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

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#31

Post by _delirium »

aspidistra wrote: post #20
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...

That's the usage I'm familiar with even in regular discourse, although apparently many HNers have a different view of what the term means, so maybe usage differs. To me, "discrimination" is more of an objective issue, not the same as "prejudice" or "bigotry" which are more subjective issues. Saying "Google is prejudiced towards Native Americans" would imply that someone there actively dislikes Native Americans, while saying that "Google policy [x] discriminates against Native Americans" only implies (to me) that the policy has a negative effect that specifically impacts Native Americans, but doesn't imply that someone at Google came up with the policy out of a dislike of Native Americans or an actual intent to harm them.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#32

Post by calibraxis »

reluk wrote: post #17

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 app…

Well, racism is actually common; it's a fundamental part of the culture. Something which needs to be chipped away. Racism isn't just about some people wearing white hoods.

Not to make a statement about your racial category (because I don't know it), but more privileged people irrationally fear claims of racism because it's one of the few ways they feel vaguely limited. (Of course, the minor social consequences they fear are nothing in comparison to less privileged groups who are regularly imprisoned/invaded/starved.)

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#33

Post by nknighthb »

aspidistra wrote: post #20
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...

It's the same in the US, the person you're replying to simply needs to consult a dictionary.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#34

Post by voteapathy »

ceejayoz wrote: post #19
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.

Well, I would suspect that Google makes deliberate choices on how they set up these sorts of things. They've probably built models which demonstrate that only n percent of the global population will be affected by a certain naming policy and the differences in cost associated with modifying their databases or to accommodate such names or dealing with troll accounts versus maintaining the status quo. [Keep in mind I obviously do not work at Google and clearly have no idea what I'm talking about]. I suspect that, in reality, Google feels that keeping their uses safe from all the Grass Mud Horse's and Assmen of the world doesn't affect their profitability significantly. Frankly, I would love to look into the best ways to deal with the non-universality of names for users while still being able to meaningfully harvest and utilize all of their information for those sweet sweet advertising dollars. Perhaps the best way is just give users a generic field for "name" (not first/last name) and make the good, old-fashioned username be the identifier.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#35

Post by chris_wot »

hrktb wrote: post #26
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."

Shouldn't it be the other way round ? Google's policy was pointed out to be bad and absurd countless times and they knowingly stuck with it anyway, understanding users were prejudiced from it. Isn't it malice ?

You mean like some sort of malicious incompetence? That's really twisting Hanlon's razor!

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#36

Post by ebfe »

aspidistra wrote: post #21
reluk wrote: post #17

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 app…

> imperfect systems don’t imply malice. ... but they can still discriminate. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, intention or malice is not required. If Google has a policy or system that disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, it is discriminating. This is defined in law. http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...

Notice how that article uses the term "indirect discrimination", rather than just "discrimination"? That qualifier is there because without it, most people understand "discrimination" to mean intentional prejudice.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#37

Post by viraptor »

chaz wrote: post #25
tarblog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike when lists are written in such a way that the reader must mentally negate all of the statements the author is making. It's more difficult for me to quote or remember out of context correctly. I also feel like I learned a lot less than if the author had told me the things that are common problems and how to fix them or offered a model of names that is less-bad than the one most websites use.

It's satire. 12. People’s names are case sensitive. 13. People’s names are case insensitive. Edit: Let me explain ... I was responding to the parent post, and that it wasn't meant to be a logic list of rules. Individual points may be true, but the overall tone of the list and post uses humor to explain the complexity of names. 32. People’s names are assigned at birth. 33. OK, maybe not at birth, but at least pretty c…

Is it? I read it as: depending on culture, the name may be either case sensitive, or not. (alternatively - someone's name may use alphabet with no concept of "case")

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#38

Post by GuiA »

viraptor wrote: post #37
chaz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's satire. 12. People’s names are case sensitive. 13. People’s names are case insensitive. Edit: Let me explain ... I was responding to the parent post, and that it wasn't meant to be a logic list of rules. Individual points may be true, but the overall tone of the list and post uses humor to explain the complexity of names. 32. People’s names are assigned at birth. 33. OK, maybe not at birth, but at least pretty c…

Is it? I read it as: depending on culture, the name may be either case sensitive, or not. (alternatively - someone's name may use alphabet with no concept of "case")

I wouldn't call it satire; they are, as the title indicates, falsehoods. That is, if your code makes any of the assumptions listed, then you're handling names in a way that inevitably won't work for users of certain cultures.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#39

Post by ebfe »

calibraxis wrote: post #30
Tohhou wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> calling things which are not really racism racism only dilutes actual racism and victims of racism. I don't know your racial category, but people of color frequently mention how white people aggressively like to redefine racism so it doesn't include their own racism. This particular argument is common among them. Because after all, racism is one of those -isms which are a fundamental part of many cultures (like the…

That's really interesting, I'd never heard of this before. Can you give us an example you've heard of a redefinition of racism that would exclude whites from being racist?

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#40

Post by vidarh »

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.

The two are not incompatible. If your incompetence leads you to implement a policy that disproportionally disadvantages a certain group, you are also discriminating against them.

Discrimination does not require intent.

Post reply on HN