6 ms·

Their policy on this has been pointed out to be bad and absurd so many times by now that I'm leaning towards Hanlon's razor now: "Never attribute to malice that

by nysv 13y ago

Their policy on this has been pointed out to be bad and absurd so many times by now that I'm leaning towards Hanlon's razor now: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

crypt1d 13y ago
Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this issue is incompetence.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  There was nothing light about how I used it. Even if this was not done intentionally, it still discriminated against her. Sort of like how gender fields with only a Male/Female option unintentionally discriminate against transgender people. Nothing intentional, but still happens - and still discrimination.
  - judk 13y ago
    Since Facebook has now fixed this bug in their UI/database, safe to say it is intentional elsewhere. At least in the sense that "supporting gender fluid users is lower priority than adding more whizzy animations to the UI".
- saalweachter 13y ago
  How about "obstinacy"?
- vidarh 13y ago
  The two are not incompatible. If your incompetence leads you to implement a policy that disproportionally disadvantages a certain group, you are also discriminating against them. Discrimination does not require intent.
- walshemj 13y ago
  you can "indirectly discriminate" if you implement polices that effect a larger proportionate of a particular group. It's why stop and search that targets a large number of young black men is seen as racist. It might be incompetence the first time but this has been going on for such a long time now that that is wearing a bit thin as an excuse.
  - judk 13y ago
    This called "disparate impact" in US law. Quite a controversial issue, and only getting worse ad.machine learning algorithms grow in power and influence.
hrktb 13y ago
Shouldn't it be the other way round ? Google's policy was pointed out to be bad and absurd countless times and they knowingly stuck with it anyway, understanding users were prejudiced from it. Isn't it malice ?
- chris_wot 13y ago
  You mean like some sort of malicious incompetence? That's really twisting Hanlon's razor!

by nysv 13y ago

crypt1d 13y ago

Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this issue is incompetence.

chris_wot 13y ago
There was nothing light about how I used it. Even if this was not done intentionally, it still discriminated against her. Sort of like how gender fields with only a Male/Female option unintentionally discriminate against transgender people. Nothing intentional, but still happens - and still discrimination.
- judk 13y ago
  Since Facebook has now fixed this bug in their UI/database, safe to say it is intentional elsewhere. At least in the sense that "supporting gender fluid users is lower priority than adding more whizzy animations to the UI".
saalweachter 13y ago
How about "obstinacy"?
vidarh 13y ago
The two are not incompatible. If your incompetence leads you to implement a policy that disproportionally disadvantages a certain group, you are also discriminating against them. Discrimination does not require intent.
walshemj 13y ago
you can "indirectly discriminate" if you implement polices that effect a larger proportionate of a particular group. It's why stop and search that targets a large number of young black men is seen as racist. It might be incompetence the first time but this has been going on for such a long time now that that is wearing a bit thin as an excuse.
- judk 13y ago
  This called "disparate impact" in US law. Quite a controversial issue, and only getting worse ad.machine learning algorithms grow in power and influence.

hrktb 13y ago

Shouldn't it be the other way round ? Google's policy was pointed out to be bad and absurd countless times and they knowingly stuck with it anyway, understanding users were prejudiced from it. Isn't it malice ?

chris_wot 13y ago
You mean like some sort of malicious incompetence? That's really twisting Hanlon's razor!