I'm going to introduce the next speaker, some of you that have been here since we've
been going to give this a technical overview of where do you have to prepare them?
This is Paralyze and there is Paralyze and there is Paralyze and there's a potential fact
designing for trust and safety in the age of military technology, Paralyze and Mayze, and
Mayze working with Paralyze, and here to space around the climate research is a fantastic
architect, a little bit of a variety of sincerity at my arm, and I'm going to do a joint
tool to work with it, take it away, let's try this one, yeah, I'm excited to be here, and
I'm going to try another one, so they are going to talk about the signing for trust and safety,
but specifically how designing for advocacy and security is a chain on my arm, and
I'm going to say, I'm going to put out a communication and research and design, we are a
think that we are facing the interconnects, we are ready to take the network, you know,
we also do a lot of research, as well, into security design, a lot of the stuff we do,
if you do a collaboration, yeah, always open for that, and so what I'm going to talk about,
and I also need a resource design for it, is this important layer of design, so how product
is design deeply matters for a year, can we do it to understand what I'm about to do,
so we think of design and communication as a transition layer, can take what the policy of, let's
say, if we can do that, the software, product, the technology, how it's built, and I really
should translate it for facility, data experience, it's something that we just need to understand,
the development of model around how that product functions, but design can be an unrivaled
area, it can suppress content, it can let choose other content that's not about it, it's
designed much like technology, it might be you, it can mislead you, and that's one of the
things I also want to get into, and how that's like how design, the harmful design pattern
it's designed to design patterns which are closely tailored and do it in fact,
So I can even understand whether it's a bubler that has studied their technology so as to
be good for modeling and understanding, the)]
I'm going to get to trust as a user's cabinet, come into thisames round of which
And it's also how much they can believe it's not a different one.
This is very expensive.
So you can be about reducing exposure escalation impact tomorrow.
And so design where this later comes to the articulated.
And again, this is our articulated two of these, right?
Trust me, for the design or within the design player.
I'm going to mislead you to see the design.
And it's for filling on, like on this top.
This design can also create your education.
It's not particularly a professional student.
It's not like I'm particularly designed.
But I can't even do this with the importance of design.
So then, if I wanted to talk about how that basically happened.
So, for whole design patterns, often called the end of our pattern,
except the design pattern.
Our design patterns, that we understand,
are potentially mislead to the community's knowledge,
or how consumer-making decision, they normally look good.
How many of you have tried that?
I'm saying, scribe, we've got our product.
We've got ourselves a scribe based later.
We've got the idea of it.
Yes.
How do you get rid of it?
I think you better to make the key to the arrow down.
So, what's it to the trend of finding option at the moment?
Very difficult.
Either example to the point.
But if you also include things like endless scroll,
try to find a security tool or setting that's easy to get rid.
Or according to the tools,
if you will have to do a keychain,
so if you're kind of a keychain on a platform,
it's like someone's trying to contact you,
but not yet.
If you're also doing what you do,
if you have to do the ecosystem,
if you have a bit on it,
then you can do it.
So, these are all three different patterns.
I've four of them, like hundreds of them,
are placing the best intentions of the company.
But I got two different things.
So, here's the final one.
I'm going to make quite a few.
Is the training that you can see
or is the training that you can see?
Or is the training that you can see?
No, I think this happens,
but the ones you can see,
they're not going to be like that.
We're really going to have to do the training.
And this is the framework of that.
This is a thing that I would say
in the presentation, which is a keychain,
which is a keychain that you can see here.
This is the keychain that you can see here.
It's a free action to practice this into a 4K,
which is a Dutch core exercise.
It's a free-up.
I think that is 12, which is a keychain.
It's a one-cut-of-out.
Well, we started looking at
the recommended systems.
Under the digital service tab,
algorithmic, recommend your systems.
Like, say, the algorithmic keychain
is based on your Instagram.
How to have a non-confident option.
Most importantly, you should make that
for a free period of chronological time.
But it's hard to find
but chronological time.
Actually, I'm basically interested
in this webinar.
Our complaint was outlined in here.
And so, it's algorithmic.
It's algorithmic.
It's very hard to find a line
to go over the problem of the one.
And so, we found that, notice that
I highlighted a couple of articles with the DSA,
because I also learned a whole bunch of patterns.
So, the theory of the problem of the timeline
is dark pattern.
And then the ability to actually set
to work on.
Add it to the problem of the timeline.
Also, by the way, let's do this.
Everyone is a dark pattern.
It has those D for some periods.
Right, it's chronological D.
It's a critical time.
It's not set.
It's a part of our research.
These are showing me how to teach you
that that's the algorithm of the timeline.
So, that's the case with that.
So, I just hope that this is fine.
It's not easy to follow.
It's easy to follow.
I'm like, you see all the multiple steps.
Right?
This steps, this version,
combined with the code's ball,
which you know where to find it.
Under this very setting,
you know that you can set the dark pattern.
And again, by the way, it's the TSA.
Dark patterns can be traced
with a more UX, at least issues.
But you want to think of them as safety issues.
Like, having a conflict that can play flow,
vary,
you know, tools that exist in a virtual reach,
in a space.
By the way,
how many users should write
so you can see what kind of artwork you also can see.
Right?
These are not just the method of the glitches,
but the safety ones as well.
So,
this is where, like,
these are difficult to get,
and it is the design.
Which is part of the design flow.
Right?
This is where it's flying.
This is creating the space of the mark.
So,
I want to show that as an example,
just to sort of, say,
design,
can have a sort of weaponized space.
That's actually it.
And in the research we do,
we can be think of that this work would
turn pattern in the circles.
I said,
when I said,
I'm just saying,
when I said.
When I said,
I'm just saying,
you're not trusted,
but I'm just saying,
though it's true
and it might be true probably,
but it might be true it better's,
if it is true and it may be true,
and it may be true.
and it may be true,
and it may be because we are trained to do this thing,
It's very, very smart, and that behavior is really,
the ability to define those cool settings,
but also the ability to do it, too.
And the trusted takeover we've been doing,
when you see privacy and security design
well safety and proofs.
And in order for folks to be targeted,
if you have much more of a lot of settings
for ground training than if you do it.
You can make it easier for folks to report
and escalate up use to content moderation,
system to press and safety teams.
We have more transparent systems,
conspiracy, understand what the calorie is using.
All of this really relates to the area of safety,
per consumer.
So we're able to see security come together
to create an area where we can move the trust and safety.
So spread it to the work that we're currently doing
and just watching it.
You might have been working with a German,
and you don't want to keep moving.
You can help each other to build out the definition
of what we're going to see by design.
You can approach them with their allergy.
That's interesting.
We're going to do some of those things.
We're going to verify security by design.
We're going to do some security by design.
We're going to do some security in the beginning.
And you're also thinking about it.
All throughout the product.
I'm going to send a link to our slides.
Then I'm going to delete your centric.
We're going to talk to them if you should provide it.
You can see if you have to be the same thing.
Thank you.
Also, we're going to do all that.
Very important.
A lot of works.
Been ahead of you.
If you're centric.
Safety.
From all the way to the beginning.
After saying as much.
We're responding to it.
You are.
We'll see if we can do that.
Yeah.
So.
Some of the things we've highlighted.
I want to be right there.
I'm not thinking of design.
I'm not going to open it here.
I'm going to come in to this part.
So design.
I'm going to find the technology.
I'll see.
We'll create.
Safety.
I'm not going to.
Safety.
So.
We're going to.
So.
Size.
So.
For the user events, he will have, as we work at it,
just after we're going to pilot something.
Here are some of the things that we researched yesterday.
Or I'm going to be the easier to decide kind of like
a Facebook list for example, if you can see what content
you're going to be doing here, more of a Facebook
or Skype, there's a lot of people who want some
moderation in my opinion, but then what
is all different types of social products, how
that, for example, we have.
So part of what we started to pull out
was a project, what it's had.
It's a group of elements, say, even more
than I should do, right?
Eight years, articles, and methodology that
had existed, right now, I've been published over
the past 20 years.
So one of the useful things I'm going to be doing
and how to be shown on a project, I
call trust-and-triggering, between we
were looking at, asking if everybody else were
to be single.
The answer is to realize that you're going to be
able to be able to produce about 30 different countries.
One thing that can out with this idea of social
product, is that those two linear plates have been set.
So, right now, if you finalize your report,
you file a review for response.
Why is it going to be more of a circular system
that you have been shooting?
We are going to draft a report or go get close.
Characters of the plates, and bring that in,
and then to another portion of the potting
I do something at the end.
Of all of the time, I don't know if someone
is using a task to progress in the report,
but I don't know if it's going to be able to do that.
You're writing more than a solution for an operation.
So you need to break out of the server, or hold it.
Okay, do you find a specific person?
Pretty much as well, I'm asking the issue of tools.
And if they think of the strategy,
like this piece of consent, and more consent,
the process of reporting, so like, ensuring that,
no, it's one rather than what we've said.
We've got it, but if you're a similar one,
it's not rejected.
We'll talk about it in a minute.
Oh, is it not working?
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
I don't know.
I know, you don't know.
And that, oh, it hasn't up in recording this whole time.
I guess a whipping fee a technology conference
without a technology issue.
Dang, that's okay, it's fine.
Anyway, I'll just keep going.
Anywho, you all look a little low energy
because it's such an uplifting topic
that I'm talking about, or is it because it's hot in here?
Maybe it's both.
Anywho, I guess, jumping back into this.
For designers and for companies,
one of the also big recommendations
is can you take trauma-informed design principles?
If you're wondering what those are,
we are going to discuss them on the next slide,
conducting threat modeling during development phases.
Is this something from our research?
We also saw that a lot of trust and safety teams
either didn't know what that was,
or not actively conducting.
They were sort of designing for a handful of personas
versus sort of taking a much more expansive view.
And a big one, prioritizing user safety
over engagement metrics.
So again, really thinking about that some folks might be
posting content that they don't want a lot of people
to look at, and that's OK, and that's their choice,
and that's also a safety choice.
And including marginalized communities
in the design process, one of the other elements
of this research is chains, trauma-informed design principles
where a big fan of them, they're a UK-based NGO.
And so their trauma-informed design principles
are foundational to everything they do in build.
They also build software.
And so for them, this is where they're experiencing,
they're building around the experiences
of survivors of gender-based violence.
That also includes folks facing intimate partner
violence, for example.
For them, and this is all read from their principles.
So this is what they've written.
This is not my writing.
So they write quote.
Survivors are not just users.
They are people navigating trauma.
They're people in survival mode.
So keep us in mind, you're designing a,
you're when you're designing that service.
If not designing with survivors in mind,
it could be triggering trauma-in-packs
all areas of grain.
So what does this mean in practice?
So safety, quick exit buttons,
avoid overloading survivors,
simple designs to ensure emotional safety
and lessen fatigue.
Fewer clicks, meaning like do not bury info.
Privacy is non-negotiable.
So data minimization, the ability to delete
an account and data at any time,
and that has to be prioritized
from the outside of building, right?
So again, easy deletion, accountability.
So explaining our decisions, transparency,
open and publicly, trust is built this way.
Constantly measuring the impact when you release something,
so how you know it's going to work
and how many mechanisms.
And I think within that, they also go further
and describe impact for, again,
very specific impacted groups, not just every user,
is at working also with the most vulnerable
or the most marginalized.
And I also want to sort of share some work
from this other group called PIN America.
Again, they work a lot with journalists.
And so there's three reports we looked at.
One was called the OXQS for Abuse.
And within OXQS for Abuse,
there's some of the specific things they found
where, so they're trying to encourage users rather
than just punish abusers.
Some of the specific design suggestions
they found from interviewing human rights experts,
designers, technologists, and journalists,
are things like a shield and dashboard system.
So a way to quarantine a piece of content
for safety review, safety mode,
so like a one-click thing where you can change
all of your settings quickly if you're facing,
let's say like dog pilot, a lot of people
are jumping on your account.
Rapid response teams have trusted allies
to help that person facing harassment or harm,
manage that abuse, and automatic documentation tools
for legal evidence.
So if someone has sent you like a series of threats,
being able to quickly document that
from the platform itself, transparency, penalty systems
with escalating consequences.
One of the things that their research
and our research has found is that on the other side,
if you are an in person, engaging in abuse,
but more generally, no user actually knows
like where they sit, how many strikes are against them
in a platform, there are strikes against you.
And so you can be like walked out of your account,
let's say, for a day or a week,
and you might not know why, and that could be from like,
historical strikes that have been against you.
So this does, this is something that's a big issue
on all sides of people engaging online,
but yeah, this transparent penalty system.
And again, a trauma informed reporting
for coordinated attacks,
maybe an easy, easy to report.
But yeah.
And then one of the other things we also looked at
was this worker by the National Democratic Institute.
So this is a tracker, which is a structured data set
of interventions, studies, and recommendations related
to online gender based violence
of abuse, disinformation, and other forms of online harm.
When we were developing the safety by design framework,
in which we're launching in this merch,
the NDI landscape tracker really helped us identify
reoccurring themes and interventions
by systematically reviewing the interventions
in the tracker.
So one of the things we're publishing is a large data set,
which will also be able to access, which is,
pretty much every provocation and proposal
of a safety intervention and policy
we could find published through papers online.
So again, these are the things we're talking about
for folks like what a folks historically requested.
And we're trying to tag as best we can,
what's been implemented.
Is it perfect?
What we're doing now, is it incomplete, probably.
But it's built off some of this hard work
that NDI has done in the past.
One of the things we're able to see
is what we're calling common categories of action.
And those are examples of platform transparency,
reporting mechanisms.
So the data set we're putting together
and that NDI is put together goes into much more depth
around an example of a reporting mechanism.
Legislative and policy recommendations,
training and capacity building examples,
research and visibility of harm patterns,
including hyperspecific patterns of harm
and harassment, and localized or context-sensitive
protective measures.
We in our data set,
view these reoccurring themes that can be translated
into design and interventions to reference
and integrate into findings and recommendations.
So this tracker in particular aggregates actual documented
interventions and research findings
from multiple organizations and context.
This isn't an incredibly large spreadsheet
that we're all so linking to.
So if you'd like access to this,
let me know if it is publicly accessible,
I can share it out later.
Okay, best practices, I'm almost done.
So in this last section,
I want to shift our focus to also what can actually be done.
Arriving, we've discussed so far
from harmful design patterns to safety by design.
And the frameworks and examples serve all point.
We think to this simple and heavy quotes conclusion.
So safety cannot be under tackled by one team
or one discipline as requires multi-stake holder
responsibility and action across a product.
So it can't just be isolated to one trust and safety team,
multiple teams are the entire product
have to also be dedicated to centering safety.
And I think this is true if you're trying
to build a security culture as well.
You have all the teams have to be dedicated to this.
There you go.
So what does this serve multi-stake holder responsibility mean?
Design must be usable, accessible, and legibles.
It has to be easy to find.
Again, building on some of the points that Elio and Ania
outlined in their talk.
Design and technology have to be trauma informed.
That does mean thinking about how much information
or you're giving people, is it something
that in a moment of panic?
Can people understand?
Can they access?
Can they sift through?
Is it something that will be triggering to them?
Is it something that, again, they can, like,
they have the cognitive bandwidth to engage with?
If it's multiple lines of small text, the answer is no.
That's very hard to read for people there in moments
of high panic or high stress, right?
A big thing, which I'm sure all of you do in this room,
but the big tech does not.
Centering opt-out over-opt-it.
That means making sure all the privacy settings are turned on.
Versus having to go and find them
and make your account more and more private, right?
This ensures security and safety are already
set for the most safe user experience
and folks can go toggle as they feel comfortable
for how public they would like to be or how exposed,
they'd like their data to be.
Design should take into the emotional state of the user.
So a big one, as we've been saying earlier,
design was repeatedly center the most marginalized
or as some folks say the decentered user.
Design should actively threat model
and understand and prepare for all these nuanced types of harm.
Design is not neutral, so every default, every flow,
every hitting, setting, encodes assumptions
about power, risk, and responsibility.
These are things we have to actively tackle
in a design practice and also within product design.
So I just want to end on this quote that we love.
We use a lot, this is from off-sonnerry got,
the creator of the decentered and from this paper
she wrote called design from the margins.
So she says, we expect architects to design buildings
and British to withstand jail, force wins, and heavy loads.
So two should we expect companies whose products are the vehicle
for free expression and access to information
to design sensitive, resilient technologies
for the benefit of all, whether they face government
or pressure and social stigma or not.
Thank you.
If you have any question or access to any of the materials
I've shared today, please email me.
I would happily share them out with all of you.
So thank you.
Let's keep that up for a second.
I think we have two more minutes, but...
Oh, shit, I'm sorry.
But I think that's an off-sonner for a simple,
one of the best ones, yeah.
Yeah, I can hear you.
Yeah.
So that sort of relates to like, when you're at the same boat.
Sorry, that's the first and asking a question.
My friends was asking, how can design take into the emotional
state of the user how would you know?
So when you're thinking about some of these broader principles
you're talking about like legibility or accessibility, right?
I think those go hand in hand with this.
Like is the text small, or is it easier to read?
Is it using like jargon, or is it using plain language?
Is it, is it a lot of text someone has to stitch through?
So making something that has a larger font is using more plain language
is easier to find easier to surface.
Like those are already things that are
to take into the emotional state of a user.
Generally, if you're designing, let's say,
for accessibility and you're designing for a wide audience,
you're probably already centering.
The emotional state is you're making it easier
to find and surface that information
and you're really taking into account how people
are understanding or could misunderstand what it is you're outlining.
But a big thing is making sure you're not giving them a lot of small text.
Even when they get to a page, let's say of resources, right?
So even if they can find your resource, making sure that it's not like a wall
of multiple paragraphs of stuff they need to do.
So if you are building, let's say, like an anti-doxing tool
and you're trying to help them remove information,
it may be telling them, hey, it's going to take this many minutes
to go through this and you're really trying to space out some of the information.
You're also making sure it's this balance right of your
ideally, hopefully hiring a copywriter.
But you're really trying to make sure the information is bite size
as well as relevant.
So it's like kind of cutting out extraneous information.
Oh wait, sorry.
Oh yeah.
Oh, we did get certain.
It's okay.
Yeah.
So sometimes not though.
Yeah.
How do you see design?
Safety by design.
Yeah.
That's a great question.
So I mean, one of the reasons I will never say, oh, yeah.
So this person has a question of, you know, that harmful design patterns
can are intentional by platforms or companies.
And how do we see safety by designing being adopted?
I will never say in a recorded session that they're intentional
because I have to work on cases where it's impossible to prove intentionality.
As an FYI, but we can have a solid conversation about that.
But one of the things we believe at convocation is that when you design
for a world that creates incentives, safety, security, and privacy,
you would actually mitigate a lot of dark patterns or harmful design patterns
because you're creating a world that centers the user, their agency
and effectively their choice.
So you're making it easier for them to really go through and make decisions.
If you are in a world where you're trying to center privacy and use your agency,
you are thinking about how to, I think, allegedly share that content
and not judge a user towards something more harmful.
Generally harmful design patterns are prioritizing a company and its interests
over consumers and generally their safety.
I like making our data as public as possible.
So I do think that these go hand in hand.
It does mean a lot of things would be like for radically redesigned.
So if someone wants to unsubscribe, that'd be a very easy flow.
There's probably a lot of reasons they want to unsubscribe.
But it might be like a longer ripple effect of safety by design.
We don't mention that explicitly in our paper, the unsubscribe example.
But we do mention how easy some of these safety features have to be to find.
And so that would be like pro user or user-centered settings,
as perhaps a way to think about it.
So they do go, I think, hand or at least they do,
with how we think about approaching design and technology policy.
Do you think you're in a question?
Do you have a normal?
Oh, yeah.
So a lot from making the companies the course that we've been doing behind us
and the designers, you're not to buy organizations.
Most of the things that you would be up to,
you wouldn't have an opportunity to decide
if it works some reason or not for another.
Yeah, thank you for that.
So the question was, I guess, outside of trying to force companies with law
or legislation to implement some of these principles
are their other ways to encourage them or have them implement them.
I mean, I would say so this might sound naive,
but I, again, have worked at Wikimedia on the Trust and Safety team
and that I think is a wonderful project where we center
or try to center as best we could.
They're like the requests and wishes of users.
I do think when you treat users as real people
who make your product what it is and you're trying to center
and you're working with them and trying to center what they want
and how they want to sort of exist and navigate in a project
including your safety, you are taking them seriously
and what you do is you end up building trust with them.
And I think I think trust is an impossible thing to purchase.
It's a very difficult thing to build and it's a very easy thing to lose,
but it is what keeps consumers and users returning.
It's what builds a community into a real community.
So I think I recently said as naive,
I think that that's a reason to design and to build that into product design
because I think that that's an important important thing for user retention.
But I don't work at a big tech company so I'm sure they have responses
as to how that's naive.
But I don't think that it is.
Yeah.
You can tell.