81–90 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How far are you willing to stretch this? What about skin color? Nationality? Religion?
So if I advertise my golfing equipment only in golf clubs, and golf clubs happen to be predominantly visited by old white men, am I discriminating against the young, against women, and against people of color?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
If a company gets 0% response from a certain group, why should they have to pay for ads, when the likelihood they will find a candidate is next to nothing? This also only ever goes in one direction. A friend of mine works for a company run by and employs 100% women. In any other context, it would be illegal. Instead, it's considered 'diverse' and 'empowering'. Based on statistics alone, it's obvious the company is hi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most efficient advertising of jobs is not gender-based, it’s skill-based. Ideally you need to show your ads to candidates with exact match to job description and then some more if the pool is too small. It has nothing to do with gender.
The most efficient advertisement for a job would be to only advertise it to the single candidate who is the best fit for your profile, is looking for a job, and would accept the salary you're offering. Unfortunately intimately detailed profiles like that aren't available, so we target cohorts with the coarse details we do have such as age and gender.
If you cannot advertise without breaking the law, do not advertise. There are plenty of other platforms which do it right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
You can always claim harm, but proving it is a different story. 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.
If it's NOT harm, then it should be legal for job boards to only show positions to the desired gender, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is gained from allowing such bias?
More efficient advertising. Not worth it in my opinion though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights thinks it makes perfect sense. RTFA
You do realize that the people who work there are economically incentivized to think that? In exactly the same way that Uncle Bob (who has never been a coder) is economically incentivized to talk about clean code or a salesperson is incentivized to talk about the product they are selling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain why you think this?
Not the OP, but: This is actually a thorny problem. Say you have an advertising system that knows nothing about a user’s gender. This system, by construction, cannot vary its ad selections based on gender. But the system does remember whether users have expressed interest in the ads it has previously shown them. Now say you have a job that in general appeals to one gender almost exclusively. The system will, given ti…
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How far are you willing to stretch this? What about skin color? Nationality? Religion?
So if I advertise my golfing equipment only in golf clubs, and golf clubs happen to be predominantly visited by old white men, am I discriminating against the young, against women, and against people of color?
Also, unless the golf club is discriminating, female golfers are just as able to see the ad -vs- male golfers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always claim harm, but proving it is a different story. 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.
Having fewer opportunities is obviously a harm. If it's NOT harm, then it should be legal for job boards to only show positions to the desired gender, right?
Scope matters. On the level of the entire economy? Possibly yes, but you haven't shown that the entire economy will discriminate against X or Y; respective preferences of individual players may well balance out.
On the level of a single Acme, Inc.? What if that particular organization is unofficially hostile to a particular gender? I would say that in such case, it is more harmful to join it blindly and then suffer from the generally unfriendly environment than to steer clear of them in time.
I wouldn't personally like to become an employee in a corporation that prefers not to employ men and is only forced to do so by external powers. And I would prefer them to be honest and advertise that openly, to save my time and theirs from making an unhappy match.