Alexander Laufer
@criticalethics.bsky.social
Tech + discrimination researcher @AmnestyNL.
Likes/shares not endorsements; views my own
Likes/shares not endorsements; views my own
Reposted by Alexander Laufer
We also go through many arguments that can be used as counters to typical false frames forced upon us, such as:
1. the powerful nonsense that we as experts know nothing
(Section 3.1 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...)
3/n
1. the powerful nonsense that we as experts know nothing
(Section 3.1 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...)
3/n
![3.1 Rejection of expertise, ironically including our own
Being in a colonizing discipline first demands and then encourages an attitude that might
be called intellectual hubris. Furthermore, since you cannot master all the disciplines that
you have designs on, you need confidence that your knowledge makes the ‘traditional
wisdom’ of these fields unworthy of serious consideration. Here too, the AI scientist
feels that seeing things through a computational prism so fundamentally changes the
rules of the game in the social and behavioural sciences that everything that came before
is relegated to a period of intellectual immaturity.
Sherry Turkle (1984, p. 230)
Every field that comes into contact with AI discourse becomes infected even within AI as a field of
study (recall Table 1). Our colleagues have embraced these systems, uncritically incorporating them
into their workflows and their classrooms, without input from experts on automation, cognitive science, computer science, gender and diversity studies, human-computer interaction, pedagogy, psychology, and law to name but a few fields with direct relevant expertise (Sloane et al. 2024). Meanwhile, technology companies have rushed to invest in ‘AI ethics’ or ‘AI safety’ to ethics wash their
claims, thereby “laundering accountability” (as Abeba Birhane explains in Arseni 2025) and “distracti[ng] from real AI ethics” (Crane 2021), while censoring academics and thus, violating academic
freedom (Gebru and Torres 2024; Gerdes 2022; Goudarzi 2025; Munn 2023; Ochigame 2019; Suarez
et al. 2025; Tafani 2023).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:vsyj5jtayxcq5dw5mtja4xtb/bafkreihavj4y4hvuqmervolkakodhui7qozn2jmnsrav5lilv37cecg6bq@jpeg)
September 6, 2025 at 8:19 AM
We also go through many arguments that can be used as counters to typical false frames forced upon us, such as:
1. the powerful nonsense that we as experts know nothing
(Section 3.1 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...)
3/n
1. the powerful nonsense that we as experts know nothing
(Section 3.1 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...)
3/n
According to established ECtHR case law, differential treatment that is solely or predominantly based on race or ethnicity can never be objectively justified. Even when race or ethnicity is used in combination with other characteristics, it is in violation of the prohibition of discrimination. /end
August 18, 2025 at 8:51 AM
According to established ECtHR case law, differential treatment that is solely or predominantly based on race or ethnicity can never be objectively justified. Even when race or ethnicity is used in combination with other characteristics, it is in violation of the prohibition of discrimination. /end
Specifically, the court explicitly refers to the previous analysis by Amnesty, in which we stated that using nationality as a risk criterion constitutes racial profiling. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs subjects individuals from certain countries to a more intensive assessment process. 4/
August 18, 2025 at 8:50 AM
Specifically, the court explicitly refers to the previous analysis by Amnesty, in which we stated that using nationality as a risk criterion constitutes racial profiling. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs subjects individuals from certain countries to a more intensive assessment process. 4/
In its justification for the rejection, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fails to mention of the use of the profiling algorithm and doesn’t provide an assessment of its impact on human rights. The court hereby mandates a Fundamental Rights Impacts Assessment. 3/
August 18, 2025 at 8:50 AM
In its justification for the rejection, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fails to mention of the use of the profiling algorithm and doesn’t provide an assessment of its impact on human rights. The court hereby mandates a Fundamental Rights Impacts Assessment. 3/
In a case brought by a woman of Moroccan nationality regarding the rejection of her application for a short-stay visa, a Dutch court ruled that the transparency requirements for a right to effective remedy were not met. 2/
August 18, 2025 at 8:49 AM
In a case brought by a woman of Moroccan nationality regarding the rejection of her application for a short-stay visa, a Dutch court ruled that the transparency requirements for a right to effective remedy were not met. 2/