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

Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 120 posts

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#11

Post by Tohhou »

chris_wot wrote: post #6
Tohhou wrote: post #3

"Discriminate" because this was obviously intentional prejudicial racism! Of course it's not malicious. This guy is not good people.

How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?

I will explain it. Google wants personal identity attached to posts on Google+ people Google thinks that people will value what they say when they are not posting anonymously. Some engineer wrote a thing to try to catch obviously fake names, and some kinds of real names, which actually are attached to real identity, get caught in the filter. They didn't target specific groups of people because they hate them ffs.

I agree that it's a stupid policy, but calling things which are not really racism racism only dilutes actual racism and victims of racism.

"Google+ naming filter thinks American Native Indian style names are not real names"

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#12

Post by chris_wot »

Tohhou wrote: post #11
chris_wot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?

I will explain it. Google wants personal identity attached to posts on Google+ people Google thinks that people will value what they say when they are not posting anonymously. Some engineer wrote a thing to try to catch obviously fake names, and some kinds of real names, which actually are attached to real identity, get caught in the filter. They didn't target specific groups of people because they hate them ffs. I a…

So in other words, it's incompetence then. Which was the alternative to racism. Which is what I said.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#14

Post by crypt1d »

nysv wrote: post #10
chris_wot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?

Their policy on this has been pointed out to be bad and absurd so many times by now that I'm leaning towards Hanlon's razor now: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this issue is incompetence.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#15

Post by [deleted] »

chris_wot wrote: post #6
Tohhou wrote: post #3

"Discriminate" because this was obviously intentional prejudicial racism! Of course it's not malicious. This guy is not good people.

How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?

[deleted]

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#16

Post by chris_wot »

crypt1d wrote: post #14
nysv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their policy on this has been pointed out to be bad and absurd so many times by now that I'm leaning towards Hanlon's razor now: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this issue is incompetence.

There was nothing light about how I used it. Even if this was not done intentionally, it still discriminated against her. Sort of like how gender fields with only a Male/Female option unintentionally discriminate against transgender people. Nothing intentional, but still happens - and still discrimination.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#17

Post by reluk »

I hope that OP isn't seriously suggesting that “discrimination” was a factor, it’s too serious an accusation to be thrown around so carelessly.

There are enough past incidents of “unusual” names being erroneously flagged to suggest it's no about irrational human discrimination but about imperfect mostly automated processes.

The policy is about using “real names”, the automated system was obviously tripped and the appeals fell through, imperfect systems don’t imply malice.

Seeing that eventually the issue was resolved and I assume they’ll be more mindful of native American names from now on, is there really a need for name calling and further escalation?

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#18

Post by raverbashing »

Tohhou wrote: post #11
chris_wot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?

I will explain it. Google wants personal identity attached to posts on Google+ people Google thinks that people will value what they say when they are not posting anonymously. Some engineer wrote a thing to try to catch obviously fake names, and some kinds of real names, which actually are attached to real identity, get caught in the filter. They didn't target specific groups of people because they hate them ffs. I a…

A filter to catch "fake names" based on dictionary words I presume.

If you do that for names of German origin (with a German word list) there will be hit after hit

Google apparently doesn't know much about names.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#19

Post by ceejayoz »

Tohhou wrote: post #3

"Discriminate" because this was obviously intentional prejudicial racism! Of course it's not malicious. This guy is not good people.

The writer leaves open the "incompetence" option, if you actually read the article. Discrimination needn't involve intentional malice, either - 50-60 year olds often face hiring discrimination from folks who certainly don't intentionally discount them.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#20

Post by aspidistra »

Tohhou wrote: post #3

"Discriminate" because this was obviously intentional prejudicial racism! Of course it's not malicious. This guy is not good people.

In the UK, at least, "discriminate" is the right word because it is possible to discriminate indirectly. This is defined in law. If you have rules that apply to everyone but disadvantage people who share a protected characteristic, you are discriminating, whether you intended to or not.

http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...

Post reply on HN