4 ms·
From the article: > This is considered sex-based discrimination under US equal employment opportunity law, which bans ad targeting based on protected character
by cj 6y ago
From the article:
> This is considered sex-based discrimination under US equal employment opportunity law, which bans ad targeting based on protected characteristics.
The algorithm is not "working as intended" if it's violating EEO laws.
- shadowgovt 6y agoAnd, indeed, those laws are set up, in a sense, to cut against "natural" order (or, more specifically, to widen opportunities beyond the limits imposed by societal tradition).
- KMnO4 6y agoI’m sure the algorithm isn’t checking “if (person.sex == male) { show_car_jobs(); }”, But rather “if (person.likes_cars) { show_car_jobs(); }”.
- psychometry 6y agoClearly, but you're entirely missing the point.
- anoncake 6y agoThe question is it it's checking "if(person.sex != male) { person.likes_cars = false }".
- fabatka 6y agoI think this depends on what the algorithm uses. Or would "liked page related to the job description" be considered a protected characteristic? My non-lawyer instinct would say that as long as the algorithm doesnt't contain a line that explicitly tells it to consider sex as a parameter to decide who to show the ad, it doesn't breach this law.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The algorithm is not "working as intended" if it's violating EEO laws. It is if it is intended to work in a way that violates EEO laws. Just like if somewhat sets a death trap targeting you and it works as planned, the fact that it is violating murder laws doesn’t suddenly mean it isn’t working as intended.