Jasmine E. McNealy

This study examines how mass shooting narratives emerge on social media through the interaction of platform governance and participatory discourse. Using a two-study design, we first compare moderation policies and enforcement approaches across major platforms, then analyze discourse surrounding five mass shooting events on X as visible outcomes of platform governance. For the two highest-volume events, 24,748 X posts from the Chiefs Parade shooting and 2043 X posts from the Hookah Bar shooting, we employ a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based thematic analysis combining human-guided theme development with embedding-based semantic retrieval. Three lower volume events are examined through human thematic analysis, and 267 Reddit posts from the Chiefs Parade case serve as a qualitative comparative reference. Findings show that users shared breaking news, expressed grief, debated gun violence and media coverage, and interpreted events publicly. Platform governance appears associated with differences in discourse visibility, tone, and persistence.

This article considers how a constructive data trust—a court order that someone holds property for the benefit of another—might offer a reparative solution in privacy and data governance cases. This proposal is situated within an algorithmic reparative framework, which seeks not only to compensate for individual privacy harms but to redress the structural inequities and ill-gotten gains inherent in massive data collection. While scholars have increasingly advocated for data trusts as voluntary governance models to manage information flow, this article distinguishes its contribution by proposing the constructive data trust as an equitable remedy rather than a mere administrative structure. By repurposing this traditional legal instrument, we can transition from a defensive posture of data protection toward a proactive model of data reparation that restores the benefits of data hoards to the communities from which they were extracted.

This research essay investigates the intersections of policy and public interest technology within the context of the Public Interest Technology University Network and presents the findings from interviews conducted with U.S. based faculty and staff who are members of PIT-UN, as well as affiliated funders and other personnel, in combination with desk research. Policy, defined as “a complex assemblage of issues, processes, procedures, and restraints,” recognizes that policy goes beyond regulatory documents, and sets the atmosphere for the success of PIT programs on campuses. In investigating policy and PIT-UN, this research examines the key areas including the role of university policy, administrators, and funders in setting and enforcing policy and how these might change to ensure the success of PIT programs in the future. It concludes by offering recommendations for administrators, funders, and those working in PIT at higher education institutions.

Introducing the CHIRON Trustworthiness Calculator, a component of the CHIRON Toolkit designed to support researchers' self reflection on their research practice

CHIRON scholar Jasmine McNealy considers community consent as a requirement for the ethical conduct of biorepository research

This chapter considers the influence of design and the design of systems and how policies such as the GDPR and other regulations attempt to reorient the power inherent in these systems. Specifically, this chapter examines how newer legislation focused on the design of AI systems might impact the interactions between users and organizations. Using dark patterns, also called deceptive design, or designs of systems, focusing on obtaining something of value that, under ordinary circumstances, would not have been obtained, as a context, this chapter examines how policymakers might take an ecological approach in considering technology for better informed policy. This kind of approach recognizes the complexity of the data and technology ecosystem and emphasizes consideration of the various things that shape how individuals and organizations interact in the technological environment.

Phishing is a method of social engineering—it attempts to influence behavior and/or beliefs—in which a party either “imitates a trusted source” (Felix & Hauck, 1987) or induces another party to trust or place more or a different kind of trust in it. I argue that by their very nature, social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and others are large-scale phishing operations designed to collect information about users surreptitiously. Although providing terms of service and privacy policies, an individual has no way of knowing the extent of the platform’s personal data collection. This article reconsiders platforms as organizational phishing, and just as harmful as that done by hackers or others seeking unjust enrichment. To do this, this article identifies the significant elements of platform phishing by examining the descriptions of platform conduct provided in regulatory actions taken by the US Federal Trade Commission.

A stark divide often exists between a policy’s goals and its implementation. This policy “implementation gap,” signals a failure to take into consideration the complexity of a system or issue. Failure often results in policy that is a misfit for the issue of concern and is lacking in the hoped for remedial or preventative impacts. This study explores policy prototyping as a remedy for policy failures in bills aimed at privacy protection. After selecting three privacy-related bills, we created prototypes that represented one of many ways that privacy policy could be translated into features in online platforms. Using the prototypes, we conducted 41 semi-structured interviews to gather feedback and insights on the challenges with the laws. Our findings illustrate how different roles emphasize protections, harms, and word choice when communicating levers of change like civil rights protections in law to privacy design elements. This solidified the opportunities to better bridge policy and practice by outlining common and distinct bill themes.

Editorial: Special Issue: Theories and Applications of Emerging Technologies in Civic Engagement