Austria

Technology-facilitated violence constitutes a growing threat to inclusive democratic participation, particularly affecting women and marginalized groups. Drawing on a mixed-methods study from Brazil, this research examines how online harassment impacts politically active individuals, with a focus on gendered experiences and differential outcomes. A quantitative survey of 597 politically active individuals and seven in-depth interviews with female politicians were analyzed to assess the psychological and political consequences of technology-facilitated violence. More than 70% of survey respondents reported harassment within the past four weeks, with women disproportionately affected by gendered types of abuse. Regression results demonstrate that years of activism, education, and occupation significantly shape both exposure to harassment and coping responses. While some interviewees reported emotional exhaustion and disengagement, others described increased motivation and political resolve. These findings offer critical insights into how technology-facilitated violence shapes political behavior and underscore the need for platform accountability and institutional support structures.

ACL 2025

Technology-Facilitated Violence and Political Participation: Evidence from a Mixed-Methods Study in Brazil

Truth and Responsibility
“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

Many consider anthropology to be a holistic social science dedicated to cross-cultural understanding as a way to reduce bigotry and more fully comprehend “what it means to be human.” Others push against this readily circulated origin story, arguing that “human” remains a highly contested, political category—evident as the presumed set of rights and protections associated with the “human” continue to be stripped away violently in the communities in which some of us live and work. Which violent histories and epistemologies must anthropologists take responsibility for in telling truth(s) about the discipline’s development? How do the dual histories of settler colonialism and slavery continue to influence anthropological thought and practices? In these political times, how can anthropologists throughout the globe work to secure a capacious, progressive vision of the human? How might movements for anti-racism, decoloniality, queer liberation, and healing such as #BlackLivesMatter, #ProtectMaunaKea, and #MeToo push a future anthropology out of the ashes of the anthropological past? Finally, what are the limits and possibilities of the anthropological imagination?

Across subfields, we find truths in patterns of human behavior, language, evolution, and cultural worlds. Industry-positioned anthropologists do this by extending the boundaries of the discipline not as an administrative solution to job shortages but as a source of intervention and knowledge production. Increasingly, anthropologists who make use of the scientific method question how status and identity help to decide which facts come to represent truth. How might quantitative researchers use our methods to identify patterned truths, and what responsibility do we hold in challenging conventional wisdom about these patterns? What responsibility do we have to both our colleagues and larger publics, to push toward increased transparency and ethical grounding in our data collection, analysis, and presentation?

Pedagogy is a key medium for the communication of anthropological truths. Which (and whose) truths are foregrounded in our curricula? What are the possibilities for a liberatory pedagogy in a precarious, “post-truth” era? Conferences, museums, organizing spaces, and classrooms are sites where pedagogy and various forms of communication can help us interrogate the performativity of truth. How might anthropologists conceive of truth performances? Might visual, aural, and choreographic performances during AAA sessions offer anthropologists alternative genres for truth-telling and truth-making that provoke discussions about responsibility?

In accordance with the urgency of the year’s theme, the questions posed in this call for papers do not have easy answers. The hope is that those who submit proposals will take up these questions and engage in collective thinking and imagining about the truths we hold, the truths we challenge, and the responsibilities we bear in co-creating a free and more equitable world. All panel proposals should have a statement about how the panel has incorporated the goals of equity, diversity, and inclusion, and/or analysis of power.

Executive Session proposals have already been selected and speak directly to the theme “Truth and Responsibility.” To practice the critical reflexivity this call for papers invites, we asked that Executive Session submissions explicitly address the diversity of session participants, such as organizational/institutional affiliation, career stage, race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, class, religion, national identity, and gender. Proposals for Executive Sessions that demonstrated a commitment to equity and inclusion and/or a clear analysis of power (i.e. anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist, decolonial, anti-ableist, feminist, anti-transphobic, anti-xenophobic, etc) were given priority. We are excited to be in conversation with residents of the Baltimore region and look forward to the discussions, performances, and actions generated by the dynamic group of anthropologists attending the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting.

AAA Annual Meeting 2021

“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

workshop paper

### Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Message from the General Chair: 
*It is my great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025), held in beautiful Vienna, Austria, from July 27 to August 1, 2025. ACL2025continues our field’s tradition of excellence in scholarship, innovation, and inclusivity, and I am deeply grateful to the many volunteers who have worked tirelessly to bring this event to life.* 
[Read more](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GI_hvOpjswAuYdUTromfeDiPpCcqidwg/view?usp=sharing)

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. Access credentials will be sent to your email from Underline - subject line "Welcome to ACL 2025". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. 

Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

This work in progress presents an early-stage, conceptual exploration of how civil society actors can be meaningfully involved in the development of an AI-assisted tool for monitoring anti-democratic movements on Telegram. Using conspiracy theory classification as a use case, we outline and compare two concrete approaches to enabling such collaboration.

Civil Society in the Loop: Feedback-Driven Adaptation of (L)LM-Assisted Classification in an Open-Source Telegram Monitoring Tool

**(Civil Society Reports)**


Online hate speech propagation is a complex issue, deeply influenced by both the perpetrator and the target's cultural, historical, and societal contexts. Consequently, developing a universally robust hate speech classifier for diverse social media texts remains a challenging and unsolved task. The lack of mechanisms to track the spread and severity of hate speech further complicates the formulation of effective solutions. In response to this, to monitor hate speech in Indonesia during the recent 2024 presidential election, we have employed advanced
Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies to create an improved hate speech classifier
tailored for a narrower subset of texts; specifically, texts that target vulnerable groups that
have historically been the targets of hate speech in Indonesia.

(Civil Society Reports) - Monitoring Hate Speech in Indonesia: An NLP-based Classification of Social Media Texts

**(Non-Archival Submission)**


Toxicity and polarization are often treated as distinct problems in NLP, despite their increasing overlap in online discourse. Indonesia, as the third-largest democracy in the world, has recently seen a sharp increase in both toxicity and polarizing messages online. We present a novel multi-labeled Indonesian dataset annotated for both toxicity and polarization, and with information on annotator demographics. Our benchmark results show that polarization cues help toxicity detection and vice versa. Including demographic features further improves toxicity and polarization classification, suggesting that identity and opinion dynamics are deeply intertwined in toxic and polarizing speech.

(Non-Archival Submission) A Multi-Labeled Dataset for Indonesian Discourse: Examining Toxicity, Polarization, and Demographics Information

In recent years, researchers have investigated the socio-demographic and personal factors influencing perceptions of toxic speech, with a primary focus on English-speaking contexts. We introduce a work-in-progress annotation study conducted in a German-language setting. Preliminary findings from our pre-study suggest that annotators' perceptions of the toxicity of statements correlate more strongly with their perceptions of the toxicity of other statements than with socio-demographic factors, attitudes toward freedom of speech, or perceived (dis-)similarity to the author and target of the statement. Subsequently, we aim to utilize this novel dataset to explore perspectivist fine-tuning approaches for LLMs.

Alignment by Disagreement? Toward Investigating LLMs' Adaptation to Personal and Sociodemographic Variability in the Perception of Toxicity

We present a novel approach for enhancing diversity and control in data annotation tasks by personalizing large language models (LLMs). We investigate the impact of injecting diverse persona descriptions into LLM prompts across two studies, exploring whether personas increase annotation diversity and whether the impacts of individual personas on the resulting annotations are consistent and controllable. Our results indicate that persona-prompted LLMs generate more diverse annotations than LLMs prompted without personas, and that the effects of personas on LLM annotations align with subjective differences in human annotations. These effects are both controllable and repeatable, making our approach a valuable tool for enhancing data annotation in subjective NLP tasks such as toxicity detection.

Personas with Attitudes: Controlling LLMs for Diverse Data Annotation

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly prevalent, ensuring their robustness against adversarial misuse is crucial. This paper introduces the GAP (Graph of Attacks with Pruning) framework, an advanced approach for generating stealthy jailbreak prompts to evaluate and enhance LLM safeguards. GAP addresses limitations in existing tree-based methods by implementing an interconnected graph structure that enables knowledge sharing across attack paths. Our experimental evaluation demonstrates GAP's superiority over existing techniques, achieving a 20.8% increase in attack success rates while reducing query costs by 62.7%. GAP consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across various open and closed LLMs, with attack success rates of 
96%. Additionally, we present specialized variants like GAP-Auto for automated seed generation and GAP-VLM for multimodal attacks. GAP-generated prompts prove highly effective in improving content moderation systems, increasing true positive detection rates by 108.5% and accuracy by 183.6% when used for fine-tuning.

Graph of Attacks with Pruning: Optimizing Stealthy Jailbreak Prompt. Generation for Enhanced LLM Content Moderation

Detecting harmful content is a crucial task in the landscape of NLP applications for Social Good, with hate speech being one of its most dangerous forms. But what do we mean by hate speech, how can we define it and how does prompting different definitions of hate speech affect model performance? The contribution of this work is twofold. At the theoretical level, we address the ambiguity surrounding hate speech by collecting and analyzing existing definitions from the literature. We organize these definitions into a taxonomy of 14 conceptual elements—building blocks that capture different aspects of hate speech definitions, such as references to the target of hate. At the experimental level, we employ the collection of definitions in a systematic zero-shot evaluation of three LLMs, on three hate speech datasets representing different types of data (synthetic, human-in-the-loop, and real-world). We find that choosing different definitions, i.e., definitions with a different degree of specificity in terms of encoded elements, impacts model performance, but this effect is not consistent across all architectures.

A Modular Taxonomy for Hate Speech Definitions and Its Impact on Zero-Shot LLM Classification Performance

Ensuring the safe deployment of AI systems is critical in industry settings where biased outputs can lead to significant operational, reputational, and regulatory risks. Thorough evaluation before deployment is essential to prevent these hazards. Red-teaming addresses this need by employing adversarial attacks to develop guardrails that detect and reject biased or harmful queries, enabling models to be retrained or steered away from harmful outputs. However, red-teaming techniques are often limited, and malicious actors may discover new vulnerabilities that bypass safety fine-tuning, underscoring the need for ongoing research and innovative approaches. Notably, most red-teaming efforts focus on harmful or unethical instructions rather than addressing social bias, leaving this critical area under-explored despite its significant real-world impact, especially in customer-facing AI systems. We propose two bias-specific red-teaming methods, Emotional Bias Probe (EBP) and BiasKG, to evaluate how standard safety measures for harmful content mitigate bias. For BiasKG, we refactor natural language stereotypes into a knowledge graph. and use adversarial attacking strategies to induce biased responses from several open- and closed-source language models. We find our method increases bias in all models, even those trained with safety guardrails. Our work emphasizes uncovering societal bias in LLMs through rigorous evaluation, addressing adversarial challenges to ensure AI safety in high-stakes industry deployments.

Red-Teaming for Uncovering Societal Bias in Large Language Models

Annotator disagreement poses a significant challenge in subjective tasks like hate speech detection. In this paper, we introduce a novel variant of the HateWiC task that explicitly models annotator agreement by estimating the proportion of annotators who classify the meaning of a term as hateful. To tackle this challenge, we explore the use of Llama 3 models fine-tuned through Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Our experiments show that while LLMs perform well for majority-based hate classification, they struggle with the more complex agreement-aware task. DPO fine-tuning offers improvements, particularly when applied to instruction-tuned models. Yet, our results emphasize the need for improved modeling of subjectivity in hate classification and this study can serve as foundation for future advancements.

Using LLMs and Preference Optimization for Agreement-Aware HateWiC Classification

Language changes over time, including in the hate speech domain, which evolves quickly following social dynamics and cultural shifts. While NLP research has investigated the impact of language evolution on model training and has proposed several solutions for it, its impact on model benchmarking remains under-explored. Yet, hate speech benchmarks play a crucial role to ensure model safety. In this paper, we empirically evaluate the robustness of 20 language models across two evolving hate speech experiments, and we show the temporal misalignment between static and time-sensitive evaluations. Our findings call for time-sensitive linguistic benchmarks in order to correctly and reliably evaluate language models in the hate speech domain.

Next from ACL 2025

Civil Society in the Loop: Feedback-Driven Adaptation of (L)LM-Assisted Classification in an Open-Source Telegram Monitoring Tool

Similar lecture

Sound of the shotgun: navigating legal culpability in normalized perceptions of violence and insecurity