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

[Sam]

Cookies, unfortunately, are old-school.

Zillow or other real estate listers may not want an algorithmic response to a detailed search query to turn up anything but a narrow listing of available units. But the "featured" units would still be susceptible to algorithmic bias and littlepixie's argument assumes that most people are going to come to see a property by detailed search. That is but one way people arrive at a landing page for properties.

--Sam

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.

[Mountain Man]

Also known as kafkatrapping, a logical fallacy in which a person is accused of a non-specific crime, and any attempt to deny it is seen as proof of a guilty conscience.

[Sparko]

Cookies, unfortunately, are old-school.

Zillow or other real estate listers may not want an algorithmic response to a detailed search query to turn up anything but a narrow listing of available units. But the "featured" units would still be susceptible to algorithmic bias and littlepixie's argument assumes that most people are going to come to see a property by detailed search. That is but one way people arrive at a landing page for properties.

--Sam

That's interesting (the fingerprint thing)

And I already said they would be using such info for advertising things to you just like any other site does. But I was arguing about the searches. I see no reason or method they would use personal data to doctor your search results. Heck I wish they would. It would have made my home search a lot easier. If it knew what I liked in a home and neighborhood and sent me smart suggestions. But none that I have used do something like that.

And you still haven't given ANY evidence that these site are doing anything at all to steer results based on personal data much less racial profiling.

[Sam]

That's interesting (the fingerprint thing)

And I already said they would be using such info for advertising things to you just like any other site does. But I was arguing about the searches. I see no reason or method they would use personal data to doctor your search results. Heck I wish they would. It would have made my home search a lot easier. If it knew what I liked in a home and neighborhood and sent me smart suggestions. But none that I have used do something like that.

And you still haven't given ANY evidence that these site are doing anything at all to steer results based on personal data much less racial profiling.

Because I'm not making a claim that sites are doing so. My argument doesn't depend on that. littlepixie's argument is that online real estate listings eliminate the problem by their nature, based on a misunderstanding about how database listings are necessarily presented. It's sufficient to rebut that argument by showing that machine algorithms, just like human agents, can present bias into a system. Whether they are now doing so is a secondary issue (worth studying).

And the fact that real estate agent jobs are increasing (faster than average), rather than decreasing, tackles her argument from another angle: while people undoubtedly are using and will continue to use online listings, most are still going to be relying on agents to inform, show, and buy homes. The racial biases that have historically plagued the housing market still have ample room to present.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

It's sufficient to rebut that argument by showing that machine algorithms, just like human agents, can present bias into a system.

can =\= does

[Sam]

As I've been saying, yes.

can =\= does

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

[lilpixieofterror]

As I've been saying, yes.

[lilpixieofterror]

Because I'm not making a claim that sites are doing so. My argument doesn't depend on that. littlepixie's argument is that online real estate listings eliminate the problem by their nature, based on a misunderstanding about how database listings are necessarily presented. It's sufficient to rebut that argument by showing that machine algorithms, just like human agents, can present bias into a system. Whether they are now doing so is a secondary issue (worth studying).

And the fact that real estate agent jobs are increasing (faster than average), rather than decreasing, tackles her argument from another angle: while people undoubtedly are using and will continue to use online listings, most are still going to be relying on agents to inform, show, and buy homes. The racial biases that have historically plagued the housing market still have ample room to present.

--Sam

Which, if anything, should make it easier to avoid the racist agent.

[Sam]

That would be the substance of your argument, yes.

THESIS: "Racism has been historically rampant in America, both through explicit policies and implicit biases"

ANTITHESIS: "Now that I can pull up an online listing of available properties, racism is no longer a factor in housing discrimination"

REBUTTAL: "Online data collection and algorithms do not, by their nature alone, eliminate racial bias"

COUNTER:

[Sam]

By sole virtue of your inability to form a coherent argument, I'm going to spare myself further tedium.

[Mountain Man]

As I've been saying, yes.

So you admit your objection here is speculative at best with no specific evidence to support it.

[lilpixieofterror]

fify;nc

[Sparko]

Because I'm not making a claim that sites are doing so. My argument doesn't depend on that. littlepixie's argument is that online real estate listings eliminate the problem by their nature, based on a misunderstanding about how database listings are necessarily presented. It's sufficient to rebut that argument by showing that machine algorithms, just like human agents, can present bias into a system. Whether they are now doing so is a secondary issue (worth studying).

And the fact that real estate agent jobs are increasing (faster than average), rather than decreasing, tackles her argument from another angle: while people undoubtedly are using and will continue to use online listings, most are still going to be relying on agents to inform, show, and buy homes. The racial biases that have historically plagued the housing market still have ample room to present.

--Sam

And yet she is right because none of them ARE doing anything like that. If they were, you would be able to show it. I gave you some tests to try. go for it. I tried it and the results were virtually identical, the sort order of the results shifted by a few houses between the two. But then I zoomed in a bit closer (zillow searches in a map area) and the results were identical.

You have not shown any indication that they are doing it, or even how they would interject your personal preferences into the search results based on selected criteria the user inputs. So until you do, LPOT is correct in saying that there is no racial bias in real estate searches.

COULD there be? sure, anything is POSSIBLE. Is it likely? No.

[lilpixieofterror]

By sole virtue of your inability to form a coherent argument, I'm going to spare myself further tedium.