界面上的歧视:2010年平等法案和平台界面设计

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Jed Meers
{"title":"界面上的歧视:2010年平等法案和平台界面设计","authors":"Jed Meers","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given their dominance in a range of sectors – from private renting to job search – the design of online platforms can impede access to markets and facilitate discrimination. Most legal scholarship on the equality implications of platform design focuses on algorithms. This paper instead interrogates the comparatively neglected issue of interface design. It argues that two areas of interface design – ‘structuring’ and ‘sorting’ functions – fall within the scope of the Equality Act 2010 as a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ that is not protected by a safe harbour. Drawing on web-scraping methods, it then provides an applied example of these arguments using ‘No DSS’ (Department for Social Security) discrimination on a leading rental platform in the UK. Using a sample of 3,336 listings collected years apart, the paper demonstrates how design choices in ‘structuring’ and ‘sorting’ interfaces can either facilitate or minimise discrimination on online platforms.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrimination at the Interface: The Equality Act 2010 and Platform Interface Design\",\"authors\":\"Jed Meers\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Given their dominance in a range of sectors – from private renting to job search – the design of online platforms can impede access to markets and facilitate discrimination. Most legal scholarship on the equality implications of platform design focuses on algorithms. This paper instead interrogates the comparatively neglected issue of interface design. It argues that two areas of interface design – ‘structuring’ and ‘sorting’ functions – fall within the scope of the Equality Act 2010 as a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ that is not protected by a safe harbour. Drawing on web-scraping methods, it then provides an applied example of these arguments using ‘No DSS’ (Department for Social Security) discrimination on a leading rental platform in the UK. Using a sample of 3,336 listings collected years apart, the paper demonstrates how design choices in ‘structuring’ and ‘sorting’ interfaces can either facilitate or minimise discrimination on online platforms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12855\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12855","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于它们在从私人租赁到求职等一系列领域占据主导地位,在线平台的设计可能会阻碍人们进入市场,助长歧视。大多数关于平台设计的平等含义的法律研究都集中在算法上。本文转而探讨相对被忽视的界面设计问题。它认为,界面设计的两个领域——“结构”和“分类”功能——属于2010年《平等法》的范围,是不受安全港保护的“规定、标准或实践”。利用网络抓取方法,它提供了一个在英国领先的租赁平台上使用“无DSS”(社会保障部)歧视的应用实例。本文以相隔数年收集的3336个清单为样本,展示了“结构化”和“排序”界面的设计选择如何促进或减少在线平台上的歧视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discrimination at the Interface: The Equality Act 2010 and Platform Interface Design
Given their dominance in a range of sectors – from private renting to job search – the design of online platforms can impede access to markets and facilitate discrimination. Most legal scholarship on the equality implications of platform design focuses on algorithms. This paper instead interrogates the comparatively neglected issue of interface design. It argues that two areas of interface design – ‘structuring’ and ‘sorting’ functions – fall within the scope of the Equality Act 2010 as a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ that is not protected by a safe harbour. Drawing on web-scraping methods, it then provides an applied example of these arguments using ‘No DSS’ (Department for Social Security) discrimination on a leading rental platform in the UK. Using a sample of 3,336 listings collected years apart, the paper demonstrates how design choices in ‘structuring’ and ‘sorting’ interfaces can either facilitate or minimise discrimination on online platforms.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信