7 ms·

Wow. We've seen people microtarget leaders and CEOs with ads on Facebook to get a job. http://twicsy-blog.tumblr.com/post/174063770074/how-i-targeted-the-reddi

Wow. We've seen people microtarget leaders and CEOs with ads on Facebook to get a job. http://twicsy-blog.tumblr.com/post/174063770074/how-i-targeted-the-reddit-ceo-with-facebook-ads-to http://twicsy-blog.tumblr.com/post/174063770074/how-i-target... This is a case where microtargeting the boss hopefully cost them their job. This is completely unethical.

madrox 8y ago
I don't disagree, per se, but it's interesting that we have no problem with leaders of corporations personalizing ads for individuals while we are bothered when the position is reversed.
- y4mi 8y ago
  The goal is the problem. The leaders of the corporations try to convince you to waste your money or time. This time the goal was to discredit someone.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    The goal was to satisfy the boss that suggestions they didn't think would work were being carried out whilst spending the bulk of their ad budget on things they thought would work out. It's far closer to the case where workers send a board they think is clueless a link to some boilerplate code as the requested "blockchain" whilst continuing to implement the Postgres solution they're pretty convinced will work.
    - yamakadi 8y ago
      Political parties are not companies though. The workers in your example will eventually be held responsible if their preferred solution fails even though they might not get the credit if it succeeds. In Corbyn’s case, as the Labour leader, he has to stand behind the messages disseminated under his leadership with his name. Any positive impact on votes by the wider campaign will likely result in voter deception, since Corbyn will believe his message is what worked. The most worrisome issue here is that Corbyn’s goals don’t align with his subordinates, yes, but deceiving a political leader isn’t just about that leader but the voters as well.
- maym86 8y ago
  I think people do have ethical issues and worries with that too. Advertising is regulated in the UK for this reason. Whether this regulation is sufficent and effective online is a discussion that has been happening a lot recently especially in context of US and UK elections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authority_(United_Kingdom) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Author... I think that regulation forcing advertising platforms to be more transparent about who is buying adverts will help.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  I think awareness is what makes that comparison not work. There's a reasonable expectation when you see a facebook ad that you're trying to be swayed (could be argued in itself I guess, that's a different discussion), but Corbyn in this case was entirely unaware that he was being duped. This is really a chain of command problem rather than specifically an advertisement problem.
- infogulch 8y ago
  More than anything I think it's a more tangible argument for how microtargeting can go south. Most people are ok with the concept of advertising in general, and microtargeting feels like a small step from normal ads. "Yeah I get it, people want to sell me shit, what's the big deal?" This is the big deal. Advertising's purpose is to infect your mind and trick it into thinking what the ad-buyer wants. In the past it wasn't as big of a deal, advertisers are less likely to use direct lies or manipulations if the audience is big: they can get backlash, some tricks have the opposite effect on some people, etc. Now that they can target individuals every trick in the book is fair game. Now, if you talk to someone about these problems, they'll usually say something like "oh well it might affect other people, but ads don't affect me." Or "why would they care that much about me?" Guess what, if a politician can be be targeted and manipulated, a disgruntled coworker can target you, your ex can target you.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
    > This is the big deal. I'd argue that the whole modern western political system came out of advertising (as first allowed by the printing press). That was a big deal ...
- Lazare 8y ago
  I wouldn't say no problem, but it's a question of intent. If a corporation microtargets an ad at me to let me know they have a product they believe I will like, that's a little creepy, but it might even be helpful. Maybe I'm in the market for a new backpack; maybe a company I've had a positive experience with before has just released a new model I might like. If they target an ad at me about their new backpack, and I buy it, that's arguably helpful for both of us...and at a minimum it's not deceptive. They're not trying to mislead me into thinking they have a backpack I might want, they're trying to ensure that I know the true fact that they have a backpack I might want. (False advertising is a legit issue, but it's also already illegal, already pretty well regulated, and not what we're talking about here.) Similarly, an individual using ads to try and get hired is again trying to convey a specific message to a specific person using an unusual medium. The message, in this case, being "I'm cool, you should hire me", which is the same message every job applicant sends when they email their CV in. The message is fine, and the medium is merely novel; no big deal. What we're talking about in this case is outright deception. Labour staff (allegedly) microtargeted ads to present a false perception; this is more like Uber's Greyball program than it is standard adtech. And, notably, the message wouldn't have been fine if delivered in some other medium. If Labour HQ had prepared a falsified spreadsheet of ad buys, and emailed that to Corbyn, that would be just as bad.
TillE 8y ago
I would assume it's also possibly illegal? They took 5000 pounds and spent it in a way that was clearly unauthorized. Seems like misappropriation to me.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  And presumably they took the larger sum the 5k came from and spent it on something even less authorized!
  - bumholio 8y ago
    I would expect it's easy to make the case of misappropriation when directing the money to an unauthorized advertising campaign; or to an authorized campaign, but for a different, unauthorized product. It's a lot harder to make that case here, with campaigns using unexpected copywritting and targeting, both of which were at the liberty of the people running the campaigns. Selecting those was literally their job and given the massive Labour gains, it's hard to argue they failed at it. It's clearly a case of internal insubordination and disciplinary action - which I'm sure the perpetrators were expecting, but deemed them an acceptable sacrifice to protect the party from what they seen as the bumbling fools running it.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- ascorbic 8y ago
  The £5000 was part of a much larger sum allocated for targeted Facebook ads, and they had authority to place these ads. What they did was certainly dishonest and should cost them their job, but it's hardly illegal to use the wrong targeting rules.
jdietrich 8y ago
The financial journalist Martin Lewis is currently suing Facebook, because fraudsters are using his name and image to promote their schemes through Facebook advertising. The targeted nature of Facebook advertising makes it impossible to audit - there's no way of viewing all the ads being served on the platform. Lewis has been relying on members of the public to send him screenshots when these adverts appear in their feeds. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43857921 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43857921
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zeeZ 8y ago
This reminds me of the guy who (claims to have) pranked his roommate with targeted Facebook ads: http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-my-roommate-with-targeted-facebook-ads/ http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-...

madrox 8y ago

I don't disagree, per se, but it's interesting that we have no problem with leaders of corporations personalizing ads for individuals while we are bothered when the position is reversed.

y4mi 8y ago
The goal is the problem. The leaders of the corporations try to convince you to waste your money or time. This time the goal was to discredit someone.
- notahacker 8y ago
  The goal was to satisfy the boss that suggestions they didn't think would work were being carried out whilst spending the bulk of their ad budget on things they thought would work out. It's far closer to the case where workers send a board they think is clueless a link to some boilerplate code as the requested "blockchain" whilst continuing to implement the Postgres solution they're pretty convinced will work.
  - yamakadi 8y ago
    Political parties are not companies though. The workers in your example will eventually be held responsible if their preferred solution fails even though they might not get the credit if it succeeds. In Corbyn’s case, as the Labour leader, he has to stand behind the messages disseminated under his leadership with his name. Any positive impact on votes by the wider campaign will likely result in voter deception, since Corbyn will believe his message is what worked. The most worrisome issue here is that Corbyn’s goals don’t align with his subordinates, yes, but deceiving a political leader isn’t just about that leader but the voters as well.
maym86 8y ago
I think people do have ethical issues and worries with that too. Advertising is regulated in the UK for this reason. Whether this regulation is sufficent and effective online is a discussion that has been happening a lot recently especially in context of US and UK elections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authority_(United_Kingdom) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Author... I think that regulation forcing advertising platforms to be more transparent about who is buying adverts will help.
Barrin92 8y ago
I think awareness is what makes that comparison not work. There's a reasonable expectation when you see a facebook ad that you're trying to be swayed (could be argued in itself I guess, that's a different discussion), but Corbyn in this case was entirely unaware that he was being duped. This is really a chain of command problem rather than specifically an advertisement problem.
infogulch 8y ago
More than anything I think it's a more tangible argument for how microtargeting can go south. Most people are ok with the concept of advertising in general, and microtargeting feels like a small step from normal ads. "Yeah I get it, people want to sell me shit, what's the big deal?" This is the big deal. Advertising's purpose is to infect your mind and trick it into thinking what the ad-buyer wants. In the past it wasn't as big of a deal, advertisers are less likely to use direct lies or manipulations if the audience is big: they can get backlash, some tricks have the opposite effect on some people, etc. Now that they can target individuals every trick in the book is fair game. Now, if you talk to someone about these problems, they'll usually say something like "oh well it might affect other people, but ads don't affect me." Or "why would they care that much about me?" Guess what, if a politician can be be targeted and manipulated, a disgruntled coworker can target you, your ex can target you.
- B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
  > This is the big deal. I'd argue that the whole modern western political system came out of advertising (as first allowed by the printing press). That was a big deal ...
Lazare 8y ago
I wouldn't say no problem, but it's a question of intent. If a corporation microtargets an ad at me to let me know they have a product they believe I will like, that's a little creepy, but it might even be helpful. Maybe I'm in the market for a new backpack; maybe a company I've had a positive experience with before has just released a new model I might like. If they target an ad at me about their new backpack, and I buy it, that's arguably helpful for both of us...and at a minimum it's not deceptive. They're not trying to mislead me into thinking they have a backpack I might want, they're trying to ensure that I know the true fact that they have a backpack I might want. (False advertising is a legit issue, but it's also already illegal, already pretty well regulated, and not what we're talking about here.) Similarly, an individual using ads to try and get hired is again trying to convey a specific message to a specific person using an unusual medium. The message, in this case, being "I'm cool, you should hire me", which is the same message every job applicant sends when they email their CV in. The message is fine, and the medium is merely novel; no big deal. What we're talking about in this case is outright deception. Labour staff (allegedly) microtargeted ads to present a false perception; this is more like Uber's Greyball program than it is standard adtech. And, notably, the message wouldn't have been fine if delivered in some other medium. If Labour HQ had prepared a falsified spreadsheet of ad buys, and emailed that to Corbyn, that would be just as bad.

TillE 8y ago

I would assume it's also possibly illegal? They took 5000 pounds and spent it in a way that was clearly unauthorized. Seems like misappropriation to me.

evrydayhustling 8y ago
And presumably they took the larger sum the 5k came from and spent it on something even less authorized!
- bumholio 8y ago
  I would expect it's easy to make the case of misappropriation when directing the money to an unauthorized advertising campaign; or to an authorized campaign, but for a different, unauthorized product. It's a lot harder to make that case here, with campaigns using unexpected copywritting and targeting, both of which were at the liberty of the people running the campaigns. Selecting those was literally their job and given the massive Labour gains, it's hard to argue they failed at it. It's clearly a case of internal insubordination and disciplinary action - which I'm sure the perpetrators were expecting, but deemed them an acceptable sacrifice to protect the party from what they seen as the bumbling fools running it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ascorbic 8y ago
The £5000 was part of a much larger sum allocated for targeted Facebook ads, and they had authority to place these ads. What they did was certainly dishonest and should cost them their job, but it's hardly illegal to use the wrong targeting rules.

jdietrich 8y ago

The financial journalist Martin Lewis is currently suing Facebook, because fraudsters are using his name and image to promote their schemes through Facebook advertising. The targeted nature of Facebook advertising makes it impossible to audit - there's no way of viewing all the ads being served on the platform. Lewis has been relying on members of the public to send him screenshots when these adverts appear in their feeds. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43857921 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43857921

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zeeZ 8y ago

This reminds me of the guy who (claims to have) pranked his roommate with targeted Facebook ads: http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-my-roommate-with-targeted-facebook-ads/ http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-...