Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

myspicename t1_iu296ce wrote

Reply to comment by RonPMexico in Facebook Segments Ads by Race and Age Based on Photos | Ads with teenage girls are mostly directed at men over 55, while white people see fewer ads with Black faces, a new study finds. by chrisdh79

Clearly there's no strict line. Just like a white passing black person crossing the color line in Jim Crow, racist systems aren't absolute.

I'd say if there's a vastly disproportionate discrepancy it's worth checking. And I'd say if it's around things like housing, or education (rather than say, hair care items) it's more salient.

1

RonPMexico t1_iu29jmi wrote

How about this? We remove race from the equation entirely. Surely that would lead to the best outcome no?

0

myspicename t1_iu2a7pt wrote

Absolutely not and I think it's fairly obvious it wouldn't. This was tried for education and housing and because of historical inequity and cultural in group bias of systems for a majority it doesn't work.

Even workplace or academic institutions that just have policies that appeal to white majorities can enforce that. It's trivial, but even not having say, vegetarian or halal items can be a blocker, and it's "race blind" to be fine not having it.

1

RonPMexico t1_iu2axl8 wrote

So you are saying they can't be race neutral and you can't define when it's racist. Who gets to decide where to draw these arbitrary lines? How would they work with optimized systems? What is fair enough?

−1

myspicename t1_iu2b900 wrote

This is why we have laws around this. Let me guess, you think markets correct all inequities?

1

RonPMexico t1_iu2cfec wrote

I'm saying when you artificially favor one race over another in an otherwise race neutral algorithm to give your desired results it's a bad thing. You believe race should factor into everything. And you have the temerity to claim the moral high ground. Racism is bad and you ought to be ashamed of your views.

0