Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Hm, don't think you quite understood my analogy. Let me rephrase: What is political about not doing research that, as part of its methodology, makes ppl sick or puts their lives at risk, without their consent? Safety & harm can be separate from ideology. Esp when data is involved
You're shifting the goalposts. The NeurIPS ethics review covers a lot more than physically harming people, and applies to things it makes no sense to apply it to.
So then we agree that ethics reviews make sense, the only question is what should be covered in an ethics review, yes?
Are you deliberately trying to misconstrue what I say, or is it involuntary?
Sorry don't mean to bully you, but just noticed this comment as well - do you really think harm can only be physical? Why should ethics only apply when the risk is physical vs. financial, social, psychological, etc.? Hope you check out our workshop, feel like you may learn a lot!
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
