Escaping the 'Impossibility of Fairness': From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness

Ben Green
{"title":"Escaping the 'Impossibility of Fairness': From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness","authors":"Ben Green","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3883649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the face of compounding crises of social and economic inequality, many have turned to algorithmic decision-making to achieve greater fairness in society. As these efforts intensify, reasoning within the burgeoning field of “algorithmic fairness” increasingly shapes how fairness manifests in practice. This paper interrogates whether algorithmic fairness provides the appropriate conceptual and practical tools for enhancing social equality. I argue that the dominant, “formal” approach to algorithmic fairness is ill-equipped as a framework for pursuing equality, as its narrow frame of analysis generates restrictive approaches to reform. In light of these shortcomings, I propose an alternative: a “substantive” approach to algorithmic fairness that centers opposition to social hierarchies and provides a more expansive analysis of how to address inequality. This substantive approach enables more fruitful theorizing about the role of algorithms in combatting oppression. The distinction between formal and substantive algorithmic fairness is exemplified by each approach’s responses to the “impossibility of fairness” (an incompatibility between mathematical definitions of algorithmic fairness). While the formal approach requires us to accept the “impossibility of fairness” as a harsh limit on efforts to enhance equality, the substantive approach allows us to escape the “impossibility of fairness” by suggesting reforms that are not subject to this false dilemma and that are better equipped to ameliorate conditions of social oppression.","PeriodicalId":189628,"journal":{"name":"InfoSciRN: Machine Learning (Sub-Topic)","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"InfoSciRN: Machine Learning (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3883649","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

In the face of compounding crises of social and economic inequality, many have turned to algorithmic decision-making to achieve greater fairness in society. As these efforts intensify, reasoning within the burgeoning field of “algorithmic fairness” increasingly shapes how fairness manifests in practice. This paper interrogates whether algorithmic fairness provides the appropriate conceptual and practical tools for enhancing social equality. I argue that the dominant, “formal” approach to algorithmic fairness is ill-equipped as a framework for pursuing equality, as its narrow frame of analysis generates restrictive approaches to reform. In light of these shortcomings, I propose an alternative: a “substantive” approach to algorithmic fairness that centers opposition to social hierarchies and provides a more expansive analysis of how to address inequality. This substantive approach enables more fruitful theorizing about the role of algorithms in combatting oppression. The distinction between formal and substantive algorithmic fairness is exemplified by each approach’s responses to the “impossibility of fairness” (an incompatibility between mathematical definitions of algorithmic fairness). While the formal approach requires us to accept the “impossibility of fairness” as a harsh limit on efforts to enhance equality, the substantive approach allows us to escape the “impossibility of fairness” by suggesting reforms that are not subject to this false dilemma and that are better equipped to ameliorate conditions of social oppression.
逃避“不可能的公平”:从形式到实质的算法公平
面对日益加剧的社会和经济不平等危机,许多人转向算法决策,以实现更大的社会公平。随着这些努力的加强,“算法公平”这一新兴领域的推理日益影响着公平在实践中的体现。本文探讨算法公平是否为促进社会平等提供了适当的概念和实践工具。我认为,作为追求平等的框架,主导的、“正式”的算法公平方法是不完善的,因为其狭隘的分析框架会产生限制性的改革方法。鉴于这些缺点,我提出了另一种选择:一种以反对社会等级为中心的算法公平的“实质性”方法,并对如何解决不平等问题提供更广泛的分析。这种实质性的方法使得关于算法在对抗压迫中的作用的理论化更加富有成果。形式和实质算法公平之间的区别可以通过每种方法对“不可能公平”(算法公平的数学定义之间的不兼容性)的反应来举例说明。形式方法要求我们接受“公平的不可能性”,将其作为加强平等努力的严酷限制,而实质方法则允许我们通过提出不受制于这种虚假困境的改革建议,从而摆脱“公平的不可能性”,并更好地改善社会压迫的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信