Danaë Metaxa’s research while affiliated with University of Pennsylvania and other places

While there is widespread interest in supporting young people to critically evaluate machine learning-powered systems, there is little research on how we can support them in inquiring about how these systems work and what their limitations and implications may be. Outside of K-12 education, an effective strategy in evaluating black-boxed systems is algorithm auditing—a method for understanding algorithmic systems’ opaque inner workings and external impacts from the outside in. In this paper, we review how expert researchers conduct algorithm audits and how end users engage in auditing practices to propose five steps that, when incorporated into learning activities, can support young people in auditing algorithms. We present a case study of a team of teenagers engaging with each step during an out-of-school workshop in which they audited peer-designed generative AI TikTok filters. We discuss the kind of scaffolds we provided to support youth in algorithm auditing and directions and challenges for integrating algorithm auditing into classroom activities. This paper contributes: (a) a conceptualization of five steps to scaffold algorithm auditing learning activities, and (b) examples of how youth engaged with each step during our pilot study.

Research on children and youth's participation in different roles in the design of technologies is one of the core contributions in child-computer interaction studies. Building on this work, we situate youth as advisors to a group of high school computer science teacher- and researcher-designers creating learning activities in the context of emerging technologies. Specifically, we explore algorithm auditing as a potential entry point for youth and adults to critically evaluate generative AI algorithmic systems, with the goal of designing classroom lessons. Through a two-hour session where three teenagers (16-18 years) served as advisors, we (1) examine the types of expertise the teens shared and (2) identify back stage design elements that fostered their agency and voice in this advisory role. Our discussion considers opportunities and challenges in situating youth as advisors, providing recommendations for actions that researchers, facilitators, and teachers can take to make this unusual arrangement feasible and productive.

As the use of automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) has rapidly increased in hiring contexts, especially for computing jobs, there is still limited work on applicants' perceptions of these emerging tools and their experiences navigating them. To investigate, we conducted a survey with 448 computer science students (young, current technology job-seekers) about perceptions of the procedural fairness of AEDTs, their willingness to be evaluated by different AEDTs, the strategies they use relating to automation in the hiring process, and their job seeking success. We find that young job seekers' procedural fairness perceptions of and willingness to be evaluated by AEDTs varied with the level of automation involved in the AEDT, the technical nature of the task being evaluated, and their own use of strategies, such as job referrals. Examining the relationship of their strategies with job outcomes, notably, we find that referrals and family household income have significant and positive impacts on hiring success, while more egalitarian strategies (using free online coding assessment practice or adding keywords to resumes) did not. Overall, our work speaks to young job seekers' distrust of automation in hiring contexts, as well as the continued role of social and socioeconomic privilege in job seeking, despite the use of AEDTs that promise to make hiring "unbiased."

While there is widespread interest in supporting young people to critically evaluate machine learning-powered systems, there is little research on how we can support them in inquiring about how these systems work and what their limitations and implications may be. Outside of K-12 education, an effective strategy in evaluating black-boxed systems is algorithm auditing-a method for understanding algorithmic systems' opaque inner workings and external impacts from the outside in. In this paper, we review how expert researchers conduct algorithm audits and how end users engage in auditing practices to propose five steps that, when incorporated into learning activities, can support young people in auditing algorithms. We present a case study of a team of teenagers engaging with each step during an out-of-school workshop in which they audited peer-designed generative AI TikTok filters. We discuss the kind of scaffolds we provided to support youth in algorithm auditing and directions and challenges for integrating algorithm auditing into classroom activities. This paper contributes: (a) a conceptualization of five steps to scaffold algorithm auditing learning activities, and (b) examples of how youth engaged with each step during our pilot study.

Social media personalization algorithms increasingly influence the flow of civic information through society, resulting in concerns about "filter bubbles'', "echo chambers'', and other ways they might exacerbate ideological segregation and fan the spread of polarizing content. To address these concerns, we designed and conducted a sociotechnical audit (STA) to investigate how Twitter/X's timeline algorithm affects news curation while also tracking how user perceptions change in response. We deployed a custom-built system that, over the course of three weeks, passively tracked all tweets loaded in users' browsers in the first week, then in the second week enacted an intervention to users' Twitter/X homepage to restrict their view to only the algorithmic or chronological timeline (randomized). We flipped this condition for each user in the third week. We ran our audit in late 2023, collecting user-centered metrics (self-reported survey measures) and platform-centered metrics (views, clicks, likes) for 243 users, along with over 800,000 tweets. Using the STA framework, our results are two-fold: (1) Our algorithm audit finds that Twitter/X's algorithmic timeline resulted in a lower quantity but higher quality of news --- less ideologically congruent, less extreme, and slightly more reliable --- compared to the chronological timeline. (2) Our user audit suggests that although our timeline intervention had significant effects on users' behaviors, it had little impact on their overall perceptions of the platform. Our paper discusses these findings and their broader implications in the context of algorithmic news curation, user-centric audits, and avenues for independent social science research.

User-centric behavioral tracking, a cutting-edge computational social science tool, holds tremendous promise for advertising research. The article introduces the technique and presents three Do-It-Yourself (DIY) case studies, where researchers develop tracking applications and platforms, build infrastructures that host participants, maintain computational pipelines logging user behavior and content exposure, and manage logistical in-and-outs such as onboarding, offboarding, and compensations all by themselves. We share our lessons, discuss challenges ahead of DIY user-centric behavioral tracking, and advocate for computational advertising scholars to become pioneers in this emerging body of work.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into a variety of writing tasks. While these tools can help people by generating ideas or producing higher quality work, like many other AI tools they may risk causing a variety of harms, disproportionately burdening historically marginalized groups. In this work, we introduce and evaluate perceptual harm, a term for the harm caused to users when others perceive or suspect them of using AI. We examined perceptual harms in three online experiments, each of which entailed human participants evaluating the profiles for fictional freelance writers. We asked participants whether they suspected the freelancers of using AI, the quality of their writing, and whether they should be hired. We found some support for perceptual harms against for certain demographic groups, but that perceptions of AI use negatively impacted writing evaluations and hiring outcomes across the board.

Automated content moderation has long been used to help identify and filter undesired user-generated content online. Generative AI systems now use such filters to keep undesired generated content from being created by or shown to users. From classrooms to Hollywood, as generative AI is increasingly used for creative or expressive text generation, whose stories will these technologies allow to be told, and whose will they suppress? In this paper, we define and introduce measures of speech suppression, focusing on speech related to different identity groups incorrectly filtered by a range of content moderation APIs. Using both short-form, user-generated datasets traditional in content moderation and longer generative AI-focused data, including two datasets we introduce in this work, we create a benchmark for measurement of speech suppression for nine identity groups. Across one traditional and four generative AI-focused automated content moderation services tested, we find that identity-related speech is more likely to be incorrectly suppressed than other speech except in the cases of a few non-marginalized groups. Additionally, we find differences between APIs in their abilities to correctly moderate generative AI content.