Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The headline here is irritating

A newly-public EEOC ruling resulting from investigative journalism around explicitly discriminatory hiring practices facilitated (and profited from) by one of the more morally-bankrupt technology companies of our time is announced, and your gripe is the journalists aren’t giving Facebook enough credit?

A lot of discrimination happened while Facebook hadn’t fixed the problem. Discrimination which Facebook profited from. Facebook decided to enter the job, credit and real estate ad markets, but didn’t care enough to think through the details.

Recent history has been Facebook et al being brazenly lawless, making money from it, and then getting away with a slap on the wrist. The government starting to show teeth is news, and stating their confirmed finding is a fair headline.



> and your gripe is the journalists aren’t giving Facebook enough credit?

My gripe is that the headline _as it currently is on HN_ is two years out of date, and that the real headline is "Government rules targeting job ads using demographics is illegal".


The headline is “Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers From Seeing Job Ads. The Federal Government Thinks That’s Illegal.“ On HN, that’s truncates to the first sentence, but “used” is in the past tense. The information you claim lost was just compressed into the grammar.

In contrast, one of the contemporaneous headlines was “Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men” [1], i.e. in the present tense.

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-is-letting-job-a...


I guess GP is essentially (fairly) complaining that "used" can mean both "a week ago" and "two years ago", and this being headline of news strongly implies the former over the latter. Try to mentally prepend "Two years ago," to the existing headline, and notice how much less outrageous it reads.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: