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