Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
People whose PII is exposed, whose data is being used without consent, or who could be hurt by publication have less power than researchers. ACM's code of ethics' *first* section tells us that they are our priority. Publishing papers that violate this code is unethical
The NeurIPS guidelines for ethics review go way beyond PII and consent. As for people who could be hurt by publication, that can be a cover for almost anything - and that's the problem.
Have you actually read the ACM code of ethics? It is not restricted to PII and consent. I would like to be charitable, but the only explanations I can come up with for this response is either that you have no idea what's in the ACM code of ethics or you are lying about it.
Is there a third option? Where did this disconnect come from. You can find the code of ethics here, which begins "A computing professional should [c]ontribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing."https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
