Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, because some jobs are legitimately only available to people a certain gender and so facebook would still need to make a judgement call.
???? like what?
Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
51–60 of 407 posts
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#52Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I see both sides of the argument, as long as the advertiser pays per view, it seems wrong to require the listing to target demographics that are almost certainly uninterested. Your example of listing a job in Men's Health but not Cosmopolitan seems good. Technically not a perfect analogue as a woman always could buy Men's Health, but in practice very similar. Spinning off into a different angle, what if an adve…
It seems wrong to allow companies to escape legal rules by choosing to advertise in ways that have badly-fitting payment model. The multiple ads question is interesting though, and might very well be a valid defense, since they then are advertising to both.
Yes, I was thinking about that as I wrote, one imperfect but possible fix would be "no pay per view for job listings". Which, for all I know, could already be the case.
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#54Blaming Facebook muddies the water a bit. Ultimately the companies advertising on Facebook broke the law when they checked the wrong boxes. Facebook should; however, make that information public knowledge by allowing the public to see the advertising parameters of any given ad if they are curious but to my knowledge, no law requires it. Maybe it's time to start having a conversation about the need advertising transpa…
Facebook should make it much harder to use their product illegally. They can hide protected demographic filters when ads are of a protected nature, like jobs or housing.
Are you suggesting Facebook do that helpfully to aide their customers in avoiding mishaps? Or are you prescribing this be government ordained & required?
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#55I don't understand the problem. The flipside would be they're letting Job Advertisers only target women. I wonder what those numbers look like: What percentage of job advertisers only target women? If I'm spending ad dollars, why would I not choose the most effective form of advertising for me? That's not to say they're not hiring women. In which case it'd be more dubious. Last week in the Bay Area I heard a TSA radi…
It's interesting to think about. If I'm looking for someone to ride on a garbage truck, there's probably a 95% chance the future employee will be male, but acting on this expectation, by advertising to men instead of women - getting more employees per dollar spent, is sexist. Likewise, if I needed to hire an au pair I'd have to advertise to men and women equally?
I don't think it's sexist to target men for a job posting.
You know the job, you know what it entails and you know what works behaviorally and physically. There are differences between genders. That's okay.
I do think it's sexist to not hire a qualified women for the job because she's a women ( esp. in the garbage collector scenario). Like you hate women or something and you don't hire them ( funny story I heard a women on the sidewalk casually say she hated men. Never heard a man say that... ) The same for the flipside.
I do think it's a sexist double standard to say it's not okay to target men for a job and not mention anything about the flipside: it's okay to only target women.
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#56Another angle on the issue: If some company is doing something that is suboptimal (such as excluding a viable gender employee group) they will eventually be priced out of the market by competitors (because their inefficiencies will remove their competitiveness). I wonder how many of these things we should legislate against the "bad guy" vs. just ensure the proliferation/competitiveness of the "Good guys"?
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#57I'm a bit mixed about this; it is clearly discriminatory to publish a job ad that says "women need not apply", but it doesn't feel inherently discriminatory to advertise a job in, say, "Men's Health" but not "Cosmopolitan" magazine. Or to advertise on a particular television channel or program (whose viewers may not match the population at large). That's just how advertising works. Is that crazy? Would this be differ…
Under the law it would different, none of your examples are protected classes, discrimination in employment is only illegal if the targeted/excluded group is a protected class, those being: men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.
The company I work for, for example, does not hire smokers (and makes this clear during hiring and makes the specifics part of our contracts), and this is perfectly legal. But it would be illegal to not hire anyone based on being in, or not being in, one of those specific protected classes.
Now, if they were being used as proxies for those classes, then yes it would be illegal, but it would be up to a court to determine if that was the case. If I ran a company that made action movies "Must love action movies" being a basis for my hiring decisions is obviously not intended as a proxy for a protected class and would be legal. If my company makes printer paper, then I'm on shaky legal ground.
That being said, I'm not sure if there are actually laws making it illegal to publish discriminatory job ads for someone, but Facebook assisting in illegal and discriminatory actions is an issue regardless of if their part is specifically illegal or not.
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#58Blaming Facebook muddies the water a bit. Ultimately the companies advertising on Facebook broke the law when they checked the wrong boxes. Facebook should; however, make that information public knowledge by allowing the public to see the advertising parameters of any given ad if they are curious but to my knowledge, no law requires it. Maybe it's time to start having a conversation about the need advertising transpa…
Facebook publishes the ads. If someone asks Facebook to publish an illegal ad (or to do anything else that's illegal), Facebook should refuse.
If you do something illegal because your users asked you to, it's still illegal.
The article is pretty clear that publishing the ads is illegal.
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can advertise to only one sex. The problem is they advertised a job ad.
Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room. Also some recruiter are explicitely trying to correct a gender imbalance and are therefore actively seeking female candidates. Does that become unethical to advertise to women?
> Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room.
Um, the cleaner is usually coming in when the locker room is empty so sex doesn't matter.
Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook should make it much harder to use their product illegally. They can hide protected demographic filters when ads are of a protected nature, like jobs or housing.
Are you suggesting Facebook do that helpfully to aide their customers in avoiding mishaps? Or are you prescribing this be government ordained & required?
It can be simpler than that. The government has already ordained and required the laws. If Facebook publishes an illegal ad, the government should enforce those laws and punish Facebook.
It's up to Facebook to take whatever internal steps they deem necessary to prevent that from happening. The government doesn't need to decide what steps need to be taken -- it only needs to care about the outcome.