Slashdot Mirror
Many Job Ads on Facebook Illegally Exclude Women, ACLU Says (nbcnews.com)
Facebook's advertising platform is being used by prospective employers to discriminate against women, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday. From a report: The American Civil Liberties Union, joined by a labor union and a law firm that specializes in representing employees, has filed a written charge against Facebook with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. The charge asks for an investigation of the social media company and an injunction against what it calls discriminatory practices at a company with a sizable influence over the U.S. labor market. It also claims Facebook's system violates anti-discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The social network has faced sustained criticism for years that it fails to stop discriminatory ads of various kinds, from housing ads that exclude certain races to job ads targeted only at younger workers. In August, Facebook said it would remove 5,000 targeted advertising options from its platform in an effort to prevent discrimination.
Can't wait until they go belly up.
This seems pretty nonsensical to me. The entire point of advertising is to reach those groups most likely to respond to your product. Life without discrimination isn't even really life.. you can't even acknowledge a difference between right and wrong, good or evil. It's like we're trying to unmake ourselves.
Definitely wrong; but I see why companies may do this.
If you're a company that is in a male dominated industry with very few women looking for work in that industry. (Say tech work) I can see why a company may want to target the ad towards men, because they're more likely going to reach people who will respond to the ad.
That doesn't make it right, but I can see why companies would do this. Now, is it illegal. It's certainly illegal to only offer the job to men- but advertising... that's a tough one.
Would it be illegal to advertise a job in a men's magazine? Probably not, even though you're more likely to only get men reading it.
I don't know whether this is really illegal, but it certainly "feels wrong".
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Let me get the popcorn; this thread should be a well balanced discussion into the nuances of the issue.
If most landlords (for example) wanted to rent to black people in the 1950s, there would have been no need to 'end discrimination' and make it illegal to choose to whom you wanted to rent your property - thus proving that MOST landlords didn't want to rent to blacks. I thought we lived in a democracy? How is it right for an unelected minority to decide who everybody else must live with?
The way internet marketers work:
1) Spend a little bit of money on ads across a wide demographic list
2) find which demographics actually respond to the ad/convert to sales. Work out avertising cost per sale.
3) focus all your larger advertising spend toward the various 'converting to sale' niche demographics. ...So don't go around calling Facebook sexist/whatever that people selling feminine hygiene products are only targeting women. Marketers focus the money where the sales are, and the sales data is used to make decisions.
To suck on my dilz
ACLU protected free speech for nazis among other things.
Yes, advertising is a field where we generally accept discrimination for a better commercial result. But there are fields where we *don't* accept that because we consider it immoral. (Most obviously equal pay.) When you are advertising FOR EMPLOYEES, it's not just about advertising for a product. It's about not being able to discriminate in hiring just because you funnel it through an advertisement. There may be commercial or economic legitimacy to your desire to hire men (it usually costs less), but society has decided through law-making that it just won't let you be that much of an asshole.
A hiring firm's legal obligation not to discriminate against people on the basis of their sex in hiring decisions does not create a legal obligation on the part of Facebook to prohibit ads that target a specific sex. On its own, there is nothing inherently illegal about an employment ad targeted specifically at men. It's conceivable that employers would use different recruiting techniques depending on their target demographic. There isn't a sane universe where Facebook is the legal arbiter of what constitutes legal employment advertising and what does not. I suspect the aim of a certain ideology in the United States is to shift the enforcement of "social justice" types of laws away from our system of representative government and into the hands of unelected corporations. Why? To shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused, and to eliminate a centralized authority that can compel others to honor the ruling. If each content provider has its own rules it suddenly becomes a lot harder for the accused to defend themselves at each and every platform rather than once in court. It tilts the tables to the accusers, even when the accused is plainly innocent.
I just think your always going to have someone willing to complain and target a entity with deep pockets. The ACLU itself only defends certain kinds of people. Isn't that in itself biased? Maybe Facebook just needs to think twice about what it provides as a service given no matter what you do its never right.
It's been a long time, maybe forever, since Craigslist accepted^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H permitted ads for firearms and most any accessory.
Craigslist has ended personals in the US, all done. Globally not so much yet, but it's inevitable.
A variety of Craigslist categories have been limited or removed. Their current US list of prohibitions:
weapons; firearms/guns and components; BB/pellet, stun, and spear guns; etc
ammunition, clips, cartridges, reloading materials, gunpowder, fireworks, explosives
offers, solicitation, or facilitation of illegal prostitution and/or sex trafficking
exploitation or endangerment of minors; child pornography
recalled items; hazardous materials; body parts/fluids; unsanitized bedding/clothing
prescription drugs, medical devices; controlled substances and related items
alcohol or tobacco; unpackaged or adulterated food or cosmetics
pet sales (re-homing with small adoption fee ok), animal parts, stud service
endangered, imperiled and/or protected species and any parts thereof, e.g. ivory
false, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent content; bait and switch; keyword spam
offensive, obscene, defamatory, threatening, or malicious postings or email
anyone’s personal, identifying, confidential or proprietary information
food stamps, WIC vouchers, SNAP or WIC goods, governmental assistance
stolen property, property with serial number removed/altered, burglary tools, etc
ID cards, licenses, police insignia, government documents, birth certificates, etc
US military items not demilitarized in accord with Defense Department policy
counterfeit, replica, or pirated items; tickets or gift cards that restrict transfer
lottery or raffle tickets, sweepstakes entries, slot machines, gambling items
spam; miscategorized, overposted, cross-posted, or nonlocal content
postings or email the primary purpose of which is to drive traffic to a website
postings or email offering, promoting, or linking to unsolicited products or services
affiliate marketing; network, or multi-level marketing; pyramid schemes
any good, service, or content that violates the law or legal rights of others
Note that last one.
While Craigslist doesn't explicitly forbid housing discrimination, it does forbid illegality, and the flaggers usually kill those off. Employment ads have similar restrictions, but flaggers seems a little less vigorous there.
Still, FB should consider giving up on what they cannot actually do *legally*.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I thought only women used Faceflook anyway.
you're equating discriminating between chocolate and vanilla ice cream lovers to gender discrimination. The world is just a tad more nuanced than that.
If I can risk strawmaning myself for a bit here, I think the problem is we've been too far removed from the worst of discrimination for too long. We forget too easily that women didn't used to vote, could be beaten and even raped with impunity, couldn't own property or were themselves property. What's crazy is there's large swaths of the world where all this is still true and we turn a blind eye to it. There's also a sizable minority of regressives who want to turn back the clock. Some (Jordon Peterson comes to mind) have pretty large followings and speak in pretty reasonable terms...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We could get Facebook to discriminate against all people with their ads then I could uninstall my ad blocker.
I guarantee they wouldnâ(TM)t do that today. They would face too much criticism from their donors.
0. They can indeed choose what issues or even individual cases they want to intervene in.
1. The ACLU has no Constitutional duty.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If this is in fact being done and if the company is bitching about not "being able to find enough qualified people" then they should be called out on it.
And let's also remind ourselves that there is a lot of subconscious bias. And then there is just hiring bias. Is it a coincidence that most of Google's technical workforce is mostly white twenty-something males? Or could it be chalked up to their recruitment methods?
You don't have to have an explicit hiring practice of "only hire white twenty-something males" in order for it to happen.
One of the most common subconscious bias is preferring those who are like ourselves. And if we're a white male, we're going to prefer them.
And if our alma mater is say Standford, we're gonna prefer people from Stanford (yes, I've heard that since I didn't go to Standford, I'm no good.)
My point is that hiring is nowhere near the cold rational procedure based on merit that everyone here likes to think it is.
Guys never accuse their boss of looking at them wrong for profit and career advancement.
I used to think the ACLU was a good organization.
Then I found myself the target of a prosecutor who misused the law for his own personal gain.
I called the ACLU and they refused to even consider looking into the case.
The ACLU is a bunch of posers. I would not trust them nor would I contribute to them in a monetary sense, if they were the last humans on earth.
FUCK the ACLU.
sues gentlemen's clubs because they discriminate against me as a middle aged male. Heterosexual males just want to dance and they are not allowed to in Gentlemen's clubs all the world over. Discrimination. Heterosexual males are also underrepresented in nail salons. Is the ACLU going to defend my rights to cut nails?
you need to go see ep one about the BRUND
it funds the far right and far left...
seems to me lookin into the usa that is exactly whats going on with an am to drive everyone to safe spaces that whoever is doing this benefits, back in 39 before its leader tax evaded, was the goal....its how trump keeps power and democrats as well.
A liberal is defending a liberal company, that censors conservatives, in their active discrimination. Once again we see liberals are allowed to break the laws they write and people flock to defend them.
Had this been Mitt Romney, you would have gone bat shit crazy over something like this. Sorry, you DID got bat shit crazy over something not even approaching this level of discrimination when Romney made a comment once.
This is literally why we despise liberals. They come and call you racists, bigots, rapists, while defending their bigoted discrimination ways, and pretend rapists like Bill Clinton are acceptable moral leaders.
DISGUSTING
Liberals eat their own?
Both of these arguments are utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It's obvious that they as a pressure group get to choose what they want to do. It's also obvious that they have a long standing history of protecting rights of everyone, down to actual nazis.
Not the modern "those that are left of Marx are nazis". Actual "gas the Jews" nazis.
And they obviously have no "constitutional duty", as they are not a government agency. Constitution is the legislation that binds government, not private entities.
The initial comment "ACLU discriminates a-plenty," highlighted the reality, that not all 'discrimination' is illegal or even improper.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I get these ads all the time. Not ONCE have they been looking for women!
Since you make the specific accusations that Jordan Peterson is a "regressive" who wants to "turn back the clock", what evidence do you have to back up your assertion?
I don't know facebook's intentions, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the "target audience" option was there *specifically* to allow advertisers to target women, not exclude them. Can I imagine an all-female employer, a female-centric organization, not wanting to spend their dollars on marketing towards men? Maybe they'll make the gender-targeting option only available to self-described women. Yeah, that's fair.
From TFA " The employers include companies involved in moving services, roofing, auto repair, window replacement, retail and home security installation. If not for Facebook’s precise ad targeting, the charge against Facebook says, women “would have clicked on those employment ads in order to learn more about those opportunities and pursue them."
Is that really the case, or is a hypothetical to show intent? Because if it is true, those are usually jobs squarely in the argument of "you don't hear about women arguing to get THESE jobs", and would be pretty interesting to hear direct evidence to the contrary.
already.
The ACLU still defends the rights of Nazis and white supremacists. And they're donations have been way up.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
You are welcome on my lawn.
> the target demographic you wanted for your employees
The targeting is illegal.
As an example those that rent out a room in their homes are not bound by the anti discrimination laws. I choose to live with women and not males or a person of my own race or religion that does not violate any laws at all. Now just what can Facebook do? A room for rent posting can be for my own home or a home that I don't even live in. So now will I be discriminated against and not allowed to choose who is in my home?
When will the ACLU deal with job adverts only being shown to the young or âoerecent gradsâ with the excuse that it is simply being efficient?
They just got nailed for letting landlords to target ad's based on racial groups. Seems they do not practice what they preach when it comes to the bottom dollar. Ok for them, but not for others. It's wrong who ever does it in my mind. https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
From the article:
The charge to the EEOC on Tuesday alleges that gender-based discrimination is still designed into Facebook’s self-serve ad system because it automatically asks someone creating a new ad if they want to target to a specific gender.
Again, bookface isn't discriminating. Yes, they make it possible to do so, but it is the advertisers who are committing the violation. No matter how difficult bookface makes this, some advertisers are going to seek this out. About the only thing bookface needs to do is point out that gender selecting advertising may break laws in _your_ country. And it might not.
One of my best friends Brian Deneke died when some football jock ran him over after his buddy lost a fist fight. Brian was not a violent person, but he got picked on a lot by the locals because we had green hair and punk rock tee-shirts. I asked the ACLU to look into two different cases back then. One was when the cops kept raiding the local venues and mass-tear-gassing everyone. In one incident, a pregnant girl and a woman with asthma were severely injured by cops spraying them in the face with fire-extinguisher sized tear-gas guns (they sprayed down over 200 people at once causing a panic). The ALCU didn't care. None of the local ACLU attorneys would represent us. Then, later on when Brian was killed, I asked them to represent his family in a civil suit against the football-player who's "punk bashing" went too far. He was quoted as saying "I'm a ninja in my caddy." to a girl in the car after he ran over and killed Brian. If it was any more of a class/hate story it'd be called "The Outsiders". Did the ACLU care? Nope. It took the perp (Dustin Camp) fucking up for years on probation before he finally saw any real jail time. So fuck the ACLU. They had their chance to help in my life and they refused because it wasn't SJW enough for them and because the people involved were *white*.
Everyone discriminates about everything ALL the time. It's literally how the universe works. It's how things get done.
I'm not suggesting that discriminating against someone wholly qualified fro a position based solely on their gender is appropriate. But, the absurd attempts to 'totally eradicate discrimination' is beyond ludicrous.
Every choice... EVERY CHOICE that anyone makes is discrimination against all other options. The car you drive was select based on, among other things, the color of its skin.
Would you advertise tampons tom men? Specifically not doing so is discriminatory based on gender. But, getting into an uproar over this clear case of sex discrimination is idiocy, isn't it.
ACLU protected free speech for nazis among other things.
Would teh ACLU do that today? I believe the answer is "No", and that is the reason the ACLU no longer deserves the respect they once had.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/r...
And they get caught again
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
They did say something like they'd consider the potential for violence at a rally before suing for the group to get a permit. Makes sense with inciting violence as an exception to free speech (that exception being defined awfully narrowly, but their 1st amendment freedom includes not taking such cases anyway)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Ads are targeted based on interest, what a user searches, clicks, etc. So when more males tend to view tech, code, game, and other based articles and groups and then those males receive targeted ads for jobs in the fields they show interest in, or invites to beta test a game they showed interest in, or discount on tickets to some gaming convention or concert for a band they show interest in, then that isn't discriminatory.
So the spammers went from general spam ads but corporations fussed and wanted targeted ads. Brilliant, now everyone gets targeted ads... now back to fussing...
History repeats itself...
Targeted Ads are the new "profiling"
all arms of law enforcement from Federal, State, Local hired profilers, they taught their deputies and agents basic profiling techniques for decades. Now profiling gets attacked by left as "racist" when in fact it isn't. Now the same types are after targeted ads as "racist" or "discriminatory".
While rest of us can sit back and laugh as anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together will have ad blocking of some form going anyway.
I can't believe some people are really going to defend something like a job posting site offering the ability to employers to say "I only want men to know about this job."
If that is what they are doing then there is absolutely no argument at all. However, I suspect that they are doing something more nuanced and, rather than just selecting "men-only" they are selecting to display the ads to people with certain interests and then selecting interests that are biased towards men.
This makes the situation a lot less clear. If the interest group targetted has an interest related to the job being advertized then this is reasonable discrimination regardless of the gender balance of the group. However, if employers are selecting groups only because of their gender balance then this is clearly wrong since it is outright gender discrimination.
This makes the problem a complex one: whether a particular targeting approach is legal depends heavily on the context. However, in today's world of black-and-white politics you can forget any sort of reasoned, sensible response to this. One side will want to ban it outright and the other will want to allow everything.
All are welcome to apply, but testing must be run concurrently
One ad seeking a roofer, from a company called Enhanced Roofing and Remodeling, was targeted to men 23 to 50 in Silver Spring, Maryland, according to information from Facebook accompanying the ad. Another, from JK Moving, seeking drivers, targeted men age 21 to 55 who live or were recently in Maryland.
In both cases, they very specifically targeted not just gender (men) but age (21-55, 23-50). Doesn't seem like much nuance around it.
Irrelevant went to mindless. Ok.
Well documented history vs AC whining. This is where you put some hard evidence on the table, or go back under your bridge.
So much misunderstanding to unpack here:
First and foremost, the ACLU isn't a law enforcement body. Homicide is crime, so they have nothing to do with jail time. That's on the judge, the jury, and the rest of the penal system.
"Punk" isn't a protected class, so there is no civil rights issue. Punk includes all races, or at least it used to, so this can't be related to racism.
Raiding the venues might have First Amendment implications if the intent was to suppress punk music or culture. But if those venues had violations of the law taking place (noise, capacity, alcohol, drugs, permits, etc.), then good luck convincing a jury that the cops weren't just doing their jobs.
I'm not sure what you expected the ACLU to do.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
come folks, reverse discrimination is everywhere.
if I'm white, discrimination exists on me.. almost anywhere there is an upside down community in my city where whites are not safe by themselves at anytime .....
if I'm black, same goes..
if I'm any color in the rainbow... same goes......
jezzus kryste... #metoo #mealso #mememe #mecry #mewannacry #melovestojustsaymetoo #memyselfandi #metoosostupid
now get back to work and do some good for the world.. pickup a project or pickup a cause that has nothing to do with all this PC BS...
Well, you are right Punks aren't a protected class. That's why Brian's killer got off on a manslaughter charge. It's apparently okay to kill poor or middle class white kids. The ACLU has filed civil lawsuits (including class-action cases) in situations where the criminal case wasn't a success. That's a fact, jack. So, don't act all stupid like there is nothing they could/should do. They didn't, despite the case having implications straight outta their creed. So much for "defending liberty". In fact, you are the one who sounds confused. The ALCU isn't the SPLC, they don't specifically go after racists. So, I'm not sure why you even brought that up since it's not even relevant. In the case where the cops were spraying mace on 200 people at once, I'm pretty sure video and audio evidence from both inside and outside of the areas where it took place would have helped at lot with any misunderstandings about alcohol (which wasn't served at those underage shows). I'm also pretty sure it's against folks' civil liberties to be maced when they are standing inside a building listening to a band. That action also endangered a shitton of people who could have caused a stampede. Hard to exercise your civil liberties when you are dead, eh? It's also hard to fight city hall (hello? ACLU?). My understanding is that ACLU wasn't setup for social justice, it was setup to combat attacks on liberty. So, the cops can turn into jackboots or the system thwarts your attempt at justice can just stick around like it is, hey at least we have the ALCU to look out for "protected groups" like LGBTQIAPK folks, though. Whew!
So men can sue for ads that state that they want women only, such as for an OB/GYN nurse, midwife, or something of the sort?
True-ish. That's what they were set up to do, but they and you are defining "attacks on liberty" differently
If you convinced them that the cops were macing people because they were punks then the ACLU may have gotten involved. Because they care about the freedom to express yourself. But they aren't really involved in the "no police brutality" thing.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
These ads are marketed based on who they think is most likely to respond. It's always been this way. In the days of print magazines, were there laws I'm unaware of that made it illegal to put some job adverts in Popular Mechanic but not Homes & Garden? The problem with adverts for job listings is that on the internet, there is a bucket of ads that can be shown to you, and the system has to decide which of those ads it's going to show you. It seems obvious why Facebook would show the 95-year-old woman an ad for a home security system instead of a construction labor position, or show a teenage boy a Fortnite ad rather than a nursing ad. Any anti-discrimination ruling for adverts would essentially require no audience targeting at all. Which I'd be okay with, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
So, the solution is instead for Facebook to just have a page you can go to and browse through every single advert that they have. That way, if you feel they aren't showing you ads you need to see, you can browse through that cesspool for as long as you like. I swear, I never thought I'd see people complaining about not getting the advertisements they want. If this were a job posting site filtering its results, I could understand, but complaining about the advertisements?
The ACLU has filed civil lawsuits (including class-action cases) in situations where the criminal case wasn't a success. That's a fact, jack.
That's because it's important for them to step in when there is no prosecution or conviction. They make sure the bad things stop, or at least that there are consequences.
In your example, the killer was convicted of manslaughter, which is a felony. Based on the circumstances ("ninja in my Caddie" comment), he might have deserved a murder conviction, but there's nothing anyone can do about it now.
In addition, a criminal conviction reduces the need for a civil representation. The criminal conviction establishes the facts of the case and the fault of the perpetrator, so all that's left is a legal claim for damages. You still have to file suit, but you don't need a national organization for that. Your average local attorney should be able to handle it.
In the case where the cops were spraying mace on 200 people at once, I'm pretty sure video and audio evidence
If those recordings were so damning of the police actions, then you'd have a horde of non-ACLU attorneys taking the case on contingency. Most likely, their actions were reprehensible but not illegal.
My understanding is that ACLU wasn't setup for social justice, it was setup to combat attacks on liberty.
The ACLU has defended liberty throughout its history. They even represented the free speech rights of the NSPA (swastika-waving neo-Nazis) and the KKK. The ACLU won the TAK/KKK case in 2012, so we're dealing with recent history.
If you're trying to claim the ACLU is a bunch of SJWs, all I can do is laugh at your ignorance.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
No, it just sounds like you are the SJW and you want to co-opt the ALCU's mission into something more SJW-like. My original point is that they had the chance, but the ALCU affiliated lawyers in the area didn't want to get involved in either case. In the situation where the cops sprayed mace on everyone, they did, in fact get sued. They settled out of court with a pregnant woman and a girl with asthma who were maced for no reason. Explaining why the ALCU files civil suites doesn't erase that fact that you originally acted like they didn't do anything close to those sorts of things, when, in fact, they absolutely do. After all, I was the one who had to point it out to you, first. Explaining it back to me "your way" doesn't change the facts.
...they are buying labor, big difference. Are you saying this company has no right to buy whatever product they want?
It's clear you grossly misunderstand the legal system. Specifically, who can be involved with what processes and when. Until that is corrected, debate is meaningless.