[peer2pay]

> While our results show that male and female content creators are forced to show skin in similar ways if they want to reach their audience, the effect could be larger for females, and be considered a discrimination of female entrepreneurs.

Overall this article strikes me as a large collection of pseudo-science but this sentence baffles me the most. Is the author arguing against their own conclusions?

[square_usual]

I don't disagree about the style/tone of the article but this conclusion is borne out by their own data:

> Posts that contained pictures of women in undergarment or bikini were 54% more likely to appear in the newsfeed of our volunteers. Posts containing pictures of bare chested men were 28% more likely to be shown.

The effect is clearly larger for women, and if you have no problems with their data I don't think it is a reach to assume it disadvantages female entrepreneurs more than male entrepreneurs, especially given that in many cultures the pressure to dress modestly is stronger on women than on men.

[Firadeoclus]

> The effect is clearly larger for women

I don't think it's that simple, given that their data show both the share of posts posted and shown as lower for women.

And there has to be a non-linear effect from increasing the share of posts posted with nudity, given that if it was, say, 66% then it would be impossible to boost that by 54%.

[viklove]

How do we "fix" it? Neural implants to change what we desire?

[manigandham]

This test is not scientific, the conclusion is highly suspect and the discrimination angle is a giant reach.

[n_kb]

I think it's called "subtlety" but I'm no native speaker.

[peer2pay]

From your profile I can gather that you are affiliated with the source so I'd really be interested in what you mean by this

[iagovar]

I guess the authors didn't like what conclusions their data leads to so they just came up with this weird paragraph.

It's like they wanted to throw in some discrimination out there but they weren't sure how to do it.