(Now that the bar exam is over and I have had time to sort out a number of personal and professional items, this blog is being revived. Sorry for the suspense.)
Odds are, you have a Facebook account. No, really. Over 50% of Americans have Facebook accounts. So, odds are, you have a Facebook account. (25 other countries are also over the 50% threshold, including the United Kingdom and Canada.) So, odds are, you've seen a red equal sign in the last few days.
In the extremely unlikely event you don't know what I'm talking about, here's what happened. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court, highest court in the country, heard challenges to the laws known as Proposition 8 (the California law prohibiting the performance of same-sex marriages in that state) and the Defense of Marriage Act (the U.S. federal law restricting federal marriage benefits from same-sex marriages*). Among the many memes and other trends on the Internet relating to the cases, Facebook was awash in red. The Human Rights Campaign urged followers to change their profile pictures in support of marriage equality, and it caught on. I haven't seen any estimates of how many people changed their pictures, but it was a lot. It also spawned a number of spoofs, from Ernie & Bert to corgis to bacon.
This is not a post about marriage equality. Sorry to disappoint. But I am going to talk about Facebook and social sorting, so click on!
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2013
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Italy's Assault on Science? Not Necessarily.
I have seen a lot of ink over the conviction of six Italian scientists (and one other government official) in L'Aquila last week. The coverage, to put it mildly, has been bad. A serious injustice has occurred here, but most of the English-language media have been too busy sensationalizing to comment meaningfully on it.
For anyone not familiar with the situation, a 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy, caused the deaths of more than 300 people. In the days leading up to the earthquake, tremors in the area appeared to indicate a coming earthquake. One Italian official, on information from the Italian National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, stated that an earthquake was unlikely. After the quake, the official and six scientists at the Commission were charged with manslaughter on the theory that their "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" statements caused people to stay when they should have fled the area. Last week, the Italian court handed down a verdict of guilty and a potential sentence of 6 years.
Make no mistake about it: This is a bad thing. Seven people who do not deserve imprisonment look likely to get it. (Although, under Italian law, the sentence must be reviewed.) But the English-language press, out of the United States and United Kingdom, has largely missed the point. They have focused on largely on two things: 1) This conviction bends the definition of "manslaughter" and 2) This conviction is an attack on science that will have a chilling effect on how scientists do business.
I am not really convinced that either one is true.
For anyone not familiar with the situation, a 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila, Italy, caused the deaths of more than 300 people. In the days leading up to the earthquake, tremors in the area appeared to indicate a coming earthquake. One Italian official, on information from the Italian National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, stated that an earthquake was unlikely. After the quake, the official and six scientists at the Commission were charged with manslaughter on the theory that their "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" statements caused people to stay when they should have fled the area. Last week, the Italian court handed down a verdict of guilty and a potential sentence of 6 years.
Make no mistake about it: This is a bad thing. Seven people who do not deserve imprisonment look likely to get it. (Although, under Italian law, the sentence must be reviewed.) But the English-language press, out of the United States and United Kingdom, has largely missed the point. They have focused on largely on two things: 1) This conviction bends the definition of "manslaughter" and 2) This conviction is an attack on science that will have a chilling effect on how scientists do business.
I am not really convinced that either one is true.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Science Professors Show Gender Bias; Only Science Professors Shocked
The headline in the New York Times yesterday read, "Bias Persists for Women of Science, a Study Finds." * I think calling that an understatement would be an understatement.
The article refers to the tediously-named article "Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students" published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study itself was elegantly simple. The organizers sent one-page descriptions of potential job candidates to university professors in the sciences and asked them to assess the candidates for apparent competence, hireability, and potential for mentorship, as well as recommend a starting salary. Some professors received descriptions of male candidates, and others received descriptions of female candidates.
The catch? Every single job candidate was identical except for gender. Word-for-word, the female applicants were identical to their male candidates, except that the name "Jennifer" replaced the name "John".
The results are striking. Male professors rated female applicants as 17% less competent, 21% less hireable, and 16% less desirable for mentorship than male applicants, with a recommended salary 11% lower. Female professors were even harsher, rating the female applicants 19% less competent, 27% less hireable, and 17% less desirable for mentorship, with 15% lower recommended salaries.
Wait ... what?
The article refers to the tediously-named article "Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students" published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study itself was elegantly simple. The organizers sent one-page descriptions of potential job candidates to university professors in the sciences and asked them to assess the candidates for apparent competence, hireability, and potential for mentorship, as well as recommend a starting salary. Some professors received descriptions of male candidates, and others received descriptions of female candidates.
The catch? Every single job candidate was identical except for gender. Word-for-word, the female applicants were identical to their male candidates, except that the name "Jennifer" replaced the name "John".
The results are striking. Male professors rated female applicants as 17% less competent, 21% less hireable, and 16% less desirable for mentorship than male applicants, with a recommended salary 11% lower. Female professors were even harsher, rating the female applicants 19% less competent, 27% less hireable, and 17% less desirable for mentorship, with 15% lower recommended salaries.
Wait ... what?
Monday, September 17, 2012
"Hello World! It's Me, the Internet!"
Big news today for the Internet -- and for the lobbying world. A group of organizations from the "Internet infrastructure industry" announced a new policy advocacy organization, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition. i2, as they are calling themselves, claim to "support[] those who build the nuts and bolts of the Internet". They don't define exactly what those "nuts and bolts" are, but their members list includes software-as-service, remote hosting, and spectrum organizations.
An informal browsing of their members seems to indicate that most are related to cloud computing or other remote services. I question whether this is really representative of the "Internet infrastructure" without network owners and ISPs. Regardless of what they call themselves, though, i2 has stated that they believe in a robust and growing Internet environment to encourage innovation.
The most interesting part of i2's site is the explanation of their policy positions. Most of their positions are not particularly surprising for businesses relying on the Internet for their business models. I'd like to highlight a few interesting implications of their positions, though.
An informal browsing of their members seems to indicate that most are related to cloud computing or other remote services. I question whether this is really representative of the "Internet infrastructure" without network owners and ISPs. Regardless of what they call themselves, though, i2 has stated that they believe in a robust and growing Internet environment to encourage innovation.
The most interesting part of i2's site is the explanation of their policy positions. Most of their positions are not particularly surprising for businesses relying on the Internet for their business models. I'd like to highlight a few interesting implications of their positions, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)