Algorithmic fairness research comes almost entirely out of North America and Western Europe, so we know little about how people elsewhere judge the algorithms they already rely on every day. We asked people in Bangladesh directly: a bilingual (Bangla and English) survey of 199 participants rated fairness across three everyday scenarios -- ride-sharing prices that shift with context, AI beauty filters that reshape appearance, and large language models that handle cultural values differently than a human would. Four patterns stood out. Context changes the verdict even when the outcome doesn't: a 20% price surge during a medical emergency feels less fair than the identical surge on a casual trip (2.00 vs. 2.17 on a 5-point scale, Wilcoxon p = .006), a small effect uneven across income groups (largest among middle-income participants). People already view surge pricing critically in general; context sharpens the judgment rather than creating it. Demand for transparency, consent, and real user control is close to universal: 85.7% to 90.3% of participants want these protections regardless of gender, income, or prior awareness of algorithmic bias. Beauty-filter harm tracks with self-image more than with social pressure people can easily name; feeling personally affected predicts reduced self-confidence tightly (R^2 = .30, p < .001), though the scale's direction is inferred from context rather than guaranteed by labeled anchors. And among participants who noticed specific instances of LLM cultural bias, many could not say why when asked to elaborate -- recognizing bias and being able to articulate it are different skills. Outcome-only fairness metrics would miss every one of these patterns.

翻译：暂无翻译