5 ms·

For your examples of intent vs actual net targeting, it is not unreasonable to expect that an employer check the actual results of their targeting selections an

by toss1 7y ago

For your examples of intent vs actual net targeting, it is not unreasonable to expect that an employer check the actual results of their targeting selections and ensure that they produce sound results. "what is the underlying criteria that supposedly separates job listings from product listings?" It is called Equal Opportunity Employment Law. If you want to employ someone, you MUST give equal opportunity, and cannot discriminate based on any of the protected classes (and ignorance of the law is no excuse). Re your various characteristics, again, you MUST check your results for parity of results. Your example of "oh, I'm just targeting these particular characteristics and I had no idea that they happened to correlate 100% with young white males, oh my!", would provide such an easy work-aroud the EEO laws as to make them worthless. So, no, you can't do that.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
> “It is called Equal Opportunity Employment Law.” Sorry I was not clear about this. I meant what are the sociological / philosophical reasons. Legal reasons get created at the whim of lobbying or party politics and don’t usually have much to do with protecting the welfare of people (even though they can selectively serve that purpose after the fact).
- yawaramin 7y ago
  > I meant what are the sociological / philosophical reasons. Are you asking why it's bad to discriminate against women, foreigners, and older people in hiring?
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    No, and it’s fairly ludicrous to even suppose it. I’m asking why we choose to emphasize this along some axes of characteristics and not along others. E.g. introvert / extravert axis is something employers are free to discriminate / harass along (e.g. open plan office layouts, less “outgoing” people often paid much less for the same job) even though it likely causes as much damage as any other axis that roughly splits the population. Yet few people seem bothered enough by this to organize legislation or talk about it seriously. I think it’s interesting to ask why some kinds of characteristcs (gender, sexual orientation) are allowed to have this elevated status, and what does it mean about true intentions behind why there are protected classes of characteristics? Because of the existence of unprotected characteristic axes like introvert / extravert that few seem to care much about, the explanation of protected classes, by definition, cannot be mitigation of harm / equitable treatment, etc.
    - yawaramin 7y ago
      > E.g. introvert / extravert axis is something employers are free to discriminate / harass along First of all–'introversion' is, scientifically speaking, not as clear-cut as what most people think it is ( https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/will-the-real-introverts-please-stand-up/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/will-th... ). Medically speaking, it's not considered to be a disability. For conditions that are medically considered as disabilities, the relevant US law already covers accommodations: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm > it likely causes as much damage as any other axis that roughly splits the population. I wonder how you are measuring 'damage'? Are you saying that introverts suffer as much damage from loud workplaces as racial minorities do from being denied employment? I'm really struggling to understand the logic here. > I think it’s interesting to ask why some kinds of characteristcs (gender, sexual orientation) are allowed to have this elevated status, You are free to read up on the history of why the protected classes exist in employment law if interested. The relevant laws and judgments behind them are all public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States > Because of the existence of unprotected characteristic axes ... the explanation of protected classes, by definition, cannot be mitigation of harm Or ... here's another explanation–you may not have fully understood the history of the relevant laws, why the existing protected classes reached that status, and mistakenly believe that other classes were not considered. Fortunately, you have plenty of opportunity to educate yourself if interested.
      - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        > “First of all–'introversion' is, scientifically speaking, not as clear-cut as what most people think it is” Why do you believe this matters to the discussion? Some may say the same about gender identity, which is only just being understood, yet that lack of scientific understanding has not prevented it from being a protected class. > “Are you saying that introverts suffer as much damage from loud workplaces as racial minorities do from being denied employment?” It’s juvenile that you seem to think that a certain class has to “suffer as much as” some other class before the characteristic defining that class might be seriously considered for protected status. It reminds me of the inanity in Berlin local politics about which of various holocaust victim groups get the best real estate for memorials. Nobody is talking about totalling up exact amounts of suffering of this group or that. But it is quite telling to me that you’d rather be dismissive of possible suffering of a large cohort like introverts than to engage with the point. > “You are free to read up on the history of why the protected classes exist in employment law if interested. The relevant laws and judgments“ You didn’t read my comment above, where I specifically mentioned I’m not interested in the legal process that led to this, rather the entirely separate sociological and philosophical parts that people seem to use to justify protection of one type of characteristic but not others. > “I'm really struggling to understand the logic here.” Yes, this much is clear.

by toss1 7y ago

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

> “It is called Equal Opportunity Employment Law.” Sorry I was not clear about this. I meant what are the sociological / philosophical reasons. Legal reasons get created at the whim of lobbying or party politics and don’t usually have much to do with protecting the welfare of people (even though they can selectively serve that purpose after the fact).

yawaramin 7y ago
> I meant what are the sociological / philosophical reasons. Are you asking why it's bad to discriminate against women, foreigners, and older people in hiring?
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  No, and it’s fairly ludicrous to even suppose it. I’m asking why we choose to emphasize this along some axes of characteristics and not along others. E.g. introvert / extravert axis is something employers are free to discriminate / harass along (e.g. open plan office layouts, less “outgoing” people often paid much less for the same job) even though it likely causes as much damage as any other axis that roughly splits the population. Yet few people seem bothered enough by this to organize legislation or talk about it seriously. I think it’s interesting to ask why some kinds of characteristcs (gender, sexual orientation) are allowed to have this elevated status, and what does it mean about true intentions behind why there are protected classes of characteristics? Because of the existence of unprotected characteristic axes like introvert / extravert that few seem to care much about, the explanation of protected classes, by definition, cannot be mitigation of harm / equitable treatment, etc.
  - yawaramin 7y ago
    > E.g. introvert / extravert axis is something employers are free to discriminate / harass along First of all–'introversion' is, scientifically speaking, not as clear-cut as what most people think it is ( https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/will-the-real-introverts-please-stand-up/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/will-th... ). Medically speaking, it's not considered to be a disability. For conditions that are medically considered as disabilities, the relevant US law already covers accommodations: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm > it likely causes as much damage as any other axis that roughly splits the population. I wonder how you are measuring 'damage'? Are you saying that introverts suffer as much damage from loud workplaces as racial minorities do from being denied employment? I'm really struggling to understand the logic here. > I think it’s interesting to ask why some kinds of characteristcs (gender, sexual orientation) are allowed to have this elevated status, You are free to read up on the history of why the protected classes exist in employment law if interested. The relevant laws and judgments behind them are all public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States > Because of the existence of unprotected characteristic axes ... the explanation of protected classes, by definition, cannot be mitigation of harm Or ... here's another explanation–you may not have fully understood the history of the relevant laws, why the existing protected classes reached that status, and mistakenly believe that other classes were not considered. Fortunately, you have plenty of opportunity to educate yourself if interested.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      > “First of all–'introversion' is, scientifically speaking, not as clear-cut as what most people think it is” Why do you believe this matters to the discussion? Some may say the same about gender identity, which is only just being understood, yet that lack of scientific understanding has not prevented it from being a protected class. > “Are you saying that introverts suffer as much damage from loud workplaces as racial minorities do from being denied employment?” It’s juvenile that you seem to think that a certain class has to “suffer as much as” some other class before the characteristic defining that class might be seriously considered for protected status. It reminds me of the inanity in Berlin local politics about which of various holocaust victim groups get the best real estate for memorials. Nobody is talking about totalling up exact amounts of suffering of this group or that. But it is quite telling to me that you’d rather be dismissive of possible suffering of a large cohort like introverts than to engage with the point. > “You are free to read up on the history of why the protected classes exist in employment law if interested. The relevant laws and judgments“ You didn’t read my comment above, where I specifically mentioned I’m not interested in the legal process that led to this, rather the entirely separate sociological and philosophical parts that people seem to use to justify protection of one type of characteristic but not others. > “I'm really struggling to understand the logic here.” Yes, this much is clear.