Inclusion, equality and bias in designing online mass deliberative platforms

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.12711v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:13:57 GMT
• Title: Inclusion, equality and bias in designing online mass deliberative platforms
• Authors: Ruth Shortall, Anatol Itten, Michiel van der Meer, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah, Catholijn M. Jonker
• Abstract summary: Designers of online deliberative platforms aim to counter the degrading quality of online debates and eliminate online discrimination based on class, race or gender. Support technologies such as machine learning and natural language processing open avenues for widening the circle of people involved in deliberation. We review the transdisciplinary literature on the design of digital mass-deliberation platforms and examine the commonly featured design aspects.
• Score: 5.316553118382712
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Designers of online deliberative platforms aim to counter the degrading quality of online debates and eliminate online discrimination based on class, race or gender. Support technologies such as machine learning and natural language processing open avenues for widening the circle of people involved in deliberation, moving from small groups to ``crowd'' scale. Some design features of large-scale online discussion systems allow larger numbers of people to discuss shared problems, enhance critical thinking, and formulate solutions. However, scaling up deliberation is challenging. We review the transdisciplinary literature on the design of digital mass-deliberation platforms and examine the commonly featured design aspects (e.g., argumentation support, automated facilitation, and gamification). We find that the literature is heavily focused on developing technical fixes for scaling up deliberation, with a heavy western influence on design and test users skew young and highly educated. Contrastingly, there is a distinct lack of discussion on the nature of the design process, the inclusion of stakeholders and issues relating to inclusion, which may unwittingly perpetuate bias. Another tendency of deliberation platforms is to nudge participants to desired forms of argumentation, and simplifying definitions of good and bad arguments to fit algorithmic purposes. Few studies bridge disciplines between deliberative theory, design and engineering. As a result, scaling up deliberation will likely advance in separate systemic siloes. We make design and process recommendations to correct this course and suggest avenues for future research.

Related papers

• Code-Driven Law NO, Normware SI! [0.0]
  We argue that normware-centred views provide a more adequate abstraction to study and design interactions between computational systems and human institutions. This paper introduces and elaborates on "normware" as an explicit additional stance -- complementary to software and hardware -- for the interpretation and the design of artificial devices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T22:37:45Z)
• Decentralized Social Networks and the Future of Free Speech Online [4.249974621573213]
  Decentralized social networks like Mastodon and BlueSky are trending topics that have drawn much attention and discussion in recent years. This article critically assesses the decentralization project's prospect for communications online. It uses normative theories of free speech to examine whether and how the decentralization design could facilitate users' freedom of expression online.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T04:18:53Z)
• Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
  We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z)
• Multimodality in Online Education: A Comparative Study [2.0472158451829827]
  Current systems consider only a single cue with a lack of focus in the educational domain. This paper highlights the need for a multimodal approach to affect recognition and its deployment in the online classroom. It compares the various machine learning models available for each cue and provides the most suitable approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T07:12:15Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [50.69905074548764]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way. Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• Machine Unlearning: A Survey [56.79152190680552]
  A special need has arisen where, due to privacy, usability, and/or the right to be forgotten, information about some specific samples needs to be removed from a model, called machine unlearning. This emerging technology has drawn significant interest from both academics and industry due to its innovation and practicality. No study has analyzed this complex topic or compared the feasibility of existing unlearning solutions in different kinds of scenarios. The survey concludes by highlighting some of the outstanding issues with unlearning techniques, along with some feasible directions for new research opportunities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-06T10:18:36Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• Comparative Study of Learning Outcomes for Online Learning Platforms [47.5164159412965]
  Personalization and active learning are key aspects to successful learning. We run a comparative head-to-head study of learning outcomes for two popular online learning platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-15T20:40:24Z)
• Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey [0.0]
  There is significant literature on approaches to mitigate bias and promote fairness. This article seeks to provide an overview of the different schools of thought and approaches to mitigating (social) biases and increase fairness in the Machine Learning literature. It organises approaches into the widely accepted framework of pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing methods, subcategorizing into a further 11 method areas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-04T21:01:34Z)
• On the Social and Technical Challenges of Web Search Autosuggestion Moderation [118.47867428272878]
  Autosuggestions are typically generated by machine learning (ML) systems trained on a corpus of search logs and document representations. While current search engines have become increasingly proficient at suppressing such problematic suggestions, there are still persistent issues that remain. We discuss several dimensions of problematic suggestions, difficult issues along the pipeline, and why our discussion applies to the increasing number of applications beyond web search.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-09T19:22:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.