2 ms·

The fact that the service was implemented such that it only matched men with women, and women with men, could be interpreted as 'active anti-homosexual code'.

The fact that the service was implemented such that it only matched men with women, and women with men, could be interpreted as 'active anti-homosexual code'. On the other hand, one could argue there LGBT singles weren't excluded in the first place -- the site just provided a less than satisfactory service for them. I think this situation is very comparable to face-recognition technology that fails to work properly with people with dark skin, and voice-recognition technology that functions poorly with certain accents. It's desirable that these services and technologies are equally accessible for everyone. To make this a legal obligation may effectively speed up this process. It also risks slowing development by restricting the use of incremental releases.

elpocko 10y ago
I'm a programmer and in my opinion "active code", in this context, implies there is actual code expressly written to fulfill a task (i.e., to not allow homosexuals to match). While in this case, substantial parts are missing (e.g., everything that is required to allow the site to fulfill the needs of LGBT* users). Should we call something that does not even exist "active"? Edit: after thinking about it for a bit, I'm quite sure the site probably actually does have at least one clause written, somewhere, to make sure only men + women match. Simply removing them wouldn't result in good UX though :)
- aethertron 10y ago
  I program too. I get your perspective, I think. If we looked at the site's source code, we (probably) wouldn't be able to identify any specific lines of code that were actively anti-LGBT. To see the complainant and the court's perspective, look at the functionality of the site at a higher level. What does it do? It lets people match up for dating purposes. LGBT people - a specific historically-discriminated-against group - could find this as a useful service too. But the site software lacks the necessary functionality to enable this -- and it doesn't need to be this way. So where's the 'active' exclusionary code? There in the program, considered as a functional whole, not located at any more specific location.

elpocko 10y ago

I'm a programmer and in my opinion "active code", in this context, implies there is actual code expressly written to fulfill a task (i.e., to not allow homosexuals to match). While in this case, substantial parts are missing (e.g., everything that is required to allow the site to fulfill the needs of LGBT* users). Should we call something that does not even exist "active"? Edit: after thinking about it for a bit, I'm quite sure the site probably actually does have at least one clause written, somewhere, to make sure only men + women match. Simply removing them wouldn't result in good UX though :)

aethertron 10y ago
I program too. I get your perspective, I think. If we looked at the site's source code, we (probably) wouldn't be able to identify any specific lines of code that were actively anti-LGBT. To see the complainant and the court's perspective, look at the functionality of the site at a higher level. What does it do? It lets people match up for dating purposes. LGBT people - a specific historically-discriminated-against group - could find this as a useful service too. But the site software lacks the necessary functionality to enable this -- and it doesn't need to be this way. So where's the 'active' exclusionary code? There in the program, considered as a functional whole, not located at any more specific location.