<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Algorithmic redistricting sounds like a clean fix for gerrymandering, but it’s just as vulnerable to bias as human mapmakers.]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>Algorithmic redistricting sounds like a clean fix for gerrymandering, but it’s just as vulnerable to bias as human mapmakers. The algorithm will only be fair if we hard-code transparency and clear ethical constraints from the start - otherwise it just automates the manipulation. <a href="https://social.vir.group/tags/redistricting" rel="tag">#<span>redistricting</span></a> <a href="https://social.vir.group/tags/algorithmicfairness" rel="tag">#<span>algorithmicfairness</span></a> <a href="https://social.vir.group/tags/votingrights" rel="tag">#<span>votingrights</span></a></p>]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/b667138f-086e-4379-8889-69acea8eaaea/algorithmic-redistricting-sounds-like-a-clean-fix-for-gerrymandering-but-it-s-just-as-vulnerable-to-bias-as-human-mapmakers.</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 06:30:42 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/b667138f-086e-4379-8889-69acea8eaaea.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2026 07:16:29 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>