51–60 of 156 posts
I hate ads, and I hate Facebook and all its products, but this just sounds like a bunch of people who misunderstand what ads are for and want equality for the sake of equality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not owed either job. Getting a high-paying "boy job" is your own responsibility if you want one.
Who said anyone was owed a job? The problem is that hiding listings from people based on their gender obviously impacts who gets what jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why you think this?
Not op, but if I was paying for ads on a platform, I want to make the best use of my money, and target users that may more likely react positively. If this means that ads looking for mechanics are more likely to be seen by men, so be it, why should I show them to somebody not interested ? Unless somebody says explicitly "no women", there is no discrimination in my opinion.
At some point, we have to face the fact that there are two kinds of freedom: The freedom TO something-or-other, and the freedom FROM something-or-other. And the two are often in tension, requiring actual judgment calls and weighing of values, because there is no one perfectly crafted set of objective rules to sort that mess out.
Some people care about the freedom from algorithms not showing them ads for jobs they are qualified to do and pay better, but the companies would prefer the freedom TO primarily hire whomever they please and advertise to whomever they please. Those two freedoms are in tension.
If the freedom from gender discrimination in the marketplace freedom doesn't matter to you, or matters les than the freedom for someone else TO advertise only to men, well, I can see that you are consistent in your beliefs of things I deeply disagree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The algorithm is responding to people's revealed preferences in what job ads they want to see
All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
Policies like that are based on results of psychological research such as "stereotype threat", which has recently fallen victim to the reproducibility crisis.
In other words, the entire social engineering structure of such laws may be a house built on sand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The algorithm is responding to people's revealed preferences in what job ads they want to see
All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
The onus needs to be on convincingly demonstrating the alleged systemic harm. Until then, "revealed preference" seems more appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why you think this?
The algorithm is responding to people's revealed preferences in what job ads they want to see
So it's not an individual's revealed preferences, it's a group's revealed preferences. And that's where the discrimination comes in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why you think this?
Not op, but if I was paying for ads on a platform, I want to make the best use of my money, and target users that may more likely react positively. If this means that ads looking for mechanics are more likely to be seen by men, so be it, why should I show them to somebody not interested ? Unless somebody says explicitly "no women", there is no discrimination in my opinion.
Because interaction goes both ways. A big influencer on women not being interested could be a societal expectation that is not a job for them, which you’re unknowingly reinforcing.
This is particularly important when it’s not “mechanic jobs” but “senior jobs” for example. Only male workers being “proposed” leadership positions over time leads to a statistically significant imbalance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
again, these are ads . not job postings, job ads . it's not "harmful" to enable advertisers to choose which audiences to target.
But it was posted, and apparently that's what matters. So the ads that signpost you to the posting that only [people with special glasses] can see are just peachy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why you think this?
Not op, but if I was paying for ads on a platform, I want to make the best use of my money, and target users that may more likely react positively. If this means that ads looking for mechanics are more likely to be seen by men, so be it, why should I show them to somebody not interested ? Unless somebody says explicitly "no women", there is no discrimination in my opinion.
You have however written a thing here that’s fine - it’s totally fine if your advert is seen more by men. But what you want, and what we as a society generally want, is for those ads to be shown to likely candidates regardless of gender. Given two equally qualified people, do you want your ads to only be shown to one of them, because the other is a woman? I assume not because you want to hire th best person not the best man.
The issue isn’t that the ads are shown to more men because they target things like “has said they have worked as a mechanic and are looking for a job” and that happens to be more for men, the accusations is that Facebook is specifically using your gender to determine what job adverts to show you.