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

Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 487 posts

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#51

Post by GhettoMaestro »

eloff wrote: post #35

Nothing good can come from sticking my neck out on this, but: If I were paying for advertising for a software engineering position I'd get much better ROI by excluding women and older demographics simply because they're much less likely to be suitable for the job, statistically speaking, when we're talking about the wider population in general and not just software engineers. Not because they're less capable, but bec…

> I shouldn't have the government mandating that I can't tune my advertising campaign for ROI, which is basically the only point of running one if the first place.

Then find another country.... dipshit. In the United States this is illegal. I would say "sorry", but I am not. If you really hold this view, kill yourself.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#52

Post by zaroth »

nkrisc wrote: post #32
air7 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, its a bit of a nitpick and misses the point GP made.

No. If you place an ad on Facebook for housing and choose to exclude people who identify as "black", there's no way for those people to find your ad, save for creating a new Facebook account and pretending to be white. Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of Ebony magazine. It's targeted, but it's not exclusive.

Is it really any better to make people choose just really good proxies for their intended audience which theoretically anyone could be a member of but in practice is not that way?

And if this isn’t really any better, where does that leave you?

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#53

Post by dangus »

conanbatt wrote: post #45
dangus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. An analogy to your justification: the most cost efficient thing to do with hazardous chemicals is to dump them down the drain.

> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. It's literally the perfect reason to do discrimination. It is just like discriminating for having work experience, education, demonstrably market skills, etc.

You should read the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. None of the things you listed are examples of discrimination in the context of civil rights. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

Perhaps I should also remind you that this isn’t 4chan.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#54

Post by blitmap »

dangus wrote: post #37
eloff wrote: post #35

Nothing good can come from sticking my neck out on this, but: If I were paying for advertising for a software engineering position I'd get much better ROI by excluding women and older demographics simply because they're much less likely to be suitable for the job, statistically speaking, when we're talking about the wider population in general and not just software engineers. Not because they're less capable, but bec…

“It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. An analogy to your justification: the most cost efficient thing to do with hazardous chemicals is to dump them down the drain.

I think the parent comment's logic is sound from a financial point of view, but you do a wonderful job of reframing it to bring it back to an equal rights point of view. Women and older workers have just as much right to the same advertised opportunities as others. Sticking a job ad in the mens restroom or within an age-restricted night club when you're looking for accountants seems misguided, but it's easy to see how that wasn't considered.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#55

Post by conanbatt »

dangus wrote: post #53
conanbatt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. It's literally the perfect reason to do discrimination. It is just like discriminating for having work experience, education, demonstrably market skills, etc.

You should read the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. None of the things you listed are examples of discrimination in the context of civil rights. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Perhaps I should also remind you that this isn’t 4chan.

You are using the legal definition of discrimination, and I am using the economics definition of discrimination.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#56

Post by sturgill »

nkrisc wrote: post #32
air7 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While true, its a bit of a nitpick and misses the point GP made.

No. If you place an ad on Facebook for housing and choose to exclude people who identify as "black", there's no way for those people to find your ad, save for creating a new Facebook account and pretending to be white. Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of Ebony magazine. It's targeted, but it's not exclusive.

But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people? I honestly don’t know where I come down on this issue: it feels different to say, “we have a better ROI if we exclude certain demographics from seeing our ads” than to say “black people can’t eat at this diner.”

Let’s take a company like REI: is it wrong for them to put their stores in places that are most profitable? Should luxury good companies be required to have store fronts in inner cities?

I’m legitimately not sure I’m comfortable with either answer. “Women / older people are unlikely to respond to this ad; so we’ll have a better ROI by excluding those groups” feels awkward but like a legitimate business interest. If I sell male hygiene products can I exclude women from seeing the ads, not because I don’t like women but because the ad is less likely to be relevant?

“I don’t want to work with women or older people so I’ll not show them the ad” feels unquestionably wrong.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#58

Post by nkrisc »

zaroth wrote: post #52
nkrisc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If you place an ad on Facebook for housing and choose to exclude people who identify as "black", there's no way for those people to find your ad, save for creating a new Facebook account and pretending to be white. Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of Ebony magazine. It's targeted, but it's not exclusive.

Is it really any better to make people choose just really good proxies for their intended audience which theoretically anyone could be a member of but in practice is not that way? And if this isn’t really any better, where does that leave you?

Where else would you draw the line? I don't think what I described is a real problem in practice. Housing and jobs are often advertised in rather neutral publications, not special interest ones. But what Facebook enables goes beyond targeting based on interest, it's explicitly exclusionary.

If your local newspaper could print a special edition for minority subscribers that didn't include job listings, that would be a problem. Advertising in a special interest publication is not, on its own, a problem. Of course there's no clear lines in reality, everything must be evaluated in context.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#59

Post by aianus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
dangus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. An analogy to your justification: the most cost efficient thing to do with hazardous chemicals is to dump them down the drain.

> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. Moreover, it's not, in general, a legal reason in the US to discriminate where a protected class is involved, including, in employment, age over 40 or gender.

Why is it legal to charge men more for car insurance? It’s definitely more profitable that way, but maybe so is the targeting in the article.

Re: Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers from Seeing Job Ads

#60

Post by dangus »

aianus wrote: post #59
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. Moreover, it's not, in general, a legal reason in the US to discriminate where a protected class is involved, including, in employment, age over 40 or gender.

Why is it legal to charge men more for car insurance? It’s definitely more profitable that way, but maybe so is the targeting in the article.

Because it’s not covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
Post reply on HN