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

181–190 of 407 posts

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#181

Post by Endy »

King-Aaron wrote: post #175

So the argument, as I see it here, is that companies should be forced to spend additional resources advertising to demographics that they have identified as not strong leads in their campaigns, so that overly virtuous people can feel happy about them spending money on something that likely won't concern them in the slightest. Righto. If the article's title was "Facebook is letting job advertisers target only women" o…

It has nothing to do with virtue, it's a matter of Facebook and its advertisers violating the written law. EEOC exists due to law, and all employers are required to abide by it. If you violate equal opportunity employment by discriminating for any one of a number of protected classes, you are acting unlawfully. Facebook should not be so openly allowed to violate the law, and for doing so, the individuals in the corporation as well as the corp itself should be charged with their crimes and assessed fines.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#182

Post by rspeer »

sgift wrote: post #163
jokoon wrote: post #162

Politics, statistics and stereotypes have a reality. Sometimes you don't want to be politically correct, and you go along with what things actually are, what people want and what is already working. A company is not there to solve stereotypes. Just look at the proportion of women who can read code, or are actually interested in dealing with code. That's an issue. Same thing goes for people who do construction work, m…

> A company is not there to solve stereotypes. That ties into the question if companies should have a responsibility to society or just be a vehicle to make money. Opinions differ on this. (Legality is another topic, but for the sake of this thread I propose to assume that this behavior is legal)

For the sake of the thread, you could read the article or have some awareness of the topic instead of assuming.

> “The ads themselves are illegal,” Galen Sherwin, an ACLU lawyer, said. “It’s been established for five decades.”

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#183

Post by pasquinelli »

jokoon wrote: post #162

Politics, statistics and stereotypes have a reality. Sometimes you don't want to be politically correct, and you go along with what things actually are, what people want and what is already working. A company is not there to solve stereotypes. Just look at the proportion of women who can read code, or are actually interested in dealing with code. That's an issue. Same thing goes for people who do construction work, m…

"Sometimes you don't want to be politically correct, and you go along with what things actually are, what people want and what is already working. A company is not there to solve stereotypes."

And sometimes you'll only trust a man for the job for no good reason.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#184

Post by PeterisP »

sgift wrote: post #163
jokoon wrote: post #162

Politics, statistics and stereotypes have a reality. Sometimes you don't want to be politically correct, and you go along with what things actually are, what people want and what is already working. A company is not there to solve stereotypes. Just look at the proportion of women who can read code, or are actually interested in dealing with code. That's an issue. Same thing goes for people who do construction work, m…

> A company is not there to solve stereotypes. That ties into the question if companies should have a responsibility to society or just be a vehicle to make money. Opinions differ on this. (Legality is another topic, but for the sake of this thread I propose to assume that this behavior is legal)

"for the sake of this thread I propose to assume that this behavior is legal" - it's not, in USA it's illegal to discriminate genders and some other groups in certain types of advertising (jobs and IIRC housing).

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#185

Post by Endy »

Double_a_92 wrote: post #152
patmcc wrote: post #7

I'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…

What if they would advertise in a tech journal? Most readers are still probably male... But the journal is related to the job. Would that be discriminatory?

No, because the point is that "most readers" are male. The advertisement should be unisex. If a woman picks up that journal - whether just looking for want ads or because they are legitimately interested in the topic - they should be considered with complete equity to any male candidate. The point isn't where you advertise, it's if you target. You can target by geography. You can target by education. You can't target by sex.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#186

Post by hazbo »

I came across this tweet[0] the other day and in the replies there seemed to be many discussions sparked around the legalities of advertising / hiring based on immutable traits. From what I could gather (not a lawyer) based on what laws people were citing, is that it's "okay" to advertise in this manor, however it is not legal to actually make the hire taking into account these traits.

In the case of this tweet, I'm not sure how I feel about this, as it's clear what their goal is:

> empower and train black Computer Science students to land their first job

which seems fine. However this goal can't be achieved if a white person ends up being hired. So does the ad imply that they will only hire a black computer science student? It seems like a bit of a grey area to me.

And while I understand the article linked is about targeting only men for jobs and not for people of colour, they are similar on the basis that it is traits we have no control over.

One other point I'd like to make here, is that IF people see this as Facebook "allowing" to filter by immutable traits, in this case Twitter is essentially doing the same, by allowing these kinds of posts.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.

[0]: https://twitter.com/ryancarson/status/1039624079060267008

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#187

Post by stale2002 »

twblalock wrote: post #81
kristjansson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Facebook itself is engaging in illegal activity by publishing those ads! It is against the law to do that. If you commit a crime because somebody else asked you to do it, does that mean you didn’t break the law? If Facebook commits a crime because someone asked them to do it, does that mean they didn’t break the law? How could the answers to those two questions be different?

> If you commit a crime because somebody else asked you to do it, does that mean you didn’t break the law?

In many cases, the answer is no, you did not break the law.

The best example I have of this is DMCA, and copywrite law. It is perfectly legal for youtube to allow users to upload content that they don't have the rights to, as long as they follow the DMCA takedown process if requested.

Or to give another example, think about your phone lines. I am sure that many users engage in illegal behavior over the phone. But it is not the job of the phone company to listen in on your phone calls, to ensure that you are, I don't know, engaging in harassment or some other illegal phone activity.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#188

Post by d--b »

People here need to be reminded that a job ad is not the same as a product ad. A job is what you do with your life, not some stuff you may want to buy.

Society tells you: you should get a career and climb up the social ladder. Don't worry, every one has the same chances. But then the same society goes around your back and only tells your male friends that there may be an opportunity here or there? wtf?

If I was a female developer, or a male nurse, I'd be fucking furious to know that this was happening.

There are definitely some jobs that require the person to be male or female, or white, or jewish, or old, whatever. But that's not the norm. Whether or not it is a Facebook duty to remove the box is debatable, but if you are a recruiter and you tick the male box, you're clearly open to lawsuits.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#189

Post by mynewtb »

bobthepanda wrote: post #21
patmcc wrote: post #7

I'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…

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.

I would love to be excluded from advertisements! Love, with an exclamation mark and sprinkles on top.

How is this not seen as a good thing, not to be subjected to mind manipulation?

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#190

Post by Endy »

vorticalbox wrote: post #137

I don't think this article have gain as much traction if the title read "Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Women"

I sincerely hope you are wrong, even if I understand your point. On the other hand, the case would still be just as open-and-shut. Violating both the law and EEOC regulation doesn't matter if you're doing it for one side or the other. Unless you can prove that sex is a BFOQ, you are not allowed to recruit or advertise in a way that weights the job on one side of the scale or the other.
Post reply on HN