Hacker News Reader

Comment by aspidistra | Hacker News Reader

In the UK, at least, "discriminate" is the right word because it is possible to discriminate indirectly. This is defined in law. If you have rules that apply to everyone but disadvantage people who share a protected characteristic, you are discriminating, whether you intended to or not.

http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...

View on HN

That's the usage I'm familiar with even in regular discourse, although apparently many HNers have a different view of what the term means, so maybe usage differs. To me, "discrimination" is more of an objective issue, not the same as "prejudice" or "bigotry" which are more subjective issues. Saying "Google is prejudiced towards Native Americans" would imply that someone there actively dislikes Native Americans, while saying that "Google policy [x] discriminates against Native Americans" only implies (to me) that the policy has a negative effect that specifically impacts Native Americans, but doesn't imply that someone at Google came up with the policy out of a dislike of Native Americans or an actual intent to harm them.

It's the same in the US, the person you're replying to simply needs to consult a dictionary.

I don't like his post because he needlessly implies Google engineers are malicious when it's obviously not the case.

>staff are either incompetent, or racist. I hope for incompetence. Either is bad, but racism is much worse than incompetence.

>protected characteristic

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-e...

Does that include names?

You're right: it is wrong to suggest that Google is deliberately malicious here. But again, you can have the best intentions in the world and still be discriminatory. I think it's important to separate the two terms: malicious suggests a motive, while discrimination is about consequences.

> Does that include names?

IANAL, but the specific discrimination against Native American or First Nation names could fall under race. Race in terms of the Equality Act is more than just skin colour: it includes nationality, or ethnic origin.

Or even belief, which "need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world", according to this page from the EHRC:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/furth...

Our names do "affect how we live our lives": we have to use them every day. They are a way of defining who we are.

I don't think it's a stretch either to say that many cultures place a great deal of emphasis and tradition on names. I'm no anthropologist, but variations on naming ceremonies exist throughout the world -- christenings, for example.

Also see the other six points under belief on the EHRC page above. They arguably protect the right of Native Americans to use their own names, and not be denied service because of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com