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.
That's true, but the EEOC's definition of discrimination pertains to certain protected classes. Is that just? I think this is where the discussion should begin.
Job wanted ads are not the same as advertising for consumer products and services. A job is not a product - they are two different things treated in very different ways by the legal system.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Job ads and housing ads are treated exactly the same. That's why this issue has come up in the past on that very subject (housing).
Civil Rights laws have rather loose "result based" standards that probably seem counter-intutitive to a lot of civil libertines.
You can't even avoid advertising to people. What constitutes that sort of thing isn't intuitive to a layman.
Even excluding convicted criminals can be a problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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." That's not a complicated case for discrimination. Newspapers and job posting websites like monster didn't offer protected class attribute targeting and employers didn't find this so economically burdensome as to not to advertise in them so it's pretty stupid to charge that this is something that employers need to be able to do as the cost of making the job market significantly less transparent for everybody.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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/
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.
That is what happens when you allow the Legal Industrial Complex to convince every American that they're offended by every fucking thing, or should be.
And of course they should sue someone because of it.
This is exactly how we ended up here in the Land of the Perpetually Offended. The irony? We fight every day to retain Freedom of Speech, and yet we're working very quickly at the same time to utterly destroy it with this addiction to political correctness.
You seem to be comparing this to advertisers who specific target ads in say ebony, or on BET. However it's not quite the same thing.
I think the housing example is the clearest example of where this is obviously wrong. There are strong laws against discrimination in housing and specifically not showing your ad to a segment of the population is clearly discriminatory.
Targeting is fine, exclusion isn't.
How is it right for an unelected minority to decide who everybody else must live with?
These laws were not put in place by an unelected minority. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 was a bill that passed Congress and was signed into law by the then-President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal within the United States to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. According to Wikipedia, it It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Additional laws including (but not limited to) the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 followed... check out https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm to see all of the laws enforced by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Duly elected representatives of the people of the United States have determined that these kinds of discrimination will not be tolerated.
Job ads and housing ads are treated exactly the same. That's why this issue has come up in the past on that very subject (housing).
Yes, they're treated the same, which is to say that Facebook intentionally created a tool that enables discrimination. There shouldn't even be discriminatory options presented when you create an advertisement for a job or a rental, but that's how Facebook authored the tool.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
This claim that mere accusations of being looked at "wrong" are enough for sexual harassment complaints is bogus. There needs to be a documented pattern of behaviour or a single well documented overt incident like groping in public.
Complaining about looks with no evidence will just get you on HR's shit list and passed over for promotion.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hooters hires only female waitstaff, and requires them to be "slim and fit". They were sued, and won, since the appearance of their waitresses is critical to their business model. So the law makes reasonable exceptions.
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."
Some people believe in freedom, including the freedom to choose how you target advertising that you are paying for. Other people believe it is a valid and reasonable function of the police power of the state to force people to spend their money against their wishes. Therein lies the dichotomy. Freedom or not freedom. Anti-freedom advocates know their position is morally inferior, which is why they expend a tremendous amount of energy exercising the mental gymnastics required to define "freedom" as requiring people to behave a certain way under penalty of imprisonment.