Because factoring Asians (and Indians, for that matter) in to the equation changes the framing of the argument.
Asians are a minority group, but are vastly over-represented in tech, to the point that even white people are under-represented by comparison.
The concern about racial diversity tends to focus on the idea that white hiring managers are subconsciously selective against non-white applicants. This doesn't make sense though when you factor in the minority groups that are actually over-represented.
So what has happened is that the argument has shifted to ignore Asian representation and only focus on black and Latino representation, while still coming to the same conclusion that white hiring managers are subconsciously racist and that the company needs to take corrective action.
The representation of Asians and Indians in tech should not necessarily reduce concerns for other minorities that are under-represented, but should definitely change the way those concerns are framed. The fact that it hasn't suggests that some sort of tomfoolery is afoot.
The issue is that Google is now associating itself with the role of a "publisher" rather than a "platform" (in particular on slide 68). Publishers are not protected under Section 230.
It doesn't seem like the blame should fall on Facebook here, but rather the companies using Facebook's tools to age discriminate (assuming there is even blame to place at all).
Age-based targeting can be applied across their entire platform, not just for job postings, and it can be applied in either direction (i.e. companies can also create ads targeting only people over the age of 40).
> In the amended complaint, CWA alleged that Facebook encourages advertisers to exclude some job-seekers by providing both age filters and regularly updated data on how ads perform among different age groups.
IMO, this complaint achieves the opposite of what they want it to achieve. It suggests that the age-related metrics that Facebook offers are a) explicitly defined by the individual advertiser and b) are used to objectively determine the ad's effectiveness rather than to unjustly discriminate.
Asians are a minority group, but are vastly over-represented in tech, to the point that even white people are under-represented by comparison.
The concern about racial diversity tends to focus on the idea that white hiring managers are subconsciously selective against non-white applicants. This doesn't make sense though when you factor in the minority groups that are actually over-represented.
So what has happened is that the argument has shifted to ignore Asian representation and only focus on black and Latino representation, while still coming to the same conclusion that white hiring managers are subconsciously racist and that the company needs to take corrective action.
The representation of Asians and Indians in tech should not necessarily reduce concerns for other minorities that are under-represented, but should definitely change the way those concerns are framed. The fact that it hasn't suggests that some sort of tomfoolery is afoot.