(2013)

    2013

  168. [176]

    Adam Taylor. 2023. A historic rise in global conflict deaths suggests a violent new era. (2023). https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/06/ 29/conflict-war-deaths-global-peace-rise-casualty/

    2023

  169. [177]

    Josh Taylor. 2025. Musk’s AI firm forced to delete posts praising Hitler from Grok chatbot.The Guardian(2025)

    2025

  170. [178]

    Ann Thorpe. 2011. Defining design as activism.Journal of Architectural Education65, 3 (2011), 22–29

    2011

  171. [179]

    Johanne R Trippas, J Shane Culpepper, et al. 2025. Report from the fourth strategic workshop on information retrieval in lorne (swirl 2025). In ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 59. 68

    2025

  172. [180]

    Donald J. Trump. 2023. Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/preventing- woke-ai-in-the-federal-government/

    2023

  173. [181]

    With Highest Number of Violent Conflicts Since Second World War, United Nations Must Rethink Efforts to Achieve, Sustain Peace, Speakers Tell Security Council

    United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases 2023. With Highest Number of Violent Conflicts Since Second World War, United Nations Must Rethink Efforts to Achieve, Sustain Peace, Speakers Tell Security Council. https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15184.doc.htm

    2023

  174. [182]

    Kelsey Urgo and Jaime Arguello. 2025. Search as learning.Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval19, 4 (2025), 365–556

    2025

  175. [183]

    Palashi Vaghela, Steven J Jackson, and Phoebe Sengers. 2022. Interrupting merit, subverting legibility: Navigating caste in ‘casteless’ worlds of computing. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    2022

  176. [184]

    Palashi Vaghela, Ramaravind Kommiya Mothilal, Daniel Romero, and Joyojeet Pal. 2022. Caste Capital on Twitter: A Formal Network Analysis of Caste Relations among Indian Politicians.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–29

    2022

  177. [185]

    Gijs Van Maanen. 2022. AI ethics, ethics washing, and the need to politicize data ethics.Digital Society1, 2 (2022), 9

    2022

  178. [186]

    Nicolas Verón. 2023. Much of the Global South is on Ukraine’s Side.Peterson Institute for International Economics(2023)

    2023

  179. [187]

    Sanne Vrijenhoek, Mesut Kaya, Nadia Metoui, Judith Möller, Daan Odijk, and Natali Helberger. 2021. Recommenders with a mission: assessing diversity in news recommendations. Inchiir. 173–183

    2021

  180. [188]

    Sanne Vrijenhoek, Lien Michiels, Johannes Kruse, Alain Starke, Jordi Viader Guerrero, and Nava Tintarev. 2023. Report on normalize: The first workshop on the normative design and evaluation of recommender systems. InCEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 3639. CEUR-WS

    2023

  181. [189]

    ethics-washing

    Ben Wagner. 2018. Ethics as an escape from regulation. From “ethics-washing” to ethics-shopping? (2018)

    2018

  182. [190]

    Judy Wajcman. 2004. Technofeminism. Cambridge: Polity. (2004)

    2004

  183. [191]

    Judy Wajcman. 2010. Feminist theories of technology.Cambridge journal of economics34, 1 (2010), 143–152

    2010

  184. [192]

    Hannes Werthner. 2020. The Vienna manifesto on digital humanism. InDigital transformation and ethics. Ecowin, 338–357

    2020

  185. [193]

    Meredith Whittaker. 2021. The steep cost of capture.Interactions28, 6 (2021), 50–55

    2021

  186. [194]

    Meredith Whittaker. 2024. Proxy Please: Help People Connect to Signal. https://signal.org/blog/proxy-please/

    2024

  187. [195]

    Rua M Williams, Kathryn Ringland, Amelia Gibson, Mahender Mandala, Arne Maibaum, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2021. Articulations toward a crip HCI.Interactions28, 3 (2021), 28–37

    2021

  188. [196]

    Tom Williams and Kerstin Sophie Haring. 2023. No Justice, No Robots: From the Dispositions of Policing to an Abolitionist Robotics. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 566–575

    2023

  189. [197]

    Heike Winschiers-Theophilus and Nicola J Bidwell. 2013. Toward an Afro-Centric indigenous HCI paradigm.International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction29, 4 (2013), 243–255

    2013

  190. [198]

    Maya Yang. 2023. The vast majority of NFTs are now worthless, new report shows.The Guardian(2023)

    2023

  191. [199]

    Tianyuan Yu, Adam Robert Thieme, and Lixia Zhang. 2025. Identifying Roadblocks in Building Decentralized Apps.Proceedings of the 2025 Applied Networking Research Workshop(2025). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:280059772

    2025

  192. [200]

    Øivind Klungseth Zahlsen, Elena Parmiggiani, and Yngve Dahl. 2022. Challenges of scaling participatory design: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 34th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 143–159. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.