A feminist-inspired multi-stakeholder engagement framework and tools for evolving and enacting social, computational, and legal agreements that govern the lifecycle of an AI system.
-
Co-constitution
Addressing friction
Informed refusal
Contestability and complaint
Disclosure-centered mediation
Scenarios (coming soon)
- Gender-Equity
- Healthcare
- Education
- Content Moderation
Learn more about the framework and contact us at: b.rakova@gmail.com
In service of you and a vision for improved transparency and human agency in the interactions between people and algorithmic systems:
- Bogdana Rakova, ex-Mozilla Foundation, Senior Trustworthy AI Fellow
- Megan Ma, Assistant Director, Stanford Center for Legal Informatics
- Renee Shelby, Sociology Department and Legal Studies Program, Georgia Institute of Technology
Graphic design by Yan Li.
With the kind support of Mozilla Foundation.
Co-constitution
Co-constitution is an opportunity to challenge one-sided and coercive modes of participation in AI development. Instead, we question what does meaningful participation means and how could technology companies co-design with the communities they are serving. Marginalized communities and various stakeholders could take part in drafting user agreements and be rewarded for their participation. We believe they can help technology companies anticipate algorithmic harm and design adequate response mechanisms that empower solidarity.
We encourage practitioners to ask - Who are the stakeholders engaged in the lifecycle of design, development, and deployment of AI? How are they contributing? How are they rewarded for their contribution? Are there other stakeholders who are currently not represented, but could be considered unintended users of the algorithmic system and be impacted by it directly or through any downstream decisions made by other human or algorithmic actors?
Resources:
- DiSalvo C, Clement A and Pipek V (2012) Participatory design for, with, and by communities. In: Simonsen J and Robertson T (eds.) The Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, pp.182-209.
- Eigen, ZJ (2012) Experimental evidence of the relationship between reading the fine print and performance of form-contract terms. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 168(1): 124-141.
- Gordon-Tapiero A,Wood A, and Ligett K (2022) The case for establishing a collective perspective to address the harms of platform personalization. In Proceedings of the 2022 Symposium on Computer Science and Law (CSLAW '22). Association for Computing Machinery.
- Hagan M (2020) Legal design as a thing: A theory of change and a set of methods to craft a human-centered legal system. Design Issues 36(3): 3-15.
- Kitkowska, A., Warner, M., Shulman, Y., Wästlund, E., & Martucci, L. A. (2020, August). Enhancing privacy through the visual design of privacy notices: exploring the interplay of curiosity, control and affect. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security (pp. 437-456).
001a
001b
001c
