Social Media, Artificial Intelligence and Technology Development: A Social Justice Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our panel symposium focuses on the scholarly challenges of studying social media analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and technology development using a social justice perspective. Employing an interdisciplinary perspective, our panelists will foreground the complex ways technological development, social media, and AI can disempower people, in turn, perpetuating social injustice. Social media platforms are becoming spaces where socially dominant behavior is becoming more and more prevalent. Trolls take advantage of social media platforms to post offensive material to disrupt online discourse and mislead or influence social movement participants (Bharati et al, 2019). While there is growing scholarly interest (e.g., Heukamp, 2020; Sloane, 2019; Zajko, 2021) in how technology, AI and social media can accentuate social marginality and inequality and thwart social justice concerns, yet sufficient scholarly attention from a global perspective is deficient. Our panel symposium examines these concerns using an intersectional lens with a focus on the global south. Specifically, we critically look at the proliferation of technological growth and AI while considering the embodied experience of marginalized and invisible people. While social movements share common concerns and can be mobilized into action (Carberry et al, 2019), social media spaces are also exacerbating social injustice for movements. Our symposium raises scholarly concerns from ethical to social justice considerations, such as equity, diversity, and inclusivity. Our panel brings experts from diverse backgrounds to stimulate a critical discussion on these crucial concerns. Our panelists will delineate a social justice framework from a global perspective, which appeals to both scholars interested in digital technology in management and social justice in organizations. Our panelists will discuss scholarly challenges in developing a framework to examine the complex realities of technology development, social media, and AI so that the egalitarian potentials maybe explored. We argue that it is critical to developing a social justice-focused research program to explore how technology development, AI and social media impact social marginality and inequality with specific attention to the realities of the global south. Social media and AI are touted to promote greater good and more prosperity to all sections of society. Paradoxically, such technological developments have augmented disparities and the chasm between the rich and poor. The proliferation of precarious working conditions and the gig economy on a global scale is a case in point (e.g., Mahalingam, in press). Sloane (2019) argues that we need a social justice framework in all aspects of technology development with a specific focus on the social impact of technology that goes beyond ethical concerns of technology (e.g., Algorithmic justice). While digital disinformation is affecting social justice seekers, the mechanisms of disinformation and their impact amongst movement participants are not fully understood. This verifiably false information being deliberately propagated has the potential to cause serious public harm. In the work context, Mahalingam and Selvaraj (2022) found that in the shopping malls, janitors experienced various kinds of dignity injuries due to their precarious working conditions. In the digital domain, algorithms are increasing societal disparities that have grave justice implications of AI technologies. The panel symposium will focus on scholarly challenges of social media analytics, AI and technology development. Panelists will engage the audience in an interactive discussion on: How do machine-learned models reflect, propagate, and amplify social stereotypes about people? How does technology development reproduce social inequalities when caste, social capital, and dignity injuries are not taken into consideration? How does digital disinformation impact social and economic justice seekers? What are the algorithmic fairness failures of AI technologies? How can AI technologies exacerbate societal disparities in the absence of cross-cultural considerations? How have technologies that are intended to support socially marginalized communities exacerbated inequalities?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".