Questioning the assumptions behind fairness solutions
  In addition to their benefits, optimization systems can have negative
economic, moral, social, and political effects on populations as well as their
environments. Frameworks like fairness have been proposed to aid service
providers in addressing subsequent bias and discrimination during data
collection and algorithm design. However, recent reports of neglect,
unresponsiveness, and malevolence cast doubt on whether service providers can
effectively implement fairness solutions. These reports invite us to revisit
assumptions made about the service providers in fairness solutions. Namely,
that service providers have (i) the incentives or (ii) the means to mitigate
optimization externalities. Moreover, the environmental impact of these systems
suggests that we need (iii) novel frameworks that consider systems other than
algorithmic decision-making and recommender systems, and (iv) solutions that go
beyond removing related algorithmic biases. Going forward, we propose
Protective Optimization Technologies that enable optimization subjects to
defend against negative consequences of optimization systems.
