It's not obvious to me why employers should be able to use the implicit filtering traditional media provides, but not the explicit filtering new advertising platforms provide.
BUT if I am black, I am able to buy a magazine targeted towards white people, peruse the classified ads, and apply to any jobs that interest me.
The other issue is that political leanings are not a protected class. The bar for protected classes is, rightfully, set pretty high, to things that are usually out of one's control (race, age, sexual orientation, gender, etc). I think its entirely fine to segment these ads based on things that aren't protected, the problem is using age which is protected.
Job ads drop a lot of blatant hints about race, age, gender, religion, and so on. Instead of me wasting my time applying to a job I can't get, I'd rather not see them.
Of course, if you are the crusading type, then please go all the way and get the lawyers on the offending company.
Specifically, it is so common to see evaluations of a reasonable hypothetical counter-example that holds together logically, with an implicit or explicit judgement of the outcome meant to discourage the reader from being too hasty in regarding this new outrage as such.
There is no discussion of the reason such laws exist, or any appreciation of the gravity of breaking these laws, indeed little appreciation for what law is and how it is different from the most up-voted answer on stackoverflow. At a minimum, we should all have respect for the risk of legal jeopardy to ourselves in our professional work, as it is often not the executive or the corporate body that bears the punishment.
Same with 6am radio - there is nothing stopping under 35s listening (and indeed there will be many that do).
With FB adverts, it is a complete 100% filter if you are outside the demographic range. You have no choice in the matter as to whether you see that material or not.
The difference with the new systems is that, while I might happen to come across an ad in traditional media because I woke up early or I might happen to be reading a paper I normally don't, there's practically no chance whatsoever for me to accidentally see an ad in Facebook's systems that's not targeted at me. That's a categorically different situation because I'm being explicitly excluded from that content based on factors specified by the employer, not just by luck or personal preference.
Also, the "implicit filtering" of traditional media only passes the bar because it can't actually be proven that the employer is filtering based on age, gender, etc., which isn't the case with an explicit filtering system. Yes, employers can still skirt the system with the traditional media targeting, but they're still illegally discriminating based on age or other factors.
Do you think purchasing a few newspapers from the store in the morning is the same thing as having to register multiple accounts on FB just to avoid their age discrimination which you may not be aware is happening in the first place? This also violates their terms of service.
How many accounts do I need: one white, one black, one hispanic, one 20 - 30, one 30 - 40?? where does it end?
It's unethical developers like you that allows this kind of thing to happen.
> Downvoted and rightly so.
> Do you think purchasing a few newspapers from[...]
> How many accounts do I need: one white, one black, one
> hispanic, one 20 - 30, one 30 - 40?? where does it end?
> It's unethical developers like you that allows this
> kind of thing to happen.
You have it backwards. Everyone might not follow this rule, but reddiquette says "Please don't downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it."
While pg thinks it's perfectly fine to use the downvote to express disagreement:
"I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
> the fact that you're replying at all shows that it's not the latter.
By that logic you should never reply to someone you downvote.
2) Newspaper subscribers are not a protected class. Job seekers over the age of 40 are.
When Facebook decided that they we're going to pick and choose what content people could access, for their own benefit, then they picked up more liability than someone literally broadcasting to everyone in range
I have no insight or opinion on the ethical or legal considerations of targeting on demographic data directly, except to say that platforms should give you the option to conceal that data (and all data) from advertisers.