Reflections from RightsCon 2025

Research and design for research and design

Last week, we attended RightsCon, the annual convening of those working in the intersection of tech and human rights. The recommendations were timely, and the sentiments were pertinent to researchers and designers everywhere.

We want to outline themes that we found relevant to our work and highlight needs, tools, and frameworks that may prove to be useful. We use this to motivate the developments from our last publication and interrogate potential avenues forward, while paying heed to the special skillsets built from an expanded understanding of design thinking and human-centered design.

Background

In our last publication, we outlined:

1. the need for more than humans in human-centered research and design,

2. especially the need to recognize the power and influence of businesses,

3. how the inclusion of more than the human might require more than empathy,

4. existing alternatives in academia that push for ethical responsibility instead,

5. and the meaninglessness of such a venture in the face of The Business.

It is through this lens which we approached RightsCon. We were not alone, and we noticed these sentiments recurring across sessions.

Reflections from RightsCon

Many of the talks converged on several large ideas, needs, and pain points that fall within the scope of our work. We broadly group these sentiments into the following takeaways. There was a:

• recognition and dissatisfaction with the expanding power and influence of the private sector,

• and, in turn, grappling with insufficient traditional mechanisms of accountability for these actors.

Several camps ideated and offered pathways forward, such as:

• developing better mechanisms for accountability through external oversight,

  Existing mechanisms for holding the private sector accountable were deemed insufficient. There were many calls for the development of better regulating and governing bodies to offer external oversight to rein in the private sector’s expanding power.

  For instance, The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) were developed as a form of external oversight for businesses. Some experts cite that the “reality is that [this as well as other standards] are often seen as nice to have and not essential [for corporations.]” It is also worth noting that the UNGPs were published in 2011; tech moves fast, and the existing regulatory frameworks now seem largely outdated.
  
  There have been cases of regulating and governing bodies “holding” corporations accountable, but with increasing power and resources, what is a fine to a billion-dollar business? Businesses are essentially “circumventing” existing laws by simply paying the fee. The private sector, largely if not solely, prioritizes making money, at times breaking the law may be better for the bottom line than not. (See countless examples of this here, here, here, and here.)
  

• returning to and relying upon existing laws,

  These calls were often met with a desire to return to the “old guard” (putting the power in the hands of lawyers, government officials, and international bodies). Even if the mechanisms were outdated, they believed these agents would be key in reenvisioning better mechanisms for accountability. One group of speakers suggested that those outside these groups of agents should focus their efforts on tasks like documenting atrocities. This was predicated on the assumption that justice would eventually be restored and bad actors would be held responsible.
  

• and developing privatized technology to work in opposition to unjust practices.

  Through more business, private companies could develop ideas, products, and services that circumvent and disrupt the work of bad actors in the private sector. One example of this was Lantern’s Unbounded.

At the same time, determining who to hold accountable was not always so clear-cut, especially in the case of social media. Bad actors on social media are usually less powerful than businesses but can do considerable harm; the liability traditionally has not fallen on social media companies, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. At the same time, the use of regulatory frameworks was cautioned as it may stifle freedom of speech.

All of this work is inextricable from the matter of funding. With the pull of government funding in several countries, many organizations and activists were left questioning where and how to find sustainable funding sources.

Actionable Pathways for Researchers and Designers

With this understanding, presenters made calls and provided solutions for those working in tech. We have lifted the relevant calls to bring attention to improvements researchers and designers could make to their work and provide presented digital tools which may aid research and design to advance the public interest.

Researchers and designers may be wary of solutions driven by stakeholders. While they inform the process, solutioning too early can be troublesome, and the solutions may not be relevant to a broader group of stakeholders. We made very specific choices in what to include versus exclude from the list, and we offer these as areas in need of further discovery.

Needs + Pain Points

• Need for localization.

  Localization is the research and design process by which a product is regionally accessible. This impacts the look, feel, and navigation of a product, and most obviously, should manifest in translations and implementation of culturally- and regionally-specific terminology. To be clear, good design should always be localized.

  One speaker cited that the use of the terms “lesbian” and “gay” is more likely to be flagged and subjected to content moderation.¹

  Another example of such a practice lies in a lack of regionally sufficient content moderators.²

  It is worth noting that some oversights in localization may be a result of implicit bias. At the same time, what may appear to be a bug may in fact be a feature.
  

• Clarity around Terms of Service (ToS) and data collection.

  Agreeing to the Terms of Service and cookies is a one-time process that disincentives understanding and deliberate consent.

  
  The document is often legally binding yet requires users to open it in another window or navigate away from the flow. Most people who work in tech know that this type of design disincentives viewing the terms. If a user does opt to read the terms, it is not made intelligible; it is written in legalese to protect the provider. This goes against deliberate consent, by definition.
  

  There is a simple binary imposed by the ToS, and if a user does not fully agree to them, they are unable to use the product or service. There is occasionally more flexibility with cookies, but occasionally, designers will employ dark patterns to confuse or complicate the user to advance business priorities.

  
  All of this assumes that one-time consent is perpetual; unless there is a change to the Terms of Service, we have not seen a website have a user review the ToS.

Tools + Frameworks

• Tactical Mapping. This is a really interesting tool, and we may do a longer publication (and audit) on it. It systemizes the research and design process for those advancing the public good. Users are prompted to identify a problem, and then, the tool aids them in constructing an actionable problem statement. The user inputs actors and draws out their relationships, much in line with the work we have been grappling with. The question is whether it drives out complexity in the design process and whether it is an effective tool.

  

  Screenshot courtesy of New Tactics’ Tactical Mapping Tool.

• NETMundial+10. Also likely deserving a longer post, NETMundial asserts that the “Internet is a global resource that should be managed in the public interest,” so they “adopted a broad set of substantive [adaptable] principles” and guidelines “for an open and inclusive multistakeholder process.”

Position of the Researcher and Designer

While MIdST LABS is not tied to a singular avenue for change (seeing perceived “weaker” frameworks as valuable and strong within specific contexts), we are sympathetic to the presented avenues; at the same time, there is a lot that individuals, researchers, and designers can do in the interim, aside from just waiting for regulations or developing rival businesses.

Documenting atrocities and a reliance on regulators and legal frameworks is important work but far-sighted. It relies on some belief that things have a natural tendency to get better, order is the natural state of the world, and justice will always be restored.

It is also difficult to meaningfully effect change through the development of a rival business without a sustainable form of funding and, in turn, limited resources for building teams to tackle these large challenges.

Neoliberalism seems to breed more neoliberalism, and outside of business, many simply call for a return to the status quo.

Researchers and designers may be particularly well poised for this work, and there is incremental work that can be done. Researchers and designers, through human-centered design thinking processes and beyond, know how to ask questions, bring in diverse opinions, and pay heed to nuance. They are often positioned within these businesses and may have opportunities within their power to affect change.

While researchers and designers may have the practical skills to affect change, it is the very nature of human-centered research design processes that is valuable. The heart of these processes lies in service towards those at the core—those affected—and the meaningful collective middle-ground solutions that bloom from the interplay of these actors. There is a real need to find meaningful and sustainable ways of organizing these collective opinions, needs, and pain points. As we have seen, whether through regulating bodies or business, historically, these collectives of shared opinions have been powerful agents of change, but we need researchers and designers to perhaps organize and build anew—research and design for research and design.

Cite this publication

APA

MIdST LABS. (2025, March 7). Reflections from RightsCon 2025. MIdST LABS. https://midstlabs.substack.com/reflections-from-rightscon-2025

Chicago

MIdST LABS. "Reflections from RightsCon 2025." MIdST LABS, March 7, 2025. https://midstlabs.substack.com/reflections-from-rightscon-2025

MLA

MIdST LABS. "Reflections from RightsCon 2025." MIdST LABS, 7 March 2025. https://midstlabs.substack.com/reflections-from-rightscon-2025

1. Pastor, A. R. (2024, Oct. 30). The Censorship of LGBTQ+ Content Online Corresponds with Declines in Freedom for Everyone. Tech Policy Press. https://www.techpolicy.press/the-censorship-of-lgbtq-content-online-corresponds-with-declines-in-freedom-for-everyone/

2. Simonite, T. (2021, Oct. 25). Facebook Is Everywhere; Its Moderation Is Nowhere Close. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-global-reach-exceeds-linguistic-grasp/

---

We invite you to share your insights and further develop these ideas, especially to meet your contextual needs; we value multiplicities, context, and nuance. Your feedback is a valuable part of this project, and we are excited to collaborate with you.

If you found this piece helpful, consider sharing it with a friend.