Slashdot Mirror


Facebook, Amazon, and Hundreds of Companies Post Targeted Job Ads That Screen Out Older Workers (vox.com)

Older workers are accusing Facebook, Ikea, and hundreds of other companies for discriminating against job seekers in their 50s and 60s through targeted job ads posted on Facebook. From a report: The Communications Workers of America, a labor union representing 700,000 media workers across the country, added the companies to a class-action lawsuit on Tuesday, which was filed in California federal court in December. In its original complaint, the labor union accused Amazon, T-Mobile, and Cox Media Group of doing the same thing. The case, Bradley v. T-Mobile, has major implications for US employers, who routinely buy job ads on Facebook to reach users. The plaintiffs argue that Amazon, T-Mobile, Ikea, Facebook, and hundreds of other companies target the ads so they are only seen by younger Facebook users.

The lawsuit revolves around Facebook's unique business model, which lets advertisers micro-target the network's users based on their interests, city, age, and other demographic information. In the past, equal rights advocates have sued Facebook for accepting ads that discriminate against consumers based on their religion, race, and gender. Facebook has argued that the company is not legally responsible when other companies buy ads that violate the law.

169 comments

  1. First question.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first question that comes to my mind is, why would ANYONE be honest when entering their information into Facebook?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I signed up on Facebook to stay connected with my relatives and reconnect with old friends I hadn't seen in a while. A few of the old friends I looked up, I couldn't find--so I figured we'd connect later when they created accounts. I assumed their finding me would be eased by my posting my correct info.

      I read a lot of stuff on Slashdot about how bad it is that Facebook knows everything about us, but y'all haven't successfully articulated just what I should fear.
      What are the potential negative consequences if Facebook knows my real name and where and when I went to high school?

      The story we're commenting on is about the terrible possibility that I might not see certain ads on Facebook. That's a risk I'm willing to take.

    2. Re:First question.. by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      The second question is: Doesn't facebook know that and use the age group estimation derived from your browsing behavior rather than what you have entered?

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re:First question.. by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are the potential negative consequences if Facebook knows my real name and where and when I went to high school?

      Anymore? Not a whole lot at the individual level. There was a time when anyone could look at your profile and stalk you that way, but there has since been controls put in place to keep that from happening without a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms (aka, hacking) facebook uses to generate the pages it sends you.

      On the whole no one cares about you and your daily grind. The fear of wholesale turning over of logs to law enforcement for no reason seem to be unfounded as well as the delusion that you are interesting enough for, say, intelligence services to want to know more about you. I think it says more about the people who continue to fight against the service than those who use it to reconnect with friends and family members they wouldn't otherwise know anything about.

      However, that isn't to say that there's no danger. These lie more in being the target of individualized advertising and propaganda. These are more dangers of aggregation, how you can be grouped together with other people, which is what TFA is talking about.

    4. Re:First question.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So that his friends and family can find him.
      OTOH if you really would want to USE FB to find a job, you might better have a second account.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:First question.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Doesn't facebook know that and use the age group estimation derived from your browsing behavior rather than what you have entered?
      No, why would it?
      Not every web site visit has a "FB bug" following me. And my browsing behaviour has not changed the last 20 years, why would it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:First question.. by aitikin · · Score: 1

      What are the potential negative consequences if Facebook knows my real name and where and when I went to high school?

      Anymore? Not a whole lot at the individual level. There was a time when anyone could look at your profile and stalk you that way...

      Oh gods! I just remembered how thefacebook used to tell everyone what dorm you logged in from...Yeah, it was SUPER creepy back then...

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    7. Re:First question.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      And to continue the meme of using FB as your resume...

      Sanitize it. like the real resume you wrote. No unnecessary dates, especially education and distant experience. Ignore your high school graduation, nothing gained there. If you graduated from college, the HS is assumed, and if you see a job for which a HS diploma is required, well, you're going to be fine with other experience - trust me, if a HS diploma is a qualification, you're using FB for its intended purpose. that wasn't really the job you wanted anyways.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:First question.. by lucasnate1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in a country (Israel) where people were fired because their workplaces monitored their facebook walls and found out they spoke against the army. I was also told, when I wanted to apply for a job, that I will have to make sure my facebook account is clean, and that lying that I don't have facebook would seem suspicious. I have heard that in the US, there are workplaces that wlll not hire you if you don't have an active facebook.

      Does this answer your question? (And yes, I do agree that there are ways around this).

    9. Re:First question.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Name is fine, but age? Marital status? Why does any of that need to be public?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... And my browsing behaviour has not changed the last 20 years, why would it?

      There's a lot better porn now than 20 years ago...

    11. Re:First question.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      No, actually the first question that comes to mind is, why the ever-loving fuck would you use Facebook at all in the first place?

    12. Re:First question.. by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      The scary part is that even if you hadn't created an account, they probably have all of that information anyways if enough people you know use Facebook and have tagged you in photographs on their service.

      The creepy part is that a lot of information can be derived about you based on the people you have friended. If it's only old acquaintances or classmates, they don't get much, but for regular users they can easily and accurately predict political affiliation and sexual orientation even if you don't fill in either of those categories yourself and don't consume news stories that would give that information away. That information could be sold to third parties or used for other nefarious purposes.

      Most of this isn't world ending or life threatening, but it's invasive. And that's just what we know that they're capable of doing. The reality is probably far worse.

    13. Re:First question.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      Simple: every last thing you post there is data-mined to within an inch of it's life and used to create a profile of you that they SELL to advertisers and whoever else can pay for it (like Cambridge Analytica, for instance) so they can leverage you into behaving the way THEY want you to (to buy things you otherwise wouldn't buy, or vote the way they want you to vote, or whatever). Furthermore you probably stay logged in even when you're not on Facebook.com itself, so every Facebook icon you see on the Internet is also allowing Facebook to record the fact that you're visiting whatever website it is -- and that goes in your behavioral profile, too, so they can sell that information. Even if you're not logged in to Facebook those icons still report your IP address, which can be linked back to you, which means they can still log your access to all websites you visit that have Facebook icons, so they still log and track your data and usage and internet history, and there's nothing you can do to stop that. Next they also sift through your emails and private Facebook messages for more data. They look through any photos you post for more data. Someone tags you in a photo they posted, that's more data. Even if you're not tagged, they use facial recognition to ID you anyway, so it's still more data for them to sell. And so on, and so on, and so on. Facebook is just one gigantic surveillance and data collection site designed specifically to collect as much data on you as possible, which they then analyze to create a behavioral profile of you which they sell to advertisers and whoever else is willing to pay for that very-much-personal data from you, so they can in one way or another influence your thought processes and behavior in ways that benefit them either financially (sales) or socio-politically (who you vote for, what you vote for, your opinions on socio-political issues, etc). If you're really comfortable with being under the microscope every time you use the Internet and being manipulated in ways you may not even understand are manipulation, then you're a fool and no one can help you, but I at least have tried to make you understand it so your eyes will be open.

    14. Re:First question.. by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hate to break it to you but if you got married anywhere in the US, that's considered a public record and can be looked up. Not finding a record isn't conclusive proof but it's a good indicator that you're not.

      In conclusion, your marital status is already public. It cannot be used against you as part of a job application, however. Those are two different things.

    15. Re:First question.. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      It's funny, because I actually see ads on Facebook sometimes, but I've never responded to any. Well, except for hiding ads that I found offensive. I find Facebook to be fine for my uses.

    16. Re:First question.. by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      I read a lot of stuff on Slashdot about how bad it is that Facebook knows everything about us, but y'all haven't successfully articulated just what I should fear.

      I (and I suspect many others) don't have the bent to evangelize to someone who -- in the wake of all kinds of studies, revelations, and developments showing precisely why people SHOULD care-- nevertheless doesn't seem to care... so I'm just writing to note that reciprocally, you have failed to articulate a sound basis for why people shouldn't care. It's not up to others to save you from yourself. Enjoy.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    17. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just what did you expect for free? I think we all understand the deal here.

      You get a free service for providing your personal data. It's as simple as that.

      Don't like it? Start your own social media network with different terms. No one forces anyone to use Facebook. I've personally never used it.

      In you fantasy world, you want a free site which costs billions to run given you to free, ad-free. Socialism is a wonderful concept on paper, until someone has to pay the bill.

    18. Re:First question.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      My FB account has no information about my jobs, only my High School and University.
      I live in Europe, no one is using FB to find job or for recruiting. None who is not my friend does see my profile anyway.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:First question.. by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

      The first question that comes to my mind is, why would ANYONE be honest when entering their information into Facebook?

      Why do you think facebook relies on data you entered vs mined about you from what you're doing?

    20. Re:First question.. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      It's the lying and hiding of what they do with it.. Aol begged for years for a ph num as ultimate backupbfor pw recivery

      Ok stop. Is autocorrect a patejted thing such thwt newrb6 letter touches cannot be fixed against a simole dictionary, to say nithing if more xom0lex alcorighns?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    21. Re:First question.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I don't use 'social media' because it's unnecessary bullshit and my privacy is worth quite a bit to me, and furthermore I think at this point if anyone is still using Facebook then they're foolish. Back in the day I had a Livejournal account and I paid to use it. I don't have that anymore and I would rather have my right arm cut off at the shoulder than subject myself to the invasion of privacy that ANY so-called 'social media' site commits against it's users, EULA or no EULA. It's not necessary. If you're really motivated to 'keep up' with people you know then you can damned well email them, or (shocker!) PHONE them once in a while, or (shocker!) VISIT with them in person. THAT is being 'social', not any of this bullshit on the Internet.

    22. Re:First question.. by crackspackle · · Score: 1

      The story we're commenting on is about the terrible possibility that I might not see certain ads on Facebook. That's a risk I'm willing to take.

      It doesn't work like that. For an average user, Facebook generates an extensive profile of where he visited from their huge partner network. They can develop his "age" from those site visits even if he lied. Ads are then be presented to him based on his profile across Facebook and the partner sites. It works the same for Google and their partners, many of whom are also partners of Facebook, probably leading to incidental but useful cross-sharing of information.

      The issue with the lawsuit is Facebook is still run like it's based out of a dorm room and not part of the real world.. Age discrimination is illegal and it's de facto illegal to use age targets for job related ads as a result.. All Facebook would need to do to change this behavior is update their TOS and tell advertisers if they target age for job ads, Facebook will sue them and alert the EEOC.

    23. Re:First question.. by arth1 · · Score: 2

      On the whole no one cares about you and your daily grind.

      Except, of course, those that do.
      - People you might have attracted or pissed off in the past and who either work for Facebook (or affiliated companies, it seems), or can get access through someone who does.
      - Collection agencies and bounty hunters in their extended searches for someone else, or because you happen to have a similar name or address.
      - Three letter agencies needing to justify their existence.
      - Bored employees.

    24. Re:First question.. by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

      Ah, the old "It's not my job to educate you, SHITLORD!" which I suppose is not only restricted to tumblr anymore.

      On another note, it's exactly this kind of self-referential hysteria that has made me stop giving a shit about facebook and the data they collect. If your cause has merit, it will have evidence, which is why even today you can find people who will dutifully try to argue with someone denying global warming, using years of studies and data. Apparently in this case merely asking about the extent of the problem is a bridge too far, which leads me to suspect that at the core there is nothing.

    25. Re:First question.. by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

      Not everybody realizes the power of big data. There was a story that one of the retail shops, based on products search criteria determined that their customer was pregnant before she even new.

      Facebook (and others) have access to such amount of data about a person based on phones and web activities, posted photos, likes and all just mentioned about ones friends, that they know people's political affiliation, education, mental state, family details to certain extent, health issues, how often one travels and whether for business or vacation - practically a story of ones life to such an extent that principles of democracy might be at stake, aka gerrymandering.

    26. Re:First question.. by SantiagoMcRib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have heard that in the US, there are workplaces that wlll not hire you if you don't have an active facebook.

      No employer in America would decide against hiring you because you don't have an active facebook account.

      However, you might not be the "right fit" for the company.

    27. Re:First question.. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I read a lot of stuff on Slashdot about how bad it is that Facebook knows everything about us, but y'all haven't successfully articulated just what I should fear.
      What are the potential negative consequences if Facebook knows my real name and where and when I went to high school?

      So, let's start by correcting the inaccurate belief that all they know about you is the information you explicitly gave them. What they actually know is FAR greater than that.

      For instance, what about the information that others have shared about you? If any of your friends, colleagues, coworkers, or classmates uploaded their contacts list to make finding contacts easier, Facebook now knows everything your buddy had on you: all of your phone numbers, all of your e-mail addresses, all of your instant messaging handles, and all other information your pal may have made note of in their contact entry for you (e.g. if I have it, I'll fill in the standard fields in iOS's Contacts app for birthdays, employer/position, spouse's names, kids' names, etc.). Oh, and don't forget that many contact entries also include pictures, so they know what you look like too, even if you never uploaded a photo of yourself. Likewise, if you've been tagged in a photo by a friend they'll know what you look like, even if they didn't before, and they then have the ability to use facial recognition to link you to various other people and places, associating you with events and places that you may have never told them about. And there's nothing stopping them from then scanning public records (which it's believed they do) or news reports to see if you or your picture appears anywhere else.

      And what about how you access Facebook? If you use the mobile app they'll know what phone you use, which tells them which ecosystem you're in, which has strong correlations to a number of other factors (e.g. willingness to spend and likelihood to use certain other products and services). Depending on OS and version, they have a list of every single app you have installed on your phone, which is a treasure trove for understanding your interests, connections, and routines. We know that they've also exploited issues in OSes to collect more information than what their users should have reason to expect. For instance, an older version of the Facebook app on iOS exploited the ability of audio players to run in the background by playing a silent audio track at all times, enabling the app to silently keep running in the background. We also know that up until recently apps were capable of seeing all available WiFi networks, which can be trivially mapped back to geographic locations, so even if you had location services turned off they still would have had the ability to map your location anytime you had your phone on you, even if the Facebook app wasn't running in the foreground. And, of course, if you turned on location services, then all bets are off.

      Between the location data they may very well have on you and their ability to recognize you in data they collect from elsewhere, they then have the ability to map you back to the people and events that they know were at those locations, whether that's something mundane like who your coworkers are, or something that could be controversial, inflammatory, or misunderstood, like a PETA protest, the person with whom you're having an affair, a church/religious group, a bar where you spend far too much time, an abortion clinic, a rehab clinic, a gun club, a Pride parade, a Dungeons & Dragons group, a political rally, Alcoholics Anonymous, or whatever else. We see some of this stuff in practice when they make suggestions for friends based on your physical proximity to other people throughout the day. One story that stuck out to me was of a prosecutor who had a friend suggestion for a criminal they had seen (or maybe tried? can't remember) in the courthouse the day before, despite having no mutual friends or other connections.

      Did you use the mobile website one day? Congrats, you now have a tr

    28. Re:First question.. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Birth is also a public record, so anyone that knows what city/state you were born in can find out your birth date.

    29. Re:First question.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Maybe Facebook has requested every marriage license where I am from and populated their database, not ruling that out. Yet maybe they haven't, and I don't need to make it easier for them.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    30. Re:First question.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Do you have a problem with a database of every Muslim in America or every Jew, or everyone who's gay? Can you see any way in which that might be used for evil?

      Are you familiar with the line "if you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" from Cardinal Richelieu?

      Are you aware that employers routinely check the facebook profile of potential employees, looking for reasons not to hire?

      Overall, are you aware that some things that seem perfectly normal and sensible today will inevitably become unpardonable moral sins in a generation, but there's no telling which things. What do you want in your permanent record, to be used by a government or employer that does not have your best interests in mind, 20 years from now?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:First question.. by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old "It's not my job to educate you, SHITLORD!"

      Well, yes (except for the "shitlord" addition). I don't make the rules. There are a bunch of old sayings that apply despite being much-used, including "be honest", "pick your battles", and "if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself".

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    32. Re:First question.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      And my browsing behaviour has not changed the last 20 years, why would it?

      Some people change and grow over time, adjusting their values and interests due to life experience.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:First question.. by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    34. Re: First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play the telephone game much? The story was a company was sending coupons for pregnant women to a girl before her parents knew she was pregnant.

    35. Re:First question.. by Holi · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the name you use on Facebook, trust that they have your real name

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    36. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Targeted advertising and advertising in general have become evil in recent years, wanting to invade your privacy so that they can sell you more stuff (and more and more and more!) that you don't really want or need! Fakebook itself is evil, as its main purpose is to collect and sell your personal information. I invite anyone that doesn't believe that to read Fakebook's terms of service. It is stated there (not so clearly) that anything that you post to Fakebook belongs to them, and they can do anything that they want with it. What they do is sell that information. In addition, Fakebook was used by the Russians to influence the terrible outcome of the 2016 election! This was done by using Fakebook to spread fake news stories. Fakebook is not a reliable news source...anyone can post lies and fake news stories there. Fakebook does not check the accuracy of anything posted there at all.

      In addition, Fakebook has been hacked numerous times, with millions of users personal information being stolen by criminals. This information could be used to steal your identity. Many employers now check Fakebook and other data mining sites (TWITter etc...) for information about potential employees before making hiring decisions. Getting back to the subject of this article, age discrimination in hiring or on the job is supposed to be illegal, though it happens every day. Older but still capable workers are replaced by younger employees who can be paid less because they have less experience and seniority.

      Being a person who is concerned about privacy, I do not have a "smart"phone, and I avoid data mining sites like Fakebook like the plague!

    37. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I signed up on Facebook to stay connected with my relatives and reconnect with old friends I hadn't seen in a while. A few of the old friends I looked up, I couldn't find--so I figured we'd connect later when they created accounts. I assumed their finding me would be eased by my posting my correct info.

      I read a lot of stuff on Slashdot about how bad it is that Facebook knows everything about us, but y'all haven't successfully articulated just what I should fear.
      What are the potential negative consequences if Facebook knows my real name and where and when I went to high school?

      The story we're commenting on is about the terrible possibility that I might not see certain ads on Facebook. That's a risk I'm willing to take.

      A lot of "security questions" for online accounts (like banks) ask for date of birth and/or name of your highschol, etc. All this info can be gathered from FB and/or your posts. Even if you hid your birthday, some retard will post "happy birthday" on your page and screw you.

    38. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well said indeed!

    39. Re:First question.. by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Overall, are you aware that some things that seem perfectly normal and sensible today will inevitably become unpardonable moral sins in a generation, but there's no telling which things. What do you want in your permanent record, to be used by a government or employer that does not have your best interests in mind, 20 years from now?

      So true. I know that /. is full of left wing types but the reality is that for decades the biggest abusers of these *has* been the left. SJWs embrace the following concepts:

      Hounding people over their politics is acceptable

      https://www.reuters.com/articl... https://www.catholicnewsagency...

      Violence is OK as long as you're right and "they" are wrong

      http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

      No, they can't just all get along if they don't follow the correct politics

      https://www.theodysseyonline.c... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Seriously, it's amazing that the left hasn't pushed for re-education camps (yet). Despite this they have the gall to say that the real danger is from the right. Amazing.

    40. Re: First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my question. No amount of advertising will increase my spending. I buy what I need with a few luxuries, and my spending habits have not changed in a decade. It's like Pepsi thinks "If we target advertising better we can get people who only drink a 6 pack a day to drink a 12 pack a day!" No, you can't. Not through your ad campaign. When do companies realize that all the money they pay to these firms for data is wasted?

    41. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a story that one of the retail shops, based on products search criteria determined that their customer was pregnant before she even new.

      Yep, Target. It was before she had disclosed that fact to her family, rather than before she herself knew, but yes, it's scary what Big Data can deduce about people from a large number of weak correlations.

      There have also been stories of women who are pregnant and have gone to extreme lengths to avoid advertising networks discovering that, only to ultimately fail no matter how careful they were. Lengths such as buying everything with cash instead of credit. Of not talking at all about their pregnancy on the internet, and asking their friends not to either. Of using VPNs to visit any web page related to babies or pregnancy health. Still, in the end... somehow enough information leaks and the ads start... The reach of these data brokers is truly breathtaking, and not in a good way.

    42. Re: First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us are of interest to three letter agencies. As such false data on social media is a good idea.

    43. Re:First question.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Do you have a problem with a database of every Muslim in America or every Jew, or everyone who's gay?

      Not if they send the names of everyone on list 1 to everyone on the other two, and so on.

      That'd make some mighty fine television.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    44. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would ANYONE be honest when entering their information into Facebook?

      You think Facebook is getting your age group based on the birthday that you input? They get it from analyzing what things you read and Like and who your friends are and things you say and click on.

    45. Re:First question.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Think about it: They have to 'lie and hide' what they're collecting and what they do with it because if they explained to everyone up-front in plain english, nobody in their right mind would click 'OK' and agree to it.

    46. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey you're a lieing faggot you're on Facebook right now and defend your addiction like any hard-core drug user would. If you were stuck somewhere without internet access for 24 hours you'd be found in a fetal curl in a dark corner somewhere mumbing to yourself.

    47. Re:First question.. by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

      I really shouldn't get any deeper, but it's going to bug me if I don't ask.

      Yet maybe they haven't, and I don't need to make it easier for them.

      To do what, exactly? Gather info on you? You don't have to even go close and they'll be able to build a profile of who you are, what your name is, and what you're doing day to day. That was part of the EU's GDPR is about. Even that doesn't go far enough. It certainly doesn't force them to delete what they already gathered. Or to stop the targeted stuff from happening. You leave data everywhere you go, so I'm confused about what, exactly, you're trying to avoid.

      If someone really wants to know things about you, a huge amount of info is already public. And in databases. And available to be bought in a nice correlated form. Much of which you can't stop since it has to be there in order to function as part of the body public.

      Please note, I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware about it or fight having your life any further invaded by these bastards than it already is. However, it seems your insistence you "don't make it easier" is almost dogmatic, as if these are magic words that explain what you are thinking or why. Let me assure you, it doesn't. And it seems like an odd thing to call out when such information isn't simply public but is already part of a legally protected status and something the vast majority of people don't deem to be anything other than a passing note about themselves. It's not key information to anything as we are not living in some sort of odd Perry Mason mystery plot.

    48. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rick Schumann declared:

      I don't use 'social media' because it's unnecessary bullshit and my privacy is worth quite a bit to me, and furthermore I think at this point if anyone is still using Facebook then they're foolish. Back in the day I had a Livejournal account and I paid to use it. I don't have that anymore and I would rather have my right arm cut off at the shoulder than subject myself to the invasion of privacy that ANY so-called 'social media' site commits against it's users, EULA or no EULA. It's not necessary. If you're really motivated to 'keep up' with people you know then you can damned well email them, or (shocker!) PHONE them once in a while, or (shocker!) VISIT with them in person. THAT is being 'social', not any of this bullshit on the Internet.

      You should be aware that Slashdot is a social media site. If you're not, you haven't been paying attention.

      If you believe that this site's parent company doesn't track your use of its property, or sell that data to advertising firms, you're living in a fantasy world. And you're being deliberately obtuse, if you think this site can be operated without a larger income source than simply selling ads on its pages.

      I'm just pointing out the obvious ...

    49. Re:First question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An Anonymous Coward pointed out:

      A lot of "security questions" for online accounts (like banks) ask for date of birth and/or name of your highschol, etc. All this info can be gathered from FB and/or your posts. Even if you hid your birthday, some retard will post "happy birthday" on your page and screw you.

      I moderated this post +1 Informative, despite my policy of not awarding mod points to ACs.

      I did so, because the poster is absolutely correct. I've told my bank several times that their "security" questions about my birthdate and other not-very-private information are completely worthless. Talking to a telephone rep just last night, I pointed it out again. When she started to give me the same old, "these are standard questions" BS, I stopped her and asked how many people posted happy birthday wishes on her FB wall on her last birthday.

      That broke the BS. Then I explained that I wanted to activate Google Pay on my phone, because I'd just purchased a Vox AC30CC2X amplifier, and she responded, "That's a nice amp!"

      After that we were guitar buddies, and we had a really nice conversation about music gear - but I doubt very much that my complaint will make it past her supervisor, because, of COURSE a mere customer couldn't possibly know anything of value about security.

      I've encountered the exact same stone wall with every hospital and doctor's office I've ever complained to about their identically-useless ID verification questions (except minus the musician's chit-chat).

      Playing Cassandra is pretty damned frustrating, believe you me ...

      (Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

      --

      Check out my novel ...

    50. Re:First question.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You have gotten way off track. The original conversation is why people fill in that huge form of every aspect of their lives in Facebook. If you are proposing that they might as well do it because Facebook can find everything in there out anyway, I don't accept that at all.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    51. Re:First question.. by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. Facebook will figure out your age, gender, and interests in other ways: who your friends are, what you are interested in, which ads you click on, what other sites you visit.

    52. Re:First question.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And how would thatbe reflected in browsing behaviour?
      No longer visiting /. ?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Companies want panderers by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    Preferably kids who are just out of college and set away 100+ unsuccessful applications. Ones happy to spend from morning till night doing drudge work for little pay.

    1. Re: Companies want panderers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you are saying by advertising to people who need to build their resume, they are finding people willing to do the job that needs to be done.

      So, why is this a problem then?

    2. Re: Companies want panderers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're either trolling or genuinely too stupid to understand the concept of age discrimination

      ironic captcha: inform

  3. places are not honest about how meny hours per by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    places are not honest about how many hours per week they want you to work.

    Japan is really bad but they still have the room where older people are paid to sit on ass all till retirement age

    1. Re:places are not honest about how meny hours per by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      paid to sit on ass

      like their own or someone elses
      pls this is important in planning the next phase of my career

    2. Re: places are not honest about how meny hours per by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, that made my morning.

    3. Re:places are not honest about how meny hours per by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > like their own or someone elses

      yes

    4. Re: places are not honest about how meny hours per by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...paid to sit on ass

      You might be onto something; it'd certainly be the easiest way to perform a fecal transplant...

    5. Re: places are not honest about how meny hours per by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      "You might be onto something;"

      That's what she said.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  4. not responsible for illegal ads? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    so sexual deviants can run recruitment ads for underage teens? ISIL can too? child porn ads?

  5. No Christine Peterson Interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christine Peterson and Bruce Perens are SJW commie liars. They came peddling their lies here and we turned them away. We rebuked them.

    Get thee behind me, OSI!

  6. For every abuser by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    There is an enabler.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:For every abuser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the law in this case forces employers to behave in an irrational way.

      Yes, older workers are more experienced and wiser and a real boon for a team. But, you don't need nearly as many of them. One older worker can lead 50 younger ones.

      So, when you are hiring more older workers than you need, you wind up mis-allocating their talents to tasks that are beneath them, but of course you must still pay them their senior-level salaries.

      This is not rational; it is a complete waste of money and too much of that will make a business fail.

      But....the law doesn't care, in this case. We have decided that this market reality is unfair to older workers who also want jobs, so we require employers to hire them even when they don't need them.

      That, of course, is unfair to the employers, but nobody cares about them.

    2. Re:For every abuser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that older workers can see through the BS, and have experience enough to know when they are being shat upon, and won't tolerate it. You give someone in their 20s a 120 hour/week job for $40,000/year in Austin, and you will get tons of people going for it. A 40 year old would laugh in your face because they know they could be a vend a goat machine repairman in Topeka for just as much money, have a better standard of living, and work 1/3 as many hours.

    3. Re:For every abuser by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      That, of course, is unfair to the employers, but nobody cares about them.

      It's amazing to me that in America anyone could think that nobody cares about employers. This country is run for business. Look at corporate profits compared to wages and tell me no one cares about the employers.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    4. Re:For every abuser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Describing reality clearly will always make a person seem cynical.

      Many Americans are basically good people, who aren't particularly interested in exploiting others for their own personal gain.

      However...

      Those same people benefit tremendously from the kind of worker exploitation that goes on in America and worldwide. They tolerate it because, for the most part, it isn't in their faces. They know about it in a sort of abstract way, and sometimes put market pressure on companies like Apple to treat foreign workers better....but for the most part they don't lift a finger to help the armies of lives that get crushed to provide the supply-chain atop which Americans live.

      Maybe they donate a bit to a charity and call it done. But the fact is, they are exploiters, just like everyone else.

      It is human nature to exploit, including other humans. The only way to avoid being exploited is to fight.

      Forever.

    5. Re:For every abuser by lgw · · Score: 1

      Look at corporate profits compared to wages and tell me no one cares about the employers.

      If you want to see corporate profits (after salary and taxes and COGS and so on), here's a guide: http://www.multpl.com/ Corporate profits are about 4% of the market value of corporations right now. You can see the history for the past 150 years or so at the link.

      The total value of all publicly traded US corporations is about equal to GDP. The total salary of all US employees (corporate and otherwise) is about equal to GDP.

      So:
      * Corporate profits (all US corps): about 4% of GDP
      * Total wages (all US workers): about 100% of GDP
      * About half of the jobs in the US are corporate, so corporate wages are about 12x corporate profits.

      So, there we go with actual numbers comparing wages to corporate profits. Not sure what your point was.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:For every abuser by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Union = abuser
      Weak-kneed employer who caves to union demands = enabler

      NIMBY = abuser
      City council who listens only to the loudest voice = enabler

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re:For every abuser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lgw misleadingly stated:

      If you want to see corporate profits (after salary and taxes and COGS and so on), here's a guide: http://www.multpl.com/ Corporate profits are about 4% of the market value of corporations right now. You can see the history for the past 150 years or so at the link.

      Uh - so you're conflating profit with S&P market capitalization estimates?

      I don' theeng so, Quickstraw.

      Corporate profits have little to do with market cap. (Well, okay, they contribute to investment algorithm decision-making. But that's beside the point.) The lack of any reasonable alternative investment avenue (Have you looked at bond prices lately? Or real estate anywhere but San Francisco or Manhattan - where you'll be competing against Chinese investors determined to find a place to offshore their profits? And don't get me started on the commodities market.) is much more important to that figure. So is the "irrational exuberance" in the title of the book the link you provided refers to as its source.

      Corporate profits are enormous - and larger now than ever before. They're also protected by walls of special-interest tax exemptions, exclusions, and credits, ably aided by "Hollywood accounting" practices (which definitely aren't confined to Hollywood). Plus, there's the much-used strategy of transferring corporate headquarters and/or "ownership" to offshore tax havens, where profits booked aren't included in S&P's estimations.

      And so on, and so forth, tra-la-la.

      I suspect you know all this, but it doesn't serve your argument, so you cite the market-cap-vs-declared-profits comparison, instead, hoping no one here will be sophisticated enough to call your bluff.

      You may consider it called ...

      (Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

      --

      Check out my novel ...

    8. Re:For every abuser by lgw · · Score: 1

      Uh - so you're conflating profit with S&P market capitalization estimates?

      Economics can be hard. It pays to read carefully. P/E stands for "price to earnings": the ratio of the total value of the company to its earnings. Right now the average is a bit over 24, so earnings are about 1/24th, or about 4%, of the value of a company.

      Did you follow, or did I lose you at "math"?

      Corporate profits are enormous - and larger now than ever before.

      Corporate profits are 4% of GDP. The economy is larger than ever before, so you'd expect corporate profits to be as an absolute number of dollars. But as a portion of the economy, they're about the same as they've been for the last 50 years.

      Meanwhile total salaries are about 100% of GDP (this is always true).

      Other beliefs might be comforting, but these beliefs are true.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  7. Your resume should look young... by The+Fat+Bastard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After I went back to school to get another degree ten years ago, I dropped my first degree from my resume. Most recruiters look for three years in each of the last three positions, so I list my experience from the last ten years. Since I get hired over the phone, most hiring managers are shocked to see that my beard is snow white. Never mind that the color of my beard is irrelevant to the job.

    1. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind that the color of my beard is irrelevant to the job.

      I agree, color shouldn't matter (as long as you have the beard).

    2. Re:Your resume should look young... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Damn, my beard has been snow white for more than a decade now. More than two. No wonder I get hired.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Your resume should look young... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 0

      The color of your beard is not really what they don't like, it's that you're going to ask for a bigger salary, more likely to be stuck using out-of-date practices and be less eager to go above and beyond for the employer they're recruiting for in an effort to prove yourself than a 20-something.

      I don't have any figures to back this up, but in my experience the older a co-worker is, the less likely they are to want to work overtime or otherwise inconvenience themselves to deliver things on-schedule after unexpected difficulties or setbacks. If something is going to be delivered behind schedule or in a non-complete state that's just management's problem, not theirs. Another things I've noticed is that salary increases pretty well in proportion to experience, but not so well in output or quality of work. Finally, you rarely see young co-workers using completely out-of-date practices and methodologies like an almost complete aversion to anything resembling object-orientation. The worst result of this was the 5k line spaghetti code monster of system-critical logic I once had to document for the re-engineering of a system after the original developer/maintainer of said code unexpectedly died from some lung disease after decades of chain smoking. (Oh and if you need to know, the new system was way better, used more off-the-shelf components for a lower total system cost and cut delivery time along with being way easier to maintain and extend)

      I expect that this comment is going to end up at "-1 Troll" like many of the other times I've talked about my experienced with older workers, because apparently when you're still (barely) in your 20s you can't talk about these kinds things.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    4. Re:Your resume should look young... by Kielistic · · Score: 2

      "Their cargo cult is different from my cargo cult and are sick of cleaning up other people's messes"

    5. Re:Your resume should look young... by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I expect that this comment is going to end up at "-1 Troll" like many of the other times I've talked about my experienced with older workers, because apparently when you're still (barely) in your 20s you can't talk about these kinds things.

      You can certainly talk about these kinds of things, but you also need to accept that it will be hard to be taken seriously. It is like a man talking about how painful child birth is. Or a parent with one child who thinks their parenting experience would fully prepare them for their second child. (you're probably too young to understand how wrong that one is)

      If you are barely in your 20's, you are probably just out of college. Or started your career without college. Heaven forbid you are still in college (you are simply a moron if you think you have insight into this if you haven't been in the industry yet). Your insight seems like it comes from someone who has only been working for a few years, and has only worked closely with perhaps a dozen or so colleagues. In truth your comments seem driven by blog posts you have read and not real experience.

      I am in my late 30's, and of course I have dealt with older coworkers who have no business still being in the industry. But I have also dealt with far more younger coworkers who have literally no idea what they are doing. The most common issue with younger developers that I see (including myself with only 15 years of experience) is they just don't know what they don't know. They cannot identify the difference between maintainable code and unmaintainable code. They can certainly identify the unmaintainable code, but mistakenly think their code is better just because it makes more sense to them. Or because it hasn't yet went through 10 years of updates and modifications. Just wait. Everyone thinks their shiny new system is incredibly extensible.

      That is of course not fair to all young workers. One simple way to identify a truly competent young worker is that they are fully aware how inexperienced they are, and rarely assume they know very much. A 25 year old who brags about their easily maintainable and extensible code will get more pity from me than admiration, because he is almost certainly wrong (the ones who are good enough also rarely brag about it). I am fairly new to management, and I believe the primary thing which helped in the transition is I didn't assume I would be naturally good at it just because I have watched other people do it or read a bunch of books.

      You may not be a troll, but you certainly have a lot to learn.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And both of these anedotal comments just highlight why blanket discriminating based on age is problematic.

    7. Re:Your resume should look young... by shanen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually I was looking for the obligatory "I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!" post. Of course in this case mapped to the discrimination against old people getting hired for technical work. White-bearded experience counts for much less in computer-related fields.

      Your comment was interesting, but I think the most interesting aspect is that you're still scrabbling around looking for work. Not fully clear from your comment, but that's how it comes across. I hope it's because you like variety, but I think most businesses these days want the smallest number of long-term employees possible.

      There's a deep mismatch here. We have long-term lives. If we starve to death between jobs, then that greatly reduces our future job prospects.

      Or another way to look at it is that companies want to have continuous revenue streams coming in, but they want to minimize the money that is flowing out, especially as salaries for the lower-level employees. The soulless and inhuman corporations are programmed to focus on profit maximization without worrying too much about the externalized human sources of that revenue.

      Me? I did a lot of scrabbling around in my younger days, but I never got to like it. I still enjoy working, but I'm not interested in the scrabbling now. However, I think it's your advocacy of partial truth that is bothering me the most. In my ontology of lies, I rank that as Level 2, which is mostly packed with lawyers and politicians and certain kinds of salespeople.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    8. Re:Your resume should look young... by shanen · · Score: 2

      If I ever got a mod point to give...

      Oh, wait. Not really informative or interesting. Definitely not funny. Could I justify it as insightful? I don't think so. Seems like another case of "I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!"

      In this case, the specific form of gambling is the attempt to be the biggest corporate cancer in the niche. ADSAuPR, atAJG.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    9. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the older a co-worker is, the less likely they are to want to work overtime

      Of course they're less likely to need to work overtime because they actually have a fucking clue what the sodding hell they're doing[1] and are less likely to make a colossal fucking pile of shite in the first place.

      [1] Unless snot-dribbling little knickerpissers like you happen to have got into management positions because you have nice hair or something. Because twats like you know everything and never listen to anyone.

    10. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations! Your limited experience has resulted in you becoming a bigot. Good luck in your career Skippy.

    11. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in my experience the older a co-worker is, the less likely they are to want to work overtime or otherwise inconvenience themselves to deliver things on-schedule after unexpected difficulties or setbacks

      If you're routinely expected to do overtime somewhere as a developer it's a red flag indicating fundamental flaws in the company that most experienced devs recognize and steer clear of. You're quite welcome to take those jobs off my hands. And thank you for doing so.

      you rarely see young co-workers using completely out-of-date practices and methodologies

      No, instead they start putting Angular in everything and making life a living hell for everyone (themselves included) because it's new and shiny. Not everything that's old is bad. Not everything that's new is good.

      Oh and if you need to know, the new system was way better, used more off-the-shelf components for a lower total system cost and cut delivery time along with being way easier to maintain and extend

      Unless you actually built that system and then had to go in at least 5 years later to maintain and/or extend it, I'm going to have to take that with a very big grain of salt.

      Crappy programming has no age requirement. There are terrible old programmers, terrible young programmers, and terrible programmers everywhere in between. There are also plenty of good programmers in all age groups. But there's one thing to always keep in mind:

      Nearly every terrible programmer doesn't think they're terrible.

    12. Re:Your resume should look young... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Wow, they never saw you in person before hiring? Wow, I would assume they would at least see you once.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    13. Re:Your resume should look young... by The+Fat+Bastard · · Score: 0

      Your comment was interesting, but I think the most interesting aspect is that you're still scrabbling around looking for work. Not fully clear from your comment, but that's how it comes across. I hope it's because you like variety, but I think most businesses these days want the smallest number of long-term employees possible.

      Why settle for a 2% annual raise when you can get a 40% raise by changing jobs?

    14. Re:Your resume should look young... by shanen · · Score: 1

      Without seeing the data, I'm going to guess that's your most successful move. Beyond the limits of my imagination that it could be repeated too often.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    15. Re:Your resume should look young... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Fine with me as long as you can do the job. Just don't wear searsucker. Man, the last guy that did that with me I felt I needed to take a shower afterwards. There was that much BS in the air.

    16. Re:Your resume should look young... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Wow. You should really get that checked. Most people don't have Disney princesses growing on their faces.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:Your resume should look young... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      I find it pretty funny how your way to counter me bringing up my personal observations and throwing around ideas as to why older workers tend to get the axe easier than younger ones is simply by trash talking younger workers and dismissing my observations simply because of my age and assumed experience. I'm not sure if you took my post personally considering the vitriol or if you're always this defensive on the subject, but I don't think that's an unreasonable assessment of your reply.

      Also, I was (obviously) not the only one working on that new code to replace the work by the (now dead) gopher and it kind of goes to show how much extrapolation you're doing here based on your own prejudices. The main software architect of the new system was a co-worker in his late 30s and my contribution to that system was mostly in providing the documentation on the old system (thus providing a rough idea of how the new system should behave), software-hardware integration, debugging and general QA for the new system. I wouldn't have taken a lead role in developing a complex system like this even if it had been offered to me, because unlike what you're assuming of me without knowing me at all, I actually know my limits.

      So next time you want to consider a more constructive way to respond to someone throwing around ideas and bringing up their personal observations than an all-out personal assault. This victim mentality you and many other slashdot commenters are exhibiting on this subject really isn't doing anyone any favors.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    18. Re:Your resume should look young... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      If you're routinely expected to do overtime somewhere as a developer it's a red flag indicating fundamental flaws in the company that most experienced devs...

      I never said that I was talking about regular overtime and if I need to be specific my experience with it has only been with irregular appearances of it caused by things like vendors delivering things behind schedule or with bugs we ended up finding before them.

      No, instead they start putting Angular in everything and making life a living hell

      In my experience the type you're referring to couldn't do it to work projects even if they wanted to. Sure, they may be able to screw up their university projects and open source projects they're working on in their free time, but at work it's older workers that are actually in charge of decisions like this. In my experience it's not younger developers that are actually responsible for this kind of stuff, instead it's pretty much always some external consultants brought in by management or management without a proper background in technology for some reason ending up in charge of development.

      Unless you actually built that system...

      I never said that I personally built the system, the lead architect on it was a guy with over a decade more experience than me and previous experience designing systems of similar or greater complexity. The system has from the get-go been built to be easier to extend and otherwise modify so I'm serious about what I said about the new system.

      The reason why I brought up the old system was that it was bad in specific almost exclusive to older workers and something I was actually taught at university to avoid making many of the mistakes that had been made in it. As hard as it may be to accept to some older workers, experience in things actually tends to filter back into education and as a result students are taught not to make the mistakes made by their seniors. Education is not something that stands still, it's instead constantly improving itself.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    19. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure creimer, why climb the corporate latter when you can own it with long tail amazon revenue streams, right Chris?

    20. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you make 50k in silicon valley. This means you used to make what? 26k?
      Jesus christ.

    21. Re:Your resume should look young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No nobody cares how often you change jobs in a tech hub.
      The no changing jobs meme was some bullshit that people made up to keep wages from meeting market equilibrium

  8. Go ahead and lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They can still get close enough.

    Got kids? Married? Lots of friends who are members of things like "Class of Ridgemont High 1987."

  9. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you look for a job through a targeted advertisement on Facebook? Aren't half of them just scams anyway? And what older person seeking employment doesn't have at least some semblance of a network through which they could reasonably find something else?

    1. Re:Why? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      And what older person seeking employment doesn't have at least some semblance of a network through which they could reasonably find something else?

      The older you are, the smaller your network becomes, as people move away or die. Establishing new nodes becomes increasingly hard compared to when young, and they become less and less relevant (your acquaintances that are cordwainers, VCR repairmen and darkroom experts probably aren't going to be too useful from a job perspective).

  10. Also they screen out dupe detectors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From two days ago

    captcha: auditors

  11. It's time for better older worker protection... by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Older workers need better job protection -- Too easy / tempting to let them go, chances of getting hired at a similar pay rate as the lost job are slim, and contrary to what people think, the days of fat retirements are long gone. Older workers are at great risk. Greater than other classes, I would say.

    But of course, the public at large don't see it like that, the politicians can't be bothered to care, and companies only care about moneymoneymoney.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by sinij · · Score: 1

      I think all workers need better job protection. There is no reason to be ageist in your advocacy and pretend that letting go of a young person is any less disruptive to their life than old person.

    2. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Older workers need better job protection

      Then they should stop voting Republican. You sure as hell aren't going to get any protections from the Libertarian faction that's taken over the party these days. I'm not saying vote Democrat. I'm saying don't vote Republican if this is what you want.

    3. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by TigerPlish · · Score: 2

      I think all workers need better job protection. There is no reason to be ageist in your advocacy and pretend that letting go of a young person is any less disruptive to their life than old person.

      So you're saying that it is not true that older workers take longer to get re-hired.. if at all? At or near the same level they were before?

      I hope you never find yourself in that situation. I think you'll find it.. educational.

      My intent isn't to be ageist, it is to illustrate that yes, different age brackets have different needs. Is any of this untrue?

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    4. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      We don't need 'protectionism', we need companies to honor experience and expertise and pay for it, rather than pay some young idiots just out of school who don't know a goddamned thing about how the real world works, because they're naive and will accept low pay just to have a job.

    5. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

      the days of fat retirements are long gone

      Nope, people just choose to spend their money instead of saving it for retirement. I save 4 times as much for retirement then how much I save/spend for cars. My goal to be able to retire at 55.

    6. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      If it was a bad idea for companies to focus layoffs on older workers it would probably have shown itself by now, but if anything it seems like it's only accelerating, which would suggest there are good reasons for it.

      Don't get me wrong, by "good reasons" I mean reasons that benefit the companies and not the laid off workers. The first thing that comes to mind is that maybe the additional experience just isn't worth the additional salary when compared to someone with less experience. Maybe salary should be tied to output and quality of output rather than years of experience.

      There's also flexibility, an older worker in my experience is way less likely to agree to inconvenience themselves when necessary and will typically approach an issue only solvable by employee flexibility with an attitude of "it's not my problem" or similar. Another thing is that older workers are typically more commonly specialized in old or just plain out-of-date technology and methodologies which probably aren't what companies are actually using or wanting to implement. Finally there's the difficulty in learning new things that is basically just an observable fact among both animals and people. Sure, some older workers can learn new things better than younger ones, but on average they are at a disadvantage compared to your younger co-workers.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    7. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unemployment rate in the US is near a 50 year low. Older workers don't care what some MBA in a cubicle thinks. Good luck running your company with the current crop of shit that seems to be spread pretty thin.

    8. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by lgw · · Score: 2

      There is no reason to be ageist in your advocacy and pretend that letting go of a young person is any less disruptive to their life than old person.

      Once you're married, it's more disruptive. Once you have kids, it's more disruptive. Once you have a mortgage, it's more disruptive.

      So, maybe not age per se, but one does tend to accumulate reasons that losing's one's job is more disruptive.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm retired at 53. Did I save? Some, but not enough. You see, having someone ram you while you're in your car at a stoplight, and losing an internal organ, can mean you retire way sooner than you thought you would. (Insurance? Yeah, the lawyers made a bundle, I got medical costs covered and that's about it).

      So now I'm retired on disability. Not Social Security disability; I'm a white male, a member of the oppressor class, so SS won't give me shit. No, I'm lucky that where I worked had a pension scheme that had a disability option, so I've got enough each month to cover my bills. As long as I don't actually want to do anything besides surf the net and go to another doctor appointment.

      I wish I had saved far, far more. But I didn't, so now I'm fucked. I know, most reading this won't care, and it's from an AC so few will read it at all. But for anyone who does read this: save save save save save. Pretend you're in the Great Depression, and save every goddamn penny you can. Eventually you will need it, because life is a bitch.

    10. Re:It's time for better older worker protection... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the "older" worker segment is the wealthiest segment of society, it's kind of hard to see by what statistical measure you believe they're hard done by.

      The reality is there's no rational reason to give old workers special protection as the vast majority are doing just fine. What you're effectively asking for is special treatment for lazy people, but guess what? laziness is something that plagues younger employees too, they just don't blame it on age, they blame it on immigrants, or something other bollocks excuse instead.

      The reality is if you're an older worker and you've been working hard all your life, and have never stopped learning, there's literally no reason you won't get a good, well paid job, which is precisely why the older generation is the most wealthy in the first place (not simply in terms of absolute income, but in terms of annual income). I know this for a fact because I've hired plenty of older developers into my team, in fact, the average age of my team is 47, whilst I'm only in my mid 30s myself. I have however also rejected plenty of old developers because they've been working 35 years and have had fuck all to show for it unable to answer basic technical questions simply out of laziness that sometimes fresh graduates have no problems answering it. Similarly though I've also rejected plenty of younger workers because they couldn't even be fucked to turn up to interviews, or because they were equally lazy or shit.

      Long story short, if you're older, you're at a massive advantage because you've got more years under your belt to have improved your skillset and abilities. If you've pissed that advantage away that's no one's fault but your own, and no, you don't deserve special treatment for being a fuckup - you just accept you pissed your opportunities away and find another way to find peace in your later years, like doing something you love and stop expecting good pay without having anything to offer, hell it's not even too late, if graduates can pick up useful skills in 3 years so can you - there's still time if you want to.

      If however you're just going to sit on Slashdot whinging about how it's not fair that the world isn't giving you a free ride and demanding everyone else subsidise your laziness, then, erm, good luck, because I hate to break it to you, but you're fucked.

  12. Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is their freedom.

    Commies, socialists and other fascists willing to spend other people's money go REEEEEEE.

  13. Duplicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You had this story just a day or two ago!

  14. Dupe by OneAhead · · Score: 2

    Here, and I thought I saw it passing by much more recently on /. as well.

    That makes 2 stale stories in a row. *Pours bucket of water on msmash.* Wake up man, you're in the driver's seat!

    1. Re:Dupe by Eloking · · Score: 1

      Here, and I thought I saw it passing by much more recently on /. as well.

      That makes 2 stale stories in a row. *Pours bucket of water on msmash.* Wake up man, you're in the driver's seat!

      But that news is like...SO OLD!

      It's was December 2017! I don't even remember what I ate that day.

      --
      Elok
    2. Re:Dupe by Myrdos · · Score: 1

      Hum, I had always read that as "Miss Mash". Live and learn!

    3. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. tbh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world will be better off when all the baby boomers finally die off.

  16. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > as an older traditional Christian who has also written code professionally for about 25 years

    Why did you feel the need to point out to everyone in the room that you're a Christian?

  17. Target Ads by tempmpi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have nothing against targeted ads, but advertiser should be forced to reveal their target to the receiver of the ad. I think this would stop most of the abuse and would easy way to regulate this.

    --
    Jan
    1. Re:Target Ads by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You should be against targeted ads because your privacy is being violated one way or another in order to target you.

    2. Re:Target Ads by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      You should be against targeted ads because your privacy is being violated one way or another in order to target you.

      But is it a violation of my privacy if I don't really mind data about myself and my actions being used in this way?

  18. Oops by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    When I decided to "correct" my age on Facebook, the big question was: should I make myself 15 years older, or 15 years younger?

    Apparently, I chose poorly.

    The moral here is that whenever you're entering your age into some website, you should always pick either 13 or 21. There are no other ages that any reasonable person would start a profile with.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  19. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because even though I am a software developer and architect with a successful career spanning several decades, I seem to be undesirable by Facebook ad targeting standards.

    Given that I'm not much over 50, then, one might suppose that there are other excluded demographics (I joined FB in 2011). And as benign as my posts are (mostly pictures of friends and family having fun and church checkins, no politics and little theology), I have never received targeted ads for jobs on Facebook.

    So, yes. I feel that the Christian thing is germane to this discussion.

  20. Corporations don't care about employees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anymore than any slave owner really cares about their slaves, after all, indebted servitude is wage slavery, and everybody knows we've been sold down the river

  21. this is why we need unions by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    the CWA is bringing this suit.

  22. We should ask why it's so easy and tempting by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    businesses are just that, businesses. People tend to be pretty rational when it comes to making money; albeit not always very nice about it. For example, you see some reverse age discrimination at Walmart where they prefer older workers because though they're slower they always show up for shifts.

    What I'm saying is this: by and large older workers are less productive. They take time off for their kids, their health, etc. They're not willing to work 60/hr a week with 20 of that unpaid in exchange for vague promises of promotion. There are a ton of other reasons too. So unless you've got a special case like Walmart where workers are so unreliable that it's worth taking the productivity hit for consistency or need highly specialized skills then older workers just don't make economic sense

    This is an economic reality we all should face. The sooner we do the sooner we can talk about what to do with all these under employed (or unemployed) workers. If you're a young'un reading this now you're either going to join the older set or die. Literally. It takes years to set up a structure to protect people since there's going to be a ton of resistance. Now's the time to start supporting change.

    As for that change, we need more retirement support and better wages. Maybe Social Security at an early age. Forcing employers to hire less productive old people is just going to be bad all around. The young guys will be mad when gramps can't keep up and the oldsters will work themselves into an early grave.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We should ask why it's so easy and tempting by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I'm saying is this: by and large older workers are less productive.

      For a job like a Walmart associate where you learn the whole job in a few weeks? Sure. For an engineering position, where you accumulate years of wisdom about how not to do things? Not so much.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:We should ask why it's so easy and tempting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, people tend to be rational when making money for themselves. That does not always translate to making the best decision for the company they work for to make the most money.

      If a manager has some older workers under him or her, that know far more about the business and the current technology in use, that manger can believe it would be to their advantage to get rid of the older workers, because they might be a threat to the manager. Either through lower productivity, perhaps, or through showing up the manager in front of their bosses due to knowing more about the business. Such a manager will not take into account that purging decades worth of business knowledge by getting rid of the old folk might be highly damaging to the company's well-being, if it helps his own status or potential promotions.

    3. Re:We should ask why it's so easy and tempting by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is this: by and large older workers are less productive. They take time off for their kids, their health, etc.

      Actually, you're not describing older workers there. Although the age at which people start having kids is going up, most people still have them in their thirties, not their forties or fifties. By the time you're at the age that most people think of as "older workers", the oldest kid is old enough to drive around the younger kids, so they aren't taking as much time off as younger workers for their kids.

      And health problems can happen to anybody. For older folks, you have more internal medicine issues; for younger folks, you have more injuries. Yes, at some point, the problems do get worse and more frequent, but if you ignore the people whose health issues are directly caused by their work (chronic injuries), that decline usually isn't until people are close to retirement age. And for the people whose health issues are directly caused by their work, the company shouldn't get a free pass.

      Older workers do expect more vacation time, of course, but really, it's more accurate to say that young people are more tolerant of not getting enough vacation than they should be, rather than the other way around.

      They're not willing to work 60/hr a week with 20 of that unpaid in exchange for vague promises of promotion. There are a ton of other reasons too. So unless you've got a special case like Walmart where workers are so unreliable that it's worth taking the productivity hit for consistency or need highly specialized skills then older workers just don't make economic sense

      Young people shouldn't be willing to work ridiculous hours either. It leads to burn-out, and in the long term, it only hurts the companies that abuse their employees like that. But as for the productivity hit, I think you're underestimating the benefits of experience. On average, young people spend more time doing work because they are less efficient at it. The older folks usually get the same amount done in significantly less time, because they know all the tricks to get things done more quickly, having figured them out through trial and error. This tends to be true across all industries.

      Also, in customer-facing jobs, it is very useful to have older employees, because many of your customers are older, and will tend to prefer interacting with people who are not kids. The whole "they show up reliably" thing is only one part of the equation.

      This is an economic reality we all should face. The sooner we do the sooner we can talk about what to do with all these under employed (or unemployed) workers. If you're a young'un reading this now you're either going to join the older set or die. Literally. It takes years to set up a structure to protect people since there's going to be a ton of resistance. Now's the time to start supporting change.

      Most of the unemployed or under-employed workers are not really that old. That chart is sort of confusing, so I'll break it down for you by looking at May 2017.

      • 16–17: 13.1%
      • 18–19: 14.7%
      • 20–24: 6.7%
      • 25–34: 4.9%
      • 35–44: 3.3%
      • 45–54: 3.2%
      • 55+: 3.1%

      Notice what you don't see in those numbers? Growing unemployment with age. That's because for the most part, those laws protecting older workers from discrimination actually work.

      Now if you look at the numbers based on education, you see a nice pattern. These numbers ignore everyone under 25, which is to say that the unemployment numbers for people without a high school diploma are not artificially inflated by people still in school.

      • Among people with high school diplomas, 30% fewer are unemployed than among people without diplomas.
      • Among pe
      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:We should ask why it's so easy and tempting by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Even Wal-Mart associates should get better with more experience. You learn where everything is, which means when returns happen (or when clothing is tried on and not bought, or when new stock comes in), you can shelve them more quickly. When people ask where something is, you can point them at the exact product instead of hunting for it. And so on.

      Whether the employer sees value in that or not is another question, but the improvement exists (or at least should).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  23. Doesn't matter..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One can get a very lose idea of one's age with big data techniques.

    Just from your posts, interests, friends, likes, etc .... you can get it within a year or two.

    And then, people like my wife have idiot friends at Church who post (based upon the church registry), "Happy 55th today!!!!"

    I got you down to the age.

    And coupled with the LinkedIN and the many many many data sources that are out there, the only reason to interview someone is to check for any quirks - like gray hair.

    And if anyone thinks that you'd be opened up for an EEOC lawsuit, don't worry.

    They have to PROVE that you didn't hire them because of age - because, you'll turn them down because "they didn't have the skills" - your get out of lawsuit card.

    "You don't fit in" or "You don't fit into our corporate culture" also works.

  24. Non issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you only post jobs to facebook I don't want to work for you.
    If you only look for jobs on facebook I don't want to hire you.
    If the young'uns are using other platforms (like other articles tell us so often) the targeting will be ineffective anyway.

  25. Institutionalized ageism by dryo · · Score: 1

    Ageism is embedded and institutionalized, completely pervasive in the tech industry. I just turned 50 and thank my lucky stars that I have work. I'm thinking about studying math and programming to accomplish my own creative projects, and maybe someday write an app or two, but I have no illusions about every being hired. It's just not going to happen. It's like frickin' Logan's Run out there.

  26. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, whoever marked my post as flamebait simply helped to illustrate my point.

    Anti-Christian discrimination is every bit as bad in tech as is age discrimination.

  27. Putting the job ads online is already discriminati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are discrimating against older workers and/or poor peoples right off the bat by putting jobs ads online.

  28. Must speak Hindi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmmm

  29. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by quintus_horatius · · Score: 2

    Anti-Christian discrimination is every bit as bad in tech as is age discrimination.

    I don't think being a Christian is the reason your original post was marked as flamebait. No, not that at all.

    It's not about discrimination, it's about keeping the discussion on-point. Your religion is irrelevant, despite your protests elsewhere on this thread.

    We are talking about:

    • People working in an IT-related field? check
    • People who are over 50? check
    • People who use Facebook or other social media where directed advertising occurs? check
    • People who get fewer job ads than the rest of us? check

    Per your own statements, you hit all of those points. There's nothing on that list regarding religion. You have plenty of other viable and valuable points of relevance to bring to the discussion. You should have checked your religion at the door where you came in because it's not on the agenda today.

  30. Re: It's time for better older worker protection.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, keep voting Democrat so people who don't have skills worth 15 dollars an hour starve. Genius.

  31. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not on your list. But evidently on Facebook's and other tech recruiters' lists.

    The point of my original post is that age + being a Christian is one heck of a combination when it comes to bias and discrimination in technology.

    That you consider your own discriminatory bias to be legitimate is also telling.

    Oh, and by the way: my faith only impacts my work in so far as maybe it makes me just a bit more patient with the younger folks that I mentor.

    Yet, Facebook is aware of both my age and my faith. And I get absolutely NO job ads on Facebook.

    While the primary focus of this thread may be age discrimination in Facebook ads, I would say that my own experience is that it also extends to religious discrimination.

    If you feel otherwise, though, please make sure to appropriately chastise those who have noted that income and race discrimination is part of the picture as well.

  32. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by forkfail · · Score: 1

    PS: From not only TFA, but the summary even:

    In the past, equal rights advocates have sued Facebook for accepting ads that discriminate against consumers based on their religion, race, and gender. Facebook has argued that the company is not legally responsible when other companies buy ads that violate the law.

    So, off topic? Not at all. Something that you are displaying your own bias against? Almost certainly.

    --
    Check your premises.
  33. They want people married to their jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If many employer's were honest in job descriptions. They would post that they want someone young, no family, willing to give up personal life and be married to your work.

  34. Some folks see the advantages, though... by davecb · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, there are companies who preferentially hire older workers. A major publisher I worked for recruited semi-retired persons because they had experience with the (shiney, new) mainframe they bought. Who promptly brought up a Linux partition for us young whipper-snappers (;-))

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  35. Re: It's time for better older worker protection.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which apparently you're not, as you totally missed their point.

  36. age is a protected class by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but I did a short (one day) contract for a lawyer not long ago, and one of the things I learned on the assignment is that age is a protected class. It's not just "you can't discriminate on age" but that there are fairly strong penalties for doing so.

    The issue I think is that it's just been an assumed way for doing business, and the cost of litigation (another thing I learned at that assignment) and the *length* of litigation (minimum 18 months) makes it highly unlikely that any individual or small group of individuals would pursue it.

    So like the Hollywood casting couch, discrimination based on age is something "everyone does but nobody talks about". Unlike the casting couch, I don't see age discrimination ever becoming a big deal. I think mostly because the media cares very little about brackets outside tween-18 and 18-24.

    I'd wondered throughout my career whether this would change when boomers started to age out, when there was a higher chance of there being enough motivated people to pursue class action lawsuits, but it didn't really, and now we're pretty much at the end of boomers in the workforce. I suspect things are just going to get more grim for old pharts.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:age is a protected class by rnturn · · Score: 1

      Yes, but only a complete moron would terminate someone and tell them that it was because ot their age. The way it's done is to claim it's an economic issue--healthcare costs is a popular one nowadays--and just try proving that the real reason was for anything else. I had a former employer lay off the entire data center staff. Every single one of us but one were over 40 but they played another popular card used to get rid of experienced staff: they added one of the under-40 desktop support guys to have that token "young person" as an indication that it couldn't possibly have been because of age. However, when I came back as a contractor, guess what: there were all these late-20s and 30s people running the data center. But... who wants to spend money on legal fees.

      ``I suspect things are just going to get more grim for old pharts.''

      Especially when there seems to be a long line of politicians willing to raise the retirement to 70... or higher.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  37. Thank you . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    . . . for an intelligent comment here, getting to be quite rare.

    Now why would anyone care about this since it has been going on forever???? And American pathetic corporate biz shows how anti-experience has destroyed any real business in America today, which shows up in crapola design of anything and everything (evidently everyone has forgotten The Design of Everyday Things ????).

    I recall being forced down to nonexistence in the IT field, regardless if they even were aware of my contributions (used by billions daily) --- and having to deal with endless IT wannabe morons who, after you patiently explained how to clear up the problem, would respond that the solution was not correct, then return six months later, claiming to have figured out the problem --- which was EXACTLY what you had previously explained to them in a most tactful and patient manner, so even the most halfwitted millennial could grasp it!

    1. Re:Thank you . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your problem is that you thought they, like yourself, wanted to fix the problem. They did not want to fix the problem, they wanted to extend the fixing of the problem as long as possible in order to benefit themselves. Either through more billed contract hours, or taking credit themselves for the solution, or something else.

      It took me a very long time to catch on to people doing this, because like you I thought the goal with a problem was to just fix it. Alas, no. The society where people fixed things is gone now, and we're stuck with this shadow of what once was.

  38. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

    Wow. Butthurt much?

    The point of my original post is that age + being a Christian is one heck of a combination when it comes to bias and discrimination in technology.

    Though I would tend dispute your assertion that religion itself leads to discrimination in IT, I did not make any such assertions. My only assertion is that you're bringing irrelevant facts into the conversation.

    That you consider your own discriminatory bias to be legitimate is also telling.

    Where, exactly, did I show "discriminatory bias"? Where did I say that you are not discriminated against unfairly due to your religion? Please point out the statement(s) where I said that in my original message.

    FWIW, I don't have any mod points ATM and I have not down-voted any of your comments. I sure wish I had some now, though.

    Yet, Facebook is aware of both my age and my faith. And I get absolutely NO job ads on Facebook.

    That could be due to your age plus religion, or it could be (gasp!) just due to your age, as the article asserts. Your age may or may not be the only reason, but it seems clear that it may be enough of a reason all by itself.

    While the primary focus of this thread may be age discrimination in Facebook ads, I would say that my own experience is that it also extends to religious discrimination.

    You have failed to prove your point that your religion is relevant to the discussion. Do you have any evidence that your religion -- by itself -- has led to greater discrimination by the companies mentioned in the article, or that you have received fewer job ads than you otherwise would? Remember, the point of the article is that being 50+ itself is reason enough to avoid showing you the ads, so really the onus is on you to demonstrate that you're receiving fewer than zero ads in order to prove your point.

    Moreover, you have consistently injected your religion into this at every step, and you have bravely chosen to do so as an Anonymous Coward.

  39. I have to ask... by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    Why do employers discriminate based upon age? Study after study has shown that older workers perform just as well as younger workers for most tasks. Ageism bias is ignorant.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda...
    https://www.techrepublic.com/a...
    https://www.recode.net/2016/10...

    The only logical reason to discriminate against older workers is because health insurance costs in the US are far higher for older people.

    Is age discrimination less of a problem in countries that have single payer heath care?

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  40. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

    So, off topic? Not at all.

    A brief reading of the article showed no mention of religious bias in the current lawsuit.

    Your own extract from the summary talks about past acts that Facebook was sued for. It does demonstrate that Facebook has a history of targeting ads using various discriminatory criteria, but the article is about how employers are buying ads that target the young. Not the young and atheist, not the young and muslim, but the young and technically minded.

    GP's clumsy attempt to inject religion seems to be nothing more than someone trying to make the conversation about their favorite subject - themselves - because they apparently have nothing useful to add. What's interesting, though, is GP would seem to have plenty to add without bringing religion into this - IT, over 50, uses social media - so why not stick to the discussion and share their relevant experiences?

  41. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "equal rights advocates have sued Facebook for accepting ads that discriminate against consumers based on their religion, race, and gender" Bullshit. If equal rights and discrimination were the issue in ads they'd be suing P&G because they discriminate in Tampax ads by not having any men. When the fuck did humanity lose their marbles? Seasame Street doesn't have enough adult content dealing with the issues that adults have to contend with. Ageism I tell ya.

  42. Re: It's time for better older worker protection.. by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    Your reply, and the ones above echoing your sentiments, are proof that protections for older workers are needed. The prejudicial bias is blatant. Guilty until proven innocent!

    In my own experience the older it worker will absolutely work as hard or long as younger ones and even more so but will have less reservations about calling people on bullshit.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  43. They want cheap disposable workers ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... that will put up with 'opportunities' and bullshit. Preferably from university with a degree, that they can hire cheap and rent out for lots of money. We have that type of recruting based shops in abundance here in Germany too. Douchebags that want to hire you for 35 Euros and rent you out for 150 Euros an hour. That's a game anyone in his right mind wouldn't want to play in his mid-40ies anymore anyway.

    When your older and have been in the business for long decades, people won't ask you for a quick hire.
    Won't happen, plain and simple.

    You will, however, if you play your cards right, be able to get into better paying senior jobs. You will need a suit and tie to go with your grey hair and upgrade your habits and mannerisms to senior as well though. Don't expect to be taken for granted coming to work with a worn-out nerd t-shirt, 50kg overweight, flaky unkempt hair protruding from a balding head and wrinkles of a 50+ year old - that's my experience anyway.

    Ageism works both ways. Truth be told, senior positions are more rare, but that doesn't stop an experienced software developer from going freelance and doing some consulting and remote working on the side. If you solve the problem, no one cares about your age. And if they do, it's like I said: They want someone stupid and naive to burn up. Stear clear.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  44. Re: ura moran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >im too stupid to read Orwell

    just go back to faceballs already you slave

  45. Re: Old, used up, and bitter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sure your coworkers LOVED having lunch with you too. KEK.

  46. Re: Talking out your ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >I don't have any figures to back this up, but in my experience..

    In my experience your experience is a logical failing, thanks for playing oh so typical Amerikuk!

  47. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if a person of color, or an LGBTQ person, were to say that they were older AND those things, and faced discrimination, would you be so quick to dismiss them?

    Because it kind of seems that your issue is with religion, and seem to be rather dismissive both of it and anyone who has religious beliefs, to the point of being somewhat biased against them.

    Which is the GP's original point, I believe. That attitudes such as yours are biased to the point of becoming discriminatory.

  48. RE: Hiring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny when the same companies all the time tout how much they love diversity etc.

  49. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you don't think it odd that as a career technocrat, who joined FB in his early 40's, has NEVER seen a tech job ad? When a bunch of my favorite books are by folks like Stroustrup, Alexandrescu, and Fowler, and I list "software developer" and "software architect" as professions in my profile?

    I realize that this is anecdotal, but don't you at least think it a BIT odd?

  50. Enforcement should use file sharing as a precedent by serutan · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that the responsibility of companies like Facebook for illegal ads on their platforms should be the same as the responsibility of ISPs for illegal file sharing on their platforms. It's the same principle. If people use my service in illegal ways, am I responsible or not? And if so, to what extent? We've been over this ground before, extensively. It shouldn't be treated like unexplored territory just because we're talking about different content.

  51. c6gunner's karma is low by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    In you[sic] fantasy world, you want a free site which costs billions to run given you to free, ad-free.

    It can show ads without using any of my personal data t all. Like TV, radio and newspapers have always done.

     

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  52. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not OP but your comments and response are proving how someone can't mention their faith without getting attacked. People just showing their bias I guess.

  53. Re:There are tech job ads on Facebook? by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

    So, if a person of color, or an LGBTQ person, were to say that they were older AND those things, and faced discrimination, would you be so quick to dismiss them?

    Because it kind of seems that your issue is with religion, and seem to be rather dismissive both of it and anyone who has religious beliefs, to the point of being somewhat biased against them.

    Which is the GP's original point, I believe. That attitudes such as yours are biased to the point of becoming discriminatory.

    Where did I dismiss anyone based on their class? Not the original AC and not any of the groups that you mentioned.

    I don't deny that there is discrimination, in fact I think it's a huge problem. I don't really appreciate when someone tries to claim false discrimination, which I believe the original AC seems intent on doing, as it cheapens every legitimate claim. A presumably white, middle-aged, middle-class, Christian male in the USA is hardly in need of protection, and I strongly doubt that he actually suffers unfair discrimination based on his class as a religious follower. If he suffers discrimination it's probably based on his personal attributes, not his class.

    All that is irrelevant, however, as TFA is about age discrimination and my intent has been, and continues to be, getting this conversation back on track.

  54. Re: It's time for better older worker protection.. by rnturn · · Score: 1

    Bingo!

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  55. There's a very simple solution to this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let users search for job ads themselves, using whatever keywords they choose, and don't filter by keywords they don't specify.

    Then every user has access to every ad. Problem solved.

  56. Different kinds of jobs for different age groups by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    If you're 21, nobody will be looking to hire you to manage their entire company. If your 51 like me, you shouldn't really be looking for entry-level jobs. There's a place for every age bracket.

    I've had to find a new job 3 times in the last 10 years. My age has never been an issue, as far as I could tell. I'm well-paid, doing a job I like, staying technical.

    Silicon Valley may be a different story. Maybe it's time to find work elsewhere!