Is It OK for Employers to Seek Out ‘Digital Natives’?

Though why the cant they give a developer a copy of McCracken and tell them to learn the language - which was what I did when I left school

From Wikipedia

"Social media are computer-mediated tools that allow people to create, share or exchange information, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks." (Someone added "Web 2.0" later there but it's immaterial. Well, HN lets you vote without refreshing the page, I guess that's "Web 2.0")

The content is driven by users, either by creating (FB, Twitter) and/or curating it (Pinterest AND HN) -> Social Media

Pinterest is about curation of content and it is social media as well

Everyone can appreciate how annoying they are.

It's as much as you can't claim native to a specific country if you are not born/raised in that country.

'Digital native', interpreted literally is nonsense - almost by definition it requires context to have meaning. We can't talk about meaning being 'inherent' or 'obvious' without figuring out the context.

I think it's charmingly naive to think that a company advertising a job for a 'digital native' would always or even usually mean "we're looking for someone immersed in digital technology and culture". I can tell you given my experience and also given the amazing ubiquity of H-1B fraud, there are plenty of companies who are actually trying to say, "we're trying to use a phrase that attracts the young and the naive - kids who won't ask for their legally-entitled mat leave, won't claim their negotiated time-off to look after kids, are willing to work lots of unpaid hours on weekends, and don't know enough about the way the job market works to negotiate for equity in exchange for all the unpaid hard work they'll do".

As to the first question, yeah, in many cases it's okay to discriminate based on factors out of the control of applicants. Many disabilities, for instance, will preclude you from many jobs.

What about being black? Or female? The parent poster boldly declared, "Yes, their business, their decision", which just isn't true - acting accordingly could actually be illegal.

> Is it inherently or obviously used that way? No, not likely.

It inherently, from its coinage, refers to a particular subset of persons born in the media saturated age (it appears later to have evolved to more firmly post-1980, but the general features around its coinage would have nailed it near that time if not specifically at that point), which means that, if nothing else, it is inherently age-discriminatory.

Its not covering up -- discriminate and decide actually mean the same thing.

> It is his business. If he wants to hire only blond woman in their 20s - cool.

Age and gender discrimination are both (with some caveats) illegal in many jurisdictions, so, while you may find it "cool", it isn't necessarily legal.

> You cant change that, thats freedom of PRIVATE business.

Actually, you can change that, e.g., by adopting laws against age, race, and gender discrimination that apply to employers. Which lots of jurisdictions have.

That's not the way commerce and business law work. Private business needs to follow the law, as much as anyone else.

If he wants to hire only blond woman in their 20s - cool

Cool, perhaps - in a frat-boy/brogrammer sort of way. But also quite likely illegal in the United States under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race or sex, and I doubt that being a 'fuckable blonde' would qualify as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception under the statute.

But if he decides to hire based on skills rather than racial/age quotas or some ridiculous decisions - also cool.

That's all anyone could ask of him.

You cant change that, thats freedom of PRIVATE business

PRIVATE business is specifically bound by title VII. Please hire a qualified HR representative when you start your business and save yourself a whole lot of grief.