Facebook lets advertisers commit age discrimination

[Quipling]

"Facebook has been accused of age discrimination after they allowed employers like Amazon and Verizon to exclude millions of older Americans from seeing their job ads."


How is it not advertising?

Job ads are advertising, but they are a part of the hiring process.

Yes, it can be financially beneficial for a company to discriminate by age while hiring, but it is also illegal to discriminate by age for employment purposes, unlike targeting certain groups for the purposes of sales.

It's just advertising is a defense for Facebook, but it's not much of one for the employers.

 

[Gunny]

Listing your available jobs is part of your hiring practices. That's why you can't have a "for hire" sign in the window that says, "No blacks". I mean, I hope you don't own your own business man, this is simple stuff.

Your "no blacks" analogy is a dog that won't hunt. If the ads in question read "no one over 30" then you'd have a point. They don't. You need to do better than this. Find the written law, or even the case law, that says you can't target employment ads as described herein. I'll keep an open mind but so far you're not making any sort of case other than that you feel the practice is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

 

[HomerThompson]

Job ads are advertising, but they are a part of the hiring process.

Yes, it can be financially beneficial for a company to discriminate by age while hiring, but it is also illegal to discriminate by age for employment purposes, unlike targeting certain groups for the purposes of sales.

It's just advertising is a defense for Facebook, but it's not much of one for the employers.

Your "no blacks" analogy is a dog that won't hunt. If the ads in question read "no one over 30" then you'd have a point. They don't. You need to do better than this. Find the written law, or even the case law, that says you can't target employment ads as described herein. I'll keep an open mind but so far you're not making any sort of case other than that you feel the practice is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

Listing your available jobs is part of your hiring practices. That's why you can't have a "for hire" sign in the window that says, "No blacks". I mean, I hope you don't own your own business man, this is simple stuff.

Their open positions are still available to everyone in the employment section of their web page. Employers use headhunters to find specific types of employees all of the time. Seeking certain types of people is not illegal. Turning someone else away based on age is.

Should it be illegal for companies to attend job fairs at high schools and colleges instead of bingo halls and nursing homes?

 

[Stoic1]

Illegal. Probably not.

But not very egalitarian, progressive, or liberal. Something that the Facebook crowd prides themselves on.

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

i dont think its a big deal. theyre not discriminating against potential employees based on age.

theyre discriminating who they advertise to based on age. theyre spending money on employee acquisition. they want to spend it in the most efficient way, and if that means targeting an audience based on age, race, or any other piece of data that is relevant to their probability of attracting a new and desired hire, there's no issue with it to me.

an older person can still apply for the job and not be discriminated against. theyre just not advertised to.

 

[Quipling]

Your "no blacks" analogy is a dog that won't hunt. If the ads in question read "no one over 30" then you'd have a point. They don't. You need to do better than this. Find the written law, or even the case law, that says you can't target employment ads as described herein. I'll keep an open mind but so far you're not making any sort of case other than that you feel the practice is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

Only case law is on sex or race discrimination, but Pittsburgh Press v Pittsburgh Commission on Human Rights supports the proposition that sex-designated advertising for jobs could be discriminatory.

There is also case law from circuit courts holding that advertising in female/male-only columns without doing so for the other sex was an unlawful practice. (Hailes v United). Expressly disparate advertising can also be brought as evidence of discriminatory hiring practices.

(There's also more general case law on hiring practices discriminating by age, it's just limited when it comes to specific ads)

 

[Gunny]

Only case law is on sex or race discrimination, but Pittsburgh Press v Pittsburgh Commission on Human Rights supports the proposition that sex-designated advertising for jobs could be discriminatory.

There is also case law from circuit courts holding that advertising in female/male-only columns without doing so for the other sex was an unlawful practice. (Hailes v United). Expressly disparate advertising can also be brought as evidence of discriminatory hiring practices.

I looked up that case and it does not address the question we're wrestling with here. In it the ads themselves were written such that the job itself was being advertised as for males or for females. That was the point of the ruling and didn't relate to demographic targeting parameters.

 

[Quipling]

I looked up that case and it does not address the question we're wrestling with here. In it the ads themselves were written such that the job itself was being advertised as for males or for females. That was the point of the ruling and didn't relate to demographic targeting parameters.

Your distinction here isn't actually one that the court drew. In fact, they referred to the advertisement as not "overtly discriminatory", but determined that a discriminatory purpose could be drawn by the employer's actions: putting it in a sex-designated column. The same inference can also be drawn by putting an ad in Facebook that only targets a certain sex.

Right now, you're making the very silly argument that an advertisement that only reaches one group is somehow categorically less discriminatory than one that reaches both, but implies a preference.

Either way, the result is the same: fewer applicants from the discriminated-against pool, and that effect is what the courts are concerned with.

You need to provide caselaw showing that courts have held that "demographic targeting" is an acceptable hiring practice or drawing some similar distinction that supports your position. It's more than a bit cunty to demand that other people support their arguments with caselaw while failing to do so yourself.

 

[Gunny]

It's more than a bit cunty to demand that other people support their arguments with caselaw while failing to do so yourself.

Well now we're heading to a different place, aren't we? I've been respectful in how I've engaged in this topic, is it impossible for you to do the same? Maybe let's get past this and then I'll address the rest of the post.

 

[xcvbn]

Facebook should be shut the fuck down.

I knew it was bad business the moment they started requesting a driver's license to change your bithdate- and this was like 5 or more years ago.

 

[Quipling]

Well now we're heading to a different place, aren't we? I've been respectful in how I've engaged in this topic, is it impossible for you to do the same? Maybe let's get past this and then I'll address the rest of the post.

You've decided that you want respectful discourse? Cry me a fucking river, you pussy. Don't be so butthurt.

Spoiler

Post your caselaw. I don't find it respectful to make demands of others that you haven't arsed to try meeting yourself or to insist on standards that you don't reach. This is the warroom. If you can't handle someone describing something as "a bit cunty" you shouldn't be here. And if you're going to pretend that it bothers you so you can avoid the conversation, you're a fucking idiot.

Spoiler

 

[Gunny]

You've decided that you want respectful discourse? Cry me a fucking river, you pussy. Don't be so butthurt.

Spoiler

Post your caselaw. I don't find it respectful to make demands of others that you haven't arsed to try meeting yourself or to insist on standards that you don't reach. This is the warroom. If you can't handle someone describing something as "a bit cunty" you shouldn't be here. And if you're going to pretend that it bothers you so you can avoid the conversation, you're a fucking idiot.

Spoiler

Nah, your argument is way underwater and you're trying to turn this into a mud slinging match to save yourself. Not interested.

 

[Quipling]

Nah, your argument is way underwater and you're trying to turn this into a mud slinging match to save yourself. Not interested.

Weird how you suddenly bailed when asked for the same level of evidence you demanded of others.

I'm sure it was because someone used a mean word, something you've never done yourself and have always abhorred. Not because bailing was easier than handling the arguments in the preceding paragraphs.

 

[KILL KILL]

Actually, I've changed my stance on this. The people taking out ads aren't refusing to hire people based on age, just creating ads that targets specific age groups. I don't see that as a problem. All advertising segments to reach a desired audience. If these advertisers were turning people away because they didn't fit within a specific age group, that would be illegal, but I haven't seen that to be the case yet.

 

[Gunny]

Weird how you suddenly bailed when asked for the same level of evidence you demanded of others.

I'm sure it was because someone used a mean word, something you've never done yourself and have always abhorred. Not because bailing was easier than handling the arguments in the preceding paragraphs.

Can I provide you with some perspective? You just spent the past hour looking back NINE YEARS into my post history to find examples of me being rude to people who are not you. You also apparently spent an hour searching up case law that didn't support your argument. Please take a breath, get some fresh air and come back to this discussion when you're calm.

 

[Higus]

I haven't been on Facebook in years. I know targeted ads are a thing, so this seems like it's not really discrimination for hiring as much as it is targeting ads to maximize cost effectiveness, but it's not a good look for Amazon. It would be interesting to see if a court takes up the case. I could see issues where an employer explicitly says they will only send ads to women without kids or people of a certain religion, so I guess the issue is where you draw the line.

 

[freakroor]

"Commit age discrimination" lol what bullshit

Advertisers can target whoever they want.

 

[JosephDredd]

Are they still allowing advertisers exclude users by race? https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race

 

[7437]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

That doesnt say advertisement of the job anywhere.