pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03419 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.NI

Recognition: unknown

Beyond Distributive Justice: Hermeneutical Fairness in Ad Delivery

Camilla Quaresmini , Valentina Breschi , Jessica Leoni , Viola Schiaffonati , Mara Tanelli , Giulia De Pasquale
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.NI
keywords online advertisingfairnesshermeneutical injusticedistributive justicead allocationepistemic harm
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ad delivery fairness must extend beyond equal allocation to prevent groups from being deprived of interpretive resources or saturated with distorting framings.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper contends that online advertising harms arise not only from uneven distribution of impressions but from failures in distributing the resources people need to make sense of the world. It draws on the idea of hermeneutical injustice to identify two specific failures: systematic under-exposure that withholds relevant concepts, and over-exposure to low-uptake or skewed framings that distort understanding. Grounded in correlational patterns from 1986-1987 surveys, the authors add a group-level constraint and a corresponding cost term to an existing utility-driven allocation model already enforcing distributive fairness. Simulations then demonstrate that ignoring the new constraint produces under-delivery to disadvantaged groups, while balancing both distributive and hermeneutical terms limits concentration of harms at modest economic cost.

Core claim

Integrating a group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint and a hermeneutically aware utility cost into a benchmark ad allocation framework that already enforces distributive justice yields a distributively fair, hermeneutically aware system that prevents deprivation and distortion from concentrating within protected groups.

What carries the argument

A group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint together with a hermeneutically aware utility cost that penalizes allocations causing under-exposure or skewed framing.

If this is right

  • Pure utility-driven allocation produces under-delivery to the disadvantaged group.
  • When the stakes of withholding ads are high, adding distributive constraints lowers hermeneutical cost at only modest utility loss.
  • Weighting the hermeneutical cost alone, without distributive constraints, can produce policies that concentrate exposure on the disadvantaged group.
  • Trade-offs between utility, distributive fairness, and hermeneutical cost can be quantified through simulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Platforms could begin auditing ad campaigns not only for reach but for measurable changes in recipients' ability to articulate relevant concepts after exposure.
  • The approach might be tested in other recommendation settings, such as news or health information, where framing influences uptake.
  • If the constraint proves effective, regulators could require platforms to report both distributive and hermeneutical metrics for protected audiences.

Load-bearing premise

Exploratory patterns observed in 1986-1987 AIDS advertising surveys can be treated as a sufficient basis for a general constraint on contemporary ad delivery systems.

What would settle it

A field study or controlled experiment that measures whether adding the hermeneutical constraint measurably reduces deprivation or distortion for members of protected groups in live ad campaigns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03419 by Camilla Quaresmini, Giulia De Pasquale, Jessica Leoni, Mara Tanelli, Valentina Breschi, Viola Schiaffonati.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Asymmetric reach and non-monotonic behavior change in HIV prevention advertising. (a) Asymmetric reach in HIV prevention advertising. Heterosexual respondents report a lower probability of high exposure and a higher probability of low exposure than homosexual respondents. (b) Distribution of self-reported behavioral change after the campaign, stratified by exposure group (Not exposed vs Exposed; exposure c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Exploratory correlational evidence for deprivation and distortion mechanisms. (a) Perceived sensational￾ism vs. worry about AIDS (joint distribution). Count-annotated heatmap of the joint distribution between responses to the sensationalism item and self-reported worry about AIDS (Yes/No). The sensationalism item is: “How much do you personally agree with this statement?: The newspapers have been too sensa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulation results for Scenarios A–D ( view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Baseline results. Achieved utility (as % of the unconstrained solution) and parity of exposure difference for γ = 0 and varying βb. 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 γ [-] 99.2 99.4 99.6 99.8 100.0 Utility in % of unconstrained utility Metric Unconstrained Parity of exposure Equality of opportunity Equality of hermeneutical opportunity (a) Utility (% of unconstrained). 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 γ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Additional simulation results with varying hermeneutical-cost weight γ. Achieved utility (as % of the unconstrained solution) and parity of exposure difference. 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 βb [-] 98.5 99.0 99.5 100.0 Utility in [%] of unconstrained utility Scenario A 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 θb [-] 99.6 99.8 100.0 Scenario B 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 ωb [-] 99.6 99.8 100.0 Scenario C 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 ξ [-] 99.6 99.8 100.0 Scenario D 0.0 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation results for Scenarios A–D ( view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation results for Scenarios A–D ( view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation results for Scenarios A–D ( view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Individual-level pipeline for estimating uptake probability view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fairness in online advertising is often formalized as a distributive justice problem, aiming to ensure that impressions, opportunities, or outcomes are allocated comparably across protected groups. Yet online advertising can still produce harms arising from ads' content and from how recipients interpret and uptake them. To capture this dimension, we draw on Miranda Fricker's notion of hermeneutical injustice. We model ad delivery as a mechanism that distributes interpretative resources and can fail in two ways: relevant concepts can be withheld through systematic under-exposure, leading to hermeneutical deprivation; and recipients may experience hermeneutical distortions when saturated with low-uptake or skewed framings. Grounded in exploratory correlational patterns from the AIDS Advertising Evaluation surveys (1986-1987), we introduce a group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint and a hermeneutically aware utility cost. We integrate them into a benchmark, utility-driven ad allocation framework that already enforces distributive justice, yielding a distributively fair, hermeneutically aware framework that prevents deprivation and distortion from concentrating within protected groups. Through controlled simulations, we explore trade-offs between economic utility, classical distributive fairness constraints, and hermeneutical cost. The results show that purely utility-based allocation drives under-delivery to the disadvantaged group. When the hermeneutical stakes of withholding ads are high, distributive constraints reduce hermeneutical cost at modest utility loss. Conversely, weighting hermeneutical cost without distributive constraints can yield policies concentrated on the disadvantaged group. These findings motivate expanding fairness analyses of online advertising beyond distributive notions to include epistemic conditions of interpretation and uptake.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that online ad delivery can produce hermeneutical harms (deprivation via under-exposure and distortion via low-uptake framings) in addition to distributive unfairness. Drawing on Fricker's hermeneutical injustice and exploratory correlations from the 1986-1987 AIDS Advertising Evaluation surveys, it introduces a group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint and a hermeneutically aware utility cost. These are integrated into an existing utility-driven allocation framework that already enforces distributive justice. Controlled simulations then explore trade-offs, showing that pure utility maximization under-delivers to disadvantaged groups, that distributive constraints can reduce hermeneutical cost at modest utility loss when stakes are high, and that weighting hermeneutical cost alone can concentrate delivery on the disadvantaged group.

Significance. If the proposed constraint can be given a defensible, generalizable functional form, the work would usefully expand algorithmic fairness analysis in advertising from purely distributive metrics to epistemic conditions of interpretation and uptake. The simulation-based trade-off exploration supplies a concrete benchmark for such extensions.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and the section introducing the constraint: the group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint and utility cost are grounded solely in exploratory correlational patterns from the 1986-1987 AIDS Advertising Evaluation surveys. No derivation steps, functional-form justification, robustness checks, or argument for transferability to contemporary platforms or other protected groups/content domains are supplied. This leaves the central claim that the integrated framework 'prevents deprivation and distortion from concentrating within protected groups' dependent on an untested generalization.
  2. The simulation results section: the reported trade-offs (e.g., distributive constraints reducing hermeneutical cost at modest utility loss) lack error bars, sensitivity analysis to the free parameter 'hermeneutical cost weight', or validation details. Without these, it is unclear whether the qualitative findings are robust or artifacts of specific parameter choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise mathematical integration of the new hermeneutical terms with the existing distributive-justice benchmark (e.g., how the utility cost modifies the objective and whether the constraint is hard or soft).
  2. Add explicit discussion of the limitations of using a single 1980s dataset for a general modeling claim, including any domain-specific features of AIDS messaging that may not generalize.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The comments raise valid points regarding the empirical grounding of our proposed constraint and the robustness of the simulation analysis. We provide point-by-point responses below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and the section introducing the constraint: the group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint and utility cost are grounded solely in exploratory correlational patterns from the 1986-1987 AIDS Advertising Evaluation surveys. No derivation steps, functional-form justification, robustness checks, or argument for transferability to contemporary platforms or other protected groups/content domains are supplied. This leaves the central claim that the integrated framework 'prevents deprivation and distortion from concentrating within protected groups' dependent on an untested generalization.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the hermeneutical fairness constraint is motivated by exploratory correlations from the 1986-1987 AIDS Advertising Evaluation surveys without a formal derivation or extensive robustness analysis in the current manuscript. The work is intended as a conceptual proposal to extend fairness analysis rather than a fully validated empirical model. In revision, we will expand the abstract and constraint introduction to explicitly discuss the exploratory grounding, supply a more detailed justification for the functional form drawn from the observed survey patterns, add a limitations subsection addressing transferability to contemporary platforms and other domains, and qualify the central claim to reflect its illustrative basis. These changes will clarify the dependencies while preserving the paper's contribution as an initial framework motivating further research. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The simulation results section: the reported trade-offs (e.g., distributive constraints reducing hermeneutical cost at modest utility loss) lack error bars, sensitivity analysis to the free parameter 'hermeneutical cost weight', or validation details. Without these, it is unclear whether the qualitative findings are robust or artifacts of specific parameter choices.

    Authors: We agree that the simulation results would be strengthened by greater rigor in reporting. In the revised manuscript, we will add error bars to the trade-off visualizations, include sensitivity analysis over a range of values for the hermeneutical cost weight parameter, and provide additional details on simulation validation, including multiple runs and parameter selection rationale. These updates will demonstrate that the qualitative findings are robust to reasonable variations in the free parameter. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new constraints added from external sources

full rationale

The paper draws on Fricker's external philosophical concept of hermeneutical injustice and exploratory correlational patterns from 1986-1987 AIDS surveys to define and introduce a group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint plus associated utility cost. These modeling additions are then inserted into a pre-existing benchmark utility-driven allocation framework that already enforces distributive justice. The resulting framework is evaluated via controlled simulations exploring trade-offs. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are shown that reduce the introduced constraint or cost back to fitted parameters or prior outputs by construction; the steps remain independent modeling choices grounded outside the paper's own results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on philosophical modeling assumptions and historical correlational patterns without independent verification or formal derivation of the new constraint; several modeling choices appear introduced to operationalize the concept.

free parameters (1)
  • hermeneutical cost weight
    Weighting parameter balancing hermeneutical cost against utility and distributive constraints, chosen or fitted in the simulations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Ad delivery mechanisms distribute interpretative resources that can be withheld or distorted
    Core modeling premise drawn from Fricker's hermeneutical injustice and applied to ad exposure.
  • domain assumption Hermeneutical deprivation and distortion can be quantified at group level via under-exposure and skewed framings
    Assumption enabling the group-level fairness constraint.
invented entities (2)
  • group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint no independent evidence
    purpose: To prevent systematic under-exposure and distortion from concentrating in protected groups
    Newly defined modeling element integrated into the allocation framework.
  • hermeneutically aware utility cost no independent evidence
    purpose: To penalize allocation policies that produce hermeneutical deprivation or distortion
    New cost term added to the utility-driven objective.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5590 in / 1440 out tokens · 54640 ms · 2026-05-07T13:30:59.959078+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2007 , publisher=

    Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing , author=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Fairness in online ad delivery , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2024

  3. [3]

    Games , volume=

    Fairness and efficiency in online advertising mechanisms , author=. Games , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  4. [4]

    Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pages=

    Discrimination in online advertising: A multidisciplinary inquiry , author=. Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency , pages=. 2018 , organization=

    2018

  5. [5]

    Communications of the ACM , volume=

    Discrimination in online ad delivery , author=. Communications of the ACM , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  6. [6]

    2022 , publisher=

    The political philosophy of AI: an introduction , author=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  7. [7]

    Social Epistemology , pages=

    AI and Epistemic Agency: How AI Influences Belief Revision and Its Normative Implications , author=. Social Epistemology , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  8. [8]

    Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume=

    Media bias monitor: Quantifying biases of social media news outlets at large-scale , author=. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume=

  9. [9]

    Journal of Computational Social Science , volume=

    A high-dimensional approach to measuring online polarization , author=. Journal of Computational Social Science , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  10. [10]

    Ethics and information technology , volume=

    Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design , author=. Ethics and information technology , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  11. [11]

    Quality & Quantity , volume=

    Together alone: a group-based polarization measurement , author=. Quality & Quantity , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  12. [12]

    2022 , journal=

    Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review , author=. 2022 , journal=

    2022

  13. [13]

    Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction , volume=

    Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook's Ad delivery can lead to biased outcomes , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  14. [14]

    TPRC49: The 49th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy , year=

    Universal digital ad transparency , author=. TPRC49: The 49th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy , year=

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.6491 , year=

    Automated experiments on ad privacy settings: A tale of opacity, choice, and discrimination , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.6491 , year=

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    Management science , volume=

    Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads , author=. Management science , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  17. [17]

    Proceedings of the web conference 2021 , pages=

    Auditing for discrimination in algorithms delivering job ads , author=. Proceedings of the web conference 2021 , pages=

    2021

  18. [18]

    Ethics and Information Technology , volume=

    Automated opioid risk scores: a case for machine learning-induced epistemic injustice in healthcare , author=. Ethics and Information Technology , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  19. [19]

    Journal of medical ethics , volume=

    Machine learning for mental health diagnosis: tackling contributory injustice and epistemic oppression , author=. Journal of medical ethics , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  20. [20]

    AI & SOCIETY , volume=

    From ethics to epistemology and back again: informativeness and epistemic injustice in explanatory medical machine learning , author=. AI & SOCIETY , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  21. [21]

    AI and Ethics , volume=

    Keeping an AI on the mental health of vulnerable populations: Reflections on the potential for participatory injustice , author=. AI and Ethics , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  22. [22]

    Philosophical Studies , volume=

    Algorithmic profiling as a source of hermeneutical injustice , author=. Philosophical Studies , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  23. [23]

    Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , volume=

    A perfect storm for epistemic injustice: Algorithmic targeting and sorting on social media , author=. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , volume=

  24. [24]

    Social Epistemology , volume=

    Hysteria, Hermeneutical Injustice and Conceptual Engineering , author=. Social Epistemology , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  25. [25]

    International Journal of Communication , volume=

    Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality , author=. International Journal of Communication , volume=

  26. [26]

    AI & SOCIETY , pages=

    Automating epistemology: how AI reconfigures truth, authority, and verification , author=. AI & SOCIETY , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  27. [27]

    Synthese , volume=

    On informational injustice and epistemic exclusions , author=. Synthese , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  28. [28]

    Hypatia , volume=

    Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing , author=. Hypatia , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  29. [29]

    Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies , volume=

    A cautionary tale: On limiting epistemic oppression , author=. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  30. [30]

    2013 , publisher=

    The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and the social imagination , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  31. [31]

    Bmj , volume=

    Partner reduction is crucial for balanced “ABC” approach to HIV prevention , author=. Bmj , volume=. 2004 , publisher=

    2004

  32. [32]

    Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research , volume=

    Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on HIV serodiscordant couples , author=. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  33. [33]

    Cochrane database of systematic reviews , volume=

    Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission , author=. Cochrane database of systematic reviews , volume=. 1996 , publisher=

    1996

  34. [34]

    Ethics and information technology , volume=

    Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization , author=. Ethics and information technology , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  35. [35]

    Philosophy & Technology , volume=

    Real fakes: The epistemology of online misinformation , author=. Philosophy & Technology , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  36. [36]

    Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society , volume=

    The relevance of algorithms , author=. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society , volume=

  37. [37]

    Television & New Media , volume=

    Participatory culture and the new governance of communication: The paradox of participatory media , author=. Television & New Media , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  38. [38]

    Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

    Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness , author=. Proceedings of the 23rd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

  39. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11127 , year=

    Fairness in recommender systems: research landscape and future directions , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11127 , year=

    work page arXiv

  40. [40]

    personalization: Towards equity in epistemic utility , author=

    Fairness vs. personalization: Towards equity in epistemic utility , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11503 , year=

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    Media Policy Blog , year=

    Informational justice as the new media pluralism , author=. Media Policy Blog , year=

  42. [42]

    Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency , pages=

    Potential for discrimination in online targeted advertising , author=. Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency , pages=. 2018 , organization=

    2018

  43. [43]

    32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , pages=

    Problematic advertising and its disparate exposure on Facebook , author=. 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) , pages=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  44. [44]

    Computer law & security review , volume=

    Preventing discrimination in the automated targeting of job advertisements , author=. Computer law & security review , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  45. [45]

    Algorithms of oppression , year=

    Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism , author=. Algorithms of oppression , year=

  46. [46]

    2011 , publisher=

    The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you , author=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  47. [47]

    2020 , publisher=

    Making it personal: Algorithmic personalization, identity, and everyday life , author=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  48. [48]

    Reading Research Quarterly , volume=

    Propaganda in an age of algorithmic personalization: Expanding literacy research and practice , author=. Reading Research Quarterly , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  49. [49]

    Information, Communication & Society , volume=

    Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse , author=. Information, Communication & Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  50. [50]

    Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems , author=. Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

  51. [51]

    Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    2023

  52. [52]

    Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

    An epistemic lens on algorithmic fairness , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

  53. [53]

    Engineering and Value Change , pages=

    The Role of Epistemic Fairness in Dynamics Models to Support Sustainable Mobility Diffusion , author=. Engineering and Value Change , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  54. [54]

    Digital Health , volume=

    Comparison of digital recruitment strategies for Alzheimer's disease patients , author=. Digital Health , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  55. [55]

    PloS one , volume=

    A double-edged hashtag: Evaluation of\# ADHD-related TikTok content and its associations with perceptions of ADHD , author=. PloS one , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  56. [56]

    Ethics and Information Technology , volume=

    Socially disruptive technologies and epistemic injustice , author=. Ethics and Information Technology , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  57. [57]

    Hypatia , volume=

    Two kinds of unknowing , author=. Hypatia , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  58. [58]

    The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice , pages=

    Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice , author=. The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice , pages=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  59. [59]

    The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice , pages=

    Epistemic injustice as distributive injustice , author=. The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice , pages=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  60. [60]

    Journal of Cross-disciplinary Research in Computational Law , volume=

    Hermeneutical injustice and the computational turn in law , author=. Journal of Cross-disciplinary Research in Computational Law , volume=

  61. [61]

    Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Research in Computational Law , pages=

    A reply: Hermeneutical injustice in sociotechnical systems , author=. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Research in Computational Law , pages=

  62. [62]

    AI and Ethics , volume=

    A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure , author=. AI and Ethics , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  63. [63]

    Science and Engineering Ethics , volume=

    Alvarado, Ram. Science and Engineering Ethics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  64. [64]

    Synthese , volume=

    Epistemic injustice and data science technologies , author=. Synthese , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  65. [65]

    New York: Human Rights Watch , year=

    Only men need apply” gender discrimination in job advertisements in China , author=. New York: Human Rights Watch , year=

  66. [66]

    Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    Algorithmic audit of italian car insurance: Evidence of unfairness in access and pricing , author=. Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    2021

  67. [67]

    The American Journal of Bioethics , volume=

    The ethics of advertising for health care services , author=. The American Journal of Bioethics , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  68. [68]

    EPJ Data Science , volume=

    Quantifying polarization in online political discourse , author=. EPJ Data Science , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  69. [69]

    Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    Controlling polarization in personalization: An algorithmic framework , author=. Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

  70. [70]

    Using Machine Learning to Measure Political Polarization on Social Media , author=. , year=

  71. [71]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00267 , year=

    LPFS: Learnable Polarizing Feature Selection for Click-Through Rate Prediction , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00267 , year=

    work page arXiv

  72. [72]

    Proceedings of the 10th international conference on social media and society , pages=

    Asymmetric polarization on Twitter and the 2018 Brazilian presidential elections , author=. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on social media and society , pages=

    2018

  73. [73]

    International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing , volume=

    AIDS prevention advertising: Different message strategies for different communication objectives , author=. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  74. [74]

    Basic and applied social psychology , volume=

    The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content , author=. Basic and applied social psychology , volume=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  75. [75]

    Health Education & Behavior , volume=

    Maximizing response rates to ads for free at-home HIV testing on a men-for-men geosocial sexual networking app: lessons learned and implications for researchers and providers , author=. Health Education & Behavior , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  76. [76]

    Public Health Reports , volume=

    Paid advertising for AIDS prevention--would the ends justify the means? , author=. Public Health Reports , volume=

  77. [77]

    International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing , volume=

    The use of positive and negative appeals in social advertising: A content analysis of television ads for preventing HIV/AIDS , author=. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  78. [78]

    Journal of Social Marketing , volume=

    Social advertisements for public health and epidemic dynamics: A study based on HIV/AIDS prevention television advertisements in four European countries , author=. Journal of Social Marketing , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  79. [79]

    Digital Health , volume=

    Using web analytics data to identify platforms and content that best engage high-priority HIV populations in online and social media marketing advertisements , author=. Digital Health , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  80. [80]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Toward controlling discrimination in online ad auctions , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2019 , organization=

    2019

Showing first 80 references.