HCI in Africa is growing yet fragmented and underrepresented globally. We map 2002–2024 activity via a bibliometric scan of 500+ papers ( 300 venues) and an institutional survey in 11 countries, situating results by population, connectivity, and policy readiness, and including work outside HCI labels (e.g., NGOs, tech hubs). We find a post-2020 rise in Africa-led publications and sharper venue stratification: mainstream venues feature mixed teams, while local outlets host much Africa-centered work; teaching shows strong pockets amid capacity, resource, and curriculum constraints. We contribute (1) a continent-scale, context-aware map of authorship and venues; (2) design provocations beyond expansionist logics; and (3) actionable steps for reviewers, venues, and institutions, supported by an open corpus and interactive dashboard.

During the 2023–ongoing Gaza war, Palestinian advocacy on social media has faced rapid removals, downranking, and account sanctions. In this contribution, we offer a layered analysis of how people endure and counter this repression across affective, mechanistic, and material dimensions. Using patchwork ethnography over 295 first-person testimonies and 85 NGO/press documents, we identify a recursive Contest Loop: hostile mass-report brigades and automated enforcement that spur supporter “appeal brigades,” mirroring, and migration. Findings are organized as a three-layer ecology—Invisible Scars (whiplash, shadowbanning as probabilistic throttling, self-censorship), Dueling Brigades (frictions, coordinated reports, supporter procedures), and Feed-to-Street Ripples (fundraising, evidentiary preservation, livelihoods). Conceptually, we extend platform-assemblage thinking with a Resistance Assemblage: ad-hoc technical, emotional, and legal mutual-aid infrastructures that keep visibility alive under sanction. We contribute: (1) an event-centered, experience-near account of co-produced moderation in conflict; (2) two integrative lenses (Contest Loop, Resistance Assemblage); and (3) design/policy directions, including collective-appeal dashboards, and evidentiary safeguards that separate archiving from distribution.

Social media platforms have become a double-edged sword for human rights activism, simultaneously offering a stage and facilitating wide-reaching communication and connection, while also imposing censorship through stringent and opaque content governance. This study focuses on the over enforcement of content moderation on social media platforms, affecting activists who tried to engage online publics with issues of forced evictions and displacements in Sheikh Jarrah (SJ) and Silwan, in occupied East Jerusalem in May 2021 --- a critical juncture in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. By analyzing responses from a survey of 201 users who reported experiencing censorship, and interviews with 14 political influencers and activists, we uncover how these individuals navigate the intricate landscape of social media censorship. The findings reveal a continuum of different ways of responding to censorship, from self-censorship to proactive advocacy of policy change, that highlight the ingenuity activists can employ to bypass content restrictions. This research not only contributes to our understanding of the interaction between social media's technical affordances and activist responses but also discusses broader implications for the design and governance of digital platforms in supporting democratic discourse and human rights activism in conflict zones. This study enriches the ongoing dialogue about social media's dual role as both a facilitator and a controller of public discourse, emphasizing the need for platforms to consider the profound impacts of their technical and policy decisions on global activism.

How do privacy experts and lay persons differ? We investigate this question using data about the use of privacy-enhancing technologies and strategies from 128 surveys and 17 follow-up interviews with two populations: privacy experts (i.e., privacy researchers and professionals) and privacy laypersons. Findings reveal that both experts and laypersons use common privacy strategies, but experts employ a broader range of strategies, favor open source technologies, and possess a more technical understanding of internet privacy risks and technologies such as onion routing and tracking algorithms. We characterize these differences in terms of sociological habitus, where experts and laypersons differ not only in technical skill but also in broader conceptualizations and practices. From this characterization, we make recommendations for technology design practices, as well as legal and pedagogical implications, that can help decenter the experiences of privacy experts and accommodate privacy laypersons' preferences and habits.

Social media technologies have been empowering to some human rights activists, providing a platform for exercising free speech and mobilization. However, many activists have voiced concerns and shared experiences they understand as considerable censorship on these platforms, under the guise of content governance. In an effort to increase the understanding and transparency of content moderation practices during conflicts, this study investigates the perceived reasons for censorship as understood by activists and the explanations made visible to activists by social media platforms, if any were given. Our case study to examine these platforms-activists relations is the events which occurred in May 2021 in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, which was a significant moment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and garnered international attention. The over enforcement of content moderation faced by Palestinians and their allies during these events on social media raised concerns about freedom of speech and the role of technology in activism. Our study deepens understanding through findings from a survey of 201 social media users who reported potentially unfair moderation decisions, and from 12 interviews with political influencers to grasp the broader implications of content moderation on activism. The findings of this study indicate a substantial disparity between the official explanations made visible to the activists by the social media platforms, and the reasons as perceived by users. This has significant implications, both socially and for social media platforms -- as CSCW and Group work environments --- on activist groups and the potentialities of democratic discourse. This study serves as an important contribution to the debate on the role of social media content moderation in human rights activism, particularly in conflict zones.

We examine how a diverse global readership assigns trust to Wikipedia articles, and the strategies they use to assess Wikipedia’s credibility. Through surveys and interviews, we develop and refine a Wikipedia trust taxonomy that describes the mechanisms by which readers assess the credibility of Wikipedia articles. Our findings suggest that readers draw on direct experience, established online content credibility indicators, and their own mental models of Wikipedia’s editorial process in their credibility assessments. Our findings can help the development of general online information assessment frameworks and the design of open collaboration systems to support credibility evaluation and trust calibration.