May 2025 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Submission deadline May 7, 2025 for the 2025 Nancy Baym Book Award
by AoIR Association Coordinator 06 May '25

06 May '25

*Deadline reminder - submissions due by Wednesday, 7 May 2025* We are pleased to call for nominations for the Nancy Baym Annual Book Award. This award recognizes the best scholarship of the Association of Internet Researchers, and highlights the breadth of work relating to the social and cultural dimensions of networked media. To be eligible for the award: - The book must be authored or co-authored as a monograph and must explore a single topic (edited collections are not eligible). - All of the book’s authors must be current members of AoIR at the time of submission (May 7, 2025). Memberships may be purchased here: https://members.aoir.org/. - The book must have been published between January 1 and December 31, 2024. The books will be reviewed by a committee of Jun Liu, (University of Copenhagen and Committee Chair), Nancy Baym (Microsoft Research), Niki Cheong (King’s College London), Helton Levy (London Metropolitan University), John McNut (University of Delaware), Sarah Murray (University of Michigan), and Robert Tynes (Bard College). Each book should be accompanied by an emailed letter of nomination. Self-nominations are most certainly welcome. The letter of nomination, which must be written by a current member of AoIR, should outline: - How the book contributes to AoIR’s intellectual community. - The book’s unique contributions and overall strengths. - If not a self-nomination, the letter should also include a statement that the nominated author has been contacted prior to its submission and accepts the nomination. Books submitted without a meaningful nomination letter outlining both the strengths of the book and the book’s contribution to the AoIR community to AoIR will not be eligible. We are happy to accept books in either digital or hard copy. If digital, please send a PDF to bookaward [at] aoir.org or write to ask for individual email addresses. Additional nomination details available here: https://aoir.org/2025nbbookaward/ *Please send in all nomination materials by Wednesday, May 7, 2025.*

1 0

Symposium on Information Controls - King's College London - May 16th
by Ashwin Mathew 06 May '25

06 May '25

Dear colleagues, Please join us at the Symposium on Information Controls on May 16th, 2025, at King’s College London. The symposium brings together academic and civil society perspectives on information controls from around the world. It will feature a day of interdisciplinary panels and discussions on the regulation, censorship, access, and contestation of information across digital and physical spaces. The programme of the symposium is available here: https://kingsdh.net/2025/04/07/symposium-on-information-controls/ There is no registration fee for this event, but advance registration is required: https://www.tickettailor.com/events/digitalhumanitieskcl/1658648 best regards, Ashwin, with Gowhar Farooq Dr. Ashwin J. Mathew Senior Lecturer in Global Digital Cultures | Department of Digital Humanities King's College London | Strand Campus | S3.21

1 0

‘The Worst Internet-Research Ethics Violation I Have Ever Seen’
by Joly MacFie 06 May '25

06 May '25

[posted in full for discussion purposes] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/reddit-ai-persuasion… By Tom Bartlett When Reddit rebranded itself as “the heart of the internet” a couple of years ago, the slogan was meant to evoke the site’s organic character. In an age of social media dominated by algorithms, Reddit took pride in being curated by a community that expressed its feelings in the form of upvotes and downvotes—in other words, being shaped by actual people. So earlier this week, when members of a popular subreddit learned that their community had been infiltrated by undercover researchers posting AI-written comments and passing them off as human thoughts, the Redditors were predictably incensed. They called the experiment “violating,” “shameful,” “infuriating,” and “very disturbing.” As the backlash intensified, the researchers went silent, refusing to reveal their identity or answer questions about their methodology. The university that employs them has announced that it’s investigating. Meanwhile, Reddit’s chief legal officer, Ben Lee, wrote that the company intends to “ensure that the researchers are held accountable for their misdeeds.” Joining the chorus of disapproval were fellow internet researchers, who condemned what they saw as a plainly unethical experiment. Amy Bruckman, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied online communities for more than two decades, told me the Reddit fiasco is “the worst internet-research ethics violation I have ever seen, no contest.” What’s more, she and others worry that the uproar could undermine the work of scholars who are using more conventional methods to study a crucial problem: how AI influences the way humans think and relate to one another. The researchers, based at the University of Zurich, wanted to find out whether AI-generated responses could change people’s views. So they headed to the aptly named subreddit r/changemyview, in which users debate important societal issues, along with plenty of trivial topics, and award points to posts that talk them out of their original position. Over the course of four months, the researchers posted more than 1,000 AI-generated comments on pitbulls (is aggression the fault of the breed or the owner?), the housing crisis (is living with your parents the solution?), DEI programs (were they destined to fail?). The AI commenters argued that browsing Reddit is a waste of time and that the “controlled demolition” 9/11 conspiracy theory has some merit. And as they offered their computer-generated opinions, they also shared their backstories. One claimed to be a trauma counselor; another described himself as a victim of statutory rape. In one sense, the AI comments appear to have been rather effective. When researchers asked the AI to personalize its arguments to a Redditor’s biographical details, including gender, age, and political leanings (inferred, courtesy of another AI model, through the Redditor’s post history), a surprising number of minds indeed appear to have been changed. Those personalized AI arguments received, on average, far higher scores in the subreddit’s point system than nearly all human commenters, according to preliminary findings that the researchers shared with Reddit moderators and later made private. (This analysis, of course, assumes that no one else in the subreddit was using AI to hone their arguments.) The researchers had a tougher time convincing Redditors that their covert study was justified. After they had finished the experiment, they contacted the subreddit’s moderators, revealed their identity, and requested to “debrief” the subreddit—that is, to announce to members that for months, they had been unwitting subjects in a scientific experiment. “They were rather surprised that we had such a negative reaction to the experiment,” says one moderator, who asked to be identified by his username, LucidLeviathan, to protect his privacy. According to LucidLeviathan, the moderators requested that the researchers not publish such tainted work, and that they issue an apology. The researchers refused. After more than a month of back-and-forth, the moderators revealed what they had learned about the experiment (minus the researchers’ names) to the rest of the subreddit, making clear their disapproval. When the moderators sent a complaint to the University of Zurich, the university noted in its response that the “project yields important insights, and the risks (e.g. trauma etc.) are minimal,” according to an excerpt posted by moderators. In a statement to me, a university spokesperson said that the ethics board had received notice of the study last month, advised the researchers to comply with the subreddit’s rules, and “intends to adopt a stricter review process in the future.” Meanwhile, the researchers defended their approach in a Reddit comment, arguing that “none of the comments advocate for harmful positions” and that each AI-generated comment was reviewed by a human team member before being posted. (I sent an email to an anonymized address for the researchers, posted by Reddit moderators, and received a reply that directed my inquiries to the university.) Perhaps the most telling aspect of the Zurich researchers’ defense was that, as they saw it, deception was integral to the study. The University of Zurich’s ethics board—which can offer researchers advice but, according to the university, lacks the power to reject studies that fall short of its standards—told the researchers before they began posting that “the participants should be informed as much as possible,” according to the university statement I received. But the researchers seem to believe that doing so would have ruined the experiment. “To ethically test LLMs’ persuasive power in realistic scenarios, an unaware setting was necessary,” because it more realistically mimics how people would respond to unidentified bad actors in real-world settings, the researchers wrote in one of their Reddit comments. How humans are likely to respond in such a scenario is an urgent issue and a worthy subject of academic research. In their preliminary results, the researchers concluded that AI arguments can be “highly persuasive in real-world contexts, surpassing all previously known benchmarks of human persuasiveness.” (Because the researchers finally agreed this week not to publish a paper about the experiment, the accuracy of that verdict will probably never be fully assessed, which is its own sort of shame.) The prospect of having your mind changed by something that doesn’t have one is deeply unsettling. That persuasive superpower could also be employed for nefarious ends. Still, scientists don’t have to flout the norms of experimenting on human subjects in order to evaluate the threat. “The general finding that AI can be on the upper end of human persuasiveness—more persuasive than most humans—jibes with what laboratory experiments have found,” Christian Tarsney, a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, told me. In one recent laboratory experiment, participants who believed in conspiracy theories voluntarily chatted with an AI; after three exchanges, about a quarter of them lost faith in their previous beliefs. Another found that ChatGPT produced more persuasive disinformation than humans, and that participants who were asked to distinguish between real posts and those written by AI could not effectively do so. Giovanni Spitale, the lead author of that study, also happens to be a scholar at the University of Zurich, and has been in touch with one of the researchers behind the Reddit AI experiment, who asked him not to reveal their identity. “We are receiving dozens of death threats,” the researcher wrote to him, in a message Spitale shared with me. “Please keep the secret for the safety of my family.” One likely reason the backlash has been so strong is because, on a platform as close-knit as Reddit, betrayal cuts deep. “One of the pillars of that community is mutual trust,” Spitale told me; it’s part of the reason he opposes experimenting on Redditors without their knowledge. Several scholars I spoke with about this latest ethical quandary compared it—unfavorably—to Facebook’s infamous emotional-contagion study. For one week in 2012, Facebook altered users’ News Feed to see if viewing more or less positive content changed their posting habits. (It did, a little bit.) Casey Fiesler, an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder who studies ethics and online communities, told me that the emotional-contagion study pales in comparison with what the Zurich researchers did. “People were upset about that but not in the way that this Reddit community is upset,” she told me. “This felt a lot more personal.” The reaction probably also has to do with the unnerving notion that ChatGPT knows what buttons to push in our minds. It’s one thing to be fooled by some human Facebook researchers with dubious ethical standards, and another entirely to be duped by a cosplaying chatbot. I read through dozens of the AI comments, and although they weren’t all brilliant, most of them seemed reasonable and genuine enough. They made a lot of good points, and I found myself nodding along more than once. As the Zurich researchers warn, without more robust detection tools, AI bots might “seamlessly blend into online communities”—that is, assuming they haven’t already. -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

2 1

VIDEO – Apr 29 Cybersecurity SIG – Measuring Internet Security Resilience
by Joly MacFie 06 May '25

06 May '25

The presentation from the April Cybersecurity SIG Monthly Meeting. ISOC's Robbie Mitchell demos some Pulse dashboards. Want to see how your country's networks are doing resiliency-wise? It's all there, at least as far as the available open data shows. *YOUTUBE <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=f9c511d0449d4ba4ca62c18…> | TRANSCRIPT <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=b59b7a2fac13efd64858acf…> | SUMMARY <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=a7498ed8f8f43a5831ebcd8…> | ARCHIVE <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=30cd634db57fd69115432b7…>* [image: ISOC LIVE] <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=9460153a2a7defc3d7140d1…> On *29 April 2025*, the *Internet Society Cybersecurity Special Interest Group <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=5c7a7ff61878aabd51cb229…>* (Cybersecurity SIG) meeting included a presentation '*Measuring Internet Security Resilience*'. *Robbie Mitchell <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=a7336435ee6488fa8fc8095…>* provided an overview of the Internet Society’s efforts to measure the resilience of the Internet with a focus on *Pulse <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=ce7f7e0cdd640af63d03280…>* - a website that consolidates trusted third-party Internet measurement data from various sources to examine Internet trends and tell data-driven stories related to the availability, evolution, and resilience of the Internet. *PRESENTER* *Robbie Mitchell* - Communication and Tech Advisor, Internet Society *HOST / MODERATOR* *Danny Glix* - Secretary, Cybersecurity SIG *YOUTUBE <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=f9c511d0449d4ba4ca62c18…> | TRANSCRIPT <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=b59b7a2fac13efd64858acf…> | SUMMARY <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=a7498ed8f8f43a5831ebcd8…> | ARCHIVE <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=30cd634db57fd69115432b7…>* *X #CyberSecuritySIG <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=b7f91228206103c8970c9cf…>#InternetResilience @isoc_pulse @internetsociety MASTODON <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=81b98d52977fc59c9b2580f…> | BLUESKY <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=35bf2d90a91cf8161a1edfb…> | INSTA <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=36a8126a85bd921fc02b769…> | LI <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=7c6113f9d5fb421dd06f7db…>* ** ISOC.LIVE is a free webcasting support service for the Internet Society Community - ISOC LIVE is currently unfunded - if you would like to become a monthly sponsor - contact support(a)isoc.live ** - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Results from elections for the AoIR Executive Committee and vote on the Political Statement Policy and Process
by AoIR Association Coordinator 05 May '25

05 May '25

We are happy to announce the results of the elections for the incoming AoIR Executive Committee. But first, some thank yous and some information about the election. AoIR would like to thank our election monitors, Jennifer Stromer-Galley and Adrienne Shaw,, who, in accordance with the terms of our Bylaws, certified the results. And of course thank you to everyone who ran for office and everyone who voted. The new Executive Committee will officially take office in October at the Annual General Meeting. We hope you’ll join us to meet the new members of the Exec, and to provide your input regarding the future direction of the Association. Here is your 2025-2027 Executive Committee: President (elected as Vice President in the 2023 Election): Sarah Roberts, UCLA, USA Vice President (becomes President in two years): Andra Siibak, University of Tartu, Estonia Immediate Past President (elected as Vice President in the 2021 Election): Nicholas John, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel Secretary: Nathalie Schäfer, Weimar University, Germany Treasurer: Robert W. Gehl, York University, Canada Graduate Student Representative: Lynrose Jane Genon, QUT, Australia Open Seats: Admire Mare, University of Johannesburg, South Africa; Rebecca Scharlach, University of Bremen, Germany; Meg Jing Zeng, University of Zurich, Switzerland Additionally, AoIR's Political Statement Policy and Process has been overwhelmingly ratified by the membership. Thanks again to everyone who participated in the election. We are very excited about the future of AoIR with such a great group of members leading the way!

1 0

Hiring: Three Fully-funded Interdisciplinary PhD Positions on Governance by Data Infrastructure at the University of Amsterdam
by Gabriel Pereira 05 May '25

05 May '25

Hi folks, Come do your PhD with us at the Dept. of Media Studies of the University of Amsterdam. Deadline is 31 May ’25. Please share widely! Description and link below: "Are you eager to explore how data infrastructures are reshaping governance and democratic practice? The University of Amsterdam invites applications for three fully funded PhD positions within an interdisciplinary research project led by Professor Stefania Milan and funded by the European Research Council. You will join a team of six researchers working at the intersection of the social sciences, humanities, and informatics. Each PhD project focuses on one of four domains: biometric technologies, digital identity systems, health technologies, or education technologies. You will carry out independent research, contribute to the development of innovative participatory methods, and critically engage with contemporary societal challenges. Core activities include qualitative fieldwork, policy analysis, participation in research seminars, and close collaboration in a dynamic academic environment." Note the interdisciplinary background: "A completed Master's degree in, e.g., media studies, social sciences of technology, politics, sociology, anthropology, public policy, development studies, public health, information systems, critical computing, or cognate disciplines." https://www.academictransfer.com/en/jobs/351725/three-fully-funded-interdis… Best, Gabriel Pereira

1 0

Hiring: Three post docs (36 months+) in governance of emergent tech - Hasso Plattner Institute
by Sandra Wachter 05 May '25

05 May '25

Come and work with me, Sandra Wachter <https://hpi.de/en/research/research-groups/technology-and-regulation/> (HPI/Oxford) at the Hasso Plattner Institute & Brent Mittelstadt and Chris Russell at the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford. I am currently hiring three postdoctoral researchers to work across law, ethics, and computer science/AI/ML on the governance of emergent technologies. Each post is for 36 months with the possibility of renewal thereafter. Further info and links to apply: Law: https://tinyurl.com/4rbhcndp Ethics: https://tinyurl.com/yc2e2km4 Computer Science/AI/ML: https://tinyurl.com/yr5bvnn5 <https://tinyurl.com/yr5bvnn5> Application deadline is June 15, 2025. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out.

1 0

Call for Contributions: ECSCW 2025 Workshop on Malicious Use of AI ? Value-Sensitive Perspectives (Newcastle, July 1)
by Blasiak, Kevin Marc 05 May '25

05 May '25

Apologies for cross-posting Dear colleagues, We are pleased to invite contributions to the ECSCW 2025 Pre-Conference Workshop: Shifting the Conversation on Malicious Use of AI: A Value-Sensitive Approach for Stakeholder Consensus Date: July 1, 2025 (half-day workshop) Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Submission Deadline: May 26, 2025 (23:59 UTC+2) Workshop Overview: As AI technologies become deeply embedded in society, they drive both innovation and an alarming rise in malicious uses including disinformation, cyberattacks, surveillance, and online radicalization. These threats are not isolated technical challenges. They are sociotechnical problems rooted in the interplay of technology design, governance, collaborative work, and shifting regulatory systems. Malicious AI use often combines organized campaigns with distributed grassroots dynamics, making it difficult to address through technical solutions alone. This half day workshop will use a Value Sensitive Design (VSD) lens to reframe how we understand and respond to AI enabled threats. Participants will collaboratively explore ethical, organizational, and policy dimensions of AI governance. We aim to foster actionable strategies that consider not only the technological infrastructures enabling these risks but also the broader sociotechnical ecosystems and work practices that can mitigate them. The workshop will include expert panels featuring stakeholders from industry and government or policy sectors (names to be announced) and will foster rich interdisciplinary dialogue across a range of fields including, but not limited to, CSCW, information systems, cybersecurity, and trust and safety. Through collaborative activities, we seek to co develop pathways for ethical AI governance that are inclusive, practical, and grounded in real world experience. Participation is open to all interested researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders. Topics of Interest include (but are not limited to): Sociotechnical mechanisms enabling or mitigating malicious AI use AI threats in content moderation, trust & safety, OSINT, and cybersecurity Case studies on platform governance or regulatory adaptation VSD-informed approaches to ethical AI governance Empirical or theoretical explorations of AI-related harms Strategies for multi-stakeholder collaboration in high-risk environments Organizational adaptation to AI threats in public and private sectors Lessons learned from cross-sector governance successes and challenges Submission Details: Format: Short position paper (2–4 pages) or equivalent (white paper, case study, or theoretical piece). Submissions will be reviewed by the organizers for relevance, quality, and their potential to contribute to workshop discussions. Accepted position papers will be shared among participants ahead of the workshop. Submission Email: kevin.blasiak (at) tuwien.ac.at Deadline: May 26, 2025 (23:59 UTC+2) Notification of Acceptance: Early June, 2025 Selected participants will engage in panel discussions, breakout groups, and contribute to a co-authored post-workshop report. To ensure focused and productive dialogue, the workshop will be limited to 20 participants. Full Call & Submission Details: Call website: https://cts.wien/en/misc/20250429_responsiblecomputing_ecscwcallproposals/ Organizers: Kevin M. Blasiak, PhD – Postdoctoral Researcher, TU Vienna | Leader, Responsible Computing Circle, Center for Technology & Society (CTS) Daniel E. Levenson, MA, MLA – PhD Student, Swansea University | Board Member, Society for Terrorism Research Workshop Sponsors: CTS//circle.responsibleComputing, TU Vienna Terrorism and Social Media (TASM) at Swansea University, Cyber Threats Research Centre (CYTREC) We look forward to your submissions and hope to see many of you in Newcastle! Best regards, Kevin M. Blasiak & Daniel E. Levenson ______________________________________________________________________________ Kevin M. Blasiak, PhD [he/him] Postdoctoral researcher, Circle lead, responsibleComputing Center for Technology & Society Gußhausstraße 27-29, 1040 Vienna, Austria T: +43 1 58801 79901394 M: +43 670 2042787 https://cts.wien <https://cts.wien/> kevin.blasiak(a)tuwien.ac.at <mailto:kevin.blasiak@tuwien.ac.at> kevin.blasiak(a)cts.wien <mailto:kevin.blasiak@cts.wien>

1 0

Book launch of Technoskepticism - Wednesday, 21 May at King's College London
by Zeena Feldman 05 May '25

05 May '25

Dear friends and colleagues, The Department of Digital Humanities<https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ddh/about/about> and the Centre for Digital Culture<https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/cdc> at King’s College London are delighted to invite you to the launch of the DISCO Network’s Technoskepticism: Between Possibility and Refusal (Stanford University Press). When: Wed 21 May 2025 5:30 PM - 7:00 PM Where: King's College London, Strand Campus, room TBC, WC2R 2LS Registration: https://www.tickettailor.com/events/digitalhumanitieskcl/1659637 From Munchausen by Tiktok to wellness apps to online communities to AI, the DISCO Network explores the possibilities that technoskepticism can create. This is a book about possibility and refusal in relation to new technologies. Though refusal is an especially powerful mode—particularly for those who have historically not been given the option to say no—people of colour and disabled people have long navigated the space between saying yes and saying no to the newest technologies. Technoskepticism relates some of these stories to reveal the possibilities skepticism can create. This launch event will consider three strands of technoskepticism: the first focused on disability, the creative use of wellness apps, and the desire for diagnosis; the second on digital nostalgia and home for Black and Asian users who produced communities online before home pages gave way to profiles; and the third focused on the violence inherent in A.I.-generated Black bodies and the possibilities for Black style in the age of A.I. Acknowledging how the urge to refuse new technologies emerges from specific racialised histories, the authors will also consider how care can look like an exuberant embrace of the new. Please note this is a hybrid event. Guests are invited to join us in-person in London or online via MS Teams. Online attendees will be emailed a Teams link 24 hours before the event. Warm wishes, Zeena Dr Zeena Feldman (she/her) Senior Lecturer/Associate Professor in Digital Culture Director, Queer@King’s<https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/queeratkings> King’s College London Department of Digital Humanities<https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ddh/about/about> The Strand, Chesham Building, 0.03 London WC2R 2LS zeena.feldman(a)kcl.ac.uk https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/dr-zeena-feldman

1 0

Global Digital Forum call for Youth Participation
by Joly MacFie 05 May '25

05 May '25

[Lifted from ISOC Youth SIG Telegram - Main conf website https://gdfconf.com/ ] Hey guys! We are forming an international youth delegation for a big IT event in Russia that will happen in June. You may heard of it already but either way you can read more here: https://gdfconf.com . We want to select 50 young leaders who will be fully covered to go there to participate in event. It may be even a speaker opportunity depending on your qualifications for the organisers. Travel, accommodation, visa support, etc will be fully covered by the organisers if you’re selected. If you’re interested, please fill out this google form: https://forms.gle/kTuhaikfBTh1Fq2E6. DO NOT REGISTER ON THE EVENT WEBPAGE, fill out only the google form cause it will be a separate list of youth participation. -- Joly MacFie Whatsapp +12185659365 --

1 0