4 ms·
Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this is
by crypt1d 13y ago
Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this issue is incompetence.
- chris_wot 13y agoThere was nothing light about how I used it. Even if this was not done intentionally, it still discriminated against her. Sort of like how gender fields with only a Male/Female option unintentionally discriminate against transgender people. Nothing intentional, but still happens - and still discrimination.
- judk 13y agoSince Facebook has now fixed this bug in their UI/database, safe to say it is intentional elsewhere. At least in the sense that "supporting gender fluid users is lower priority than adding more whizzy animations to the UI".
- saalweachter 13y agoHow about "obstinacy"?
- vidarh 13y agoThe two are not incompatible. If your incompetence leads you to implement a policy that disproportionally disadvantages a certain group, you are also discriminating against them. Discrimination does not require intent.
- walshemj 13y agoyou can "indirectly discriminate" if you implement polices that effect a larger proportionate of a particular group. It's why stop and search that targets a large number of young black men is seen as racist. It might be incompetence the first time but this has been going on for such a long time now that that is wearing a bit thin as an excuse.
- judk 13y agoThis called "disparate impact" in US law. Quite a controversial issue, and only getting worse ad.machine learning algorithms grow in power and influence.