CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Ethics and Social Impacts of AIInnovative Human-Technology InteractionPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 149 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Yes: Affirmative Consent as a Theoretical Framework for Understanding and Imagining Social Platforms

Im, Jane, Dimond, Jill, Berton, Melody, Lee, Una, Mustelier, Katherine, Ackerman, Mark S., Gilbert, Eric·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3411764.3445778
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Affirmative consent is the idea that someone must ask for, and earn, enthusiastic approval before interacting with someone else. For decades, feminist activists and scholars have used affirmative consent to theorize and prevent sexual assault. In this paper, we ask: Can affirmative consent help to theorize online interaction? Drawing from feminist, legal, and HCI literature, we introduce the feminist theory of affirmative consent and use it to analyze social computing systems. We present affirmative consent’s five core concepts: it is voluntary, informed, revertible, specific, and unburdensome. Using these principles, this paper argues that affirmative consent is both an explanatory and generative theoretical framework. First, affirmative consent is a theoretical abstraction for explaining various problematic phenomena in social platforms—including mass online harassment, revenge porn, and problems with content feeds. Finally, we argue that affirmative consent is a generative theoretical foundation from which to imagine new design ideas for consentful socio-technical systems.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3411764.3445778

Cites

145 of 145 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 149 references

4 of the 149 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Our Data Bodies. 2016. Our Data Bodies. Retrieved March 15, 2020 from https://www.odbproject.org/
  2. University of Guelph Central Student Association. [n.d.]. No Means No. Retrieved March 15, 2020 from https://csaonline.ca/campaigns/no-means-no
  3. Maeve Duggan. 2017. Online harassment 2017. (2017). https://ncvc.dspacedirect.org/handle/20.500.11990/10
  4. Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. 2019. Yes means yes!: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Seal Press.
  5. Rosa Gavey. 2019. Affirmative Consent to Sex: Is It Enough. New Zealand Women’s Law Journal 3 (2019), 35.
  6. David S Hall. 1998. Consent for sexual behavior in a college student population. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 1, 10 (1998), 1–16.
  7. Kate Lockwood Harris. 2009. The communicative criterion: Establishing a new standard for non-violent sexual encounters by reframing consent. thirdspace: a journal of feminist theory & culture 9, 1 (2009).
  8. Salvador Hernandez. 2020. A Zoom Meeting For Women Of Color Was Hijacked By Trolls Shouting The N-Word. Retrieved May 25, 2020 from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/zoom-coronavirus-racist-zoombombing
  9. Noah Hilgert. 2016. The Burden of Consent: Due Process and the Emerging Adoption of the Affirmative Consent Standard in Sexual Assault Laws. Ariz. L. Rev. 58(2016), 867.
  10. Wendy Adele Humphrey. 2016. Let’s Talk about Sex: Legislating and Educating on the Affirmative Consent Standard. USFL Rev. 50(2016), 35. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2780124
  11. Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. 2012. Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Retrieved March 15, 2020 from https://www.cybercivilrights.org/
  12. Kathleen Ann Livingston. 2015. The queer art & rhetoric of consent: Theories, practices, pedagogies. Michigan State University.
  13. David Malki. 2014. The Terrible Sea Lion. Retrieved May 20, 2020 from http://wondermark.com/1k62/
  14. Aleecia M McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. The cost of reading privacy policies. Isjlp 4(2008), 543.
  15. Jake New. 2014. The “yes means yes” world. Inside Higher Ed (2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–119 of 119

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Im, J., Dimond, J., Berton, M., Lee, U., Mustelier, K., Ackerman, M. S., & Gilbert, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Sassafras Tech Collective, United States
  • And Also too, Canada
  • University of Michigan, United States
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-05-06
Pages
1-18
DOI
10.1145/3411764.3445778
OpenAlex
W3163524335
Cited by
119
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 1
FWCI
6.02
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IIS-1553376)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
affirmative consent, online consent, social platforms, feminist theory, sexual assault prevention, online harassment, revenge porn, socio-technical design, generative theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review