4 ms·

It would seem fairly straightforward for Facebook to collect information about whether an advertisement pertains to something that has anti-discriminatory regul

by beager 8y ago

It would seem fairly straightforward for Facebook to collect information about whether an advertisement pertains to something that has anti-discriminatory regulations tied to it (housing, employment). I generally agree that FB should not be allowed to permit users to segment these types of advertisements by the dimensions claimed. However, what piques my curiosity here is whether “indirect” discrimination in choice of advertising medium constitutes discriminatory practice. For instance, what if some of these advertisers, instead of segmenting directly by race to target whites only, targeted fans of pages that were obviously but not specifically comprised of whites (e.g., “Irish American Heritage” or “Blonde Hair Tips”). Would there be a case to be made for discrimination? And against whom?

dominotw 8y ago
What about housing ad posted only in places like whole foods or a particular newspaper. I know my previous landlady did this.
- ghaff 8y ago
  In practice, for better or worse, a lot of things escape notice when done obliquely at small scale.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    Yeah I guess there is a balance you have strike in order not to become an Orwellian society.
- jogjayr 8y ago
  It seems to me that even though the intention of that is discriminatory in some way (and not necessarily against protected classes - the Whole Foods ads might be simply to target higher-income tenants), it's not in fact exclusionary. There's nothing preventing anyone who's not the normal target of these ads from going to Whole Foods or buying those newspapers. In FB's case the excluded audience has no chance of ever seeing those ads.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    > There's nothing preventing anyone who's not the normal target of these ads from going to Whole Foods You could argue whole foods prices do prevent vast majority of ppl from going to whole foods.
    - jogjayr 8y ago
      Sure. But income or wealth aren't protected classes. And anyone can walk into a Whole Foods just to see the ads, without spending any money. There is targeting happening when you advertise in Whole Foods but it's not discriminatory against a protected class.
google_censors 8y ago
There's actually something called "disparate impact" in Fair Housing that covers this. So if someone does something like that, especially intentionally, and it impacts a protected class, they can be sued and fined.
- toddsiegel 8y ago
  In fact, since most cases are not so blatantly obvious as this, using disparate impact is often how these cases are brought.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    If only FB had an insane amount of data that could trivially be used to figure out if a given criteria would have a disparate impact. I can’t imag them fighting this, theyvseem so unlikely to win. But then again, I’m surprised corporate counsel wasn’t screaming about this. It’s not the first time I’ve read about this and I don’t work there.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      Is your position that it should be illegal to use a criterion in ad targeting if the use of this criterion results in an ad being seen by one arm of a protected category more than another arm? That's a consistent position, but it amounts to banning of ad targeting. Is that the world you want?
      - MBCook 8y ago
        The law explicitly says you can’t discriminate housing ads against certain groups. Courts have held that Things that aren’t illegal on their face can be illegal if they have highly discriminatory effect in practice. So I don’t see why any of that should be allowed here. And it would only apply to things that have a heavy discriminatory effect. I don’t see why it would matter if you chose not to advertise your non-pet friendly apartment complex to people who have pets. Unless someone can show that’s a pretty direct proxy to a protected class it seems fine. Again, this only applies to kinds of ads covered by this (or similar) laws. Housing and employment are the only two kinds I know of. I see no reason why you should be restricted in who you choose to advertise your new T-shirt to.
wtvanhest 8y ago
IMNAL and I dont have a source, but I believe credit agencies were once sued for this type of indirect discrimination. If I remember correctly, the argument was that credit scores unfairly treated some protected classes.
nv-vn 8y ago
It's easy until you realize how global Facebook's audience is. What happens if California makes this type of advertising illegal for hotels and Sri Lanka makes it illegal for movie theaters? Now repeat for every possible advertising law.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  The telecom industry is already 40 years down this path, the level of regulations, state, county and city E911 fees and operating regulations is impressive. If scrappy, insolvent players like Sprint can write code to comply with onerous, numerous and varying regulations across 7000 different LATAs, Facebook can handle writing code to comply with national laws in 200 odd countries.
- kmonsen 8y ago
  Facebook (and others) can choose to show ads in any jurisdiction it wants, but if it does it has to follow the rules there. If they want to show ads in day Sri Lanka then they have to read up on and follow the laws there. In some cases it will not be worth it.

by beager 8y ago

dominotw 8y ago

What about housing ad posted only in places like whole foods or a particular newspaper. I know my previous landlady did this.

ghaff 8y ago
In practice, for better or worse, a lot of things escape notice when done obliquely at small scale.
- dominotw 8y ago
  Yeah I guess there is a balance you have strike in order not to become an Orwellian society.
jogjayr 8y ago
It seems to me that even though the intention of that is discriminatory in some way (and not necessarily against protected classes - the Whole Foods ads might be simply to target higher-income tenants), it's not in fact exclusionary. There's nothing preventing anyone who's not the normal target of these ads from going to Whole Foods or buying those newspapers. In FB's case the excluded audience has no chance of ever seeing those ads.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > There's nothing preventing anyone who's not the normal target of these ads from going to Whole Foods You could argue whole foods prices do prevent vast majority of ppl from going to whole foods.
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    Sure. But income or wealth aren't protected classes. And anyone can walk into a Whole Foods just to see the ads, without spending any money. There is targeting happening when you advertise in Whole Foods but it's not discriminatory against a protected class.

google_censors 8y ago

There's actually something called "disparate impact" in Fair Housing that covers this. So if someone does something like that, especially intentionally, and it impacts a protected class, they can be sued and fined.

toddsiegel 8y ago
In fact, since most cases are not so blatantly obvious as this, using disparate impact is often how these cases are brought.
- MBCook 8y ago
  If only FB had an insane amount of data that could trivially be used to figure out if a given criteria would have a disparate impact. I can’t imag them fighting this, theyvseem so unlikely to win. But then again, I’m surprised corporate counsel wasn’t screaming about this. It’s not the first time I’ve read about this and I don’t work there.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Is your position that it should be illegal to use a criterion in ad targeting if the use of this criterion results in an ad being seen by one arm of a protected category more than another arm? That's a consistent position, but it amounts to banning of ad targeting. Is that the world you want?
    - MBCook 8y ago
      The law explicitly says you can’t discriminate housing ads against certain groups. Courts have held that Things that aren’t illegal on their face can be illegal if they have highly discriminatory effect in practice. So I don’t see why any of that should be allowed here. And it would only apply to things that have a heavy discriminatory effect. I don’t see why it would matter if you chose not to advertise your non-pet friendly apartment complex to people who have pets. Unless someone can show that’s a pretty direct proxy to a protected class it seems fine. Again, this only applies to kinds of ads covered by this (or similar) laws. Housing and employment are the only two kinds I know of. I see no reason why you should be restricted in who you choose to advertise your new T-shirt to.

wtvanhest 8y ago

IMNAL and I dont have a source, but I believe credit agencies were once sued for this type of indirect discrimination. If I remember correctly, the argument was that credit scores unfairly treated some protected classes.

nv-vn 8y ago

It's easy until you realize how global Facebook's audience is. What happens if California makes this type of advertising illegal for hotels and Sri Lanka makes it illegal for movie theaters? Now repeat for every possible advertising law.

StudentStuff 8y ago
The telecom industry is already 40 years down this path, the level of regulations, state, county and city E911 fees and operating regulations is impressive. If scrappy, insolvent players like Sprint can write code to comply with onerous, numerous and varying regulations across 7000 different LATAs, Facebook can handle writing code to comply with national laws in 200 odd countries.
kmonsen 8y ago
Facebook (and others) can choose to show ads in any jurisdiction it wants, but if it does it has to follow the rules there. If they want to show ads in day Sri Lanka then they have to read up on and follow the laws there. In some cases it will not be worth it.