6 ms·

Facebook enables gender discrimination in job ads: European human rights body

81 points by Bender 1y ago

amelius 1y ago
Title is incorrect: human rights body
- macintux 1y ago
  Unless it has changed, the max character length on a submission title is 80 characters, which this matches exactly. I assume "body" was dropped to make it fit.
- dang 1y ago
  Ok, we've put the body in the title above. (macintux is correct about the char limit)
JuniperMesos 1y ago
> The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights said in a February 18 decision that Facebook’s algorithm reinforced gender stereotypes by mainly showing “typically female professions” to female Facebook users in the Netherlands and that Meta (META), the social platform’s owner, should have monitored and adjusted its algorithm to prevent that. > For example, ads for mechanic positions were predominantly shown to men, while those for preschool teacher roles were primarily directed to women. Global Witness said its experiments in the Netherlands, France, India, Ireland, the United Kingdom and South Africa demonstrated that the algorithm perpetuated similar biases around the world. The non-profit’s investigation led to four complaints from the Dutch human rights group Bureau Clara Wichmann and the French organization Fondation des Femmes. I don't think any of this should be illegal. I don't think anyone is meaningfully harmed by being algorithmically shown job ads stereotypical of one gender rather than another, and I have no problem with any organization at all that does this, whether it's Meta or anyone else. I do not agree with the position of any of these European human rights organizations, and I'd probably be in favor of reforming French anti-discrimination law to explicitly legalize what Meta is doing here.
- paperhatwriter 1y ago
  Can you explain why you think this?
  - cm2012 1y ago
    The algorithm is responding to people's revealed preferences in what job ads they want to see
    - hydrogen7800 1y ago
      All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
      - fastball 1y ago
        The onus needs to be on convincingly demonstrating the alleged systemic harm. Until then, "revealed preference" seems more appropriate.
        hydrogen7800 1y ago
        Are you saying the harm from gender-based employment discrimination needs to be demonstrated, or that harm from facebook's permitting of that discrimination needs to be demonstrated?
        rpdillon 1y ago
        You're begging the question. The challenge is to compel belief that unequal gender distribution across professions creates a systemic harm.
      - billy99k 1y ago
        If a company gets 0% response from a certain group, why should they have to pay for ads, when the likelihood they will find a candidate is next to nothing? This also only ever goes in one direction. A friend of mine works for a company run by and employs 100% women. In any other context, it would be illegal. Instead, it's considered 'diverse' and 'empowering'. Based on statistics alone, it's obvious the company is hiring women based on choice. Tech companies, like Duo, touted the fact that they had all women development teams a few years back. When discrimination like this is an accepted practice, I stop listening.
jl6 1y ago
Are these ads in the sense of unsolicited adverts, or is this some kind of job search engine where people are actively asking Facebook to find a job for them?
- tremon 1y ago
  Why does that distinction matter?
  - jl6 1y ago
    If Facebook have actively hidden job opportunities from someone who is actively searching for employment, that seems like clear and harmful discrimination. If they have just shown targeted ads to someone, possibly mixed into the general adstream, then that seems like a nothingburger.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    Not highlighting something is different than hiding it.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
gogasca 1y ago
Are those algorithms actually doing the right thing? Most of mechanics are men, same for pre-school teachers are women...these are facts not discrimination or bias.
- nicole_express 1y ago
  I mean, "right" is a social construct. It is likely more effective ad targeting, but European law outlaws this despite that, because they believe it is better social policy, decided through the democratic process. Like, if it was a bad idea to do, there'd be less reason to outlaw it, right? Since there'd be no incentive for companies like Facebook to do it anyways.
msla 1y ago
Isn't Europe where headshots are a mandatory part of résumés? I'm sure that Officially Doesn't contribute to discrimination.
- lawn 1y ago
  Sweden is in Europe and no, it's not mandatory and I've never even seen one with a picture.
- xdennis 1y ago
  It's not mandatory, but a headshot is indeed expected in the Europass CV format: https://www.google.com/search?q=europass+cv&tbs=imgo:1&udm=2 https://www.google.com/search?q=europass+cv&tbs=imgo:1&udm=2 . I don't think many people use it, though.
skwee357 1y ago
But isn’t the point of ads and all these tech companies with billions of data points, is to optimize ads to the people who are most likely to click them? I hate ads, and I hate Facebook and all its products, but this just sounds like a bunch of people who misunderstand what ads are for and want equality for the sake of equality.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
MrToadMan 1y ago
Worth mentioning the case brought by the DOJ against Meta with regards housing ads discriminating on protected characteristics in 2022. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-groundbreaking-settlement-agreement-meta-platforms-formerly-known https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
dissent 1y ago
This reminds me of the Harvard Implicit Association test, particularly the gender career one. It will tell you if you implicitly associate certain careers with certain genders. Since the overwhelming majority of, say, auto mechanics, are held by men, associating these roles with men is entirely accurate. Without saying anything of what it "should" be. If your results were anything else, it suggests some kind of powerful overcompensating counter bias is as play. That your desire to see more gender balance in this role is so great, that you subconsciously already believe it to be normal. The real world is a deviation from where it "should" be. This strikes me as a rather pernicious position. Dogmatic. Almost religious.
tsoukase 1y ago
This is a modern trend enforced by a public authority which might be lead opinionated. Is it acceptable to show ads of menstrual napkins or erection pills to specific genders or is it discrimination?

81 points by Bender 1y ago

amelius 1y ago

Title is incorrect: human rights body

macintux 1y ago
Unless it has changed, the max character length on a submission title is 80 characters, which this matches exactly. I assume "body" was dropped to make it fit.
dang 1y ago
Ok, we've put the body in the title above. (macintux is correct about the char limit)

JuniperMesos 1y ago

> The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights said in a February 18 decision that Facebook’s algorithm reinforced gender stereotypes by mainly showing “typically female professions” to female Facebook users in the Netherlands and that Meta (META), the social platform’s owner, should have monitored and adjusted its algorithm to prevent that. > For example, ads for mechanic positions were predominantly shown to men, while those for preschool teacher roles were primarily directed to women. Global Witness said its experiments in the Netherlands, France, India, Ireland, the United Kingdom and South Africa demonstrated that the algorithm perpetuated similar biases around the world. The non-profit’s investigation led to four complaints from the Dutch human rights group Bureau Clara Wichmann and the French organization Fondation des Femmes. I don't think any of this should be illegal. I don't think anyone is meaningfully harmed by being algorithmically shown job ads stereotypical of one gender rather than another, and I have no problem with any organization at all that does this, whether it's Meta or anyone else. I do not agree with the position of any of these European human rights organizations, and I'd probably be in favor of reforming French anti-discrimination law to explicitly legalize what Meta is doing here.

paperhatwriter 1y ago
Can you explain why you think this?
- cm2012 1y ago
  The algorithm is responding to people's revealed preferences in what job ads they want to see
  - hydrogen7800 1y ago
    All discrimination can be described as "revealed preference". A very convenient way of ignoring systemic harm.
    - fastball 1y ago
      The onus needs to be on convincingly demonstrating the alleged systemic harm. Until then, "revealed preference" seems more appropriate.
      - hydrogen7800 1y ago
        Are you saying the harm from gender-based employment discrimination needs to be demonstrated, or that harm from facebook's permitting of that discrimination needs to be demonstrated?
        rpdillon 1y ago
        You're begging the question. The challenge is to compel belief that unequal gender distribution across professions creates a systemic harm.
    - billy99k 1y ago
      If a company gets 0% response from a certain group, why should they have to pay for ads, when the likelihood they will find a candidate is next to nothing? This also only ever goes in one direction. A friend of mine works for a company run by and employs 100% women. In any other context, it would be illegal. Instead, it's considered 'diverse' and 'empowering'. Based on statistics alone, it's obvious the company is hiring women based on choice. Tech companies, like Duo, touted the fact that they had all women development teams a few years back. When discrimination like this is an accepted practice, I stop listening.

jl6 1y ago

Are these ads in the sense of unsolicited adverts, or is this some kind of job search engine where people are actively asking Facebook to find a job for them?

tremon 1y ago
Why does that distinction matter?
- jl6 1y ago
  If Facebook have actively hidden job opportunities from someone who is actively searching for employment, that seems like clear and harmful discrimination. If they have just shown targeted ads to someone, possibly mixed into the general adstream, then that seems like a nothingburger.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  Not highlighting something is different than hiding it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

gogasca 1y ago

Are those algorithms actually doing the right thing? Most of mechanics are men, same for pre-school teachers are women...these are facts not discrimination or bias.

nicole_express 1y ago
I mean, "right" is a social construct. It is likely more effective ad targeting, but European law outlaws this despite that, because they believe it is better social policy, decided through the democratic process. Like, if it was a bad idea to do, there'd be less reason to outlaw it, right? Since there'd be no incentive for companies like Facebook to do it anyways.

msla 1y ago

Isn't Europe where headshots are a mandatory part of résumés? I'm sure that Officially Doesn't contribute to discrimination.

lawn 1y ago
Sweden is in Europe and no, it's not mandatory and I've never even seen one with a picture.
xdennis 1y ago
It's not mandatory, but a headshot is indeed expected in the Europass CV format: https://www.google.com/search?q=europass+cv&tbs=imgo:1&udm=2 https://www.google.com/search?q=europass+cv&tbs=imgo:1&udm=2 . I don't think many people use it, though.

skwee357 1y ago

But isn’t the point of ads and all these tech companies with billions of data points, is to optimize ads to the people who are most likely to click them? I hate ads, and I hate Facebook and all its products, but this just sounds like a bunch of people who misunderstand what ads are for and want equality for the sake of equality.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

MrToadMan 1y ago

Worth mentioning the case brought by the DOJ against Meta with regards housing ads discriminating on protected characteristics in 2022. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-groundbreaking-settlement-agreement-meta-platforms-formerly-known https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...

dissent 1y ago

This reminds me of the Harvard Implicit Association test, particularly the gender career one. It will tell you if you implicitly associate certain careers with certain genders. Since the overwhelming majority of, say, auto mechanics, are held by men, associating these roles with men is entirely accurate. Without saying anything of what it "should" be. If your results were anything else, it suggests some kind of powerful overcompensating counter bias is as play. That your desire to see more gender balance in this role is so great, that you subconsciously already believe it to be normal. The real world is a deviation from where it "should" be. This strikes me as a rather pernicious position. Dogmatic. Almost religious.

tsoukase 1y ago

This is a modern trend enforced by a public authority which might be lead opinionated. Is it acceptable to show ads of menstrual napkins or erection pills to specific genders or is it discrimination?