pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14266 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

"I Just Don't Want My Work Being Fed Into The AI Blender": Queer Artists on Refusing and Resisting Generative AI

Jordan Taylor , Joel Mire , Alicia DeVrio , Maarten Sap , Haiyi Zhu , Sarah E. Fox
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords queer artistsgenerative AIrefusalresistancerelationalityart practiceshuman-computer interactionAI imaginaries
0
0 comments X

The pith

Queer artists refuse and resist generative AI because it clashes with the relational, community-building nature of their art practices.

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

The paper investigates how generative AI is entering queer artistic communities and how artists are responding to it. It establishes that queer art-making serves as a collective activity for political resistance, identity development, memory archiving, and community formation, which participants see as fundamentally at odds with the data-driven and disconnected processes of GenAI. Through interviews, the work shows artists actively refusing to contribute their work to AI systems and resisting its use in their practices, with only narrow exceptions like surreal image generation. The authors argue this resistance points toward ways for HCI researchers to support queer artists by rejecting mainstream AI visions and aiding alternative forms of creative world-building.

Core claim

Through 15 semi-structured interviews, the paper reveals significant tensions between the relationality of participants' queer art practices and the perceived anti-relationality of GenAI development and use. Participants describe refusing to feed their work into AI systems and resisting its integration into their communities, while seeing only limited roles for GenAI in art-making such as the queer aesthetic potential of surreal image models. Drawing on queer theory, the work discusses how CSCW researchers might support queer artists by refusing dominant AI imaginaries and instead supporting queer world-building.

What carries the argument

The tensions between relational queer art practices and the anti-relationality of GenAI, expressed through artists' strategies of refusal and resistance.

If this is right

  • Queer artists will prioritize protecting their relational art practices by limiting or avoiding GenAI tools and data contributions.
  • The role of GenAI in queer art-making will remain narrow, confined to specific aesthetic experiments rather than core processes.
  • HCI and CSCW researchers should shift away from promoting dominant AI development models when engaging with queer creative communities.
  • Support for queer artists can focus on building and sustaining alternative, non-AI-centered art worlds and infrastructures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar refusal patterns could appear among other artist groups concerned about data extraction and loss of control over their work.
  • Designers of creative tools might explore features that explicitly honor consent and relational context rather than defaulting to large-scale training.
  • Future work could examine whether small-scale, community-consented AI models alter the perceived anti-relational qualities for queer artists.

Load-bearing premise

That the views expressed in 15 interviews with queer artists are enough to identify broad patterns and guide recommendations for how researchers should support queer artists.

What would settle it

A larger study or survey finding that most queer artists are integrating generative AI into their core practices without viewing it as anti-relational or disruptive to community and identity work.

read the original abstract

Art-making is a collective social activity through which queer people engage in political resistance, develop identities, archive queer memory, and form community. However, in recent years, generative AI has disrupted queer artistic communities. Through 15 semi-structured interviews, we examine how queer artists are making sense of the encroachment of GenAI into their art worlds. Our findings surface significant tensions between the relationality of our participants' queer art practices and the perceived anti-relationality of GenAI development and use. We detail how our participants refuse and resist GenAI use and development in response and highlight the limited role our participants saw for GenAI within art-making, such as the queer aesthetic potential of surreal image models. Drawing on queer theory, we discuss how CSCW researchers might support queer artists by refusing dominant AI imaginaries and supporting queer world-building.

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 reports on 15 semi-structured interviews with queer artists to examine how they interpret the encroachment of generative AI into their practices. It identifies tensions between the relational, community-oriented nature of queer art-making and the perceived anti-relational qualities of GenAI development and deployment, details participants' strategies of refusal and resistance, notes limited affirmative uses (e.g., surreal image models), and draws on queer theory to argue that CSCW researchers should refuse dominant AI imaginaries and instead support queer world-building.

Significance. If the interpretive claims are adequately supported by the interview data, the work supplies timely empirical material on how a marginalized creative community experiences and responds to generative AI. It contributes to CSCW and HCI conversations on technology refusal, relational ethics, and the application of queer theory to design and research practice. The use of fresh interview data rather than re-analysis of existing corpora is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the manuscript provides no explicit description of recruitment strategy (purposive, snowball, or otherwise), screening criteria, participant demographics beyond queer identity, interview guide structure, or the thematic analysis process (e.g., inductive vs. deductive coding, number of coders, inter-rater checks, or member validation). Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the reported patterns of refusal and anti-relational framing could be artifacts of self-selection among artists already opposed to GenAI.
  2. [Findings and Discussion] Findings and Discussion sections: the normative recommendation that CSCW researchers 'refuse dominant AI imaginaries' is presented as a direct implication of the 15 interviews. The paper should articulate the inferential step from individual accounts to field-level prescriptions, including any safeguards against over-generalization from a small, non-probability sample.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'thematic coding' is used implicitly but never defined; a one-sentence summary of the analytic approach would improve transparency for readers who encounter only the abstract.
  2. [Related Work] Related Work: several citations to queer theory and AI ethics appear without indicating whether they were used deductively to frame the interview protocol or only post-hoc in the discussion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback, which helps us strengthen the manuscript's transparency and theoretical grounding. We address each major comment below and will make corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the manuscript provides no explicit description of recruitment strategy (purposive, snowball, or otherwise), screening criteria, participant demographics beyond queer identity, interview guide structure, or the thematic analysis process (e.g., inductive vs. deductive coding, number of coders, inter-rater checks, or member validation). Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the reported patterns of refusal and anti-relational framing could be artifacts of self-selection among artists already opposed to GenAI.

    Authors: We agree that additional methodological transparency is needed. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section to explicitly describe: purposive sampling combined with snowball referrals, initiated through targeted outreach in queer artist networks, Discord servers, and social media groups focused on LGBTQ+ creative practice; screening criteria limited to self-identified queer artists who actively produce visual, performance, or multimedia work; full participant demographics (age range 22-48, diverse gender/sexual identities, primary mediums such as illustration/painting/performance, and locations across North America and Europe, with anonymity preserved); the semi-structured interview protocol including core prompts on GenAI encounters, relational aspects of art-making, and refusal rationales; and the analysis as inductive reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke) led by the first author with iterative co-author discussions for theme development and refinement. No formal inter-rater statistics or member checking were performed, consistent with interpretive qualitative standards; we will note this and discuss implications for potential self-selection bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings and Discussion] Findings and Discussion sections: the normative recommendation that CSCW researchers 'refuse dominant AI imaginaries' is presented as a direct implication of the 15 interviews. The paper should articulate the inferential step from individual accounts to field-level prescriptions, including any safeguards against over-generalization from a small, non-probability sample.

    Authors: The recommendation is not framed as a direct empirical generalization from the 15 interviews alone but as an interpretive extension that applies queer theory (particularly concepts of world-building, refusal, and counter-imaginaries) to the observed patterns of relational tension and resistance. In revision we will add explicit language in the Discussion that traces this inferential path: the interviews surface consistent anti-relational framings and refusal strategies, which queer theory helps translate into a broader call for CSCW to support alternative design imaginaries. We will also insert a dedicated Limitations subsection that (a) states the non-probability, small-sample nature of the data, (b) clarifies that claims are not intended to be statistically generalizable, and (c) positions the work as theory-building contribution rather than prescriptive policy. These additions will safeguard against over-generalization while retaining the value of the qualitative insights. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on independent interview data

full rationale

The paper presents findings from 15 new semi-structured interviews as its empirical core, with tensions between relational queer art practices and GenAI anti-relationality emerging directly from participant accounts rather than any definitional equivalence, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain. No equations, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear; the discussion applies queer theory interpretively to the fresh data without reducing the central claims to prior author work or renaming known patterns. The derivation is self-contained against standard qualitative benchmarks of thematic analysis from primary sources.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard qualitative assumptions about interview validity and the application of queer theory to interpret artist responses, with no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc constructs introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Queer art practices are inherently relational, identity-forming, and community-oriented.
    Invoked in the abstract as the basis for identifying tensions with GenAI.
  • domain assumption Semi-structured interviews with 15 participants can surface meaningful and generalizable patterns in responses to technology.
    Core methodological premise underlying the findings and recommendations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5461 in / 1394 out tokens · 43764 ms · 2026-05-10T12:17:56.160273+00:00 · methodology

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

144 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/

    2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/

    2024

  2. [2]

    https://cscw.acm.org/2026/papers.html

    2025. https://cscw.acm.org/2026/papers.html

    2025

  3. [3]

    William Agnew, Harry H Jiang, Cella Sum, Maarten Sap, and Sauvik Das. 2024. Data Defenses Against Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13138(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Be Gay, Do Crimes

    Alyse Marie Allred and Colin M Gray. 2021. "Be Gay, Do Crimes": The Co-Production and Activist Potential of Contemporary Fanzines. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–35

    2021

  5. [5]

    Isaac Arturo Ortega Alvarado. 2024. Relationality in design: What can be understood? (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Eric PS Baumer and Jed R Brubaker. 2017. Post-userism. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 6291–6303

    2017

  7. [7]

    Eric PS Baumer, Rui Sun, and Peter Schaedler. 2018. Departing and returning: Sense of agency as an organizing concept for understanding social media non/use transitions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–19

    2018

  8. [8]

    2023.Art worlds: updated and expanded

    Howard S Becker. 2023.Art worlds: updated and expanded. Univ of California Press

    2023

  9. [9]

    Cynthia L Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a frame for assistive technology research and design. InProceedings of the 20th international acm sigaccess conference on computers and accessibility. 161–173

    2018

  10. [10]

    Cynthia L Bennett, Renee Shelby, Negar Rostamzadeh, and Shaun K Kane. 2024. Painting with Cameras and Drawing with Text: AI Use in Accessible Creativity. InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–19

    2024

  11. [11]

    Heidi Biggs, Alexa Marcotte, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2023. TikTok as a stage: Performing rural# farmqueer Utopias on TikTok. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 946–956

    2023

  12. [12]

    Chantelle Billson. 2025. Gay billionaire Sam Altman accuses Democrats of ‘losing the plot’: ‘I am politically homeless’. https: //www.thepinknews.com/2025/07/09/gay-billionaire-sam-altman-accuses-democrats-of-losing-the-plot-i-am-politically-homeless/

    2025

  13. [13]

    completes

    Julia Binswanger. 2024. A.I. “completes” Keith Haring’s intentionally unfinished painting. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart- news/keith-haring-painting-artificial-intelligence-180983563/

    2024

  14. [14]

    Julie Bort. 2025. Coinbase CEO explains why he fired engineers who didn’t try ai immediately. https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/22/ coinbase-ceo-explains-why-he-fired-engineers-who-didnt-try-ai-immediately/

    2025

  15. [15]

    2022.Should you believe Wikipedia?: online communities and the construction of knowledge

    Amy S Bruckman. 2022.Should you believe Wikipedia?: online communities and the construction of knowledge. Cambridge University Press

    2022

  16. [16]

    I Just Don’t Want My Work Being Fed Into The AI Blender

    William A Camfield. 1990. Marcel Duchamp’s fountain: Its history and aesthetics in the context of 1917.Marcel Duchamp: Artist of the century(1990). “I Just Don’t Want My Work Being Fed Into The AI Blender”•19

    1990

  17. [17]

    Explorers of Unknown Planets

    Baptiste Caramiaux and Sarah Fdili Alaoui. 2022. " Explorers of Unknown Planets" Practices and Politics of Artificial Intelligence in Visual Arts.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–24

    2022

  18. [18]

    Robert L Caserio. 2006. The antisocial thesis in queer theory.pmla121, 3 (2006), 819–821

    2006

  19. [19]

    Minsuk Chang, Stefania Druga, Alexander J Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chinmay Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry. 2023. The prompt artists. InProceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 75–87

    2023

  20. [20]

    Ted Chiang. 2024. Why A.I. isn’t going to make art. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-weekend-essay/why-ai-isnt-going-to- make-art

    2024

  21. [21]

    Tanya Combrinck. 2024. The rise of cara: The anti-AI Social Media Platform for artists. https://www.creativebloq.com/art/digital- art/the-rise-of-cara-the-anti-ai-social-media-platform-for-artists

    2024

  22. [22]

    2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014.Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications

    2014

  23. [23]

    Jay Cunningham, Gabrielle Benabdallah, Daniela Rosner, and Alex Taylor. 2023. On the grounds of solutionism: Ontologies of blackness and HCI.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction30, 2 (2023), 1–17

    2023

  24. [24]

    Doraid Dalalah and Osama MA Dalalah. 2023. The false positives and false negatives of generative AI detection tools in education and academic research: The case of ChatGPT.The International Journal of Management Education21, 2 (2023), 100822

    2023

  25. [25]

    2014.Information doesn’t want to be free: laws for the internet age

    Cory Doctorow. 2014.Information doesn’t want to be free: laws for the internet age. McSweeney’s

    2014

  26. [26]

    Jesse Dodge, Taylor Prewitt, Remi Tachet des Combes, Erika Odmark, Roy Schwartz, Emma Strubell, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Noah A Smith, Nicole DeCario, and Will Buchanan. 2022. Measuring the carbon intensity of ai in cloud instances. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 1877–1894

    2022

  27. [27]

    Jesse Dodge, Maarten Sap, Ana Marasović, William Agnew, Gabriel Ilharco, Dirk Groeneveld, Margaret Mitchell, and Matt Gardner

  28. [28]

    Documenting large webtext corpora: A case study on the colossal clean crawled corpus.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08758(2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Lisa Duggan. 2002. The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism.Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics10 (2002), 175–194

    2002

  30. [30]

    Coming Out Okay

    Brianna Dym, Jed R Brubaker, Casey Fiesler, and Bryan Semaan. 2019. " Coming Out Okay" Community Narratives for LGBTQ Identity Recovery Work.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–28

    2019

  31. [31]

    Brianna Dym, Namita Pasupuleti, and Casey Fiesler. 2022. Building a pillowfort: Political tensions in platform design and policy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, GROUP (2022), 1–23

    2022

  32. [32]

    2020.No future: Queer theory and the death drive

    Lee Edelman. 2020.No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Duke University Press

    2020

  33. [33]

    Ziv Epstein, Antonio Alonso Arechar, and David Rand. 2023. What label should be applied to content produced by generative AI? (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Casey Fiesler and Amy S Bruckman. 2014. Remixers’ understandings of fair use online. InProceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1023–1032

    2014

  35. [35]

    Casey Fiesler and Brianna Dym. 2020. Moving across lands: Online platform migration in fandom communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW1 (2020), 1–25

    2020

  36. [36]

    Casey Fiesler, Jessica L Feuston, and Amy S Bruckman. 2015. Understanding copyright law in online creative communities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 116–129

    2015

  37. [37]

    Casey Fiesler, Shannon Morrison, and Amy S Bruckman. 2016. An archive of their own: a case study of feminist HCI and values in design. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2574–2585

    2016

  38. [38]

    Christopher Frauenberger. 2019. Entanglement HCI the next wave?ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)27, 1 (2019), 1–27

    2019

  39. [39]

    Being Eroded, Piece by Piece

    Kexue Fu, Ruishan Wu, Yuying Tang, Yixin Chen, Bowen Liu, and RAY LC. 2024. " Being Eroded, Piece by Piece": Enhancing Engagement and Storytelling in Cultural Heritage Dissemination by Exhibiting GenAI Co-Creation Artifacts. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 2833–2850

    2024

  40. [40]

    Christine Geeng, Jevan Hutson, and Franziska Roesner. 2020. Usable sexurity: Studying {People’s} concerns and strategies when sexting. InSixteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2020). 127–144

    2020

  41. [41]

    We are no Luddites!

    Marc Gerbracht, Max Krüger, Débora De Castro Leal, Peter Tolmie, and Volker Wulf. 2024. " We are no Luddites!"-CSCW, Co- Determination and Digital Transformation in Germany.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–23

    2024

  42. [42]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2020. Content moderation, AI, and the question of scale.Big Data & Society7, 2 (2020), 2053951720943234

    2020

  43. [43]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2024. Generative AI and the politics of visibility.Big Data & Society11, 2 (2024), 20539517241252131

    2024

  44. [44]

    Trystan S Goetze. 2024. AI Art is Theft: Labour, Extraction, and Exploitation: Or, On the Dangers of Stochastic Pollocks. InThe 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 186–196

    2024

  45. [45]

    Joan Greenbaum. 1996. Back to Labor: Returning to labor process discussions in the study of work. InProceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 229–237

    1996

  46. [46]

    1992.Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography

    John Gruen. 1992.Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography. Simon and Schuster. 20•Jordan Taylor, Joel Mire, Alicia DeVrio, Maarten Sap, Haiyi Zhu, and Sarah E. Fox

    1992

  47. [47]

    Hana Habib, Sarah Pearman, Jiamin Wang, Yixin Zou, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Norman Sadeh, and Florian Schaub

  48. [48]

    It’s a scavenger hunt

    " It’s a scavenger hunt": Usability of Websites’ Opt-Out and Data Deletion Choices. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    2020

  49. [49]

    2025.Trans Technologies

    Oliver L Haimson. 2025.Trans Technologies. MIT Press

    2025

  50. [50]

    Oliver L Haimson, Samuel Reiji Mayworm, Alexis Shore Ingber, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2025. AI Attitudes Among Marginalized Populations in the US: Nonbinary, Transgender, and Disabled Individuals Report More Negative AI Attitudes. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1224–1237

    2025

  51. [51]

    Jack Halberstam. 2003. What’s that smell? Queer temporalities and subcultural lives.International journal of cultural studies6, 3 (2003), 313–333

    2003

  52. [52]

    Brett A Halperin and Daniela K Rosner. 2025. ‘AI is Soulless’: Hollywood Film Workers Strike and Emerging Perceptions of Generative Cinema.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction(2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Nabil Hassein. 2017. Against black inclusion in facial recognition.Digital Talking Drum15 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    Peter S Hawkins. 1993. Naming names: The art of memory and the NAMES project AIDS quilt.Critical inquiry19, 4 (1993), 752–779

    1993

  55. [55]

    Jiahui He, Haris Bin Zia, Ignacio Castro, Aravindh Raman, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Flocking to mastodon: Tracking the great twitter migration. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference. 111–123

    2023

  56. [56]

    Benjamin Henne, Christian Szongott, and Matthew Smith. 2013. SnapMe if you can: Privacy threats of other peoples’ geo-tagged media and what we can do about it. InProceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Security and privacy in wireless and mobile networks. 95–106

    2013

  57. [57]

    Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2021. Terms of inclusion: Data, discourse, violence.New Media & Society23, 12 (2021), 3539–3556

    2021

  58. [58]

    Lara Houston, Steven J Jackson, Daniela K Rosner, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Meg Young, and Laewoo Kang. 2016. Values in repair. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1403–1414

    2016

  59. [59]

    Kyle Jahner. 2024. Google hit with copyright class action over Imagen AI model. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/google-hit- with-copyright-class-action-over-imagen-ai-model

    2024

  60. [60]

    Harry H Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru. 2023. AI Art and its Impact on Artists. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 363–374

    2023

  61. [61]

    Harry H Jiang, Jordan Taylor, and William Agnew. 2026. How Professional Visual Artists are Negotiating Generative AI in the Workplace.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.04537(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Jaime Jiménez and Jari Arkko. 2024. AI, Robots. txt. (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    CT Jones. 2025. Fan fiction is about community. could ai ruin that? https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-fan- fiction-community-1235333636/

    2025

  64. [64]

    My} data just goes {Everywhere:

    Ruogu Kang, Laura Dabbish, Nathaniel Fruchter, and Sara Kiesler. 2015. {“My} data just goes {Everywhere:”} user mental models of the internet and implications for privacy and security. InEleventh symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2015). 39–52

    2015

  65. [65]

    Pranav Khadpe, Olivia Xu, Geoff Kaufman, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2025. Hug Reports: Supporting Expression of Appreciation between Users and Contributors of Open Source Software Packages.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 2 (2025), 1–32

    2025

  66. [66]

    Alistair Knott, Dino Pedreschi, Raja Chatila, Tapabrata Chakraborti, Susan Leavy, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, David Eyers, Andrew Trotman, Paul D Teal, Przemyslaw Biecek, et al. 2023. Generative AI models should include detection mechanisms as a condition for public release.Ethics and Information Technology25, 4 (2023), 55

    2023

  67. [67]

    Charlotte P Lee, Paul Dourish, and Gloria Mark. 2006. The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. InProceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 483–492

    2006

  68. [68]

    1999.Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace

    Lawrence Lessig. 1999.Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books, Inc., USA

    1999

  69. [69]

    2008.Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy

    Lawrence Lessig. 2008.Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. Bloomsbury Academic

    2008

  70. [70]

    Protest Users

    Hanlin Li, Nicholas Vincent, Janice Tsai, Jofish Kaye, and Brent Hecht. 2019. How do people change their technology use in protest?: Understanding “Protest Users”.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–22

    2019

  71. [71]

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

    2011

  72. [72]

    Cindy Lin and Silvia Margot Lindtner. 2021. Techniques of use: Confronting value systems of productivity, progress, and usefulness in computing and design. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2021

  73. [73]

    Travis Lloyd, Jennah Gosciak, Tung Nguyen, and Mor Naaman. 2024. AI Rules? Characterizing Reddit Community Policies Towards AI-Generated Content.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11698(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Jasmine Lu and Pedro Lopes. 2024. Unmaking electronic waste.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction31, 6 (2024), 1–30

    2024

  75. [75]

    I’m not sure what difference is between their content and mine, other than the person itself

    Renkai Ma and Yubo Kou. 2022. " I’m not sure what difference is between their content and mine, other than the person itself" A Study of Fairness Perception of Content Moderation on YouTube.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–28. “I Just Don’t Want My Work Being Fed Into The AI Blender”•21

    2022

  76. [76]

    They only care to show us the wheelchair

    Kelly Avery Mack, Rida Qadri, Remi Denton, Shaun K Kane, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2024. “They only care to show us the wheelchair”: Disability representation in text-to-image AI models. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–23

    2024

  77. [77]

    Jabez Magomere, Shu Ishida, Tejumade Afonja, Aya Salama, Daniel Kochin, Yuehgoh Foutse, Imane Hamzaoui, Raesetje Sefala, Aisha Alaagib, Samantha Dalal, et al. 2025. The World Wide recipe: A community-centred framework for fine-grained data collection and regional bias operationalisation. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability...

    2025

  78. [78]

    Colin Martin. 2019. Art and activism in New York.The Lancet HIV6, 10 (2019), e653–e654

    2019

  79. [79]

    Samuel Mayworm, Kendra Albert, and Oliver L Haimson. 2024. Misgendered During Moderation: How Transgender Bodies Make Visible Cisnormative Content Moderation Policies and Enforcement in a Meta Oversight Board Case. InThe 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 301–312

    2024

  80. [80]

    Brian Merchant. 2023. Column: What Stephen King - and nearly everyone else - gets wrong about ai and the Lud- dites. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-08-31/column-stephen-king-i-love-you-but-youre-wrong-about- the-luddites-and-technological-progress

    2023

Showing first 80 references.