Live data from Hacker News

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

propublica.org

121–130 of 487 posts

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

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I think your logic is flawed. What you are not taking into account is that when you advertise, you ask…

...And another thing! Let's say a lot of people in software agree with you. I think they're wrong, but that doesn't matter. Here's the thing: When we analyze hiring, we often act like it's some kind of two-person game: You place ads, interview people, select the best person, make them an offer, and boom, you're done. But it isn't a two-person game. It's a market, and you're actually competing with all the other hirin…

> But it isn't a two-person game. It's a market, and you're actually competing with all the other hiring companies

There's another related point here too: women and other people who form smaller groups in some context talk to each other. Have openly shitty approach to them - it will be known. Treat them with respect - you'll get recommendations in that employee market.

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the user did ask why it's legal, I think it's clear that the question is "why is it /ethical/ to discriminate in this case and not that?". Saying that Law X exists answers the literal question, but not the implied actual question.

But no one said it is was ethical in the case where it is legal, so if that was the intended question, not only is it phrased wrong but it starts from an unsupported premise, to wit, that people in the discussion believe that one is ethical and the other not.

If someone asks why something is legal, the answer they are looking for is never “because the laws allow it”.

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

#123

Could these legal arguments be extended to lookalike audiences that are built off of email lists that have a gender imbalance? That is, imagine I go to a university to recruit, and I talk with 200 male students and 10 female students. I then take their email addresses and make a lookalike audience to advertise my jobs to. Could that be challenged on the grounds that I am trying to advertise to male students? What if…

The ad must have discriminatory intent [1]. So if you're selecting candidates with a black box ML model and you didn't explicitly include racial/gender preferences...

But "the algorithm was sexist, not me" is probably going to be a losing argument in any court case.

[1] Well, not entirely, but that's another can of worms.

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

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but you don't control if a man or an old person can buy the magazine or not.

Serious question: How is that relevant though? Here is how I think about it: If my intention is to discriminate against men and publish an ad in a female magazine, sure, I cant control if a man buys and sees the ad or not. But discrimination was my intention to begin with regardless of how effective my efforts were. Besides, those efforts will be pretty effective. Instead of magazine advertising being 100% effective…

If it were common for, say, nursing positions to be advertised in Cosmo, then presumably male nurses looking for work would know this and be able to buy that magazine.

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

#125
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and yet, by having a profile of the user, it is quite possible to "easily" find proxies for the above traits, and target those proxies instead, and thus dodge the legality issue. For example, using income.

Does that really dodge the legal issue? I thought it had been shown that using proxies to discriminate is still illegal if the intention was to discriminate against a protected class.

It dodges the legal issue if you're very careful with your paper trail and get a sympathetic jury.

You won't get a sympathetic jury. People don't have a lot of empathy for algorithms. Maybe empathy for the people who write them, and then only maybe. But you'll be up against a huge slate of expert witnesses explaining how we already have lots of open sourced methods for teasing out these sorts of indirect indicators.

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

#126
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…

If we examine Fair Credit and Reporting Act (FCRA), we see that it is not ok to discriminate against protected groups like race even if that means you're taking on more financial risk. Let's assume the data indicates that certain minorities are much more likely to default on a loan. You still cannot use their race to deny them a loan.

The reason is that it would perpetuate inequality. Given that minorities were systemically discriminated against previously by red lining by the federal government and could not get a federally backed mortgage in for decades (which resulted in Urban ghettos, white flight, etc). And given that those injustices have not been properly corrected, discriminating based upon race must be forbidden in the credit markets.

But you can discriminate using other variables. For example, you can discriminate based on education, income, credit history, credit score, etc. And some of those variables might correlate heavily with race.

In that scenario, you can use FCRA compliant variables even if they correlate with race as those variables are (a) cleared by the government, (b) derived from actual facts about the individual (as opposed to predictions). Otherwise, if you in your underwriting machine learning model accidentally find a proxy variable for race that isn't an FCRA compliant variable, your compliance department will require you to not use that proxy variable in your underwriting model.

Your argument "I'm taking on an extra financial burden" doesn't excuse you from ensuring fair access to credit. That's akin to saying "the cost of being handicap accessible is unfair to my business as it costs us money so I don't want to do it". We have made certain rules to ensure people have a fair shot in life and those inherently cause an increased cost to businesses.

Now, there is actually more nuance to this. For example, if you provide a credit product but you only make that product available in certain zipcodes, you could actually run afoul of fair credit laws if the zipcodes you include versus exclude are heavily correlated with race. However, if you are a very small business and don't have the resources to provide your services in all markets / zipcodes, then you likely would be ok simply because having to provide your services in the many places might be an undue burden on the business. However, as you grow and become more financially stable, you would/night need to fix that.

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

#127
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…

This is why I bemoan the current form of identity politics because it allows an out. "I don't hate women, it's just disadvantageous to me to hire them," or, "I don't hate black people, I just won't rent to them because they statistically commit more crimes." And without an iota of malice in anyone's heart, relevant actors can reproduce the same exact disparities that perpetuate inequality. This is called systemic dis…

> This is why I bemoan the current form of identity politics because it allows an out. "I don't hate women, it's just disadvantageous to me to hire them," or, "I don't hate black people, I just won't rent to them because they statistically commit more crimes."

That's direct discrimination, and I don't see how “the current form of identity politics” supposedly creates an “out” for it. Please elaborate.

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Targeted ads for some things, like jobs or housing, are considered discrimination. Ads for most products can be targeted.

What is the difference between those classes of goods? What non-arbitrary rule should we use as a society to determine if a product/service can be targeted or not? Seems to me that every time this subject comes up, an arbitrary list of things are considered protected by whoever is making that point.

> What non-arbitrary rule should we use as a society to determine if a product/service can be targeted or not?

Actual past experience with specific, widespread, and demonstrably harmful discriminatory practices.

Widespread discrimination in housing during the 20th century -- and the negative effects that had on certain communities -- resulted in laws prohibiting discrimination in housing ads.

Widespread discrimination in employment during the 20th century -- and the negative effects that had on certain communities -- resulted in laws prohibiting discrimination in employment ads.

BTW, these categories also make sense. Housing (i.e., schooling) and employment have a huge impact on your life outcomes in the USA. Choice of hair product, not so much.

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

#130
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between those classes of goods? What non-arbitrary rule should we use as a society to determine if a product/service can be targeted or not? Seems to me that every time this subject comes up, an arbitrary list of things are considered protected by whoever is making that point.

These aren't arbitrary judgment calls. There are laws. And sure, the existence of those laws might be arbitrary. But the laws themselves are specific.

Except the existence of laws against racial/age discrimination in housing and employment are not arbitrary. Those laws were passed in response to actual and widespread discriminatory behavior in the mid 20th century.
Post reply on HN