Thank you for the link. The conclusions seem to me to be accurately relayed by the first article, and my priors were accurate. There is still not a statement that I see of what the desired outcome should be.
Let me go ahead and spell out what I mean. Should the Google search results give the exact same % of results for each race? Should it accurately reflect the % of searches? Should it accurately reflect the % of ads put in? (Those are all 3 very different things.) If so, should Google tweak the percentage of those ads? If so, in what manner? If a combination, which combination?
The implication in the conclusion is that first one, but in that case, why does that one override the others? Might in fact be racist to hide the incidence of these searches, based on race? A case could be made for that, after all.
These are rich and interesting questions, and it does not simply go without saying what the desired outcome is.
The null hypothesis is described at the beginning of page 4, under the heading 'problem statement': Our hypothesis: no difference exists in the delivery of ads suggestive of an arrest record responding to online searches of racially associated names. Then, when presented with evidence of a pattern to the contrary, examine the pattern’s credibility, likelihood and circumstances of occurring. This hypothesis is briefly restated in the conclusion.
Methods are spelled out beginning on page 10, observations and how they compare to specific expectations are spelled out beginning on page 20. I can only infer that you didn't bother to read the paper.
Comments
Thank you for the link. The conclusions seem to me to be accurately relayed by the first article, and my priors were accurate. There is still not a statement that I see of what the desired outcome should be.
Let me go ahead and spell out what I mean. Should the Google search results give the exact same % of results for each race? Should it accurately reflect the % of searches? Should it accurately reflect the % of ads put in? (Those are all 3 very different things.) If so, should Google tweak the percentage of those ads? If so, in what manner? If a combination, which combination?
The implication in the conclusion is that first one, but in that case, why does that one override the others? Might in fact be racist to hide the incidence of these searches, based on race? A case could be made for that, after all.
These are rich and interesting questions, and it does not simply go without saying what the desired outcome is.
The null hypothesis is described at the beginning of page 4, under the heading 'problem statement': Our hypothesis: no difference exists in the delivery of ads suggestive of an arrest record responding to online searches of racially associated names. Then, when presented with evidence of a pattern to the contrary, examine the pattern’s credibility, likelihood and circumstances of occurring. This hypothesis is briefly restated in the conclusion.
Methods are spelled out beginning on page 10, observations and how they compare to specific expectations are spelled out beginning on page 20. I can only infer that you didn't bother to read the paper.
So you're saying that because there isn't a known solution, yet, it isn't useful to point out the problem.
That makes no sense whatsoever.