Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Case Analyses: Stigma and Algorithmic Assemblages
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Conceptualizing Algorithmic Stigmatization

Profile image of Cassidy PyleCassidy Pyle

Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580970
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Algorithmic systems have inltrated many aspects of our society, mundane to high-stakes, and can lead to algorithmic harms known as representational and allocative. In this paper, we consider what stigma theory illuminates about mechanisms leading to algorithmic harms in algorithmic assemblages. We apply the four stigma elements (i.e., labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss/discrimination) outlined in sociological stigma theories to algorithmic assemblages in two contexts : 1) "risk prediction" algorithms in higher education, and 2) suicidal expression and ideation detection on social media. We contribute the novel theoretical conceptualization of algorithmic stigmatization as a sociotechnical mechanism that leads to a unique kind of algorithmic harm: algorithmic stigma. Theorizing algorithmic stigmatization aids in identifying theoretically-driven points of intervention to mitigate and/or repair algorithmic stigma. While prior theorizations reveal how stigma governs socially and spatially, this work illustrates how stigma governs sociotechnically.

Related papers

The sophistry of the neutral tool. Weaponizing artificial intelligence and big data into threats toward social exclusion
Guilherme Giantini

AI and Ethics

In late modernity societies, the double meaning of 'monitoring' is not a coincidence insofar, it can be a subject or an object attribution, thus suggesting a phenomenological intersection between surveillance studies and technological deployments in mass media. Emerging applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools corroborate an intensified and optimized collection of personal data, either objective ones granted by individuals themselves or subject ones silently taken by algorithmic learning. From an eventual possibility to an invisible probability, Big Data may be used from devising purchase preference profiles to political bias in election periods and to reinforce bigotry against social minorities, especially transphobia. This paper's objective is to address the use of AI and Big Data as social surveillance systems tools for the establishment of more sophisticated strategies of social control. Before late modernity, disciplinary discursive power was an addressed tool to perform social control in Western societies by institutions such the Roman Catholic Church. Currently, AI technologies are tooled to perform a security-based society regulation, potentially deploying gathered data as threats against social categories that deviate from moral-based norms. Incapable of broadly embracing all cultural and social developments throughout history, such norms refer to social regulation and standardization that turn out to be exclusionary for the existence of distinctive individuals whose identities don't conform to such moral standards. The issue of ethical AI regulation is therefore grounded in questioning to what extent Western culture values and practices are still consistent in the standardized and global deployment of social and ethical policies addressed to cultures that may hold distinctive cultural perceptions and values. Theoretical reflections on post-modern panoptic frameworks, such as synoptic and banoptic devices, were carried out to assess the impact of emerging surveillance technologies as social control strategies for the reinforced marginalization of categories of exclusion. Instances of recent technology-based violence discriminations, such as misogyny, religious intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and transphobia, are provided and seen through the lens of current AI development and transphobia. The efforts of global, universal, and unilateral influence of Western culture's values on AI ethical regulation is counteracted with a reflection on decentralized bottom-up approaches to culture by means of applied ethnographic research to bring the potential of local culture into AI policy making. It is expected to corroborate future research on local-based ethical AI approaches designed within a specific culture's values to mitigate and avoid social vulnerability and violence.

View PDFchevron_right
Tay is you. The attribution of responsibility in the algorithmic culture
Sara Suárez-Gonzalo, Frederic Guerrero-Solé

Observatorio (OBS*), 2019

REFERENCE: Suárez-Gonzalo, Sara; Mas-Manchón, Lluís; Guerrero-Solé, Frederic.(2019). Tay is you. The attribution of responsibility in the algorithmic culture. Observatorio, 13(2), 1-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS13220191432. ABSTRACT: Social media have changed the communication practices by creating an acute need for continuous interaction. The use of social chatbots is growing as an effective way to communicate with publics. Bots have become social actors and then, someone must account for their actions. Since responsibility is bounded to agency and rationality, it cannot be directly attributed to bots. Who should be held responsible for non-human beings’ actions, particularly when the consequences of these actions are negative? We address this controversy from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Firstly, we discuss the adequacy of the notions of moral responsibility and accountability regarding non-human artificial agents, as they are ruled by complex, intentionally opaque and unpredictable interactions and processes. We do it from the two approaches currently predominant: context-dependent and structuralist. Secondly, we draw on the assumption that the failure of a computer system is an opportunity to gain knowledge about the interested powers behind its design and functioning. Then, taking the concept of media frame as an implicit way of spotting the agent of the story, we perform an exploratory analysis on how responsibility was attributed by the media in the paradigmatic case of the transformation of Tay, a chatbot launched by Microsoft in 2016, turned into a racist, Nazi and homophobic hate speaker. Our results illustrate the difficulties media experienced in consistently attributing the responsibility for the chatbots’ malfunction. Results show the discourse is, in general, simplistic, non-critical and misleading, and tends to depict a reality that favors business’s interests. We conclude that, while all the actors interacting with the chatbot share the responsibility of its actions, it is only Microsoft who must account for these actions, both retrospectively and prospectively.

View PDFchevron_right
Do Algorithms Shape Character? Considering Algorithmic Ethical Subjectivation
João Carlos Magalhães

Moral critiques of computational algorithms seem divided between two paradigms. One seeks to demonstrate how an opaque and unruly algorithmic power violates moral values and harms users’ autonomy; the other underlines the systematicity of such power, deflating concerns about opacity and unruliness. While the second paradigm makes it possible to think of end users of algorithmic systems as moral agents, the consequences of this possibility remain unexplored. This article proposes one way of tackling this problem. Employing Michel Foucault’s version of virtue ethics, I examine how perceptions of Facebook’s normative regulation of visibility have transformed non-expert end users’ ethical selves (i.e., their character) in the current political crisis in Brazil. The article builds on this analysis to advance algorithmic ethical subjectivation as a concept to make sense of these processes of ethical becoming. I define them as plural (encompassing various types of actions and values, and resulting in no determinate subject), contextual (demanding not only sociomaterial but also epistemological and ethical conditions), and potentially harmful (eventually structuring harms that are not externally inflicted by algorithms, but by users, upon themselves and others, in response to how they perceive the normativity of algorithmic decisions). By researching which model(s) of ethical subjectivation specific algorithmic social platforms instantiate, critical scholars might be able to better understand the normative consequences of these platforms’ power.

View PDFchevron_right
AI as moral cover: How algorithmic bias exploits psychological mechanisms to perpetuate social inequality
Islam Borinca

Analyses of social issues and public policy, 2025

Algorithmic decision-making systems are increasingly shaping critical social outcomes (e.g., hiring, lending, criminal justice, healthcare), yet technical approaches to bias mitigation ignore crucial psychological mechanisms that enable discriminatory use. To address this gap, I integrate motivated reasoning, system justification, and moral disengagement theories to argue that AI systems may function as "moral cover," allowing users to perpetuate inequality while maintaining beliefs in their own objectivity. Users often demonstrate "selective adherence," following algorithmic advice when it confirms stereotypes while dismissing counter-stereotypical outputs. System justification motives lead people to defend discriminatory algorithmic outcomes as legitimate, "data-driven" decisions. Moral disengagement mechanisms (including responsibility displacement, euphemistic labeling, and advantageous comparison) can enable discrimination while preserving moral self-regard. Finally, I argue that understanding AI bias as fundamentally psychological rather than merely technical demands interventions addressing these underlying psychological processes alongside algorithmic improvements.

View PDFchevron_right
Can algorithms be prejudiced? A tale of digital capitalism or how we are letting algorithms shape our world.
Regina Nogueira

In October 2017, Palestinian worker Halawin Halawi was arrested for posting a photo of himself next to a bulldozer with a caption that read "attack them" in Arabic. Only after questioning him for several hours, the police realised Facebook's AI powered translation service had made a mistake: the Arabic for "attack them" and "good morning" are actually very similar-and the algorithm had chose the wrong one. Also last year, Chinese messaging app WeChat apologised for translating "hei laowai", a neutral phrase that means "black foreigner" to the derogatory term "nigger". Google translate, that has had an undeniable importance in helping society overcome the language divide and understanding other cultures other than our own, has also shown it carries a fair share of bias-when translating Turkish (a gender neutral language) to English, it would assume the pronoun "o" to be he or she, according to the profession that followed. For example, "o bir doktor" becomes "he is a doctor" but "o bir aşçı" translates to "she is a cook". While "O bekar" goes for "he is single", "o evli" means "she is married". The same for "o çalışkan"-"he is hardworking" and "o tembel" that translates to "she is lazy". The role these algorithms play in perpetuating our cultural biases are deeply problematic. In an ever mediated society where technology plays a bigger and bigger part in how we relate to each other and the outside world-the prejudice hiding behind the code means that important decisions go unchecked and lack a great deal of ownership. The fact that Halawi was arrested before any Arabic speaking officer read the original post poses many important questions as these algorithms that conceal hidden biases are already making vital decisions in our everyday lives. Proprietary algorithms can decide who gets granted parole, who gets interviewed for a job and who gets a loan. They also decide what we buy, what content we watch, what books we read and, to an extent, who we date and are friends with.

View PDFchevron_right
Rethinking Algorithmic Bias Through Phenomenology and Pragmatism
Johnathan C Flowers

2019

In 2017, Amazon discontinued an attempt at developing a hiring algorithm which would enable the company to streamline its hiring processes due to apparent gender discrimination. Specifically, the algorithm, trained on over a decade's worth of resumes submitted to Amazon, learned to penalize applications that contained references to women, that indicated graduation from all women's colleges, or otherwise indicated that an applicant was not male. Amazon's algorithm took up the history of Amazon's applicant pool and integrated it into its present "problematic situation," for the purposes of future action. Consequently, Amazon declared the project a failure: even after attempting to edit the algorithm to ensure neutrality to terms like "women," Amazon executives were not convinced that the algorithm would not engage in biased sorting of applicants. While the incident was held up as yet another way in which bias derailed an application of machine learning, this paper contends that the "failure," viewed phenomenologically and pragmatically, could be articulated as a success. Specifically, this paper contends that if we view the algorithm's bias as making present that which is habitual, or that which fades into the social background, these failures could be valuable tools for evaluating current social and cultural practices. Thus, this paper contends that, rather than treating biased algorithms as "failures," it may be more productive to view algorithmic bias as demonstrative of a social or cultural organization that gives rise to bias. These biased algorithms, therefore, function as modes of diagnosing the ways in which inequalities are institutionalized and replicated within organizations. They are, for John Dewey, forms of technology, insofar as technology refers to the methods of inquiry into problematic situations, which serve to make clear the organization of our society. This paper argues that we should take seriously the results of biased algorithms, not as the projected completion of action, but as processes of inquiry that indicate the ways in which our society is organized to replicate inequality.

View PDFchevron_right
Book Review: Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism
Michael L Rosino

Social Forces, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Algorithms of oppression: Safiya Umoja Noble’s powerful exploration of search engines’ underlying hegemony and their racist, sexist practices
Shelly Galliah

2019

View PDFchevron_right
Synthetic Social Alienation: The Role of Algorithm-Driven Content in Shaping Digital Discourse and User Perspectives
Hasan Gürkan, Aybike Serttaş

Journal. Media, 2025

This study investigates how algorithm-driven content curation impacts mediated discourse, amplifies ideological echo chambers and alters linguistic structures in online communication. While these platforms promise connectivity, their engagement-driven mechanisms reinforce biases and fragment discourse spaces, leading to Synthetic Social Alienation (SSA). By combining discourse analysis with in-depth interviews, this study examines the algorithmic mediation of language and meaning in digital spaces, revealing how algorithms commodify attention and shape conversational patterns. In this study, four SSA patterns were identified: Algorithmic Manipulation, Digital Alienation, Platform Dependency, and Echo Chamber Effects. A hybrid dataset (180 training, 30 test samples) was used to train classification models. Among four algorithms, Support Vector Machine (SVM) achieved the highest performance (90.0% accuracy, 90.4% F1-score). Sentiment analysis revealed distinct language structures for positive (AUC = 0.994), neutral (AUC = 0.933), and negative (AUC = 0.919) expressions. SHAP and LIME analyses highlighted key features driving model decisions. The findings expose how digital platforms commodify attention and shape user discourse, underscoring the need for ethical algorithm design and regulatory oversight.

View PDFchevron_right
Review of "Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism," by Noble, S. U. (2018). New York, New York: NYU Press
Gregory Zobel

Communication Design Quarterly, 2019

Read and considered thoughtfully, Safiya Umoja Noble's Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism is devastating. It reduces to rubble the notion that technology is neutral and ideology-free. Noble's crushing the neutrality myth does several things. First, this act lays foundations for her argument: only if you recognize and understand that technology is built with, and integrates, bias, can you then be open to her primary thesis: search engines advance discriminatory and often racist content. Second, it banishes a convenient response for many self-identified meritocratic Silicon Valley "winners" and their supporters. Post-reading, some individuals may retain their beliefs in a neutral and ideology-free technology in spite of the overwhelming evidence and citations Noble brings to bear. Effective countering of Noble's claims is unlikely to occur. For professionals working in technology, information, argumentation, and/or rhetorical studies, A...

View PDFchevron_right

References (196)

  1. 2019. New resources to support our community's well-being. https://newsroom. tiktok.com/en-us/new-resources-to-support-well-being
  2. 2022. Mental Illness. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness
  3. Adam Mosseri. 2020. Addressing Self-Harm Content on EU Instagram | Insta- gram Blog. https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/an-important- step-towards-better-protecting-our-community-in-europe
  4. Cliord Adelman. 1998. The kiss of death? An alternative view of college remediation. National Crosstalk 6, 3 (1998), 11.
  5. Muhammad Adnan, Asad Habib, Jawad Ashraf, Shafaq Mussadiq, Arsalan Ali Raza, Muhammad Abid, Maryam Bashir, and Sana Ullah Khan. 2021. Predicting at-Risk Students at Dierent Percentages of Course Length for Early Inter- vention Using Machine Learning Models. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 7519-7539. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3049446 Conference Name: IEEE Access.
  6. Nazanin Andalibi. 2020. Disclosure, Privacy, and Stigma on Social Media: Examining Non-Disclosure of Distressing Experiences. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 27, 3 (May 2020), 18:1-18:43. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3386600
  7. Nazanin Andalibi and Justin Buss. 2020. The Human in Emotion Recognition on Social Media: Attitudes, Outcomes, Risks. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376680
  8. Nazanin Andalibi and Patricia Garcia. 2021. Sensemaking and Coping After Pregnancy Loss: The Seeking and Disruption of Emotional Validation Online. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449201
  9. Nazanin Andalibi, Oliver L. Haimson, Munmun De Choudhury, and Andrea Forte. 2018. Social Support, Reciprocity, and Anonymity in Responses to Sexual Abuse Disclosures on Social Media. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 25, 5 (Oct. 2018), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234942
  10. Nazanin Andalibi, Pinar Ozturk, and Andrea Forte. 2017. Sensitive Self- disclosures, Responses, and Social Support on Instagram: The Case of #De- pression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 1485-1500. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998243
  11. Matthias C. Angermeyer and Herbert Matschinger. 2005. Label- ing-stereotype-discrimination: An investigation of the stigma process. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 40, 5 (May 2005), 391-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-005-0903-4
  12. Matthias C. Angermeyer, Herbert Matschinger, Bruce G. Link, and Georg Schomerus. 2014. Public attitudes regarding individual and structural discrimi- nation: Two sides of the same coin? Social Science & Medicine 103 (Feb. 2014), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.014
  13. Kimberly E. Arnold and Matthew D. Pistilli. 2012. Course signals at Purdue: using learning analytics to increase student success. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. ACM, Vancouver British Columbia Canada, 267-270. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330601.2330666
  14. Jennifer Bard. 2020. Developing a Legal Framework for Regulating Emotion AI. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3680909
  15. Pınar Barlas, Kyriakos Kyriakou, Styliani Kleanthous, and Jahna Otterbacher. 2021. Person, Human, Neither: The Dehumanization Potential of Automated Image Tagging. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 357-367. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702. 3462567
  16. Solon Barocas, Kate Crawford, Aaron Shapiro, and Hanna Wallach. 2017. The Problem with Bias: From Allocative to Representational Harms in Machine Learning.
  17. Solon Barocas and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big Data's Disparate Impact. Cali- fornia Law Review 104 (2016), 671. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle= hein.journals/calr104&id=695&div=&collection=
  18. Howard S. Becker. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press Glencoe, Oxford, England. Pages: x, 179.
  19. Jeri Mullins Beggs, John H. Bantham, and Steven Taylor. 2008. Dis- tinguishing the factors inuencing college students' choice of ma- jor. College Student Journal 42, 2 (June 2008), 381-395. https: //go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=01463934&v=2.1&it=r&id= GALE%7CA179348418&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs Publisher: Project Innovation Austin LLC.
  20. Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Assessing risk, automating racism. Science 366, 6464 (Oct. 2019), 421-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz3873
  21. Ruha Benjamin. 2020. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Social Forces 98, 4 (June 2020), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz162
  22. Cynthia L. Bennett and Os Keyes. 2020. What is the point of fairness? disability, AI and the complexity of justice. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing 125 (March 2020), 5:1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386296.3386301
  23. Johannes Berens, Kerstin Schneider, Simon Görtz, Simon Oster, and Julian Burgho. 2019. Early Detection of Students at Risk -Predicting Student Dropouts Using Administrative Student Data from German Universities and Machine Learning Methods. 11, 3 (2019), 41.
  24. Jacqueline Bichsel and EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. 2012. An- alytics in higher education: benets, barriers, progress, and recommendations. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Louisville, Colo. http://net.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS1207/ers1207.pdf OCLC: 807289562.
  25. Abeba Birhane. 2021. Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach. Patterns 2, 2 (Feb. 2021), 100205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205
  26. Abeba Birhane and Vinay Uday Prabhu. 2021. Large image datasets: A pyrrhic win for computer vision?. In 2021 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). 1536-1546. https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV48630.2021. 00158 ISSN: 2642-9381.
  27. Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Lan- guage (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP. In Proceed- ings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 5454-5476. https: //doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485
  28. Elena Botella. 2019. TikTok admits it suppressed videos by disabled, queer, and fat creators. https://slate.com/technology/2019/12/tiktok-disabled-users- videos-suppressed.html
  29. Martha Cecilia Bottia, Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, Cayce Jamil, Kyleigh Moniz, and Leanne Barry. 2021. Factors Associated With College STEM Participation of Racially Minoritized Students: A Synthesis of Research. Review of Educational Research 91, 4 (Aug. 2021), 614-648. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211012751 Publisher: American Educational Research Association.
  30. Georey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting Things Out: Classication and Its Consequences. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: xHlP8WqzizYC.
  31. Kerelyn D. Brown. 2006. Mapping risks in education: Conceptions, contexts and complexities. Ph.D. The University of Wisconsin -Madison, United States -Wisconsin. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304977319/abstract/ F5898C2ED3A3430FPQ/1 ISBN: 9780542887093.
  32. Taina Bucher. 2012. Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society 14, 7 (Nov. 2012), 1164-1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159 Publisher: SAGE Publications.
  33. Taina Bucher. 2018. If...Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford University Press. Google-Books-ID: u_pdDwAAQBAJ.
  34. Scott Burris. 2006. Stigma and the law. The Lancet 367, 9509 (Feb. 2006), 529-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68185-3 Publisher: Elsevier.
  35. Stevie Chancellor, Jessica Annette Pater, Trustin Clear, Eric Gilbert, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2016. #thyghgapp: Instagram Content Moderation and Lexical Variation in Pro-Eating Disorder Communities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1201-1213. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819963
  36. Stevie Chancellor, Steven A. Sumner, Corinne David-Ferdon, Tahirah Ahmad, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. Suicide Risk and Protective Factors in Online Support Forum Posts: Annotation Scheme Development and Validation Study. JMIR Mental Health 8, 11 (Nov. 2021), e24471. https://doi.org/10.2196/24471 Company: JMIR Mental Health Distributor: JMIR Mental Health Institution: JMIR Mental Health Label: JMIR Mental Health Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada.
  37. Pamara F. Chang and Rachel V. Tucker. 2022. Assistive Communication Technologies and Stigma: How Perceived Visibility of Cochlear Implants Af- fects Self-Stigma and Social Interaction Anxiety. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (April 2022), 77:1-77:16. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3512924
  38. Yan Chen, Qinghua Zheng, Shuguang Ji, Feng Tian, Haiping Zhu, and Min Liu. 2020. Identifying at-risk students based on the phased prediction model. Knowledge and Information Systems 62, 3 (March 2020), 987-1003. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10115-019-01374-x
  39. Shaan Chopra, Rachael Zehrung, Tamil Arasu Shanmugam, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2021. Living with Uncertainty and Stigma: Self-Experimentation and Support-Seeking around Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3411764.3445706
  40. Munmun De Choudhury and Sushovan De. 2014. Mental Health Discourse on reddit: Self-Disclosure, Social Support, and Anonymity. In Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index. php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/view/8075
  41. Alexandra Chouldechova and Aaron Roth. 2020. A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning. Commun. ACM 63, 5 (April 2020), 82-89. https://doi.org/10.1145/3376898
  42. Kwok Tai Chui, Dennis Chun Lok Fung, Miltiadis D. Lytras, and Tin Miu Lam. 2020. Predicting at-risk university students in a virtual learning environment via a machine learning algorithm. Computers in Human Behavior 107 (June 2020), 105584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.032
  43. Marika Cifor, Patricia Garcia, TL Cowan, Jasmine Rault, Tonia Sutherland, Anita Say Chan, Jennifer Rode, Anna Lauren Homann, Niloufar Salehi, and Lisa Nakamura. 2019. Feminist Data Manifest-No. https://www.manifestno. com/home
  44. Giovanni Circo. 2020. PROJECT GREENLIGHT DETROIT: EVALUATION RE- PORT. (2020), 94.
  45. Danielle Keats Citron and Daniel J. Solove. 2021. Privacy Harms. https: //doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3782222
  46. Matthew Clair. 2018. Stigma. Core Concepts in Sociology (2018).
  47. Jonathan E. Cook, Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, Ilan H. Meyer, and Justin T. A. Busch. 2014. Intervening within and across levels: A multilevel approach to stigma and public health. Social Science & Medicine 103 (Feb. 2014), 101-109. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.023
  48. A. Feder Cooper, Emanuel Moss, Benjamin Laufer, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2022. Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 864-876. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533150
  49. Vickie Cooper and David Whyte (Eds.). 2017. The Violence of Austerity. Pluto Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1pv8988
  50. Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel. 2018. The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning. http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1808.00023 arXiv:1808.00023 [cs].
  51. Patrick Corrigan. 2004. How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist 59, 7 (Oct. 2004), 614-625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.7. 614
  52. Patrick W. Corrigan, Benjamin G. Druss, and Deborah A. Perlick. 2014. The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15, 2 (Oct. 2014), 37-70. https: //doi.org/10.1177/1529100614531398 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  53. Patrick W. Corrigan and Mandy W. M. Fong. 2014. Competing perspectives on erasing the stigma of illness: What says the dodo bird? Social Science & Medicine 103 (Feb. 2014), 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.027
  54. Patrick W. Corrigan, Jonathon E. Larson, Patrick J. Michaels, Blythe A. Buchholz, Rachel Del Rossi, Malia Javier Fontecchio, David Castro, Michael Gause, Richard Krzyżanowski, and Nicolas Rüsch. 2015. Diminishing the self-stigma of mental illness by coming out proud. Psychiatry Research 229, 1 (Sept. 2015), 148-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.053
  55. Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. The MIT Press. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500. 12657/43542 Accepted: 2020-12-15T13:38:22Z.
  56. Kelley Cotter. 2019. Playing the visibility game: How digital inuencers and algorithms negotiate inuence on Instagram. New Media & Society 21, 4 (April 2019), 895-913. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818815684 Publisher: SAGE Publications.
  57. Kimberle Crenshaw. 1990. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review 43 (1990), 1241. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/str43& id=1257&div=&collection=
  58. David Danks and Alex John London. 2017. Algorithmic Bias in Autonomous Systems. (2017), 7.
  59. Jenny L. Davis, Apryl Williams, and Michael W. Yang. 2021. Algorithmic reparation. Big Data & Society 8, 2 (July 2021), 20539517211044808. https: //doi.org/10.1177/20539517211044808 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  60. Emily Denton, Alex Hanna, Razvan Amironesei, Andrew Smart, and Hilary Nicole. 2021. On the genealogy of machine learning datasets: A critical history of ImageNet. Big Data & Society 8, 2 (July 2021), 20539517211035955. https: //doi.org/10.1177/20539517211035955 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  61. Brooke Erin Duy. 2020. Algorithmic precarity in cultural work. Commu- nication and the Public 5, 3-4 (Sept. 2020), 103-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2057047320959855 Publisher: SAGE Publications.
  62. Dustin T. Duncan and Ichiro Kawachi. 2018. Neighborhoods and Health. Oxford University Press. Google-Books-ID: SZNODwAAQBAJ.
  63. Upol Ehsan, Ranjit Singh, Jacob Metcalf, and Mark Riedl. 2022. The Algorithmic Imprint. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 1305-1317. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146. 3533186
  64. Karin van Es, Daniel Everts, and Iris Muis. 2021. Gendered language and employment Web sites: How search algorithms can cause allocative harm. First Monday (July 2021). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i8.11717
  65. Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro, Karrie Karahalios, and Kevin Hamilton. 2017. "Be Careful; Things Can Be Worse than They Appear": Understanding Biased Algorithms and Users' Behavior Around Them in Rating Platforms. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 11, 1 (May 2017), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14898 Number: 1.
  66. Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro, Min Kyung Lee, Amit Elazari Bar On, Eric Gilbert, and Karrie Karahalios. 2019. User Attitudes towards Algorithmic Opacity and Transparency in Online Reviewing Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3290605.3300724
  67. Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Prole, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Publishing Group. Google-Books-ID: pn4pDwAAQBAJ.
  68. Sina Fazelpour and David Danks. 2021. Algorithmic bias: Senses, sources, solutions. Philosophy Compass 16, 8 (2021), e12760. https://doi.org/10.1111/ phc3.12760 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/phc3.12760.
  69. Sina Fazelpour and Zachary C. Lipton. 2020. Algorithmic Fairness from a Non-ideal Perspective. http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09773 arXiv:2001.09773 [cs, stat].
  70. Batya Friedman and David G. Hendry. 2019. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: 8ZiWD- wAAQBAJ.
  71. Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. In Early engagement and new tech- nologies: Opening up the laboratory, Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 55-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4
  72. Daniel James Fuchs. 2018. The Dangers of Human-Like Bias in Machine- Learning Algorithms. 2 (2018), 15.
  73. Liza Gak, Seyi Olojo, and Niloufar Salehi. 2022. The Distressing Ads That Per- sist: Uncovering The Harms of Targeted Weight-Loss Ads Among Users with Histories of Disordered Eating. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555102 arXiv:2204.03200 [cs].
  74. Oscar H. Gandy. 2016. : Engaging Rational Discrimination and Cumulative Disadvantage. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315572758
  75. Seeta Peña Gangadharan. 2012. Digital inclusion and data proling. First Monday (April 2012). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i5.3821
  76. Alex Gano. 2017. Disparate Impact and Mortgage Lending: A Beginner's Guide. University of Colorado Law Review 88 (2017), 1109. https://heinonline.org/HOL/ Page?handle=hein.journals/ucollr88&id=1145&div=&collection=
  77. Patricia Garcia, Tonia Sutherland, Marika Cifor, Anita Say Chan, Lauren Klein, Catherine D'Ignazio, and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. No: Critical Refusal as Feminist Data Practice. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 199-202. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406865.3419014
  78. Tarleton Gillespie. 2016. Algorithm. In 2. Algorithm. Princeton University Press, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400880553-004
  79. Erving Goman. 1986. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity (1st touchstone ed. ed.). Simon & Schuster, New York.
  80. Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade, Dave Pawson, Dan Muriello, Lizzy Don- ahue, and Jennifer Guadagno. 2018. Ethics and Articial Intelligence: Suicide Prevention on Facebook. Philosophy & Technology 31, 4 (Dec. 2018), 669-684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0336-0
  81. Miguel Angel González-Torres, Rodrigo Oraa, Maialen Arístegui, Aranzazu Fernández-Rivas, and Jose Guimon. 2007. Stigma and discrimination towards people with schizophrenia and their family members. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 42, 1 (Jan. 2007), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127- 006-0126-3
  82. Robert Gorwa, Reuben Binns, and Christian Katzenbach. 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (Jan. 2020), 2053951719897945. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  83. Louis F. Graham, Mark B. Padilla, William D. Lopez, Alexandra M. Stern, Jerry Peterson, and Danya E. Keene. 2016. Spatial Stigma and Health in Postindustrial Detroit. International Quarterly of Community Health Education 36, 2 (Jan. 2016), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X15627800 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  84. Sylvia Sims Gray. 2013. Framing "at risk" students: Struggles at the boundaries of access to higher education. Children and Youth Services Review 35, 8 (Aug. 2013), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.011
  85. Ben Green. 2021. Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Sub- stantive Algorithmic Fairness. (2021), 33.
  86. Ben Green and Salomé Viljoen. 2020. Algorithmic realism: expanding the boundaries of algorithmic thought. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Barcelona Spain, 19-31. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372840
  87. Amanda L. Grith. 2008. Determinants of Grades, Persistence and Major Choice for Low-Income and Minority Students. (May 2008). https://ecommons.cornell. edu/handle/1813/74602 Accepted: 2020-11-17T16:57:44Z.
  88. Rita Guerra, Margarida Rebelo, Maria B. Monteiro, and Samuel L. Gaert- ner. 2013. Translating Recategorization Strategies Into an Antibias Educational Intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43, 1 (2013), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00976.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00976.x.
  89. Ian Hacking. 2004. Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goman: between discourse in the abstract and face-to-face interaction. Economy and Society 33, 3 (Aug. 2004), 277-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000225671 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/0308514042000225671.
  90. Oliver L. Haimson, Justin Buss, Zu Weinger, Denny L. Starks, Dykee Gorrell, and Briar Sweetbriar Baron. 2020. Trans Time: Safety, Privacy, and Content Warnings on a Transgender-Specic Social Media Site. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 1-27. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3415195
  91. Emma Halliday, Jennie Popay, Rachel Anderson de Cuevas, and Paula Wheeler. 2020. The elephant in the room? Why spatial stigma does not receive the public health attention it deserves. Journal of Public Health 42, 1 (Feb. 2020), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy214
  92. Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Andrew Smart, and Jamila Smith-Loud. 2020. To- wards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Barcelona Spain, 501-512. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372826
  93. Stacey Hannem and Chris Bruckert. 2012. Stigma Revisited: Implications of the Mark. University of Ottawa Press. Google-Books-ID: rGykDAAAQBAJ.
  94. Mark L. Hatzenbuehler. 2016. Structural Stigma and Health Inequalities: Re- search Evidence and Implications for Psychological Science. The American psychologist 71, 8 (Nov. 2016), 742-751. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000068
  95. Todd F. Heatherton. 2003. The Social Psychology of Stigma. Guilford Press.
  96. Anna Lauren Homann. 2019. Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (June 2019), 900-915. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573912 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573912.
  97. Anna Lauren Homann. 2021. Terms of inclusion: Data, discourse, violence. New Media & Society 23, 12 (Dec. 2021), 3539-3556. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444820958725 Publisher: SAGE Publications.
  98. Lily Hu and Issa Kohler-Hausmann. 2020. What's sex got to do with machine learning?. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 513. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3375674
  99. Ben Hutchinson, Andrew Smart, Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Christina Greer, Oddur Kjartansson, Parker Barnes, and Margaret Mitchell. 2021. Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software En- gineering and Infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Virtual Event Canada, 560- 575. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445918
  100. Abigail Z. Jacobs and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Measurement and Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency (FAccT '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445901
  101. Eun Seo Jo and Timnit Gebru. 2020. Lessons from archives: strategies for collecting sociocultural data in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Barcelona Spain, 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372829
  102. Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowl- edge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic Resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 305:1-305:44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476046
  103. Atoosa Kasirzadeh and Andrew Smart. 2021. The Use and Misuse of Counterfac- tuals in Ethical Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Virtual Event Canada, 228-236. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445886
  104. Kate Crawford. 2017. The trouble with bias.
  105. Michael Katell, Meg Young, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Vivian Guetler, Aaron Tam, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, and P. M. Krat. 2020. Toward situated interventions for algorithmic equity: lessons from the eld. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Barcelona Spain, 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372874
  106. Jared Katzman, Solon Barocas, Su Lin Blodgett, Kristen Laird, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Hanna Wallach. 2023. Representational Harms in Image Tag- ging. Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Articial Intelligence (2023), 5.
  107. David Kay and Professor Charles Oppenheim. [n. d.].
  108. Vol.1 No6.: Legal, Risk and Ethical Aspects of Analytics in Higher Education. ([n. d.]), 30.
  109. Gunay Kazimzade and Milagros Miceli. 2020. Biased Priorities, Biased Outcomes: Three Recommendations for Ethics-oriented Data Annotation Practices. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 71. https://doi. org/10.1145/3375627.3375809
  110. Os Keyes. 2018. The Misgendering Machines: Trans/HCI Implications of Au- tomatic Gender Recognition. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 88:1-88:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274357
  111. Os Keyes, Zoë Hitzig, and Mwenza Blell. 2021. Truth from the machine: articial intelligence and the materialization of identity. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 46, 1-2 (April 2021), 158-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1840224
  112. Andrew E. Krumm, R. Joseph Waddington, Stephanie D. Teasley, and Steven Lonn. 2014. A Learning Management System-Based Early Warning System for Academic Advising in Undergraduate Engineering. In Learning Analytics: From Research to Practice, Johann Ari Larusson and Brandon White (Eds.). Springer, New York, NY, 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3305-7_6
  113. Anna Kruse and Rob Pongsajapan. 2012. Student-Centered Learning.
  114. Himabindu Lakkaraju, Everaldo Aguiar, Carl Shan, David Miller, Nasir Bhanpuri, Rayid Ghani, and Kecia L. Addison. 2015. A Machine Learning Framework to Identify Students at Risk of Adverse Academic Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, Sydney NSW Australia, 1909-1918. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2783258.2788620
  115. Anders Larrabee Sønderlund, Emily Hughes, and Joanne Smith. 2019. The ecacy of learning analytics interventions in higher educa- tion: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 5 (2019), 2594-2618. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12720 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjet.12720.
  116. Celeste Lawson, Colin Beer, Dolene Rossi, Teresa Moore, and Julie Fleming. 2016. Identication of 'at risk' students using learning analytics: the ethical dilemmas of intervention strategies in a higher education institution. Ed- ucational Technology Research and Development 64, 5 (Oct. 2016), 957-968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9459-0
  117. Susan Leavy, Barry O'Sullivan, and Eugenia Siapera. 2020. Data, Power and Bias in Articial Intelligence. http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.07341 arXiv:2008.07341 [cs].
  118. Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359283
  119. Mark Levine, Amy Prosser, David Evans, and Stephen Reicher. 2005. Identity and Emergency Intervention: How Social Group Membership and Inclusiveness of Group Boundaries Shape Helping Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, 4 (April 2005), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271651 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  120. Bruce G. Link and Jo Phelan. 2014. Stigma power. Social Science & Medicine 103 (Feb. 2014), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.035
  121. Bruce G. Link and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology 27, 1 (Aug. 2001), 363-385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.
  122. Bruce G. Link, Jo C. Phelan, and Mark L. Hatzenbuehler. 2014. Stigma and Social Inequality. In Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality, Jane D. McLeod, Edward J. Lawler, and Michael Schwalbe (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4_3
  123. Owen H. T. Lu, Je C. H. Huang, Anna Y. Q. Huang, and Stephen J. H. Yang. 2017. Applying learning analytics for improving students engagement and learning outcomes in an MOOCs enabled collaborative programming course. Interactive Learning Environments 25, 2 (Feb. 2017), 220-234. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10494820.2016.1278391
  124. Juan F. Maestre. 2020. Conducting HCI Research on Stigma. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '20 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406865.3418364
  125. Alice E Marwick and danah boyd. 2014. Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society 16, 7 (Nov. 2014), 1051- 1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543995 Publisher: SAGE Publications.
  126. Ozma Masood. 2009. At risk: the racialized student marked for educational failure. Ph. D. Dissertation. Library and Archives Canada = Biblioth??que et Archives Canada, Ottawa. ISBN: 9780494399248 OCLC: 649886910.
  127. Adrienne Massanari. 2017. #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society 19, 3 (March 2017), 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815608807 Publisher: SAGE Publications.
  128. Martha Maxwell. 1980. Improving student learning skills /. Jossey-Bass,. https: //eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/9515 Accepted: 2015-11-06T12:21:48Z Artwork Medium: Ressource physique Interview Medium: Ressource physique.
  129. Martha Maxwell. 1997. The Dismal State of Required Developmental Reading Programs: Roots, Causes and Solutions. (June 1997). https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED415501
  130. Megan McCluskey. 2020. Black TikTok Creators Say Their Content Is Being Suppressed | Time. https://time.com/5863350/tiktok-black-creators/
  131. Samuel Messick. 1996. Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing 13, 3 (Nov. 1996), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300302 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  132. Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Ranjit Singh, and Madeleine Clare Elish. 2021. Algorithmic Impact Assessments and Account- ability: The Co-construction of Impacts. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3442188.3445935
  133. Ilan H. Meyer. 2003. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin 129, 5 (2003), 674-697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
  134. Milagros Miceli, Martin Schuessler, and Tianling Yang. 2020. Between Subjectiv- ity and Imposition: Power Dynamics in Data Annotation for Computer Vision. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 115:1-115:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415186
  135. Nanlir Sallau Mullah and Wan Mohd Nazmee Wan Zainon. 2021. Advances in Machine Learning Algorithms for Hate Speech Detection in Social Media: A Review. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 88364-88376. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS. 2021.3089515 Conference Name: IEEE Access.
  136. Michael Muller and Angelika Strohmayer. 2022. Forgetting Practices in the Data Sciences. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517644
  137. Zane Muller. 2019. Algorithmic Harms to Workers in the Platform Economy: The Case of Uber. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 53 (2019), 167. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/collsp53&id=179& div=&collection=
  138. Deirdre K. Mulligan, Daniel Kluttz, and Nitin Kohli. 2019. Shaping Our Tools: Contestability as a Means to Promote Responsible Algorithmic Decision Making in the Professions. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3311894
  139. Rob Nixon. 2011. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press. Google-Books-ID: e3jDDwAAQBAJ.
  140. Mutale Nkonde. 2019. Automated Anti-Blackness: Facial Recognition in Brook- lyn, New York. (2019), 7.
  141. Saya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Re- inforce Racism. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/ 9781479833641.001.0001 Publication Title: Algorithms of Oppression.
  142. Devah Pager. 2003. The Mark of a Criminal Record. Amer. J. Sociology 108, 5 (March 2003), 937-975. https://doi.org/10.1086/374403 Publisher: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press.
  143. Joon Sung Park, Karrie Karahalios, Niloufar Salehi, and Motahhare Eslami. 2022. Power Dynamics and Value Conicts in Designing and Maintaining Socio- Technical Algorithmic Processes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW1 (March 2022), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512957
  144. Richard Parker and Peter Aggleton. 2003. HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action. Social Science (2003), 12.
  145. Frank Pasquale. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Con- trol Money and Information. Harvard University Press. Google-Books-ID: TumaBQAAQBAJ.
  146. Samir Passi and Solon Barocas. 2019. Problem Formulation and Fairness. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Atlanta GA USA, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287567
  147. Kirsteen Paton. 2018. Beyond legacy: Backstage stigmatisation and 'trickle-up' politics of urban regeneration. The Sociological Review 66, 4 (July 2018), 919-934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118777449 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  148. Amandalynne Paullada, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Emily M. Bender, Emily Denton, and Alex Hanna. 2021. Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset develop- ment and use in machine learning research. Patterns 2, 11 (Nov. 2021), 100336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100336
  149. Shenira A. Perez. 2019. Quantifying the Eects of the 'At-risk' Label: Exploring the Decit-oriented Labeling Experiences of Low-income, First- generation College Students of Color. Ph.D. Boston College, United States -Massachusetts. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2289587090/abstract/ 96398F2C745C44A1PQ/1 ISBN: 9781085695701.
  150. Sidney Perkowitz. 2021. The Bias in the Machine: Facial Recognition Technology and Racial Disparities. MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing Winter 2021 (Feb. 2021). https://doi.org/10.21428/2c646de5.62272586 Publisher: MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.
  151. Margaret Placier. 1996. The Cycle of Student Labels in Education: The Cases of Culturally Deprivedl Disadvantaged and at Risk. Educational Ad- ministration Quarterly 32, 2 (April 1996), 236-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013161X96032002004 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  152. Devin G. Pope and Justin R. Sydnor. 2011. Implementing Anti-discrimination Policies in Statistical Proling Models. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3, 3 (Aug. 2011), 206-231. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.3.206
  153. T. T. A. Putri, S. Sriadhi, R. D. Sari, R. Rahmadani, and H. D. Hutahaean. 2020. A comparison of classication algorithms for hate speech detection. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 830, 3 (April 2020), 032006. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/830/3/032006 Publisher: IOP Publishing.
  154. Emily Rauscher and William Elliott III. 2014. The Eect of Wealth Inequality on Higher Education Outcomes: A Critical Review. Sociology Mind 04, 04 (2014), 282-297. https://doi.org/10.4236/sm.2014.44029
  155. Lauren Rhue. 2018. Racial Inuence on Automated Perceptions of Emotions. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3281765
  156. Rashida Richardson, Jason Schultz, and Kate Crawford. 2019. Dirty Data, Bad Predictions: How Civil Rights Violations Impact Police Data, Predictive Policing Systems, and Justice. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3333423
  157. Kat Roemmich and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Data Subjects' Conceptualizations of and Attitudes Toward Automatic Emotion Recognition-Enabled Wellbeing Interventions on Social Media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 308:1-308:34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476049
  158. Edward G. Rozycki. 2004. At-Risk Students: What Exactly Is the Threat? How Imminent Is It? Educational Horizons 82, 3 (2004), 174-179. https://www. jstor.org/stable/42926497 Publisher: [Sage Publications, Ltd., Phi Delta Kappa International].
  159. Laura Savolainen. 2022. The shadow banning controversy: perceived governance and algorithmic folklore. Media, Culture & Society 44, 6 (Sept. 2022), 1091-1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221077174 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  160. Devansh Saxena and Shion Guha. 2022. Algorithms in the Daily Lives of Child- Welfare Caseworkers: Harms to Practice, Agency, and Street-Level Decision- Making. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4077245
  161. Graham Scambler. 2009. Health-related stigma. Sociology of Health & Illness 31, 3 (2009), 441-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01161.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01161.x.
  162. Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Madeleine Pape, and Alex Hanna. 2021. Auto- essentialization: Gender in automated facial analysis as extended colonial project. Big Data & Society 8, 2 (July 2021), 20539517211053712. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 20539517211053712 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  163. Toni Schmader, Alyssa Croft, Jessica Whitehead, and Je Stone. 2013. A Peek Inside the Targets' Toolbox: How Stigmatized Targets Deect Discrimination by Invoking a Common Identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 35, 1 (Jan. 2013), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746615 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746615.
  164. Vanessa Scholes. 2016. The ethics of using learning analytics to categorize students on risk. Educational Technology Research and Development 64, 5 (Oct. 2016), 939-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9458-1 [165] Nete Schwennesen. 2019. Algorithmic assemblages of care: imaginar- ies, epistemologies and repair work. Sociology of Health & Illness 41, S1 (2019), 176-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12900 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9566.12900.
  165. Nick Seaver. 2019. Knowing Algorithms. In DigitalSTS: A Field Guide for Science & Technology Studies. 568.
  166. Ellen Selkie, Victoria Adkins, Ellie Masters, Anita Bajpai, and Daniel Shumer. 2020. Transgender Adolescents' Uses of Social Media for Social Support. Journal of Adolescent Health 66, 3 (March 2020), 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2019.08.011
  167. George Siemens and Phil Long. 2011. Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. EDUCAUSE Review 46, 5 (2011), 30. Publisher: EDUCAUSE.
  168. Ellen Simpson and Bryan Semaan. 2021. For You, or For"You"? Everyday LGBTQ+ Encounters with TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (Jan. 2021), 252:1-252:34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432951
  169. Sharon Slade and Paul Prinsloo. 2013. Learning Analytics: Ethical Issues and Dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 10 (Oct. 2013), 1510-1529. https: //doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479366 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  170. Tom Slater. 2017. Territorial Stigmatization: Symbolic Defamation and the Contemporary Metropolis. In The SAGE Handbook of New Urban Studies. SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP, 111-125. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412912655.n8
  171. Todd Spangler. 2020. Instagram to Review Whether Its Practices and Policies 'Suppress Black Voices'. https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/instagram- suppress-black-voices-review-algorithmic-bias-1234635850/
  172. Logan Stapleton, Min Hun Lee, Diana Qing, Marya Wright, Alexandra Choulde- chova, Ken Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholders. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 1162-1177. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533177
  173. Terrell L. Strayhorn. 2015. Factors Inuencing Black Males' Preparation for College and Success in STEM Majors: A Mixed Methods Study. Western Jour- nal of Black Studies 39, 1 (2015), 45-63. https://www.proquest.com/docview/ 1688657629/abstract/2DD905147AEB4A58PQ/1 Num Pages: 19 Place: Pullman, United States Publisher: Washington State University Press.
  174. Harini Suresh and John Guttag. 2021. A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cycle. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. ACM, -NY USA, 1-9. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3465416.3483305
  175. Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Commun. ACM 56, 5 (May 2013), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1145/2447976.2447990
  176. Rahel Süß. 2022. The right to disidentication: Sovereignty in digital democ- racies. Constellations n/a, n/a (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12626 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12626.
  177. Zeynep Tufekci. 2015. Algorithmic Harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emer- gent Challenges of Computational Agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal 13 (2015), 203. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel13& id=227&div=&collection=
  178. Imogen Tyler. 2013. Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neolib- eral Britain. Bloomsbury Publishing. Google-Books-ID: DQI1EAAAQBAJ.
  179. Imogen Tyler. 2018. Resituating Erving Goman: From Stigma Power to Black Power. The Sociological Review 66, 4 (July 2018), 744-765. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0038026118777450 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  180. Imogen Tyler. 2020. Stigma: The Machinery of Inequality. Bloomsbury Publishing. Google-Books-ID: Y_80EAAAQBAJ.
  181. Imogen Tyler and Tom Slater. 2018. Rethinking the sociology of stigma. The Sociological Review 66, 4 (July 2018), 721-743. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0038026118777425 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  182. David L. Vogel, Rachel L. Bitman, Joseph H. Hammer, and Nathaniel G. Wade. 2013. BRIEF REPORT Is Stigma Internalized? The Longitudinal Impact of Public Stigma on Self-Stigma.
  183. Piper Vornholt and Munmun De Choudhury. 2021. Understanding the Role of Social Media-Based Mental Health Support Among College Students: Survey and Semistructured Interviews. JMIR Mental Health 8, 7 (July 2021), e24512. https://doi.org/10.2196/24512 Company: JMIR Mental Health Distributor: JMIR Mental Health Institution: JMIR Mental Health Label: JMIR Mental Health Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada.
  184. Loïc Wacquant. 2008. Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Polity.
  185. Loïc Wacquant, Tom Slater, and Virgílio Borges Pereira. 2014. Territorial Stigma- tization in Action. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46, 6 (June 2014), 1270-1280. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4606ge Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  186. Angelina Wang, Solon Barocas, Kristen Laird, and Hanna Wallach. 2022. Mea- suring Representational Harms in Image Captioning. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533099
  187. Xin Wang, Peng Zhao, and Xi Chen. 2020. Fake news and misinformation detec- tion on headlines of COVID-19 using deep learning algorithms. International Journal of Data Science 5, 4 (Jan. 2020), 316-332. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJDS. 2020.115873 Publisher: Inderscience Publishers.
  188. T. Wangsness and J. Franklin. 1966. "Algorithm" and "formula". Commun. ACM 9, 4 (April 1966), 243. https://doi.org/10.1145/365278.365286
  189. Amy C. Watson, Patrick Corrigan, Jonathon E. Larson, and Molly Sells. 2007. Self-Stigma in People With Mental Illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin 33, 6 (Nov. 2007), 1312-1318. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbl076
  190. Lindsay Weinberg. 2022. Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches. Journal of Articial Intelligence Research 74 (May 2022), 75-109. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.13196
  191. Liang Wu, Fred Morstatter, Kathleen M. Carley, and Huan Liu. 2019. Misinfor- mation in Social Media: Denition, Manipulation, and Detection. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 21, 2 (Nov. 2019), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373464. 3373475
  192. Daphna Yeshua-Katz and Ylva Hård af Segerstad. 2020. Catch 22: The Paradox of Social Media Aordances and Stigmatized Online Support Groups. Social Media + Society 6, 4 (Oct. 2020), 2056305120984476. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2056305120984476 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  193. Felice Yeskel. 2008. Coming to Class: Looking at Education through the Lens of Class Introduction to the Class and Education Special Issue. Equity & Excellence in Education 41, 1 (Feb. 2008), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680701793428
  194. Elana Zeide. 2021. The Silicon Ceiling: How Algorithmic Assessments Construct an Invisible Barrier to Opportunity. https://www.elanazeide.com/post/the- silicon-ceiling-how-algorithmic-assessments-construct-an-invisible-barrier- to-opportunity
  195. Haiyi Zhu, Bowen Yu, Aaron Halfaker, and Loren Terveen. 2018. Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design: Method, Case Study, and Lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 194:1-194:23. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3274463
  196. Shoshana Zubo. 2018. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (1st ed.).

Related papers

Dynamics of Social Harms in an Algorithmic Context
Hanna Malik

2022

Growing evidence suggests that the affordances of algorithms can reproduce socially embedded bias and discrimination, increase the information asymmetry and power imbalances in socioeconomic relations. We conceptualise these affordances in the context of socially mediated mass harms. We argue that algorithmic technologies may not alter what harms arise but, instead, affect harms qualitatively-that is, how and to what extent they emerge and on whom they fall. Using the example of three well-documented cases of algorithmic failures, we integrate the concerns identified in critical algorithm studies with the literature on social harm and zemiology. Reorienting the focus from socioeconomic to socio-econo-technological structures, we illustrate how algorithmic technologies transform the dynamics of social harm production on macro and meso levels by: (1) systematising bias and inequality; (2) accelerating harm propagation on an unprecedented scale; and (3) blurring the perception of harms.

View PDFchevron_right
Digital degradation: Stigma management in the internet age
Sarah Lageson, Shadd Maruna

The concept of stigma and labeling has been central to the sociology of punishment since at least the writings of Durkheim and Mead. However, the vast transformations brought on by the expansion of the internet over the past 20 years suggest the need for revisiting the dynamics of labeling. While the power to apply extralegal criminal labels is now in the hands of many, stigma in the form of a digital footprint is arguably more difficult than ever to escape. This paper draws on two small studies to better understand these new dynamics of labeling: a discourse analysis of the motivations of online labelers and interviews with individuals struggling to cope with online labels. This evidence describes how the internet has become a fertile space for the expression of public anxieties about social problems and a digital prison that can discourage the labeled from engaging with the processes of reintegration.

View PDFchevron_right
The Algorithmic Other: Digital Dehumanisation, Psychological Harm, and the Urgent Need to Counter Resurgent Hate
Jalal Nali

The Algorithmic Other: Digital Dehumanisation, 2025

This paper examines the phenomenon of 'algorithmic othering', the processes through which digital technologies actively participate in constructing and amplifying 'the Other'. Using antisemitism as a primary case study whilst drawing comparative insights from research on Islamophobia and other forms of digital discrimination, we analyse how ancient prejudices are technologically repackaged and disseminated in contemporary digital ecosystems. The study integrates classical theories of alterity with emerging frameworks on digital propaganda and social deviance to develop a novel theoretical model of algorithmic othering. Through comparative analysis of different manifestations of digital hate, we identify common patterns in how algorithmic systems amplify prejudice while recognising the unique historical and social contexts of specific forms of discrimination. The paper examines the profound psychological toll of persistent exposure to algorithmic othering, drawing on research regarding bullying, exclusion, and their effects on self-worth. We argue that addressing algorithmic othering constitutes an urgent societal imperative requiring multidisciplinary solutions spanning technological design, policymaking, education, and community support. The paper concludes by proposing concrete pathways towards fostering digital resilience and cultivating a more equitable digital future, emphasising the need for immediate action at educational and political levels.

View PDFchevron_right
Identifying Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Gurleen Virk

arXiv (Cornell University), 2022

Understanding the landscape of potential harms from algorithmic systems enables practitioners to better anticipate consequences of the systems they build. It also supports the prospect of incorporating controls to help minimize harms that emerge from the interplay of technologies and social and cultural dynamics. A growing body of scholarship has identified a wide range of harms across different algorithmic technologies. However, computing research and practitioners lack a high level and synthesized overview of harms from algorithmic systems arising at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of society. We present an applied taxonomy of sociotechnical harms to support more systematic surfacing of potential harms in algorithmic systems. Based on a scoping review of computing research (n=172), we identified five major themes related to sociotechnical harms-representational, allocative, quality-of-service, interpersonal harms, and social system/societal harms-and sub-themes. We describe these categories and conclude with a discussion of challenges and opportunities for future research.

View PDFchevron_right
Social harms in an algorithmic context
Hanna Malik

Justice, Power and Resistance

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved