> and your gripe is the journalists aren’t giving Facebook enough credit?
My gripe is that the headline _as it currently is on HN_ is two years out of date, and that the real headline is "Government rules targeting job ads using demographics is illegal".
The headline is “Employers Used Facebook to Keep Women and Older Workers From Seeing Job Ads. The Federal Government Thinks That’s Illegal.“ On HN, that’s truncates to the first sentence, but “used” is in the past tense. The information you claim lost was just compressed into the grammar.
In contrast, one of the contemporaneous headlines was “Facebook Is Letting Job Advertisers Target Only Men” [1], i.e. in the present tense.
I guess GP is essentially (fairly) complaining that "used" can mean both "a week ago" and "two years ago", and this being headline of news strongly implies the former over the latter. Try to mentally prepend "Two years ago," to the existing headline, and notice how much less outrageous it reads.
My gripe is that the headline _as it currently is on HN_ is two years out of date, and that the real headline is "Government rules targeting job ads using demographics is illegal".