Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 407 posts

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#71

Post by obmelvin »

eappleby wrote: post #64
bobthepanda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is excluded though. A woman can buy Men's Health ; a man can buy Cosmopolitan . What Facebook is doing is enabling straight up exclusion of genders from advertising, which is completely different in the eyes of the law.

What about recruiting from all-female schools like Barnard?

If you were to only recruit from single gender schools then I personally would have an issue with it, same as this issue. However, if you are recruiting from many universities and some happen to be single gender, that is not discriminating.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#73

Post by JamisonM »

pteredactyl wrote: post #55
ALittleLight wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

The law says that it is "sexist" (i.e. discrimination) to target advertising in a way that denies qualified women the opportunity to apply for a particular job.

In the end the net result of targeting only men is the same as refusing to hire women, it denies otherwise qualified women opportunities that they are deserving of.

That this has a cost is understood by those who wrote the law, they decided those costs are worth it.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#74

Post by kjeetgill »

golemotron wrote: post #66
twblalock wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook is a publisher? I thought it still operated user content under the DMCA safe harbors.

In AdTech lingo a publisher is the site on which the ad is displayed.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#75

Post by Gibbon1 »

gascan wrote: post #54
jonny_eh wrote: post #25

Earlier 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?

Old school newspapers would refuse to run ads that broke employment laws. And I've never heard of them bellyaching about policing that.

But Facebook is somehow how different? Why?

Oh right their business model doesn't work if they have to pay the costs associated with following government regulations.

I'm not feeling sympathetic.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#77

Post by Analemma_ »

mankash666 wrote: post #65

We need to stop treating Facebook or any digital infrastructure as culpable when it's users are the ones responsible. As far as Facebook's concerned, it's an advertiser picking a demographic. I bet they don't know what the ad is about! What next? Hold AT&T culpable for providing internet to these advertisers?

This law is nothing new to digital advertisers. The New York Times is also forbidden by law to advertise job or housing ads that discriminate against protected classes in its classifieds page, and this has been an uncontroversial state of affairs for decades. Facebook is being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#78

Post by gradys »

twblalock wrote: post #58
patcheudor wrote: post #5

Blaming 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.

Is the ad illegal or is the practice of hiring only men or only women illegal? What if there were separate men-oriented and women-oriented ad creatives that they wanted target to each group?

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#79

Post by notyourday »

wtvanhest wrote: post #33
maccio92 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Victoria's secret should be forced to advertise to men too?

You can segment product advertising, but not housing or jobs or any other categories where there are 'protected classes' (US)

I cannot wait until some enterprising man decides to apply to be a VS angel. It would be so glorious.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#80

Post by kristjansson »

twblalock wrote: post #61
Meph504 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concept of law enforcement is a really slippery slope, trying to force companies to stop people from breaking the law, is a serious shift in the concept of freedom. prohibit acts are allowed, and they are dealt with by punishing the wrong doers. Turning a company's automated system into a judge of legal and illegal action just seems like a bad idea in the long run. Though, it is seemingly a growing trend, I don'…

Facebook is not being asked to enforce the law. It is being asked to stop doing illegal things.

The point of the parent is that it’s being asked to prevent/impede its customers from doing illegal things. That’s not a ridiculous thing to ask, but it’s very different from Facebook itself engaging in illegal activity.
Post reply on HN