3 ms·

It has nothing to do with virtue, it's a matter of Facebook and its advertisers violating the written law. EEOC exists due to law, and all employers are require

by Endy 8y ago

It has nothing to do with virtue, it's a matter of Facebook and its advertisers violating the written law. EEOC exists due to law, and all employers are required to abide by it. If you violate equal opportunity employment by discriminating for any one of a number of protected classes, you are acting unlawfully. Facebook should not be so openly allowed to violate the law, and for doing so, the individuals in the corporation as well as the corp itself should be charged with their crimes and assessed fines.

rimliu 8y ago
Facebook does not employ anyone here, it's about ads.
- Endy 8y ago
  If you allow an unlawful ad to exist on your platform, you are knowingly violating the law and should be punished.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    So if I were to say, "Hey guys, you can get two ounces of pure, uncut cocaine right here, right now... Just send me cash via PayPal and I'll post it to you today!" and no HN moderator removes this comment, then I have posted an unlawful advertisement on HN. By your standing, the operators are now violating the law as soon as a moderator glances across this shitpost, and would require punishment. While that's clearly a ridiculous thing at face value - and I am likely coming across as obtuse by mentioning it - it highlights just what's wrong with your position I feel. I would consider it unrealistic to expect a large-scale content platform like facebook to be liable for individual ads. (Perhaps they could be proactive in reporting offenders to the correct authorities, but a knee-jerk punishment doesn't seem appropriate to me).
    - furgooswft13 8y ago
      If you said "Hey guys & gals" it would be okay.
      - King-Aaron 8y ago
        Noted!
monochromatic 8y ago
What law specifically does this violate?
MaxBarraclough 8y ago
It doesn't necessarily break the law though, as far as I can tell. There are exceptions in the law for when the person's sex genuinely matters. If you're hiring male models/dancers/actors/medical test subjects, for instance, then you're exempted. As far as I could see in my skim-read of the article, it makes no mention of such cases.
ag71668 8y ago
Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal candidacy. Women are not prevented from applying for these jobs, nor are the ads hidden from women. But real-life demographic analysis shows that men are overwhelmingly the qualified demographic for this role. Advertising to that demographic is not against the law, and it is not discrimination. Forcing employers to waste resources equalizing the advertising efforts across worthless demographics is just fucking stupid. Stop this social justice warrior insanity.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  > Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal candidacy. You're conflating your vernacular interpretation of the popular name of the law with the text of the law itself. Regardless of how you interpret the phrase "equal opportunity", the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces the full text of employment discrimination laws, and not just their titles. > But real-life demographic analysis shows that men are overwhelmingly the qualified demographic for this role. Are you familiar with the phrase, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics?" I've seen some of these real-life demographic analyses that support this kind of conclusion, and they have an overwhelming tendency to be utter bunk. > Advertising to that demographic is not against the law In fact, it's been specifically prohibited in the USA since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >>nor are the ads hidden from women. Huh? The ads are shown to only men. So how are they “not hidden” from women? If I were a woman, I wouldn’t even be aware these ads exist. And if I did, in order to see them I would need to tell Facebook I’m a man. That means to me the ads are pretty damn hidden.
belorn 8y ago
The parent post allude to the fact that many companies do already advertise exclusively to a single gender in the name of outreach. You can not just throw around the idea of "protected classes" to mean that discrimination is acceptable except when it benefit men. If targeted job advertisement based on gender is illegal then let make that the new norm. The extreme end on both side of the so called gender war will be against it and hopefully the majority in the middle will be in favor of it. I strongly doubt however that the law can currently be used to push this since so much of out reach programs have been using targeted job advertisement.

by Endy 8y ago

rimliu 8y ago

Facebook does not employ anyone here, it's about ads.

Endy 8y ago
If you allow an unlawful ad to exist on your platform, you are knowingly violating the law and should be punished.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  So if I were to say, "Hey guys, you can get two ounces of pure, uncut cocaine right here, right now... Just send me cash via PayPal and I'll post it to you today!" and no HN moderator removes this comment, then I have posted an unlawful advertisement on HN. By your standing, the operators are now violating the law as soon as a moderator glances across this shitpost, and would require punishment. While that's clearly a ridiculous thing at face value - and I am likely coming across as obtuse by mentioning it - it highlights just what's wrong with your position I feel. I would consider it unrealistic to expect a large-scale content platform like facebook to be liable for individual ads. (Perhaps they could be proactive in reporting offenders to the correct authorities, but a knee-jerk punishment doesn't seem appropriate to me).
  - furgooswft13 8y ago
    If you said "Hey guys & gals" it would be okay.
    - King-Aaron 8y ago
      Noted!

monochromatic 8y ago

What law specifically does this violate?

MaxBarraclough 8y ago

It doesn't necessarily break the law though, as far as I can tell. There are exceptions in the law for when the person's sex genuinely matters. If you're hiring male models/dancers/actors/medical test subjects, for instance, then you're exempted. As far as I could see in my skim-read of the article, it makes no mention of such cases.

ag71668 8y ago

Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal candidacy. Women are not prevented from applying for these jobs, nor are the ads hidden from women. But real-life demographic analysis shows that men are overwhelmingly the qualified demographic for this role. Advertising to that demographic is not against the law, and it is not discrimination. Forcing employers to waste resources equalizing the advertising efforts across worthless demographics is just fucking stupid. Stop this social justice warrior insanity.

bunderbunder 8y ago
> Equal opportunity doesn't mean equal candidacy. You're conflating your vernacular interpretation of the popular name of the law with the text of the law itself. Regardless of how you interpret the phrase "equal opportunity", the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforces the full text of employment discrimination laws, and not just their titles. > But real-life demographic analysis shows that men are overwhelmingly the qualified demographic for this role. Are you familiar with the phrase, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics?" I've seen some of these real-life demographic analyses that support this kind of conclusion, and they have an overwhelming tendency to be utter bunk. > Advertising to that demographic is not against the law In fact, it's been specifically prohibited in the USA since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>nor are the ads hidden from women. Huh? The ads are shown to only men. So how are they “not hidden” from women? If I were a woman, I wouldn’t even be aware these ads exist. And if I did, in order to see them I would need to tell Facebook I’m a man. That means to me the ads are pretty damn hidden.

belorn 8y ago

The parent post allude to the fact that many companies do already advertise exclusively to a single gender in the name of outreach. You can not just throw around the idea of "protected classes" to mean that discrimination is acceptable except when it benefit men. If targeted job advertisement based on gender is illegal then let make that the new norm. The extreme end on both side of the so called gender war will be against it and hopefully the majority in the middle will be in favor of it. I strongly doubt however that the law can currently be used to push this since so much of out reach programs have been using targeted job advertisement.