Is It OK for Employers to Seek Out ‘Digital Natives’?(blogs.wsj.com)
blogs.wsj.com
Is It OK for Employers to Seek Out ‘Digital Natives’?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/05/04/is-it-ok-for-employers-to-seek-out-digital-natives/
105 comments
> Kids these days understand the Facebook and the Twitter, but they're deeply insulated from how computers actually work.
I agree and it reminds me of an excellent rant on that topic: http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-comput....
I agree and it reminds me of an excellent rant on that topic: http://coding2learn.org/blog/2013/07/29/kids-cant-use-comput....
It scares me that that article was written in 2013. It sounds like it came out of 2003.
They know Facebook but they don't know pointers :).
Whilst I agree that hiring someone based entirely on age is not the best way to get a great team, and that not all older people are worse than all young people when dealing with technology, your generalisation that 'Kids these days understand the Facebook and the Twitter, but they're deeply insulated from how computers actually work.' is flawed and almost entirely incorrect. Kids these days (in general) are no less informed about technology than the kids of 30 years ago. In general I'd say kids these days know many times more than kids of that period simply because they've been exposed to it for longer, and then the young people who are actually interested in computers know many times more than that.
That's all fine and dandy in theory, but from personal experience, I've found that it hasn't made much of a difference, probably for the same reason that the proliferation of automobiles has yet to result in the world's youth being proficient in automotive repair, or that the proliferation of the written word has yet to result in the world's youth being composed of poets and novelists.
The reason (in my observation, at least) is that being familiar with using something doesn't immediately translate to being familiar with creating something. Now, for a job where the using is important, a "digital native" might actually stand a chance (assuming that the something being used is similar enough to what he/she has used previously that patterns can be matched and the candidate's brain can perceive the thing being used as "intuitive" or "user-friendly"), but the article seems to imply the creation side of things (by referencing "media giants" and startups), where the skills don't completely cross over.
The reason (in my observation, at least) is that being familiar with using something doesn't immediately translate to being familiar with creating something. Now, for a job where the using is important, a "digital native" might actually stand a chance (assuming that the something being used is similar enough to what he/she has used previously that patterns can be matched and the candidate's brain can perceive the thing being used as "intuitive" or "user-friendly"), but the article seems to imply the creation side of things (by referencing "media giants" and startups), where the skills don't completely cross over.
To your point about young people not actually having a better understanding of technology I really think the question should be "Should employers should seek out 'Logical/Rational natives'". It's frustrating to see folks (young and old alike - I don't think this is related to age or knowledge of tech) with a complete lack of critical thinking when using powerful search tools.
I incorrectly assume that more access to information implies a greater level of critical thinking. I think this is probably due to my engineering educational background - I'm not an engineer myself, but it was drummed into me at my engineering-heavy university.
I incorrectly assume that more access to information implies a greater level of critical thinking. I think this is probably due to my engineering educational background - I'm not an engineer myself, but it was drummed into me at my engineering-heavy university.
I am a digital native. I grew up with a computer. I obtained digital connectivity through acquaintances and friends. I got "online" before the Internet existed. I was on a team that wrote one of the first Internet-enabled fantasy sports websites. I've watched my peers (some younger, some older) re-invent the breakthroughs of the 1960s and 1970s and call it these reinventions "brand new."
I am a digital native with decades of experience living in the digital frontiers. Yes, plural.
I am a digital native with decades of experience living in the digital frontiers. Yes, plural.
Likewise, and also quite likely we are some of many thousands. Unfortunately I think in this case there are some people re-inventing the meaning of "digital" to signify young.
Enough grumpiness for one day, I'll go organize my Casio collection now.
Enough grumpiness for one day, I'll go organize my Casio collection now.
so do you think Bill Gates and Woz would qualify :-)
Neither Woz nor Bill Gates used Agile and TDD in their developments
Neither knows what "the market" demands, no Ruby, no JS, no Java, etc. Maybe they know C, Fortran or 6502/8080 Assembly (recruiter rolls eyes)
So, "thanks for your time and we'll contact you"
Neither knows what "the market" demands, no Ruby, no JS, no Java, etc. Maybe they know C, Fortran or 6502/8080 Assembly (recruiter rolls eyes)
So, "thanks for your time and we'll contact you"
I recently called up a recruiter who was looking for a C++ developer to port some Fortran CFD code - realy just for a laugh.
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
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
You are supposed to abandon logic before tossing "digital native" around, so I'm not sure you are using it in the same context as the article.
I'm in my mid-30s, grew up tinkering/programming/etc., but I have to admit I just don't get social media. But then I'm not a very sociable person in general. My wife (not a techie), however, is all over facebook/pinterest/twitter/etc. doing God knows what while I'm coding all day.
How I learned of the existence of Pinterest:
Me: "Where did you say you posted that thing?"
Wife (annoyed): "Pinterest"
"Your what?"
"Pinterest"
"WTF is Pinterest?"
"Seriously?!"
edit: Pintrest, Pinterest, eh?
How I learned of the existence of Pinterest:
Me: "Where did you say you posted that thing?"
Wife (annoyed): "Pinterest"
"Your what?"
"Pinterest"
"WTF is Pinterest?"
"Seriously?!"
edit: Pintrest, Pinterest, eh?
Part of that is just gender.
Pinterest is aimed almost exclusively at women. You haven't heard of it because you're a dude and it's not marketed to you or your friends.
Hell, I'm enough of a tomboy that I don't really use it. I looked at it a year and a half ago when I first started transitioning to female because I heard that girls are supposed to like it, and I never got into it because it was all about fashion and shit that I have no interest in.
(OK, I did start getting into it in the last week or so... but I've mostly kept to the '80s/'90s nostalgia boards, which seems to be a much smaller part of the community than the fashion boards.)
Pinterest is aimed almost exclusively at women. You haven't heard of it because you're a dude and it's not marketed to you or your friends.
Hell, I'm enough of a tomboy that I don't really use it. I looked at it a year and a half ago when I first started transitioning to female because I heard that girls are supposed to like it, and I never got into it because it was all about fashion and shit that I have no interest in.
(OK, I did start getting into it in the last week or so... but I've mostly kept to the '80s/'90s nostalgia boards, which seems to be a much smaller part of the community than the fashion boards.)
Pinterest is fantastic at what it does, which is an online pinboard of stuff you like around a theme.
The obvious use case is wedding planning. One board each for dresses, rings, locations, cakes, table decorations, invites, etc etc. or for redecorating a room - it's brilliant for that kind of stuff.
(I say brilliant, and I'm a Pinterest fan but the site has some user-hostile behaviours on mobile so I ise it a lot less often than I used to.
The obvious use case is wedding planning. One board each for dresses, rings, locations, cakes, table decorations, invites, etc etc. or for redecorating a room - it's brilliant for that kind of stuff.
(I say brilliant, and I'm a Pinterest fan but the site has some user-hostile behaviours on mobile so I ise it a lot less often than I used to.
Unless you don't have a pinterest account in which case it becomes amazingly unhelpful. Many times I've searched for something boardgaming related, I like to make things for my games, and been blocked by the pinterest gatekeeper. I refuse to sign up so every time I leave.
Yes, that's part of the user hostile stuff. It's a shame because it makes me reluctant to recommend pinterest. I don't ever link to my pinterest here for example.
I'm in the same boat. I blame it on karma; I spent a couple decades lambasting people for not knowing about BBS, IRC, email, www, etc.
Oh you don't get social media?
You're using one right now.
You're using one right now.
This is a web page, sonny. Pretty much as simple as they were in '92.
Yeah, Hackernews is basically pg's guestbook and it needs more MIDI.
Don't forget the visitor counter and the "men working" gif
Optimized for IE used to be what the cool kids did because it supported iframes before Netscape and all of a sudden it wasn't a big deal to use frames in that way. It took a while before div based layouts actually were easy to get working in most browsers to the point where most people stopped using Photoshop and cutting everything into borderless tables.
I'm not afraid to admit that I still do table-centric HTML design on occasion (disclaimer: for specific, usually non-public, uses); it's really not all that much worse semantically than the current trend of "oh I'll assign a grid-three-seventeenths-or-whatever-the-fuck CSS class to this div in WangularStrap.js", considering that in both cases you're embedding formatting information in the data being presented (and therefore totally missing the point of "semantic" web programming).
And animated flame gifs.
The technology doesn't matter
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
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system ("A bulletin board system, or BBS, is a computer server running custom software that allows users to connect to the system using a terminal program. Once logged in, the user can perform functions such as uploading and downloading software and data, reading news and bulletins, and exchanging messages with other users through email, public message boards, and sometimes via direct chatting.")
HN is actually a fairly primitive BBS running over TCP/IP.
HN is actually a fairly primitive BBS running over TCP/IP.
I'd argue that the BBS is the earliest form of social media (or one of the earliest, at least).
I know what a BBS is, I used them
(I'd say HN is not one, since we don't use a terminal program to access it and not using a modem over POTS)
(I'd say HN is not one, since we don't use a terminal program to access it and not using a modem over POTS)
So are FB & Twitter & Pinterest, old-timer!
[deleted]
There's a massive difference between topic-centered, article-oriented forums and social-oriented "life walls", in which people are drawn to share their personal life and basically have an "online life hub".
One is centered around the topic, the other is centered around the person.
One is centered around the topic, the other is centered around the person.
Reddit is topic oriented and nonetheless is social media. Because the curation of topics is done by the users (same thing here, with some content created by the users themselves)
Pinterest is about curation of content and it is social media as well
Pinterest is about curation of content and it is social media as well
As I said, it's about the difference between "topic-oriented" and "person-oriented".
Pinterest has a very different demographic which is more likely why GGP hadn't heard of it, but I would put it in the same bucket as Reddit/HN. Facebook, Twitter etc however are person-oriented.
The only thing all these have in common is user-generated content. But at that point you can call anything with user-generated content social media. Forums? Sure. Newspapers with curated user-submitted articles? Why not.
Pinterest has a very different demographic which is more likely why GGP hadn't heard of it, but I would put it in the same bucket as Reddit/HN. Facebook, Twitter etc however are person-oriented.
The only thing all these have in common is user-generated content. But at that point you can call anything with user-generated content social media. Forums? Sure. Newspapers with curated user-submitted articles? Why not.
[deleted]
Seconded. I've never really drunk the social media koolaid and I feel just as native as the next guy. Got started on a used 2400 baud modem in the early nineties when it was not easy to get connected to the internet, let alone browse the web. I feel like that grit's gotta be worth something. Of course, this is to say nothing of the people I know and respect who wrote their first programs on freaking punch cards.
A good friend has been trying to get me into SM since Tribe and I've never really liked any platform I've tried. I'm mostly private and find no utility in chronicling my life in the open for everyone to see. If I want to share event from time to time I still do, just not via, for instance, Facebook.
I'm in my early 20s and I'm in the same boat. Reddit/HN/Slashdot are the extent of my use of social media and a lot of my peers in college were the same. Hell, I know a handful of people who work at Facebook/Twitter/etc who didn't even have Facebook/Twitter/etc accounts when they were hired, some of them still don't.
I suspect that an FB account for Facebook is "Mandatory" (because a lot of work is done "inside" FB - think of it as their internal comm tool, but of course you don't need to use it to post pictures of your weekend)
You've just described my girlfriend and I with uncanny precision
I didn't use that specific term because it sounds as stupid as "rockstar" or "ninja", but when I was hiring recently I only used Facebook ads (which you could target to specific genders or ages, if you wanted - I only targeted by location) and stressed that the job(s) required someone comfortable with the Internet, social media, and Internet culture (which, indeed, they do). I only got applications from people in their mid 20s and younger but found the right people for the job.
That's interesting! I would have predicted that "digital natives" would be the most likely to use ad blockers (thus not seeing the ads at all)...
No, people who use ad blockers are cranky old idealists who demand tiresome, expensive relics like "privacy" and "dignity."
Digital Natives™, having never lived in a world with those things, don't cause trouble over them.
Digital Natives™, having never lived in a world with those things, don't cause trouble over them.
Even if I didn't care about privacy (I do), I just hate those freaking auto-playing flash ads.
Everyone can appreciate how annoying they are.
Everyone can appreciate how annoying they are.
or just be passive consumers of apps on smart phones with a cargo cult level of knowledge.
I'm sure you feel good about the people you hired, but how do you know that there wasn't someone even better who didn't apply because of the narrow targeting of your ad? If somebody posted their job ad only in the AARP newsletter, would you feel that it had been made available to twenty-somethings? After all, they could read it.
This all goes back to the numbers games in hiring. Targeting the listing is cheaper, and if you can identify a subgroup that contains most of the potential candidates for your opening, it might be sensible to target.
Sure, there might be some "big fish" in a group you didn't target, but so long as you are happy with the people you hired, didn't it pay off? Not every position needs to be filled with a rockstar-ninja-pirate-haXX0r. Maybe all you need is a person who can get the job done (imagine that!)
Sure, there might be some "big fish" in a group you didn't target, but so long as you are happy with the people you hired, didn't it pay off? Not every position needs to be filled with a rockstar-ninja-pirate-haXX0r. Maybe all you need is a person who can get the job done (imagine that!)
I actually believe I choose the most widely disseminated approach. My Facebook ad was targeted to within 20 miles of my town and reached around 10,000 unique people according to Facebook. Only 18,000 people live in my town and it's a very rural area. Even our local paper's job ads page gets fewer readers, I bet.
Two of the people I hired actually didn't even see the ad themselves but had it shared to them by other people, so if older people were looking for a job in my field, I believe they would have had a good chance to see it too.
Two of the people I hired actually didn't even see the ad themselves but had it shared to them by other people, so if older people were looking for a job in my field, I believe they would have had a good chance to see it too.
If part of the job requirement was being very familiar with AARP, the AARP newsletter would probably be a great place to post the ad.
Right?
Right?
But presumably using Facebook is also a core component of the actual job, given that it mentioned social media.
Out of curiosity, if you had received an application from a 40 something who has been "digital" since before the internet was deemed a human right, would you have felt comfortable hiring him?
Seconded I have been working in online since before the internet became mainstream Viewdata Telecom Gold/Dialcom.
Yes. The added experience would have been a plus.
That's good to hear. Hope your project works out!
The title is very misleading and an example of linkbait. It should be something like "Can Employers Request Traits That Older Folks Are Unlikely to Possess?"
Change "Unlikely" to "Cannot" and that sounds about right. You cannot become native in something after the critical period is over, no matter how good you are(this is by definition). The best you can be is "fluent" if you miss the critical period.
For example, if you ask for a native English speaker to write a newsletter, Joseph Conrad would not fit the bill(since he started learning English at 21 years of age), even though in terms of talent he would surely be leagues beyond any random native English speaker.
For example, if you ask for a native English speaker to write a newsletter, Joseph Conrad would not fit the bill(since he started learning English at 21 years of age), even though in terms of talent he would surely be leagues beyond any random native English speaker.
You're claiming there is a skill set or intuitive understanding that can't be learned once you pass age 21?
I think the point that the parent post is making is that while one can learn to be proficient in a certain topic, he/she can't call it "native" unless it is in fact, "native" in definition.
It's as much as you can't claim native to a specific country if you are not born/raised in that country.
It's as much as you can't claim native to a specific country if you are not born/raised in that country.
No, that is not my point. My point is that the term "native" has a very narrow scope where, by definition, the skills must be learned or acquired from birth(and certainly before the critical period[7-10 years old] is over). In this sense, for example, many people can be native English speakers, but it means nothing with regards to their actual skill of speaking or writing English. That's my problem with asking for "digital natives". "Fluency" would be a better term to use, because it doesn't differentiate on when a person learned a skill, just their talent regarding that skill.
Not really. Think what you will of the merits of the article, but it makes specific reference in the opening sentence to the fact that "digital native has been used to refer to a member of the younger generation weaned on the web and immersed in the language of digital technology," and the example it signifies is an employer ignoring older applicants because of their age rather than their skillsets.
I'm not sure how I feel about the issue, but it seems fairly appropriately titled and asking a narrow question. If I clicked on an article with the title you suggest, I'd expect a discussion of broader issues – manual labor's physical requirements as job criteria, for example.
I'm not sure how I feel about the issue, but it seems fairly appropriately titled and asking a narrow question. If I clicked on an article with the title you suggest, I'd expect a discussion of broader issues – manual labor's physical requirements as job criteria, for example.
Why not just say "digitally fluent", or something like that? Discriminating against someone based solely on the year they were born seems illegal(IANAL) and just plain wrong.
Although you have to wonder how places with right laws compete with places with wrong laws. Oh I know. You make another law to fix that?
Not quite sure what your point is. What are these "right laws" and "wrong laws"?
[deleted]
Digital natives do not exist in numbers you think. Fewer than 1 percent of entering freshmen have ever edited a wiki:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hghekXykt-k&feature=youtu.be...
EDIT: Totally misremembered, its more like 17 percent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hghekXykt-k&feature=youtu.be...
EDIT: Totally misremembered, its more like 17 percent.
Why would that even be a metric?
Editing a wiki is the kind of experience that is much more valuable to employers than social networking or most common online activities for most occupations, with the exception of marketing/PR-specific roles. Collaborative work on a wiki involves teamwork, research, editing, effective communication, and a whole host of other skills that are useful in a business setting. Blabbing to your friends on Facebook or Twitter doesn't develop these skills.
It's certainly an advanced skill compared to taking a Facebook quiz, but I think it clarifies the assumptions people have about young people, that they know all the computer things because they grew up using them. That's really not the case.
If you want an alternative metric, something like 1 in 3 entering freshmen don't know what the BCC feature does in email. We know that pretty much everyone uses email daily (despite what they tell parents and teachers), so it cannot be that immersion alone leads to proficiency, or that proficiency cannot be learned as an adult.
If you want to rate candidates by skill, by all means do so, just don't go the extra discriminatory step of saying old people by definition cannot pass your measurement, and that young people by definition do.
If you want an alternative metric, something like 1 in 3 entering freshmen don't know what the BCC feature does in email. We know that pretty much everyone uses email daily (despite what they tell parents and teachers), so it cannot be that immersion alone leads to proficiency, or that proficiency cannot be learned as an adult.
If you want to rate candidates by skill, by all means do so, just don't go the extra discriminatory step of saying old people by definition cannot pass your measurement, and that young people by definition do.
Ah. I was mistaken in thinking that you were using 'wiki editing' in a manner that was more in-line as a qualification, rather than a simple means of discrimination. By that logic, I think 'hosting a minecraft server' would be comparable.
The term "Digital Native" is one of my biggest pet peeves. I once asked Howard Rhinegold if he felt there was any justification to the "digital natives" idea and he expressed that in his experience in teaching freshmen at both Stanford and Cal, there was no such person.
I started playing with computers in the late 70's. Got my first job working in video arcades in the early 80's. Got my webmaster job in '94. If my kids are digital natives, what does that make me?
edited for clarity
I started playing with computers in the late 70's. Got my first job working in video arcades in the early 80's. Got my webmaster job in '94. If my kids are digital natives, what does that make me?
edited for clarity
Digital Native, eh?
I've been on the Internet since '86, when my dad was at school at Purdue. I had a commodore 64, and 2 1541 drives. One was hacked by me for bootlegging.
I did the BBS'es but found them boring when compared to the 'net. I could also get into newsgroups which had a wealth of knowledge and the connections to talk to the greats of CompSci.
I remember when we got our first dialup service, back when there here dozens of ISPs, and when Windows didn't have an IP layer. I remember setting up my own FreeBSD server to handle networking and dialup mediation (was 13). I lucked in at an auction and got a SunSparc lunchbox. Crazy computer.
I obtained my amateur radio license, as well as learning about analog circuitry and tubes. That's old, even by the previous generation's standards. And yet, I now 3d print tube sockets for my 300+ collection of tubes. Hard to buy them these days, so I make them. Oh, and I'm also good at 3d design.
I saw the advent of Google, and how it overtook Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos, and other older search engines. I remember Napster, Kazaa, and others. I still have the first file ever bittorrented, porn. I remember when I heard about the Harvard social network, The Facebook. I knew it would kill MySpace, even then.
I'm 33. Am I too old for "Digital Native"?
I've been on the Internet since '86, when my dad was at school at Purdue. I had a commodore 64, and 2 1541 drives. One was hacked by me for bootlegging.
I did the BBS'es but found them boring when compared to the 'net. I could also get into newsgroups which had a wealth of knowledge and the connections to talk to the greats of CompSci.
I remember when we got our first dialup service, back when there here dozens of ISPs, and when Windows didn't have an IP layer. I remember setting up my own FreeBSD server to handle networking and dialup mediation (was 13). I lucked in at an auction and got a SunSparc lunchbox. Crazy computer.
I obtained my amateur radio license, as well as learning about analog circuitry and tubes. That's old, even by the previous generation's standards. And yet, I now 3d print tube sockets for my 300+ collection of tubes. Hard to buy them these days, so I make them. Oh, and I'm also good at 3d design.
I saw the advent of Google, and how it overtook Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos, and other older search engines. I remember Napster, Kazaa, and others. I still have the first file ever bittorrented, porn. I remember when I heard about the Harvard social network, The Facebook. I knew it would kill MySpace, even then.
I'm 33. Am I too old for "Digital Native"?
No, employers are not allowed to come up with a code word that allows them to exclusively hire younger people. Switch "digital native" with "millennial" and see how that fairs in court.
Also, I really resent the implication on this one, like many in this thread. I grew up with a computer and digital communications before the internet.
Also, I really resent the implication on this one, like many in this thread. I grew up with a computer and digital communications before the internet.
Even though I'm a millenial guy myself but one of those pioneers of the generation - no not a 90s kid - and I still feel that younger folks than me are at advantage compared to us we slightly older folks when it comes to technology.
I have not taken computers seriously till 2000 and the internet not before 2005 (The broadband revolution took some time to enter my country of origin) and as we might all know, the web back then was more or less pathetic thanks to MSIE monopoly and the resulting stagnation.
So, I didn't take web development seriously back then and I waited for the thing to explode and rise meteorically before jumping the bandwagon and therefore I'm kind of behind the curve when it staying updated of all the ongoing developments in the field compared to my younger peers who are more "digital native" to these technologies than me and therefore less suitable for "young" jobs in startups or orgs.
I think we should accept that our field favors young talents like pro sports and athletics and everyone of us has a "shelf life" in a certain role in the organization and that he/she should strive to move the higher rank in managerial or lead position as soon as possible before getting displaced by younger talents who are fresh, ambitious, eager to learn and achieve and have high exposure to all the new "fancy" and "shiny" technologies that the market demands at the time.
I have not taken computers seriously till 2000 and the internet not before 2005 (The broadband revolution took some time to enter my country of origin) and as we might all know, the web back then was more or less pathetic thanks to MSIE monopoly and the resulting stagnation.
So, I didn't take web development seriously back then and I waited for the thing to explode and rise meteorically before jumping the bandwagon and therefore I'm kind of behind the curve when it staying updated of all the ongoing developments in the field compared to my younger peers who are more "digital native" to these technologies than me and therefore less suitable for "young" jobs in startups or orgs.
I think we should accept that our field favors young talents like pro sports and athletics and everyone of us has a "shelf life" in a certain role in the organization and that he/she should strive to move the higher rank in managerial or lead position as soon as possible before getting displaced by younger talents who are fresh, ambitious, eager to learn and achieve and have high exposure to all the new "fancy" and "shiny" technologies that the market demands at the time.
Is it OK for Employers to seek out employee they want? Yes, their business, their decision.
Is it OK for employers to discriminate based on criteria that the applicant can't reasonably change through education or training, like race or gender?
Is that the same as discriminating based on age?
Is 'digital native' HR-code for discriminating based on age?
Is that the same as discriminating based on age?
Is 'digital native' HR-code for discriminating based on age?
Could 'digital native' be used for discrimination? Sure.
Is it inherently or obviously used that way? No, not likely.
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.
Is it inherently or obviously used that way? No, not likely.
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.
Could 'digital native' be used for discrimination? Sure.
Is it inherently or obviously used that way? No, not likely.
'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.
'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.
"Digital native" doesn't seem to violate any discrimination laws. It certainly doesn't equate to "black" or "female."
The parent made their comment in that context.
The parent made their comment in that context.
"Digital native" doesn't seem to violate any discrimination laws. It certainly doesn't equate to "black" or "female."
What does "digital native" mean in the context of hiring? Does it mean age discrimination? I'm guessing that there are a lot of companies that are using it as a sort of 'job marketing', and that the intention is to specifically appeal to younger candidates. If so, then, in intention at least, it would be a violation of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The parent made no such distinction, and what he said is literally wrong - that it's "their business" does not imply that it's "their decision". Or at the very least, there are constraints on how they make that decision. You can't systematically discriminate against capable candidates.
What does "digital native" mean in the context of hiring? Does it mean age discrimination? I'm guessing that there are a lot of companies that are using it as a sort of 'job marketing', and that the intention is to specifically appeal to younger candidates. If so, then, in intention at least, it would be a violation of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The parent made no such distinction, and what he said is literally wrong - that it's "their business" does not imply that it's "their decision". Or at the very least, there are constraints on how they make that decision. You can't systematically discriminate against capable candidates.
In my mind it's a skillset more than anything else.
My mind doesn't necessarily equate to everyone else's mind.
You're taking the parent at his worst, when HN makes a concerted effort to take the best possible meaning.
You actually can systematically discriminate against capable candidates and virtually every hiring process is designed to do that in some form.
Really, I think you're just trolling here.
My mind doesn't necessarily equate to everyone else's mind.
You're taking the parent at his worst, when HN makes a concerted effort to take the best possible meaning.
You actually can systematically discriminate against capable candidates and virtually every hiring process is designed to do that in some form.
Really, I think you're just trolling here.
You're taking the parent at his worst, when HN makes a concerted effort to take the best possible meaning
Perhaps, but in the meantime the parent has elaborated on his position and has confirmed that he really does seem to believe that private business is exempt from employment discrimination law. Or perhaps he doesn't understand that there actually is such a thing as employment discrimination law. Or I don't know. I don't know what's going on in his mind, actually. All I have is what he's written here - I'm forced to give him the benefit of judging his words without prejudice - I don't know him and I've never heard of him.
You actually can systematically discriminate against capable candidates and virtually every hiring process is designed to do that in some form
Well this is ethics vs morality, isn't it? Yes, Daisy, you really can break the law and get away with it most of the time. But that doesn't make it right, and I don't like seeing or hearing anyone patting each other on the back about it or crowing about how PRIVATE business is privileged enough to be able to hire without considering employment discrimination laws.
Really, I think you're just trolling here
I don't think that I'm trolling - I'm merely trying to provoke thought in the Socratic tradition. How am I trolling?
Perhaps, but in the meantime the parent has elaborated on his position and has confirmed that he really does seem to believe that private business is exempt from employment discrimination law. Or perhaps he doesn't understand that there actually is such a thing as employment discrimination law. Or I don't know. I don't know what's going on in his mind, actually. All I have is what he's written here - I'm forced to give him the benefit of judging his words without prejudice - I don't know him and I've never heard of him.
You actually can systematically discriminate against capable candidates and virtually every hiring process is designed to do that in some form
Well this is ethics vs morality, isn't it? Yes, Daisy, you really can break the law and get away with it most of the time. But that doesn't make it right, and I don't like seeing or hearing anyone patting each other on the back about it or crowing about how PRIVATE business is privileged enough to be able to hire without considering employment discrimination laws.
Really, I think you're just trolling here
I don't think that I'm trolling - I'm merely trying to provoke thought in the Socratic tradition. How am I trolling?
> Could 'digital native' be used for discrimination? Sure.
> 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.
> 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.
Define discriminate. I think you are using this word to cover up word "decide". It is his business. If he wants to hire only blond woman in their 20s - cool. But if he decides to hire based on skills rather than racial/age quotas or some ridiculous decisions - also cool. You cant change that, thats freedom of PRIVATE business.
> Define discriminate. I think you are using this word to cover up word "decide".
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.
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.
"Which lots of jurisdictions have."
Such as the U.S., which has laws protecting workers over the age of 40 from age discrimination:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employme...
Other U.S. laws protect against gender, race, religious, etc. discrimination.
Such as the U.S., which has laws protecting workers over the age of 40 from age discrimination:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employme...
Other U.S. laws protect against gender, race, religious, etc. discrimination.
It is his business
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.
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.
Like Hooters. Or lap dance business. You are right, they cant hire only "fuckable" woman.
Its nice to follow principle, but reality is different. I am surprised you guys are so detached from it.
The world is not just A and B. I am not defending anyone, just saying how it is. Nothing will change that, there will be always a way or loophole to go around the law.
Its nice to follow principle, but reality is different. I am surprised you guys are so detached from it.
The world is not just A and B. I am not defending anyone, just saying how it is. Nothing will change that, there will be always a way or loophole to go around the law.
At least in the UK, that's not the case. You cannot, for instance, specify that only white people need to apply. Not unless you can make a functional argument for why it is a business need that only white people apply. And age is, as far as I'm aware, a protected characteristic in this regard.
Of course, one might claim by asking for "digital natives" one is not discriminating on the basis of age. But this feels like a rather disingenuous claim. Asking for computer skills is not discriminating on the basis of age, but asking that someone be "native" to an environment that did not exist when they were younger is. The older person might be very skilled with computers, but since they were not young when computers were prevalent they are not "native."
And yes, one might make an argument that this was not what they meant by the term "digital native", but it is a questionable enough argument that I would not want to rely on it in court. Not when there are terms that relate more directly to the skills concerned, which do not carry the same connotations of discrimination in this regard.
Of course, one might claim by asking for "digital natives" one is not discriminating on the basis of age. But this feels like a rather disingenuous claim. Asking for computer skills is not discriminating on the basis of age, but asking that someone be "native" to an environment that did not exist when they were younger is. The older person might be very skilled with computers, but since they were not young when computers were prevalent they are not "native."
And yes, one might make an argument that this was not what they meant by the term "digital native", but it is a questionable enough argument that I would not want to rely on it in court. Not when there are terms that relate more directly to the skills concerned, which do not carry the same connotations of discrimination in this regard.
Totally agree.
But I think everyone (including the journalist in the first place) are missing the point again. The problem is, that "digital native" thing is absolutely meaningless. It's basically another ridiculous "ninja-rockstar" thing, in some sense. You can prove I'm not 20 years old, you can prove I am or am not qualified to do the job, you can prove I'm male/female, you can prove I'm white/black/dog/whale, whatever. But you can not prove I am or am not a "digital native". It's absolutely possible, that I never even saw a computer until the last week, and over the last week gained all the knowledge you want me to have, including all the historic background. In fact, without the strict definition what "digital native" is, all this discussion and job announcements containing this word are nonsense, and it seems that if somebody who cares would construct this definition, it would be unverifiable given the current information about the candidate and thus meaningless anyway.
But I think everyone (including the journalist in the first place) are missing the point again. The problem is, that "digital native" thing is absolutely meaningless. It's basically another ridiculous "ninja-rockstar" thing, in some sense. You can prove I'm not 20 years old, you can prove I am or am not qualified to do the job, you can prove I'm male/female, you can prove I'm white/black/dog/whale, whatever. But you can not prove I am or am not a "digital native". It's absolutely possible, that I never even saw a computer until the last week, and over the last week gained all the knowledge you want me to have, including all the historic background. In fact, without the strict definition what "digital native" is, all this discussion and job announcements containing this word are nonsense, and it seems that if somebody who cares would construct this definition, it would be unverifiable given the current information about the candidate and thus meaningless anyway.
Unless they're discriminating against a protected class, which people over the age of 40 happen to be.
That just means it's illegal.
Also, there isn't an unlimited supply on young people, so many employers have to settle with older ones...
Take that, everyone other than straight white young men!
Yeah, we should have force employees to meet the racial/age quotes. Not hire based on skills and employers decision, but based on government messing with freedom to do the business.
Exactly, I hope the fairness enforcement lawyers don't get hip to the band listing I saw seeking people under 25—presumably for their drug tolerance?
When I hear "digital native", I think of a generation familiar with Snapchat, Instagram, Vine, etc... So they would -somehow- be more familiar with creating content for those platforms.
I don't think it's an age issue.
Or else how can you not call someone who has been in the IT business for 30 years a "digital native"?
It is about what part of that "digital" you are dealing with.
I don't think it's an age issue.
Or else how can you not call someone who has been in the IT business for 30 years a "digital native"?
It is about what part of that "digital" you are dealing with.
"Smart, talented, and can get the job done."
That's what I look for.
Also:
"Can they be coached?"
"Do they need coaching?"
"How is their personality?"
"How do they display passion?"
That's what I look for.
Also:
"Can they be coached?"
"Do they need coaching?"
"How is their personality?"
"How do they display passion?"
FWIW, Tim Berners Lee wasn't a "digital native" and he understood the web well enough to invent it.
A company seeking 'Digital Natives' would be the company where Dilbert's boss works.
One thing my wife pointed out to me is that her teenaged siblings have a lot more trouble finding things on Google than she does, because they don't remember constructing search terms from back before Google got (relatively) good at parsing natural language.