Hacker News Reader

Comment by _m8fo | Hacker News Reader

One thing I struggle with is measurement of progress. For example, what Google is allowing here with Howard U is obviously good for the AA community. However, is Google in general doing things that are good or bad for AAs in general? It's difficult to say.

Excessive advertising can be used to poor people's disadvantage by creating more debt by encouraging more unnecessary expenses. AAs consist of a disproportionally large percentage of poor people and have chronically low wealth levels [1]. One could argue Google is bad for AAs by making advertising more mainstream and accurate.

In any case, at least they're trying, PR or not. Some companies do nothing. I do feel strongly about this because the amount of segregation in Boston is ridiculous.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/news/economy/racial-wealth-g...

View on HN

You kind of touch upon the question of an incrementalist approach to social change, which works within a flawed system versus a more radical approach, which says "the system is radically flawed, we must change it drastically."

"The system" here being, imho, the role advertising plays in our society.

When a positive outcome is almost certain, there's less need for fine measurements. For example, how much effort is it worth to determine whether tech job placement for Howard University students goes up by 2x or exactly 2.15x?

I disagree that a positive outcome is almost certain. What's happening here is effectively Affirmative Action, and that's hardly a positive outcome in everyone's eyes.

For example, Google could just simply give internships to those at HBCU's, an action one may see as definitely positive. However, if for whatever reason those students fail to perform, in the eyes of the non black colleagues, stereotypes of incompetence will be created, if not exacerbated. Black people are punished more harshly for signs of incompetence of similar magnitude than Whites [2].

A somewhat similar thing happened with minority lawyers, as law schools tried to prop up the supply with affirmative action policies [1].

Things are just complicated, in general.

[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/08/29/is-affirmative-action-at...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/black-students-puni...

> For example, Google could just simply give internships to those at HBCU's, an action one may see as definitely positive.

This is a straw man. Google isn't doing that. Google and Howard are providing instruction.

Google is doing that (not exactly for HBCUs, but for underrepresented subpopulations) https://www.google.com/about/careers/students/engres.html

Which is why having additional instruction and additional acclimation to the Silicon Valley environment, which Google and Howard are doing here, is so important - to creating a culture where diverse engineers can thrive.

>When a positive outcome is almost certain, there's less need for fine measurements.

Gonna have to strongly disagree, here. Declaring that a "positive" outcome is "almost certain" is an invitation for punting on specifically defining what that "positive" outcome is and then hand-waving any measurement of progress. This is especially dangerous when the "positive" outcome comes at non-trivial expense.

Edit: a word

I agree, measuring diversity is a problem.

But in this case? It seems like they're trying to optimize the pipeline from college into the work force. It seems like it would be trivially measurable.

Wow, seriously? Google is out to get poor people?

Let's not talk about how Google made access to an entire world of information 100x easier and cheaper, so anyone with a cheap tablet or phone can get information you used to need a $1k encyclopedia for.

Let's not talk about how Google drove Android, a platform which gave a huge number of people internet access by giving them $100 phones or tablets.

Let's not talk about how Google has (done its best) to scan every book ever written to make books available online and free.

Google has done vast amounts to level the playing field, making top-tier services like Gmail and Google maps free, where previously people had to pay for Garmin navigation or Outlook or w/e.

The kind of argument the OP makes is shallow, petty, and out to use a hammer for every grudge. Yeah, Google makes money via ads. No, that doesn't mean they are racist, sexist, or whatever the hell you feel like making up just to complain about advertising.

Do you find that using words like "shallow" and "petty" to describe arguments that you disagree with fosters good conversation?

The top comment was a hit piece, not an attempt at honest conversation.

It's whataboutism, to distract from the actual conversation. "Oh, Google is doing a good thing, but what about all the bad things they do"

If you feed it, you talk about what they want you to talk about, which is inherently negative about Google in this case. It's a standard tactic of state-sponsored propaganda machines (not that I think it is in this case).

I think you should read the OP more charitably.

They're not saying that Google is "out to get" poor people - they're saying that Google's advertising practices cause disproportionate harm to the poor. I don't think that Google's executives mean to diminish the welfare of the hardest off, but that they're (possibly willfully) ignorant of the broader consequences of their business model.

This collaboration with Howard, as well as the other humanitarian/public services you've mentioned, seem to support the latter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com