Forums

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

While I don't disagree with you, I think, as a group, we are all over the place on this.

Sebby and I originally argued about whether redlining (and certain hiring practices and other things) were the product of outright racial bias. Based on my understanding of what he was saying, he was arguing that the practices were built around very shallow data. It seemed to me he was choosing to ignore the fact that those practices were not data-driven--that they were the specific product of racial discrimination and not a by-product of business practices that were "blind" and just happened to end up being racially discriminatory for whatever reason (eg., this neighborhood vs. that).

Presumably Sebby moved past this argument after reading the Times article and, even though he didn't acknowledge my original point, he decided to discuss how we will continue to be biased based on his mainly correct, heuristic view of where big data is taking us all. He and Adder now seem to be arguing over whether there is inherent value in discriminating based on race.

Your point is that if you are setting up a model to take into account anything that can be linked back to the result of our collective institutional racism (eg., this neighborhood vs. that), that such model will be inherently discriminatory. While I agree with you, that's two steps down the line.

Right now, I'd settle for business approaches that aren't based on straight up de jure racist bullshit. Hire based on qualifications and not the sound of one's name. Give me an interest rate based on the credit of people with similar finances, not my race. Etc. Once we've tackled that, let's address the de facto discriminatory algorithm which draws its data from how we've unfairly educated whole groups of people or confined them to depressed neighborhoods.

In short, you and Adder aren't really disagreeing on anything, I think.

TM

Thesis, antithesis.... meet synthesis, bitches. Well said.