[cj]

From the article:

> This is considered sex-based discrimination under US equal employment opportunity law, which bans ad targeting based on protected characteristics.

The algorithm is not "working as intended" if it's violating EEO laws.

[fabatka]

I think this depends on what the algorithm uses. Or would "liked page related to the job description" be considered a protected characteristic? My non-lawyer instinct would say that as long as the algorithm doesnt't contain a line that explicitly tells it to consider sex as a parameter to decide who to show the ad, it doesn't breach this law.

[KMnO4]

I’m sure the algorithm isn’t checking “if (person.sex == male) { show_car_jobs(); }”,

But rather “if (person.likes_cars) { show_car_jobs(); }”.

[anoncake]

The question is it it's checking "if(person.sex != male) { person.likes_cars = false }".

[psychometry]

Clearly, but you're entirely missing the point.

[shadowgovt]

And, indeed, those laws are set up, in a sense, to cut against "natural" order (or, more specifically, to widen opportunities beyond the limits imposed by societal tradition).

[dragonwriter]

> The algorithm is not "working as intended" if it's violating EEO laws.

It is if it is intended to work in a way that violates EEO laws.

Just like if somewhat sets a death trap targeting you and it works as planned, the fact that it is violating murder laws doesn’t suddenly mean it isn’t working as intended.