back
4 comments
This is only example provided:

>>In 2016, an investigation by Bloomberg found that Amazon tended to withhold their same-day-delivery service from minority neighbourhoods. Gilliard pointed to the example of Roxbury, a majority black neighbourhood in Boston. In Bloomberg's reporting, Roxbury was the lone area where same-day-delivery wasn't available, completely surrounded by areas Amazon would deliver to.

In other words, Gilliard expects companies to not target their services to neighbourhoods where they are profitable if the unprofitable neighbourhoods where the services aren't provided are disproportionately populated by minorities.

That's not reasonable, and calling the refusal to do so racial discrimination is absolutely irresponsible. The activists are asking for special treatment for minority groups, so that rather everyone and every neighbourhood being judged by a color-blind algorithm, the algorithm takes the individual's race or the neighbourhood's racial composition into account and reduces the penalization people of certain races receive for being low income.

I actually think anti-racism is one of the great positives of letting algorithms decide. Because, well, people are racist, often, and

1) algorithms, by themselves, are not

2) if they are, that's written down somewhere (and can therefore be conclusively proven and legal recourse can be sought)

None of this works with humans.

To be charitable, they're asking for things that look blatantly racist to be at the very least explained coherently in a way that's not tied to race.
This is the article I link to when I see people making statements about racist algorithms: https://blog.chewxy.com/2015/08/04/algorithms-are-chaotic-ne...

Basically, algorithms are the wrong layer to work in if you want to fix this problem.