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

Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 407 posts

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#341

Post by KingMob »

brightball wrote: post #327
ericdykstra wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disparate Impact is one of the most illiberal policies in America. Companies need to be so careful that their results can't be construed as discriminatory that they need to go out of their way to make their hiring practices discriminatory. You could have a totally blind hiring process (remove names from resumes, modulate voices in phone interviews, never get any indication of race/sex/age of applicant) and still be l…

You see a similar thing with real estate in equal housing. I wasn't aware of how strict the standards were for this stuff until I took the license courses last year. If you have a real estate office and somebody walks in, you might offer them a cup of coffee. If another person walks in later and you forget to offer it to them, and that person is part of a protected class...you've just violated equal housing. This is…

Well, after decades of things like redlining, I'm ok with the industry trying hard not to discriminate.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#343

Post by Someguywhatever »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #310
adamlett wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think law like this is broken because it's like many (American) laws where it ends up selectively enforced Laws like these are not criminal laws, and are not meant to be enforced if by that you mean policed . It's up to someone to file a lawsuit, if they think the law is on their side. Then a judge will have to rule whether or not the law applies in that particular case, and in doing so they may set a precedent whi…

The fact that it's not actively enforced by the state doesn't matter. It's basically the civil equivalent of an actively enforced law nobody can possibly comply with at all times that gives the cops the power to harass whoever they want whenever they want (e.g. the 55mph speed limit on I95 in the Boston area) except instead of empowering cops to harass people on flimsy pretext they're empowering plantiffs to harass c…

The law is written assuming that it won't be abused even despite it being ripe for abuse.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#344

Post by brightball »

KingMob wrote: post #341
brightball wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see a similar thing with real estate in equal housing. I wasn't aware of how strict the standards were for this stuff until I took the license courses last year. If you have a real estate office and somebody walks in, you might offer them a cup of coffee. If another person walks in later and you forget to offer it to them, and that person is part of a protected class...you've just violated equal housing. This is…

Well, after decades of things like redlining, I'm ok with the industry trying hard not to discriminate.

While I agree, I was just shocked by the amount of legal stuff around realtors that basically keeps them from being able to be helpful. It has a huge effect on the perception of the profession because people are forbidden from really distinguishing themselves out of fear that a wrong word can get them sued (not just for equal housing but tons of other stuff).

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#345

Post by lucaspm98 »

chuckgreenman wrote: post #331

Do people find jobs through advertisements? I don't think I've ever landed a job that way. It's always been through referral or researching companies that do interesting work and reaching out to the right people there.

It certainly works best how you describe it for highly skilled positions in fields that the majority of HN works in. The examples in this article such as trucking are less skilled, lower pay positions in somewhat undesirable roles. Especially in the current job marketplace these employers are desperate to attract candidates.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#346

Post by anthony_romeo »

patmcc wrote: post #7

I'm a bit mixed about this; it is clearly discriminatory to publish a job ad that says "women need not apply", but it doesn't feel inherently discriminatory to advertise a job in, say, "Men's Health" but not "Cosmopolitan" magazine. Or to advertise on a particular television channel or program (whose viewers may not match the population at large). That's just how advertising works. Is that crazy? Would this be differ…

Let's say that a man has a subscription to The New York Times, but the NYT chooses to print a Men's version that has some job postings and a Women's version that has other job postings without telling you. What if the man is a cosmetologist and isn't seeing any cosmetology job postings because they're all in the Women's edition? The issue with targeting by sex is that it presupposes interest in certain areas, and while a person's interests can change, a person's sex can't [without significant medical intervention].

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#347

Post by will_brown »

patmcc wrote: post #7

I'm a bit mixed about this; it is clearly discriminatory to publish a job ad that says "women need not apply", but it doesn't feel inherently discriminatory to advertise a job in, say, "Men's Health" but not "Cosmopolitan" magazine. Or to advertise on a particular television channel or program (whose viewers may not match the population at large). That's just how advertising works. Is that crazy? Would this be differ…

>I'm a bit mixed about this; it is clearly discriminatory to publish a job ad that says "women need not apply",

In general that is discrimination, but as with all things in law the general rule only exists for exceptions. One exception is a “Bonafide occupational qualification”...some famous cases involve men playboy, hooters, and Abercrombie and Fitch (though A&F was a case of discrimition against blacks, which A&F attempted to defend by arguing being white was a bonafide occupation qualification because it fit their overall marketing and target demographic).

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#348

Post by throw2016 »

patmcc wrote: post #7

I'm a bit mixed about this; it is clearly discriminatory to publish a job ad that says "women need not apply", but it doesn't feel inherently discriminatory to advertise a job in, say, "Men's Health" but not "Cosmopolitan" magazine. Or to advertise on a particular television channel or program (whose viewers may not match the population at large). That's just how advertising works. Is that crazy? Would this be differ…

This is not lifestyle advertising. Tenders, job ads and other categories that require equal access and transparency have rules to prevent exactly this kind of discrimination and skullduggery.

Facebook had made an error here, as has Uber and this is a pretty straightforward violation.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#349

Post by _zachs »

If this headline was changed to "Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Women" this wouldn't be news and it would be hailed as the most progressive move of the century. With that, this isn't news, and definitely doesn't belong on the front page of Hacker News.

Re: Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men

#350

Post by tzs »

adamlett wrote: post #263
fapjacks wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of smells, my initial reaction is that Disparate Impact smells broken. I can see pretty clearly how it would be possible to argue legally that advertising a job internally and not externally (to a company) is discriminatory. And following that further along, in this way, I can see a pretty straightforward method of declaring any job advertising as discriminatory under that decision. I think law like this is…

I think law like this is broken because it's like many (American) laws where it ends up selectively enforced Laws like these are not criminal laws, and are not meant to be enforced if by that you mean policed . It's up to someone to file a lawsuit, if they think the law is on their side. Then a judge will have to rule whether or not the law applies in that particular case, and in doing so they may set a precedent whi…

> Laws like these are not criminal laws, and are not meant to be enforced if by that you mean policed. It's up to someone to file a lawsuit, if they think the law is on their side. Then a judge will have to rule whether or not the law applies in that particular case, and in doing so they may set a precedent which will influence how later cases will be judged.

This is one of the reasons that the "loser pays" approach to the cost of litigation used in much of the rest of world would not work well in the US. We use private civil lawsuits to enforce things that would be enforced by government agencies in much of the rest of the world, so it is important that individuals can bring lawsuits against much bigger, much better funded entities without having to worry about getting wiped out financially if they lose.

Post reply on HN