Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Ask before you Build: Rethinking AI-for-Good in Human Trafficking Interventions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that AI-for-good projects should undergo a five-step pre-design ethical assessment, Radical Questioning, that can halt or reframe interventions before harm occurs.

desk verdict A genuinely useful five-step pre-design ethics scaffold, but the only demonstration is a retrospective self-report of a system that was already built, so the paper's central pre-design claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22512 v1 pith:FFEFQMAT submitted 2025-06-26 cs.CY cs.AI

Pratheeksha Nair , Gabriel Lefebvre , Sophia Garrel , Maryam Molamohammadi , Reihaneh Rabbany This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords AIethicsresponsibleradicalquestioninghumantraffickingpre-designassessmenttechno-solutionismsurvivor-centereddesignforgood
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that AI-for-good projects, especially those addressing human trafficking, should begin by asking whether an AI system should be built at all. It introduces Radical Questioning (RQ), a five-step pre-design ethics process that defines the social problem, identifies stakeholders, understands contextual nuance, maps ethical concerns, and iterates with feedback. In the paper's case study, RQ shifted a planned automated trafficking-detection tool into a survivor-centered evidence-management tool, moving from surveillance to support. If this works, upstream questioning could prevent AI-for-good deployments that harm the very communities they claim to help.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the five-step Radical Questioning (RQ) framework: (1) Define the Scope of the Problem, asking who gets to define the social issue; (2) Identify Stakeholders, asking who is impacted, who owns the tool, and whether marginalized voices are meaningfully involved; (3) Understand Contextual Nuance, probing contested notions of justice, consent, and success; (4) Map Ethical Concerns, covering accountability, privacy, fairness, and legitimacy; and (5) Iterate with Feedback, requiring continuous, deliberative stakeholder input and willingness to halt the project. RQ is a deliberative practice, not a checklist, and its questions were co-shaped with survivor-led organizations in the case study.

What would settle it

Run two comparable human-trafficking AI projects, one with and one without the full RQ process; if the RQ project, with genuine survivor engagement, still produces the original surveillance-based detection tool and comparable false positives, the central claim that RQ prevents or redirects harmful deployments would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a structured, pre-design method for questioning the legitimacy of an AI intervention before technical development begins. Radical Questioning does not replace principles-based ethics; it precedes it, creating a deliberative space to confront assumptions, map power, and consider harms. Applied to human trafficking, the method surfaced risks of over-surveillance, false positives, and retraumatization, and reoriented the project from detection to documentation and from surveillance to support. The authors claim the framework is transferable to other contested domains, provided its questions are re-grounded in local context.

Load-bearing premise

The framework only works if a project can secure genuine, trusting engagement with affected communities and if the development team is willing to act on what it hears; without those, RQ becomes performative and provides no safeguard against harm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Institutionalizing RQ as a standard pre-project step would require funding cycles and timelines that make room for reflection and the option to walk away.
  • Applying RQ in other high-stakes domains, such as child welfare or predictive policing, would require re-grounding its questions in local histories, laws, and power dynamics.
  • The case study's pivot from detection to documentation implies that success metrics in sensitive domains may be empowerment and harm reduction rather than optimization and scale.
  • Teams using RQ would establish survivor-led advisory structures and trauma-informed engagement practices as ongoing governance, not one-time consultations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open who has authority to halt a project when RQ surfaces serious harms; institutionalizing RQ would mean assigning that decision to a party without sunk costs in the build.
  • RQ's effectiveness could be tested empirically by comparing equivalent AI-for-good projects with and without the framework on downstream outcomes such as false-positive surveillance or retraumatization reports.
  • Because RQ depends on genuine engagement, its transferable core may be the reflective posture itself, with the specific questions acting as a scaffold that must be rebuilt for each domain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces Radical Questioning (RQ), a five-step pre-design ethical assessment framework for AI-for-good projects, and illustrates it through the authors' human-trafficking case study. The authors argue that RQ shifted their project from automated detection of trafficking in online escort advertisements to a survivor-centered evidence management tool, and they claim the five-step structure can generalize to other high-stakes domains even though the specific questions must be contextual. The paper positions RQ relative to existing AI ethics, refusal, and participatory design frameworks, and it concludes with recommendations for institutionalizing pre-project ethical deliberation.

Significance. If the central claim were well supported, the paper would make a useful contribution by operationalizing the question 'should we build this at all?' as a structured, upstream deliberative step, and by candidly listing the conditions under which such questioning can work (genuine stakeholder engagement, time and institutional support, team openness). The stepwise questions are concrete, the framing is normatively important, and the paper explicitly acknowledges its own limitations, including the risk of performative ethics. However, the evidence base is a single first-person retrospective case study with no transcripts, engagement logs, or decision records, and the same case study that shaped RQ is then used to validate it. This limits the strength of the demonstration, though not necessarily the value of the proposal; the paper can be revised to reframe its contribution honestly.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §5, ref [37]] The central claim that RQ is a 'pre-project' and 'before design' framework is not supported by the case study as presented. The initial framing quoted in §3.1 ('How can we detect trafficking online using escort advertisements?') is precisely the T-NET detection system that the same group published at AAAI 2024 (ref [37]). The paper supplies no timeline or contemporaneous evidence showing that RQ was applied before any technical design work began; the narrative in §5 reads as a retrospective reinterpretation of a system that had already been built and published. Because the abstract and §1 use the HT case to 'demonstrate' pre-project use, this is a load-bearing gap. Please either provide dated documentary evidence of the sequencing (e.g., workshop notes, decision logs, or an explicit project chronology) or reframe the contribution as a retrospective analysis and proposal, explicitly leaving pre-design efficacy as an open empirical question.
  2. [§3 and §5] The validation of RQ is self-referential. Section 3 states that RQ was 'developed through its application in the HT domain' and that its questions were 'co-shaped by individuals differently situated in relation to harm, power, and intervention,' while §5 attributes the project's pivot to RQ's effects. The same stakeholder engagement that shaped the framework is the only evidence offered for its value, so the case study cannot distinguish the effect of RQ from the effect of the authors' prior ethical commitments, the advisory board, or the stakeholder input itself. Please separate framework formation (what was learned from the case) from framework evaluation (against independent criteria or a second, pre-registered case), or explicitly label the current evaluation as anecdotal and self-referential.
  3. [§4, limitations 2 and 3] The paper acknowledges that RQ's effectiveness hinges on 'genuine stakeholder engagement' and that when teams are unwilling to act, 'RQ risks becoming performative.' These are precisely the non-ideal conditions where a safeguarding framework is most needed, yet the paper does not show what RQ alone contributes in such settings. Since the abstract claims RQ is a generally applicable pre-project tool, the manuscript should either specify the boundary conditions more sharply (e.g., 'RQ is useful only when certain institutional and relational preconditions hold') or offer concrete strategies for building the needed engagement when gatekeepers or distrust block access. This is not a call to solve all real-world constraints, but the contingency weakens the demonstration of generalizability as currently worded.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, figure/box formatting] The text says 'Gray boxes in the following section highlight actual questions raised during the design process,' but the manuscript shows plain bulleted lists rather than gray boxes; either restore the formatting or delete the reference to gray boxes.
  2. [Front matter] The ACM reference format and the 'Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 5 June 2009' dates are clearly template placeholders and should be corrected before submission.
  3. [§1] In the sentence 'These shortcomings calls for upstream, human-centered frameworks,' the verb should agree with the subject: 'These shortcomings call for.'
  4. [§2 vs §4] The comparison with existing tools such as the Situate AI Guidebook [24] is made in a single sentence; a short comparative table or an explicit differentiation criterion (e.g., 'pre-decision' versus 'during-development') would help readers verify the claimed novelty.
  5. [§4 and §5] Section 4 lists 'RQ is not prescriptive' as a limitation, but Section 5 offers six prescriptive recommendations for practitioners; reconcile this tension by clarifying that the framework itself is non-prescriptive while its adoption recommendations are deliberately directive.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

RQ is developed from and validated by the same human-trafficking case study, so the central demonstration is self-referential; the 'pre-design' claim is also weakened by the authors' own prior T-NET system.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 opening; Section 5 conclusions]
    "We introduce Radical Questioning (RQ) as a pre-design ethics framework developed through its application in the human trafficking (HT) domain. ... Applying the Radical Questioning (RQ) framework to human trafficking (HT) fundamentally reshaped our project... We moved from detection to documentation; from surveillance to support."

    RQ's five-step content is explicitly 'developed through its application' in the HT project, and the paper's only demonstration that RQ 'reveals overlooked socio-cultural complexities' is that same HT project. The case study is not independent: it supplied the questions and then serves as evidence that asking those questions works. The abstract's 'demonstrate how RQ reveals...' is therefore not a test of a pre-existing framework but a restatement of the project's own retrospective narrative. External ethics literature grounds RQ's values, so the circularity is partial rather than definitional.

  2. other [Section 5; reference [37] (Nair et al., AAAI 2024)]
    "What began as an AI-for-good intervention—automated detection of trafficking in online ads—evolved into a survivor-centered evidence management tool. ... [37] T-NET: Weakly Supervised Graph Learning for Combatting Human Trafficking (AAAI 2024)."

    The paper presents RQ as a 'pre-project'/'pre-design' tool whose case study shows it guiding the project 'away from surveillance-based interventions.' But reference [37] shows the detection system (T-NET) was already built and published by the same first author before this reflection. So the claimed upstream, pre-design intervention is actually a retrospective course-correction after a functioning detection tool existed; the case study cannot demonstrate pre-design efficacy. This does not reduce RQ to a fit, but it makes the central demonstration self-referential in time.

full rationale

The paper is a position/framework proposal, not a formal derivation, so circularity is evaluated on the logic of its demonstration. The central issue is that RQ is introduced as 'developed through its application in the human trafficking (HT) domain' and then the HT case is the sole evidence that RQ 'guides us away from surveillance-based interventions.' The case study is therefore not an independent test of the framework; the questions and the reported pivot are the same artifact. I score 4 because this is a genuine self-referential validation loop (not definitional). External ethical theory, prior refusal/design-justice work, and the authors' listed limitations give RQ independent normative content, so the framework is not merely a restatement of its inputs. Section 4 candidly acknowledges that RQ 'hinges on genuine stakeholder engagement' and 'risks becoming performative,' which means the paper itself limits the generalizability of its demonstration. Separately, the 'pre-project' claim is undercut by the authors' own reference to T-NET (AAAI 2024), which shows a detection system already built; the case study is retrospective rather than upstream. That is a load-bearing evidential weakness, though it is an inconsistency rather than a circular reduction. Overall, the framework's value is not forced by definition, but its flagship demonstration is self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper proposes no numerical fits, so there are no free parameters. The central claim rests on three stated or implicit premises: that techno-solutionist AI in HT is harmful, that genuine stakeholder engagement is achievable, and that a five-step open-ended process transfers across domains. Each is plausible but unsupported by independent evidence. RQ is the paper's invented conceptual entity, with no falsifiable handle outside the authors' own application.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Techno-solutionist AI interventions in human trafficking oversimplify exploitation, reinforce power imbalances, and cause harm.
    The entire motivation for RQ rests on this normative and empirical premise; it is asserted in the abstract and Introduction, but not demonstrated with data in this paper.
  • domain assumption Genuine, sustained stakeholder engagement with affected communities is achievable and yields reliable guidance when time and resources are available.
    Section 4, limitation 2 states that RQ's effectiveness hinges on this; the paper provides no protocol or evidence for securing it outside this team's context.
  • ad hoc to paper A five-step structure with open-ended questions can be generalized across domains without becoming a prescriptive checklist.
    This is the central design claim of RQ; Section 5 asserts domain-agnostic transferability, but no cross-domain applications or evaluations are presented.
invented entities (1)
  • Radical Questioning (RQ) five-step framework
    purpose: Pre-design ethical assessment tool to decide whether an AI intervention should be built at all
    RQ is a conceptual framework introduced by this paper; its claimed capacity to redirect projects is evidenced only by the same authors' self-reported HT case study, with no external validation or falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ask before you Build: Rethinking AI-for-Good in Human Trafficking Interventions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFEFQMAT

@misc{pith2026250622512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ask before you Build: Rethinking AI-for-Good in Human Trafficking Interventions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFEFQMAT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22512}
}
read the original abstract

AI for good initiatives often rely on the assumption that technical interventions can resolve complex social problems. In the context of human trafficking (HT), such techno-solutionism risks oversimplifying exploitation, reinforcing power imbalances and causing harm to the very communities AI claims to support. In this paper, we introduce the Radical Questioning (RQ) framework as a five step, pre-project ethical assessment tool to critically evaluate whether AI should be built at all, especially in domains involving marginalized populations and entrenched systemic injustice. RQ does not replace principles based ethics but precedes it, offering an upstream, deliberative space to confront assumptions, map power, and consider harms before design. Using a case study in AI for HT, we demonstrate how RQ reveals overlooked sociocultural complexities and guides us away from surveillance based interventions toward survivor empowerment tools. While developed in the context of HT, RQ's five step structure can generalize to other domains, though the specific questions must be contextual. This paper situates RQ within a broader AI ethics philosophy that challenges instrumentalist norms and centers relational, reflexive responsibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22512 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed RQ framework is based on asking and answering radical questions through deliberative communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Pratheeksha Nair, Javin Liu, Catalina Vajiac, Andreas Olligschlaeger, Duen Horng Chau, Mirela Cazzolato, Cara Jones, Christos Faloutsos, and Reihaneh Rabbany

    work page

  2. [1]

    Hamidreza Alvari, Paulo Shakarian, and JE Kelly Snyder. 2017. Semi-supervised learning for detecting human trafficking.Security Informatics6, 1 (2017), 1

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    2018.On-Ramps, Intersec- tions, and Exit Routes: A Roadmap for Systems and Industries to Prevent and Disrupt Human Trafficking – Social Media

    Brittany Anthony and Contributing Survivor Authors. 2018.On-Ramps, Intersec- tions, and Exit Routes: A Roadmap for Systems and Industries to Prevent and Disrupt Human Trafficking – Social Media. Technical Report. Polaris Project, Washington, DC. https://polarisproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/A-Roadmap-for- Systems-and-Industries-to-Prevent-and-Disr...

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Opeyemi Bamigbade, John Sheppard, and Mark Scanlon. 2024. Computer vision for multimedia geolocation in human trafficking investigation: A systematic literature review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15448(2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Chelsea Barabas. 2022. Refusal in data ethics: Re-imagining the code beneath the code of computation in the carceral state.Engaging Science, Technology, and Society8, 2 (2022), 35–57

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Chelsea Barabas, Colin Doyle, JB Rubinovitz, and Karthik Dinakar. 2020. Studying up: reorienting the study of algorithmic fairness around issues of power. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 167–176

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Rosanna Bellini, Emily Tseng, Noel Warford, Alaa Daffalla, Tara Matthews, Sunny Consolvo, Jill Palzkill Woelfer, Patrick Gage Kelley, Michelle L Mazurek, Dana Cuomo, et al. 2024. Sok: Safer digital-safety research involving at-risk users. In 2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 635–654

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    2019.Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code

    R Benjamin. 2019.Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge and Medford: Polity Press

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    2022.Analyzing Harms of Online Platform and Policy Design

    Rasika Bhalerao. 2022.Analyzing Harms of Online Platform and Policy Design. New York University Tandon School of Engineering

    2022

  2. [9]

    Vanessa Bouché and Dana E Wittmer. 2015. Gendered diffusion on gendered issues: the case of human trafficking.Journal of Public Policy35, 1 (2015), 1–33

    2015

  3. [10]

    Sydney Brown. 2024. Policing sex work online: sex workers’ views on the risks and benefits of using AI to police online ads for sexual services. (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    2020.Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need

    Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2020.Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press

    2020

  5. [12]

    Sean M Crotty and Vanessa Bouché. 2018. The red-light network: Exploring the locational strategies of illicit massage businesses in Houston, Texas.Papers in Applied Geography4, 2 (2018), 205–227

    2018

  6. [13]

    Julia Deeb-Swihart, Alex Endert, and Amy Bruckman. 2022. Ethical tensions in applications of ai for addressing human trafficking: A human rights perspective. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–29

    2022

  7. [14]

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2023. The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–23

    2023

  8. [15]

    Artur Dubrawski, Kyle Miller, Matthew Barnes, Benedikt Boecking, and Emily Kennedy. 2015. Leveraging publicly available data to discern patterns of human- trafficking activity.Journal of Human Trafficking1, 1 (2015), 65–85

    2015

  9. [16]

    2024.Technology Innovations in Fighting Slavery and Human Trafficking

    Annalisa Enrile and Gabrielle Aquino-Adriatico. 2024.Technology Innovations in Fighting Slavery and Human Trafficking. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 179–203. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-58614-9_10

    2024 doi

  10. [17]

    2018.Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor

    Virginia Eubanks. 2018.Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press

    2018

  11. [18]

    Amy Farrell, Meredith Dank, Ieke de Vries, Matthew Kafafian, Andrea Hughes, and Sarah Lockwood. 2019. Failing victims? Challenges of the police response to human trafficking.Criminology & Public Policy18, 3 (2019), 649–673

    2019

  12. [19]

    Lajla Fetic, Torsten Fleischer, Paul Grünke, Thilo Hagendorf, Sebastian Hal- lensleben, Marc Hauer, Michael Herrmann, Rafaela Hillerbrand, Carla Hustedt, Christoph Hubig, et al. 2020. From Principles to Practice. An interdisciplinary framework to operationalise AI ethics. (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Nancy Fraser. 2009. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World.Polity(2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

    Luca Giommoni and Ruth Ikwu. 2021. Identifying human trafficking indicators in the UK online sex market.Trends in Organized Crime(2021), 1–24

    2021

  15. [22]

    Ben Green. 2019. Good” isn’t good enough. InProceedings of the AI for Social Good workshop at NeurIPS, Vol. 17

    2019

  16. [23]

    Jan-Christoph Heilinger. 2022. The ethics of AI ethics. A constructive critique. Philosophy & Technology35, 3 (2022), 61

    2022

  17. [24]

    Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Haiyi Zhu, Hoda Heidari, and Kenneth Hol- stein. 2024. The Situate AI Guidebook: Co-Designing a Toolkit to Support Multi- Stakeholder, Early-stage Deliberations Around Public Sector AI Proposals(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, Artic...

    2024

  18. [25]

    Shannon Kelly, Eric Rodriguez, Stuart Blythe, and Ben Lauren. 2022. Trauma- Informed Scholarship in Digital Research and Design.Methods and Methodologies for Research in Digital Writing and Rhetoric: Centering Positionality in Computers and Writing Scholarship2 (2022), 81–103

    2022

  19. [26]

    Konrad, Kayse Lee Maass, Geri L

    Renata A. Konrad, Kayse Lee Maass, Geri L. Dimas, and Andrew C. Trapp. 2023. Perspectives on how to conduct responsible anti-human trafficking research in operations and analytics.European Journal of Operational Research309, 1 (2023), 319–329. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2022.12.02

    2023 doi

  20. [27]

    Predictive policing in Canada

    Gabriel Lefebvre and Karim Benyekhlef. 2023. "Predictive policing in Canada" in "Artificial Intelligence and Administration of Criminal Justice".International Review of Penal Law94 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    David Leslie. 2019. Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety.arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05684(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Ruoting Li, Margaret Tobey, Maria E Mayorga, Sherrie Caltagirone, and Osman Y Özaltın. 2023. Detecting human trafficking: Automated classification of online customer reviews of massage businesses.Manufacturing & Service Operations Management25, 3 (2023), 1051–1065

    2023

  23. [30]

    Michael A Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach

  24. [31]

    Anastasija Mensikova and Chris A Mattmann. 2018. Ensemble sentiment analysis to identify human trafficking in web data. InWorkshop on Graph Techniques for Adversarial Activity Analytics (GTA 2018), Marina Del Rey, CA, USA. 5–9

    2018

  25. [32]

    Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, et al. 2019. Owning ethics: Corporate logics, silicon valley, and the institutionalization of ethics.Social Research: An International Quarterly86, 2 (2019), 449–476

    2019

  26. [33]

    Sanja Milivojevic, Heather Moore, and Marie Segrave. 2020. Freeing the Modern Slaves, One Click at a Time: Theorising human trafficking, modern slavery, and technology.Anti-trafficking review14 (2020), 16–32

    2020

  27. [34]

    Maryam Molamohammadi, Afaf Taïk, Nicolas Le Roux, and Golnoosh Farnadi

  28. [35]

    Jennifer Musto, Mitali Thakor, and Borislav Gerasimov. 2020. Between Hope and Hype: Critical evaluations of technology’s role in anti-trafficking.Anti-trafficking review14 (2020), 1–14

    2020

  29. [36]

    Jennifer Lynne Musto and Danah Boyd. 2014. The trafficking-technology nexus. Social Politics21, 3 (2014), 461–483

    2014

  30. [38]

    Ontario Human Rights Commission. n.d.. Human Rights and AI: Impact As- sessment. https://www3.ohrc.on.ca/en/human-rights-ai-impact-assessment Accessed: 2025-01-21

    2025

  31. [39]

    Hawra Rabaan and Lynn Dombrowski. 2023. Survivor-Centered Transformative Justice: An Approach to Designing Alongside Domestic Violence Stakeholders in US Muslim Communities. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    2023

  32. [40]

    Afsaneh Razi, Seunghyun Kim, Ashwaq Alsoubai, Gianluca Stringhini, Thamar Solorio, Munmun De Choudhury, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2021. A human- centered systematic literature review of the computational approaches for online sexual risk detection.Proceedings of the ACM on Huma...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Donna Riley. 2008. Engineering and social justice. InEngineering and Social Justice. Springer, 47–106

    2008

  34. [42]

    Rowena Rodrigues. 2020. Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities.Journal of Responsible Technology4 (2020), 100005

    2020

  35. [43]

    Frederick Schauer. 1978. Fear, risk and the first amendment: Unraveling the chilling effect.BUL rev.58 (1978), 685

    1978

  36. [44]

    Natasha Dow Schüll. 2013. The folly of technological solutionism: An interview with evgeny morozov

    2013

  37. [45]

    Marc Steen, Martijn Neef, and Tamar Schaap. 2021. A method for rapid ethi- cal deliberation in research and innovation projects.International Journal of Technoethics (IJT)12, 2 (2021), 72–85

    2021

  38. [46]

    We are not criminals

    Andrea Sterling and Emily van der Meulen. 2018. “We are not criminals”: Sex work clients in Canada and the constitution of risk knowledge.Canadian Journal of Law and Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société33, 3 (2018), 291–308

    2018

  39. [47]

    Abby Stylianou, Richard Souvenir, and Robert Pless. 2019. TraffickCam: Ex- plainable Image Matching For Sex Trafficking Investigations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03455(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Edmund Tong, Amir Zadeh, Cara Jones, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017. Combating human trafficking with deep multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02735(2017)

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Rachel Witkin and Katy Robjant. 2018. The Trauma-Informed Code of Conduct. London: Helen Bamber Foundation(2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Hilary Young. 2023. Hansman v Neufeld: The Supreme Court of Canada protects counterspeech under anti-SLAPP law, but is it even defamatory?Journal of Media Law15, 2 (2023), 125–139. Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 5 June 2009

    2023

  43. [2020]

    InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Co-designing checklists to understand organizational challenges and opportunities around fairness in AI. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    2020

  44. [2023]

    InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization

    Unraveling the Interconnected Axes of Heterogeneity in Machine Learning for Democratic and Inclusive Advancements. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–12

  45. [2024]

    InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol

    T-NET: Weakly Supervised Graph Learning for Combatting Human Traf- ficking. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Nair et al. 22276–22284

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.