Under the guise of getting to know creators “better”, YouTube presented me with a survey about my race and sexuality. Is this going too far? While they state the survey is voluntary, would a reasonable person believe they could continue to grow on this platform without participating? I don’t think so. It’s hard enough to get your videos recommended as it is. Therefore, it’s not perceived to be voluntary by anyone trying to squeak out a living on YouTube. I completed the survey but it was done under duress. Join me while I explain my answers to the kids over at google concerned about my private sex life and skin color.
As a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, I’m offended that these types of surveys are being conducted by employers. A person should not feel compelled, no matter how nonchalant the request is worded, to divulge and reveal their most private, personal information to those who have power and influence over their income. The fact that a person is even presented with this dilemma on whether or not to complete this “voluntary” survey creates stress and totally disrupts workflow for that day, resulting in a loss of wages. It creates a lingering stress in the main creator over trying to decide whether or not the answers provided on the survey will help or harm traffic (recommended videos=views=income) sent to their channel. This obviously would either positively or negatively affecting one’s income. There is no difference in this scenario compared to an employer giving or denying a traditional promotion or pay raise based upon sexual orientation. Therefore, this survey (attempt to reward, segregate and classify based on sex) is a form of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Equal Pay Act of 1963
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women from sex-based wage discrimination in the payment of wages or benefits, who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment.
MINIMUM WAGE
SEC. 206. [Section 6]
(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination
(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
Dear Google’s Legal Team,
Ya’ll actually approved this? Overtly “inviting” people (who get paid by Google) to participate in a “voluntary” survey on sexual orientation that has the potential to impact their revenue? You didn’t put this survey in front of viewers. It was put in front of creators. Money and power is involved. Your client’s ability to exercise power over a certain demographic of people which affects their income. You don’t have to be Racehorse Haynes to make an excellent argument in court that it’s a direct violation of U.S. federal law. How did ya’ll come together and decide this was a good idea? Maybe the U.S. has just changed so much that it’s like I’m living on another planet in a different dimension. Voluntary? That argument will probably hold up about as well as OceanGate’s disclaimer those poor souls had to sign before they boarded the Titan on a one-way trip to the Titanic.
I’m not technically an employee? That’s going to be your argument? Just another contractor, you’ll say. Therefore, google isn’t bound by the same guidelines. That’s probably your best defense but the timing ain’t great since ya’ll lost that little antitrust suit recently. Something about ya’ll acting illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search? Now you’re playing favorites in violation of federal law over who a creator chooses to sleep with?