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

211–220 of 487 posts

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

#211

Post by gridlockd »

WomanCanCode wrote: post #176
manigandham wrote: post #106

The simple question is: Does everyone have an equal opportunity to this position or not? If you can't even see the ads then the answer is no, and so it's a violation. If there were different ads for different groups but everyone still had the opportunity to see, apply and acquire the position then it's fair game. Perhaps Facebook could improve job ads to allow for more specific targeting but always have a fallback ad…

I agree. As a female software developer, I would like to see those ads so I can get better jobs. If I don't even see the ads, then I would not even know about opportunity. Without opportunity, I cannot really progress. If only men see the ads, apply jobs and get interviews, then the employers may think that they shouldn't advertise to women. This is just circular thinking.

If the employer targeted the ad to exclude you based on some criteria, you don't actually have the opportunity, whether you see the ad or not. If anything, you'd be wasting your time applying for a job that you didn't know excluded you.

If the employer targeted the ad just to save money by advertising to a demographic that is more likely to be responsive, that's a different story. Then you might as well argue that you are denied opportunity when, instead of some job ad, you are shown an ad for Coca Cola because you "liked" Coca-Cola at some point.

You're not really entitled to see job ads at all, if you look for a job, you can reasonably be expected to find the ads yourself instead of waiting for them to show up randomly.

Lastly, it's usually garbage jobs that need to be advertised to people who aren't even actively looking. What if that "opportunity" turned out to be exploitation? Would you then fault Facebook for displaying you the ad?

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

#212

Post by dschuetz »

aussieguy1234 wrote: post #191

Not just Facebook, but any targeted advertising platform that can target based on demographic could do this. Its not the first example of unethical behaviour using this technology. Alcohol gets targeted to Alcholics, Gambling gets targets to problem gamblers. Targeted advertising for certain purposes should be illegal, including employment ads, alcohol ads, gambing ads and any kind of political ad. There's just too m…

Especially predatory credit and lending ads.

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

#213

Post by dschuetz »

erichocean wrote: post #203
aussieguy1234 wrote: post #191

Not just Facebook, but any targeted advertising platform that can target based on demographic could do this. Its not the first example of unethical behaviour using this technology. Alcohol gets targeted to Alcholics, Gambling gets targets to problem gamblers. Targeted advertising for certain purposes should be illegal, including employment ads, alcohol ads, gambing ads and any kind of political ad. There's just too m…

Or we could outright ban advertising everywhere, for any reason, full stop.

Well. That's not as easy as you think. Most companies believe that without ads they'd lose to competition.

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

#214

Post by shkkmo »

gnicholas wrote: post #139
throwawayjava wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I was asking what the requisite intent is. Is it The intent to knowingly discriminate, intent to do the thing that is discriminatory (a lesser standard), or merely a disparate impact (which does not require any particular state of mind)? Edited for clarity

Disparate impact (without valid justification) and discriminatory intent are both illegal.

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

#215

Post by tasogare »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #172
formercoder wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it biased in a bad way? It’s really hard to measure someone’s ability to do a job, especially for a more senior role. Therefore, I feel comfortable hiring people recommended to me by others that I trust.

Because white men that dominate those jobs already typically know white men to recommend for those jobs.

Super racist comment. Just replace white men by black men or jew and you will see how this line of thinking is dangerous.

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

#216

Post by conanbatt »

chii wrote: post #63
conanbatt wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

and the courts only care about the legal definition.

The courts only care about what they know

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

#217

Post by gleenn »

macintux wrote: post #181
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because white men that dominate those jobs already typically know white men to recommend for those jobs.

Director of engineering at a former employer once said in the span of 30 seconds: “we’re trying to hire more diversity” and “please reach out to your social network”. To an audience of 98% white males. The director acknowledged the incongruity, thankfully, but never solved the problem.

I think you're assuming white males don't know how to suggest females and non-whites. We may be statistically more likely to hang out with other white males but I'm pretty sure I can suggest people besides them.

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

#218

Post by shkkmo »

big_chungus wrote: post #192
kjs3 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quit conflating the issue. The poster you're defending (and, frankly, the whole argument) was trying to make the point that "targeted ads", as a category and devoid of context, was a good thing because you reach the target you want to reach. Fair enough. But if it's an employment ad, and you only want to reach upper class white males, well, that's discrimination. Period. If your "principles" enable that, well there y…

Conflating the issue with what? Let's take the flip side. Pretend I am one of the many companies which have adopted discriminatory hiring practices in favor of certain minorities. I want to hire more of said minorities. I target facebook ads towards them. Is that any better or worse? As far as I'm concerned, they are the same; but many people I know would say that's fine.

> Pretend I am one of the many companies which have adopted discriminatory hiring practices in favor of certain minorities. I want to hire more of said minorities.

Yup, that is illegal. Discriminating based on protected classes is illegal, regardless of which groups within that class you are discriminating for/against.

>> For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic. [0]

[0] https://www.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/

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

#219

Post by conanbatt »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #62
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.

We have decided as nations and societies that some forms of economic discrimination are too damaging to permit. The details vary, but typically the things we can't easily change: race, nationality, age etc. Such discrimination is generally outlawed. Someone lacking relevant market skills or education etc can go out and fix that.

> The details vary, but typically the things we can't easily change: race, nationality, age etc. Such discrimination is generally outlawed.

Also generally perpretrated, by the same body that bans it.

A great beauty about human beings is that they have a natural tendency to find what is best for them and their communities in spite of legalities that attempt to distort reality.

In any case, what you are ascribing as unlawful discrimination is absolutely lawful and you would be naive to believe that there were castings for white asian geriatric women for the role of Black Panther to abide a law about the positively-discriminated groups you mention.

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

#220

Post by greggman2 »

erichocean wrote: post #203
aussieguy1234 wrote: post #191

Not just Facebook, but any targeted advertising platform that can target based on demographic could do this. Its not the first example of unethical behaviour using this technology. Alcohol gets targeted to Alcholics, Gambling gets targets to problem gamblers. Targeted advertising for certain purposes should be illegal, including employment ads, alcohol ads, gambing ads and any kind of political ad. There's just too m…

Or we could outright ban advertising everywhere, for any reason, full stop.

Interesting. You just advertised an idea. That should be banned?
Post reply on HN