4 ms·

Such a horribly disingenuous click bait title, that doesn't even line up with what's actually in the article. >> They advertised for two delivery driver jobs,

by _0ffh 6y ago

Such a horribly disingenuous click bait title, that doesn't even line up with what's actually in the article. >> They advertised for two delivery driver jobs, for example: one for Domino’s (pizza delivery) and one for Instacart (grocery delivery). There are currently more men than women who drive for Domino’s, and vice versa for Instacart. [...] The Domino’s ad was shown to more men than women, and the Instacart ad was shown to more women than men. The researchers found the same pattern with ads for two other pairs of jobs: software engineers for Nvidia (skewed male) and Netflix (skewed female), and sales associates for cars (skewed male) and jewelry (skewed female). << In short: >> The findings suggest that Facebook’s algorithms are somehow picking up on the current demographic distribution of these jobs, which often differ for historical reasons. << That's not at all what is explicitly, and falsely, claimed in the headline!

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> The findings suggest that Facebook’s algorithms are somehow picking up on the current demographic distribution of these jobs, which often differ for historical reasons. It seems like it would also be possible that the demographics of the jobs differ for non-historical reasons, and Facebook's algorithms are correctly picking up on the fact that women are more interested in working for Instacart than for Domino's...?
- _0ffh 6y ago
  Yes it could of course be all kinds of things. Men could post more about pizza and women more about groceries, men could post more about Nvidia and women about Netflix. But that's not where my beef is. This is certainly not "excluding women" because it is just as much "excluding men" for some jobs, where "excluding" means "less likely to show the ad to" (we don't even get to know how much less likely, could be ppm for all we know) and "men" and "women" are interchangeable wherefore the "women" in the headline is irrelevant, distracting and (I must assume) willfully misleading.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by _0ffh 6y ago

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> The findings suggest that Facebook’s algorithms are somehow picking up on the current demographic distribution of these jobs, which often differ for historical reasons. It seems like it would also be possible that the demographics of the jobs differ for non-historical reasons, and Facebook's algorithms are correctly picking up on the fact that women are more interested in working for Instacart than for Domino's...?

_0ffh 6y ago
Yes it could of course be all kinds of things. Men could post more about pizza and women more about groceries, men could post more about Nvidia and women about Netflix. But that's not where my beef is. This is certainly not "excluding women" because it is just as much "excluding men" for some jobs, where "excluding" means "less likely to show the ad to" (we don't even get to know how much less likely, could be ppm for all we know) and "men" and "women" are interchangeable wherefore the "women" in the headline is irrelevant, distracting and (I must assume) willfully misleading.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]