Debiasing Desire

Abstract

Designing technical systems to be resistant to bias and discrimination represents vital new terrain for researchers, policymakers, and the anti-discrimination project more broadly. We consider bias and discrimination in the context of popular online dating and hookup platforms in the United States, which we call intimate platforms. Drawing on work in social-justice-oriented and Queer HCI, we review design features of popular intimate platforms and their potential role in exacerbating or mitigating interpersonal bias. We argue that focusing on platform design can reveal opportunities to reshape troubling patterns of intimate contact without overriding users' decisional autonomy. We identify and address the difficult ethical questions that nevertheless come along with such intervention, while urging the social computing community to engage more deeply with issues of bias, discrimination, and exclusion in the study and design of intimate platforms.

‘What Are You Looking For?’: Sexual Imaginaries and Affordances on Grindr and Scruff

“…We follow up on Birnholtz et al (2014), who found that Grindr users use specific language in their profiles to manage reactions and stigma from others, to investigate users' reasonings and strategies. In alignment with Hutson et al (2018) who "argue that focusing on platform design can reveal opportunities to reshape troubling patterns of intimate contact without overriding users' decisional autonomy", we further explore the socio-cultural impacts of design-based features (pg. 1).…”

“…In particular, we examine how current Grindr and Scruff users interact with 1) search, sort, and filter features in relation to discrimination (Hutson et al's, 2018), 2) reporting and blocking moderation features (Mowlabocus, 2020), and 3) relaxed sexual imagery on Grindr and Scruff that allows users to share content that had been previously prohibited. Through qualitative interviews and design probes, we also employ speculative design methods to explore how queer mens' experiences might change if these features worked in different ways, thus co-creating alternative ways of connecting with others on these platforms.…”

Sorting and the ecology of freedom of association

“…I am not making the empirical claim that people will form associations with those who are unlike them, to the degree that there is no residual inequality that can be 44 Pariser 2012 45 https://developers.google.com/machinelearning/recommendation/overview/candidate-generation 46 But see Bedi 2015 for the argument that justice requires such interference, as intimacy is a primary good. Also see Hutson et al 2018 for the argument that we should "debias desire" by designing platforms in ways that make it difficult to racially discriminate in the sexual realm. attributed to sorting.…”

“…46 But see Bedi (2015) for the argument that justice requires such interference, as intimacy is a primary good. Also see Hutson et al (2018) for the argument that we should "debias desire" by designing platforms in ways that make it difficult to racially discriminate in the sexual realm. 47 I retain the term "intimate association" to track others' usage in the literature, but want to note I do not subscribe to it either as a category that usefully marks out a special kind of association, or as one that the state should have reason to use.…”

Influences of Family Structure and Intimacy on Emotional Divorce: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

“…The shaping of selves, families, neighborhoods, and communities by intimate affiliations and the structures that manage them has been emphasized, underscoring the pervasive influence of intimacy on various social domains (Hutson et al, 2018). The interplay between structure and agency in the contexts of intimacy, family, and E-ISSN: 3041-8550 contemporary close relationships has been analyzed, highlighting the complex dynamics at play within intimate relationships (Ketokivi, 2012).…”