Search algorithms have learned our nefarious ways
April 16, 2015 9:49 AM Subscribe
New research from Carnegie Mellon reveals: Ads for careerchange.com advertising "$200k+ Jobs - Execs Only" were shown roughly 1,800 times to the “male” profiles and only around 300 times to the “female” profiles.
Google lets you target advertising by gender. Some jobs company used that to target their ads to men. Is there anything more to this?
posted by smackfu at 10:18 AM on April 16, 2015
posted by smackfu at 10:18 AM on April 16, 2015
If only there was an adblock browswer extension for systemic gender inequality.
posted by Fizz at 10:18 AM on April 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Fizz at 10:18 AM on April 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's not even the most worrisome part; this is:
In a separate part of the study, ads for substance abuse rehabilitation and disabilities-related services were shown to profiles pre-populated with those interests by visiting websites on those topics. Google’s policy, however, prohibits remarketing, the targeting a user based on previous visits to a site, based on “health information.”
posted by chavenet at 10:29 AM on April 16, 2015
In a separate part of the study, ads for substance abuse rehabilitation and disabilities-related services were shown to profiles pre-populated with those interests by visiting websites on those topics. Google’s policy, however, prohibits remarketing, the targeting a user based on previous visits to a site, based on “health information.”
posted by chavenet at 10:29 AM on April 16, 2015
Couldn't the gender targeting just be a side-effect of targeting based on income? 'Cause that seems kinda possible.
“This was a clear act of differentiation,” Anupam Datta said, one of the researchers on the study and an associate professor in Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon. “Whether it’s the legal sense of discrimination is not for us to say, but it is certainly concerning.”
Ridiculous. Even if they're deliberately targeting the ads at men, it's not (the illegal kind of) discrimination any more than putting an ad for Viagra in GQ but not Cosmopolitan is.
It would be shitty of them to think of their executive pimping service as something mostly for men, but it's a shittiness that ultimately amounts to a self-imposed boycott. What advantage would there be to limiting ads for a gender-neutral product/service to male eyeballs?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:33 AM on April 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
“This was a clear act of differentiation,” Anupam Datta said, one of the researchers on the study and an associate professor in Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon. “Whether it’s the legal sense of discrimination is not for us to say, but it is certainly concerning.”
Ridiculous. Even if they're deliberately targeting the ads at men, it's not (the illegal kind of) discrimination any more than putting an ad for Viagra in GQ but not Cosmopolitan is.
It would be shitty of them to think of their executive pimping service as something mostly for men, but it's a shittiness that ultimately amounts to a self-imposed boycott. What advantage would there be to limiting ads for a gender-neutral product/service to male eyeballs?
posted by Sys Rq at 10:33 AM on April 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Targeting jobs by gender violates the equal employment opportunity act. I'm doubt targeting recipients by gender does, sadly. And I'm sure that's what's done. I have a graduate degree and list my job on facebook, but I #frequently# get ads saying "obama wants moms to go to college". Gender, not browsing habits or other profile information.
However, the targeting is indicative of the subtle bias against women in the workplace, including that women don't earn as much as men.
Perhaps I'm especially sensitive to nuances because I just spent two days negotiating contracts in a southern boyzone. It's odd to be the only female voice in a room full of men, I mean, except for the requests for clarification on some detail not important enough for the important people to remember. I like to believe that my field is easier (and it certainly is than the programming stories I read here), but damn. I'm irked.
posted by Measured Out my Life in Coffeespoons at 10:46 AM on April 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, the targeting is indicative of the subtle bias against women in the workplace, including that women don't earn as much as men.
Perhaps I'm especially sensitive to nuances because I just spent two days negotiating contracts in a southern boyzone. It's odd to be the only female voice in a room full of men, I mean, except for the requests for clarification on some detail not important enough for the important people to remember. I like to believe that my field is easier (and it certainly is than the programming stories I read here), but damn. I'm irked.
posted by Measured Out my Life in Coffeespoons at 10:46 AM on April 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's no way to verify that Google was doing the actual ad matching in any of these cases - ads get delivered by lots of systems and setting your gender in Google's ad settings has zero effect if the ad is being targeted by some other provider.
posted by GuyZero at 10:54 AM on April 16, 2015
posted by GuyZero at 10:54 AM on April 16, 2015
What advantage would there be to limiting ads for a gender-neutral product/service to male eyeballs?
Is that a serious question?
The "advantage" is that people in power are reassured that new people in power will be like them, and thus they will remain in power. Whereas if power is opened up to different people, well, they're different, and there's a pretty goddamned good chance they would shake things up, i.e. threaten existing power-holders.
It's called "systemic" for a reason.
posted by fraula at 11:59 AM on April 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Is that a serious question?
The "advantage" is that people in power are reassured that new people in power will be like them, and thus they will remain in power. Whereas if power is opened up to different people, well, they're different, and there's a pretty goddamned good chance they would shake things up, i.e. threaten existing power-holders.
It's called "systemic" for a reason.
posted by fraula at 11:59 AM on April 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I know that this is bad, but was I alone in thinking that these types of ads were 100% spam? Is there any way they could be legitimate? I have a hard time believing actual non-scam $200k jobs get filled this way. There are other, different methods by which women are excluded.
posted by bleep at 12:26 PM on April 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bleep at 12:26 PM on April 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maybe far from battling rogue A.I., reality's Turing Police will be Dept. of Labor bureaucrats who examine data mining algorithms to make sure they don't violate EEOC statues.
Still pretty cyberpunk.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:27 PM on April 16, 2015
Still pretty cyberpunk.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:27 PM on April 16, 2015
So ad vendors assume men are more gullible and delusional about their self-worth?
posted by benzenedream at 12:59 PM on April 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 12:59 PM on April 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
It takes a male ego to focus only on profit... Well, at least 15/18ths of the time if the algorithm is to be believed.
posted by HotTears at 1:31 PM on April 16, 2015
posted by HotTears at 1:31 PM on April 16, 2015
Stupid company uses stupid recruiting algorithm. My reaction is to let this company stew in its own stupidity juices until it dries up and blows away.
posted by storybored at 6:50 PM on April 16, 2015
posted by storybored at 6:50 PM on April 16, 2015
Wow, when I searched for "$200k+ Jobs - Execs Only", the careerchange ad told me about $250K+ jobs. I must be really special, not like those nobs who only get offered $200K+ jobs.
Unsurprisingly, this leads you to an ad for some kind of job search program. They are almost certainly going for men because more men buy this line of garbage than women do. I am too lazy to actually contact them and find out how much they charge for "One of our Career Specialists" to "reach out to you shortly, to assist you and help you find the right career – the career that pays more!" but I bet it's more than I could afford.
I was just checking the links in this comment, and now they're saying "Total compensation more than $300K!" Oh my god, I'm never going to have to worry about money again. I would kiss my penis in gratitude if I could reach it.
posted by fivebells at 9:22 PM on April 16, 2015
Unsurprisingly, this leads you to an ad for some kind of job search program. They are almost certainly going for men because more men buy this line of garbage than women do. I am too lazy to actually contact them and find out how much they charge for "One of our Career Specialists" to "reach out to you shortly, to assist you and help you find the right career – the career that pays more!" but I bet it's more than I could afford.
I was just checking the links in this comment, and now they're saying "Total compensation more than $300K!" Oh my god, I'm never going to have to worry about money again. I would kiss my penis in gratitude if I could reach it.
posted by fivebells at 9:22 PM on April 16, 2015
« Older "Somebody called on the... PHONE!" | Britney Girl Dale Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Not.
posted by harrietthespy at 10:12 AM on April 16, 2015 [1 favorite]