6 ms·
This is a very easy thing to avoid though: if (ad target == anything to do with housing) {disable options to exclude ethnic affinity [and a bunch of other thin
by astura 8y ago
This is a very easy thing to avoid though:
if (ad target == anything to do with housing) {disable options to exclude ethnic affinity [and a bunch of other things]}
- perl4ever 8y agoIt's not that easy, because there are many proxies that correlate with protected categories. For instance, take a look at the greater DC area with census data on race. You can easily target regions without explicitly using race.
- astura 8y agoCompliance. If they lock down microtargetting for housing related ads and have some code to flag housing ads posted in different categories they become compliant with the law. Nobody says they have to be 100% perfect to be compliment.
- perl4ever 8y agoSure, but if you think the law serves a purpose, then one may ask whether being technically compliant is success.
- maratd 8y agoIt's a start. They weren't even doing that.
- quotemstr 8y agoYour use of the phrase "it's a start" suggests that further restrictions will follow.
- MBCook 8y agoNo, it implies that they at least appeared to be trying, even if it wasn’t very effective. As it is they don’t seem to have put in the smallest possible effort to comply and decided to ignore the law completely.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- quotemstr 8y agoIs it more important that they "appear[] to be trying" than that the policy imposed on them actually achieve the ostensible policy goal?
- MBCook 8y agoFor their legal case? I’d think so. It looks way better that you were trying to do something and weren’t very effective than that you decided not to bother. For their need to comply? No. They have to follow ineffective laws as long as they’re on the books.
- perl4ever 8y agoWhere did people jump to the conclusion that following the law is incompatible with the goal of the law? Saying that it might be insufficient is a different matter.
- perl4ever 8y agoYou're responding to me as though I was providing Facebook's defense for not complying. I wasn't. I was saying that if Facebook technically complies, that isn't necessarily sufficient.
- perl4ever 8y ago"if you think the law serves a purpose" Surely it is not controversial here to suggest that anti-discrimination laws serve a purpose and therefore if someone finds a loophole that does not mean it is just fine? I was just reading in Jalopnik about how Toyota added reinforcement to their minivan to deal with small offset driver's side impacts, and then when a test for a similar passenger side impact was done, surprise surprise, there was no symmetric reinforcement on that side!
- reaperducer 8y agoIt's not that easy If a small town newspaper with a staff of 30 can do it, Facebook has both the staff and resources to do the same. If it cannot, or will not, it should not take advertisements for sectors that are regulated.
- erik_seaberg 8y agoBut small town newspapers are endangered by those costs! Facebook only makes about $6 ARPU. Automating the crap out of everything is what enables them to exist.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- blt 8y agocry me a fucking river, Facebook.
- icebraining 8y agoThen it can't exist. Worse things could befall the world.
- jakelazaroff 8y agoElaborating a bit on the sibling comments, Facebook has no "right" to exist as a business. If the only reason it can exist is by ignoring laws with which other businesses are able to comply, it should be shut down (or alternately, forced to obey those laws and then "corrected" out of business by the market).
- dralley 8y ago>Automating the crap out of everything is what enables them to exist. If they're too big to be accountable then maybe they shouldn't exist.