4 ms·
> but their subconscious bias of being white slipped in when designing it Or they didn't have dark skinned people around them to test it on... and didn't think
by ComradePhil 4y ago
> but their subconscious bias of being white slipped in when designing it
Or they didn't have dark skinned people around them to test it on... and didn't think about why it would not work on darker skins.
By saying "subconscious bias" you're implying that deep down they didn't want it to work for dark skinned people.
- tibbydudeza 4y agoNo you are misconstruing it. They did not think of it even though the US has a significant population of African Americans - they moved in social circles or lived in areas where black people simply did not feature in their life. Out of sight - out of mind.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoIn a capitalist economy, if there's a group with less money the system is explicitly designed to discriminate against them. Why would you optimise your product for people who can't afford it? > The typical black family had almost no wealth in 1968 ($2,467; data refer to 1963). Today, that figure is about six times larger ($17,409), but it is still not that far from zero when you consider that families typically draw on their wealth for larger expenses, such as meeting basic needs over the course of retirement, paying for their children’s college education, putting a down payment on a house, or coping with a job loss or medical crisis. > Over the same period, the wealth of the typical white family almost tripled, from a much higher initial level. In 2016, the median African American family had only 10.2 percent of the wealth of the median white family ($17,409 versus $171,000).8
- emteycz 4y agoI don't see why a "capitalist economy" participant would spend a single cent on discrimination of not-customers. Seems to me they would just not care about them, instead of actively discriminating, and they wouldn't try to stop them from being new customers too.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoI note you added the word 'actively'. They don't need to actively discriminate, that was my point, the invisible hand does it, just like it turns their selfish desire for money into goods and services for the rich.
- emteycz 4y agoWhy the rich? Nobody got rich by providing services only to the rich. People get rich by providing services to the masses.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoSell a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day, teach a man to fish and you'll never get rich selling fish to the masses. Though, ideally if you could make the fish addictive, and if it kills them then only slowly and in a way that needs statistics to be tied back to your product, that's the ideal.
- emteycz 4y agoLol, you're paranoid.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tsol 4y agoWhich is where the unconscious bias comes from. It didn't mean researchers were all KKK members, just that they internalized the idea that black people weren't worth considering as they were all poor second class citizens anyways, so who would ever bother taking a picture of them? But this inequality was the result of purposeful economic discrimination by the faction of people that were indeed part of the KKK To answer your question, though, you would want your camera to work for dark skin in case your white customers want to photograph an African American. I see no reason why that should be disallowed even in a racist society. But again, that was an oversight as they didn't even consider that anyone might want to do that
- throwntoday 4y agoThat is exactly what he said. The OP seem to be attempting to attribute racial contempt when the simplest explination is they just did not think of it.
- noobermin 4y agoIt could have been subconcious, or it could have been unintentional bias, which is what I think OP meant.
- karmakaze 4y agoHanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I usually use 'incompetence' or 'ignorance' rather than 'stupidity'.