Yixin Zou

Jiamin Zheng, Yue Deng, Jessica Chen et al.

A new form of human trafficking has emerged across Chinese borders, where individuals are lured to Southeast Asia with fraudulent job offers and then coerced into operating online scams. Despite its massive economic and human toll, this scam-driven trafficking remains underexplored in academic research. Through qualitative analysis of 158 RedNote posts, we examined how Chinese online communities respond to this threat. Our findings reveal that perpetrators exploit cultural ties to recruit victims for cybercriminal roles within self-sustaining compounds, using sophisticated manipulation tactics. Survivors face serious reintegration barriers, including family rejection, as the cultural values that enable trafficking also hinder their recovery. While communities present protective strategies, efforts are complicated by doubts about the reliability of support and cross-border coordination. We discuss key implications for prevention, platform governance, and international cooperation against scam-driven trafficking. Warning: This paper contains descriptions of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.

Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, Markus Langer et al.

Affirmative algorithms have emerged as a potential answer to algorithmic discrimination, seeking to redress past harms and rectify the source of historical injustices. We present the results of two experiments ($N$$=$$1193$) capturing laypeople's perceptions of affirmative algorithms -- those which explicitly prioritize the historically marginalized -- in hiring and criminal justice. We contrast these opinions about affirmative algorithms with folk attitudes towards algorithms that prioritize the privileged (i.e., discriminatory) and systems that make decisions independently of demographic groups (i.e., fair). We find that people -- regardless of their political leaning and identity -- view fair algorithms favorably and denounce discriminatory systems. In contrast, we identify disagreements concerning affirmative algorithms: liberals and racial minorities rate affirmative systems as positively as their fair counterparts, whereas conservatives and those from the dominant racial group evaluate affirmative algorithms as negatively as discriminatory systems. We identify a source of these divisions: people have varying beliefs about who (if anyone) is marginalized, shaping their views of affirmative algorithms. We discuss the possibility of bridging these disagreements to bring people together towards affirmative algorithms.