The irony of the New York Times� 1619 Project...

[Sam]

We don't know how Zillow is optimizing its search algorithm, nor would your proposed test eliminate all (or even sufficient) sources of coarse and fine tracking.

And the point, again, is not this is what Zillow/Redfin/etc. are doing. It's that the contention "online real estate listings eliminate the possibility of racial discrimination" is unsound because online real estate is also prone to racial bias. Facebook was just caught serving racially discriminating real estate ads last year.

If you want to claim that online real estate listings are bias-free, that's a claim requiring proof that the algorithms used do not have implicit or explicit racial bias. It does not have to be proven that such companies are racially discriminating to show that the opportunity for racial discrimination still exists online.

And given that this is a basic and tedious point to make twice, let alone half a dozen times, I will consider the point made unless it is actually addressed, rather than some adjacent claim that was not made.

--Sam

[Adrift]

I think a lot of it is unconscious. Have you ever heard an older relative say "I'm not racist but ..." and then they say something blatantly racist? They don't see it, but we do. And I just imagine a lot of us are just like that in our own way. It's just not always easy to see where it is - especially in ourselves - unless something forces it to the surface. But in the end, the statistics say it's there. And I see it - not all the time - but enough to know it's there more than we think it is.

And I tend to think elements of it are ingrained in both black and white cultures. Both have to change to make a difference. But nothing can change till we all wake up to the fact it still exists and that we all have to work together to make it better or it will just continue.

Jim

I hate this idea that "we're all secret racists, we just don't know it yet." And, if I'm honest, I simply don't trust sociologists creating most surveys on this sort of subject since they're often indoctrinated by Marxist social theory on race and gender. People who sincerely believe nonsense like "power + prejudice = racism," and that non-whites cannot be racist.

I'm reminded of a big hullabalooa a couple years ago where American academics and social activists were teaching Brazilians that they were the victims of racism in places that they were not. Brazil has a racism issue, but it's usually based on the level of darkness of a person's skin tone. A mixed child, or a black person with lighter skin tone was considered and treated, for all intents and purposes, white. For example, as I understand it, one of the big "issues" was that Brazilian universities were attempting to fill a race quota through affirmative action, but only awarded scholarships to people who appeared very dark. Lighter skinned "black" people considered themselves, in a sense "white," and so did everyone else. If you, or anyone else asked them if they were black, they'd say, "no, my skin is too light, I'm white." It took Americans to convince them that they were, in fact, "black," and that they also could reap the benefits of being "black" through these affirmative action policies, even though they weren't actually being treated unfairly. Brazilians were "suffering" because of color-blindness, and so we with our insanity over racial issues, looking for racism under every tree and bushel, had to set these poor people straight.

[oxmixmudd]

I hate this idea that "we're all secret racists, we just don't know it yet." And, if I'm honest, I simply don't trust sociologists creating most surveys on this sort of subject since they're often indoctrinated by Marxist social theory on race and gender.

I understand. I don't like it much either. And yet - it's a reality that is hard to refute.

I'm reminded of a big hullabalooa a couple years ago where American academics and social activists were teaching Brazilians that they were the victims of racism in places that they were not. Brazil has a racism issue, but it's usually based on the level of darkness of a person's skin tone. A mixed child, or a black person with lighter skin tone was considered and treated, for all intents and purposes, white. For example, as I understand it, one of the big "issues" was that Brazilian universities were attempting to fill a race quota through affirmative action, but only awarded scholarships to people who appeared very dark. Lighter skinned "black" people considered themselves, in a sense "white," and so did everyone else. If you, or anyone else asked them if they were black, they'd say, "no, my skin is too light, I'm white." It took Americans to convince them that they were, in fact, "black," and that they also could reap the benefits of being "black" through these affirmative action policies, even though they weren't actually being treated unfairly. Brazilians were "suffering" because of color-blindness, and so we with our insanity over racial issues, looking for racism under every tree and bushel, had to set these poor people straight.

And odd anecdote, but it just shows that the academics themselves had their own unknown biases. It doesn't help to show that we DON'T all have our own unknown biases that drive is in a potentially racist direction.

And remember, I'm trying to keep it pretty basic. More on the level of how we know that the theory of relativity is broken because we know Quantum Physics is also a viable theory of the small but is incompatible with TOR. Yet we don't really know 'how' it is broken or how to fix it yet. Likewise, we can see the effects of racism and its legacy in poverty, crime etc. We can see it in the lack of achievement relative to whites and so on. That data can give us clues as to where to look to try to fix it - maybe. But given a population of humans in a homogeneous environment, there should not be these sort of distinctions. So the legacy (the transitive closure of cause and effect from slavery through emancipation with overt racism and segregation and beyond) is still with us. The black population is still living out a disadvantaged life relative to their white counterparts. We've come a long way. They aren't slaves anymore. They are not segregated, they can vote etc etc. But we still have a ways yet to go.

Jim

[seer]

I understand. I don't like it much either. And yet - it's a reality that is hard to refute.

What reality Jim?

[oxmixmudd]

What reality Jim?

The reality that black people are still disadvantaged relative to white people, and that racism is still with us and influencing our culture and helping to perpetuate the legacy of slavery and racism in this country.

Jim

[Adrift]

I understand. I don't like it much either. And yet - it's a reality that is hard to refute.

It's hard to refute because it doesn't exist, or is not nearly as all encompassing as many people fretting about it think.

[seer]

The reality that black people are still disadvantaged relative to white people, and that racism is still with us and influencing our culture and helping to perpetuate the legacy of slavery and racism in this country.

Jim

And black people are disadvantaged relative to brown people, and white people to Asian people, and Asians to Indian peoples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...usehold_income

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...63/figure1.pdf

[lilpixieofterror]

That is not what's happening. What is happening here is that the lack of understanding of AI, machine learning, big data etc is being dealt with through a dunning kruger filter: you don't know enough about it to know what you don't know, or to be cautious about your pronouncements of what may or may not be being done with it, or how they correlate information and track it to 'you'.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

That is not how 'big data' works.

Jim

Do you really have no sense of humor?

[Mountain Man]

I hate this idea that "we're all secret racists, we just don't know it yet." And, if I'm honest, I simply don't trust sociologists creating most surveys on this sort of subject since they're often indoctrinated by Marxist social theory on race and gender.

I understand. I don't like it much either. And yet - it's a reality that is hard to refute.

There's that confirmation bias again.

You also seem to have missed that Adrift doesn't like it because it's nonsense and not because the "truth" makes him uncomfortable.

[lilpixieofterror]

I hate this idea that "we're all secret racists, we just don't know it yet." And, if I'm honest, I simply don't trust sociologists creating most surveys on this sort of subject since they're often indoctrinated by Marxist social theory on race and gender. People who sincerely believe nonsense like "power + prejudice = racism," and that non-whites cannot be racist.

I'm reminded of a big hullabalooa a couple years ago where American academics and social activists were teaching Brazilians that they were the victims of racism in places that they were not. Brazil has a racism issue, but it's usually based on the level of darkness of a person's skin tone. A mixed child, or a black person with lighter skin tone was considered and treated, for all intents and purposes, white. For example, as I understand it, one of the big "issues" was that Brazilian universities were attempting to fill a race quota through affirmative action, but only awarded scholarships to people who appeared very dark. Lighter skinned "black" people considered themselves, in a sense "white," and so did everyone else. If you, or anyone else asked them if they were black, they'd say, "no, my skin is too light, I'm white." It took Americans to convince them that they were, in fact, "black," and that they also could reap the benefits of being "black" through these affirmative action policies, even though they weren't actually being treated unfairly. Brazilians were "suffering" because of color-blindness, and so we with our insanity over racial issues, looking for racism under every tree and bushel, had to set these poor people straight.

[lilpixieofterror]

There's that confirmation bias again.

You also seem to have missed that Adrift doesn't like it because it's nonsense and not because the "truth" makes him uncomfortable.

[Sparko]

That is not what's happening. What is happening here is that the lack of understanding of AI, machine learning, big data etc is being dealt with through a dunning kruger filter: you don't know enough about it to know what you don't know, or to be cautious about your pronouncements of what may or may not be being done with it, or how they correlate information and track it to 'you'.


Jim

I actually know a lot about it Jim. And Sam doesn't seem to.

The cookies are basically identifiers and reporters for the databases. They send information back to the company (google or whoever) about where you are browsing, what you are looking at, whether you click on one of their ads or not. And the company basically aggregates that information under an identifier for each "person" - they don't know your name but they do know what you like, where you visit, what you search for, what you buy. Without those cookie trackers they can't tell who you are, or even get a report back to the "home base" of what you are doing. That is why an incognito browser would work on a sites such as zillow. They wouldn't know which "person" in the database you were at that point to feed you any specific data. Unless they are tracking you by your ip address, which can change from time to time, and if you are behind a corporate firewall, might show up as one external IP address for all users. But that is why I mentioned TOR. It gives a fake IP address.

But again, when a person is searching for specific homes, there is no point in using any of that data, because the user is giving specific parameters to search for. If I am looking for a 3 bedroom ranch with 2 bathrooms and a basement, between $200-250K in Oklahoma city, why would they care or how would they insert any gathered information about me? The search engine returns a listing meeting my parameters, sorted by price or distance or whatever I ask it to.

[Adrift]

Yeah, I don't think they do it nefariously (or, at least, not usually). I think the majority actually buy into things like CRT and want to somehow make things right. I'm not going so far to say that institutional racism does not exist at all, I just don't believe it's as all pervasive as so many seem to think it is.

[Sparko]

Yeah, I don't think they do it nefariously (or, at least, not usually). I think the majority actually buy into things like CRT and want to somehow make things right. I'm not going so far to say that institutional racism does not exist at all, I just don't believe it's as all pervasive as so many seem to think it is.

^That.