4 ms·

The simple question is: Does everyone have an equal opportunity to this position or not? If you can't even see the ads then the answer is no, and so it's a viol

The simple question is: Does everyone have an equal opportunity to this position or not? If you can't even see the ads then the answer is no, and so it's a violation. If there were different ads for different groups but everyone still had the opportunity to see, apply and acquire the position then it's fair game. Perhaps Facebook could improve job ads to allow for more specific targeting but always have a fallback ad in that campaign for any non-targeted users. This would help employers without excluding anyone.

gnicholas 7y ago
> The simple question is: Does everyone have an equal opportunity to this position or not? If you can't even see the ads then the answer is no, and so it's a violation. Do these cases involve advertising positions that are not listed elsewhere? Because obviously no company can afford to reach everyone who might be interested in a position. I would agree that selective advertising would be much more of a problem if the positions are not listed on employers' websites.
- manigandham 7y ago
  I'm not sure if there is a perfect answer there. It might be best to scope it down to a certain medium and channel and say that all users on that channel have the ability to either see the ad or browse a directory of all listings. If Facebook also had a jobs board that anyone can search and find ads where employers aren't paying for impressions then I think that would offset a targeted campaign to select groups.
WomanCanCode 7y ago
I agree. As a female software developer, I would like to see those ads so I can get better jobs. If I don't even see the ads, then I would not even know about opportunity. Without opportunity, I cannot really progress. If only men see the ads, apply jobs and get interviews, then the employers may think that they shouldn't advertise to women. This is just circular thinking.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  If the employer targeted the ad to exclude you based on some criteria, you don't actually have the opportunity, whether you see the ad or not. If anything, you'd be wasting your time applying for a job that you didn't know excluded you. If the employer targeted the ad just to save money by advertising to a demographic that is more likely to be responsive, that's a different story. Then you might as well argue that you are denied opportunity when, instead of some job ad, you are shown an ad for Coca Cola because you "liked" Coca-Cola at some point. You're not really entitled to see job ads at all, if you look for a job, you can reasonably be expected to find the ads yourself instead of waiting for them to show up randomly. Lastly, it's usually garbage jobs that need to be advertised to people who aren't even actively looking. What if that "opportunity" turned out to be exploitation? Would you then fault Facebook for displaying you the ad?
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    These same things were said in the civil rights movement. Parts of the company may be biased now but letting more of these groups apply has an impact. The specific interviewers you get might not share the bias and more members of the group there will contribute to the culture changing over time as people get used to it.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Not in the steel mill in my town: no woman ever applied in 50 years, why spend money on advertising to them? Nobody rejects female applicants (they don't reject practically anybody), but no woman wants to work there, they can barely find men. Same with any highway construction site: there is no woman in the entire country, the working conditions are too harsh. They accept anyone willing to work (there is much more demand than supply), but no woman applied. Why spend good money on meaningless advertising?
  - pmyteh 7y ago
    In addition to wanting to work in a steel mill, you'd have to want to be the only woman in a steel mill, which adds an additional layer of difficulties to what is already a difficult job. Likewise men in unpleasant female-coded jobs like cleaning. I was a male typist for a while when I was at university. I found the weird experience of breaking gender roles quite entertaining, but it was definitely an addition to the usual do-work-and-get-paid deal. And secretarial work is not intrinsically unpleasant, so I was already doing better than most people in my position. FWIW there are women on highway construction sites in the UK. Not many (construction as a whole is very male) but not none. I think the only industry which is entirely male here is mining, and that's because of a 19th Century law prohibiting women and children from doing it.

gnicholas 7y ago

> The simple question is: Does everyone have an equal opportunity to this position or not? If you can't even see the ads then the answer is no, and so it's a violation. Do these cases involve advertising positions that are not listed elsewhere? Because obviously no company can afford to reach everyone who might be interested in a position. I would agree that selective advertising would be much more of a problem if the positions are not listed on employers' websites.

manigandham 7y ago
I'm not sure if there is a perfect answer there. It might be best to scope it down to a certain medium and channel and say that all users on that channel have the ability to either see the ad or browse a directory of all listings. If Facebook also had a jobs board that anyone can search and find ads where employers aren't paying for impressions then I think that would offset a targeted campaign to select groups.

WomanCanCode 7y ago

I agree. As a female software developer, I would like to see those ads so I can get better jobs. If I don't even see the ads, then I would not even know about opportunity. Without opportunity, I cannot really progress. If only men see the ads, apply jobs and get interviews, then the employers may think that they shouldn't advertise to women. This is just circular thinking.

gridlockd 7y ago
If the employer targeted the ad to exclude you based on some criteria, you don't actually have the opportunity, whether you see the ad or not. If anything, you'd be wasting your time applying for a job that you didn't know excluded you. If the employer targeted the ad just to save money by advertising to a demographic that is more likely to be responsive, that's a different story. Then you might as well argue that you are denied opportunity when, instead of some job ad, you are shown an ad for Coca Cola because you "liked" Coca-Cola at some point. You're not really entitled to see job ads at all, if you look for a job, you can reasonably be expected to find the ads yourself instead of waiting for them to show up randomly. Lastly, it's usually garbage jobs that need to be advertised to people who aren't even actively looking. What if that "opportunity" turned out to be exploitation? Would you then fault Facebook for displaying you the ad?
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  These same things were said in the civil rights movement. Parts of the company may be biased now but letting more of these groups apply has an impact. The specific interviewers you get might not share the bias and more members of the group there will contribute to the culture changing over time as people get used to it.
AdrianB1 7y ago
Not in the steel mill in my town: no woman ever applied in 50 years, why spend money on advertising to them? Nobody rejects female applicants (they don't reject practically anybody), but no woman wants to work there, they can barely find men. Same with any highway construction site: there is no woman in the entire country, the working conditions are too harsh. They accept anyone willing to work (there is much more demand than supply), but no woman applied. Why spend good money on meaningless advertising?
- pmyteh 7y ago
  In addition to wanting to work in a steel mill, you'd have to want to be the only woman in a steel mill, which adds an additional layer of difficulties to what is already a difficult job. Likewise men in unpleasant female-coded jobs like cleaning. I was a male typist for a while when I was at university. I found the weird experience of breaking gender roles quite entertaining, but it was definitely an addition to the usual do-work-and-get-paid deal. And secretarial work is not intrinsically unpleasant, so I was already doing better than most people in my position. FWIW there are women on highway construction sites in the UK. Not many (construction as a whole is very male) but not none. I think the only industry which is entirely male here is mining, and that's because of a 19th Century law prohibiting women and children from doing it.