4 ms·

Followed to its logical conclusion, this sort of complaint prohibits all ad targeting, and that's a very bad thing. Practically any criterion X you might use t

Followed to its logical conclusion, this sort of complaint prohibits all ad targeting, and that's a very bad thing. Practically any criterion X you might use to restrict an ad's audience will have non-uniform correlations with group demographics. You can't wish away these correlations: they're true facts about the world. These non-uniform correlations allow activists to argue that allowing advertisers to target based on X is therefore prohibited discrimination. They can repeat this process for all X. Now, you might argue that ad targeting is bad. That's a common position on HN. But it's not true: ad targeting is good for advertisers, since it enables more efficient advertising, and it's good for users, since it subjects them to less noise and exposes them to ads more likely to be relevant to them. Ad targeting also undergirds practically the entire tech economy. That probably means you, reader of this comment. Where exactly should restrictions on ad targeting stop? EDIT: For clarity: Step 1: HUD files a complaint against Facebook for allowing ad targeting based on certain criteria. Step 2: Facebook bans advertising targeting based on the criteria in the HUD complaint. Step 3: Advertisers react by targeting based on demographic correlates of the categories from step #1. Step 4: HUD notices that ads are still getting delivered more to one group than another. GOTO STEP #1. There's no clear point at which this process stops. Demographic correlates are numerous and strong. Are you going to ban all of them? That's tantamount to banning ad targeting generally!

ticviking 8y ago
So it eliminates the financial incentive for massive private surveillance?
wcrichton 8y ago
It stops at the product, no? It seems more acceptable to target advertisements for toys than housing.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Should Facebook be liable for allowing an advertiser to target a housing ad at people with preferences for organic food?
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    Our legal system will not hold Facebook liable for a case like that. Should?? Like how things ought to be with the world? Facebook shouldn't even know who prefers organic food. There should be nothing tying that preference to any other aspect of people's lives. Facebook should be more like Reddit where people can have whatever accounts they want and can interact on organic food topics without identifying themselves or tying that preference to other interests. Or maybe Facebook should have an explicit opt-in for users to choose what they're okay with being used for ads… … should? everyone should use an adblocker and block Facebook's ads. Also, Facebook should offer a service where you can choose to portray yourself as whatever mix of qualities you want to set for each time you search for something. So anyone should be able to see what the algorithm delivers for a set of characteristics they can adjust at will… Also, I should stop procrastinating on HN
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      > Our legal system will not hold Facebook liable for a case like that. I have to disagree with you on that. I'd put money on targeting a housing advertisement toward someone with a preference for organic food to be ruled discriminatory within five years. It's an unavoidable logical consequence of the logic driving today's complaint.
      - MBCook 8y ago
        The problem with your argument is FB doesn’t matter to your point. The law already exists if that will happen as you say, it will happen no matter what FB does. So why should FB get to ignore the law unlike thousands of other businesses? Why do they get an exception?
        quotemstr 8y ago
        You are misrepresenting my position. Where did I suggest that FB get an exemption from the law? I never said that FB should get special treatment. For clarity, FB should follow the law and prohibit targeting of housing ads based on this list of criteria. My original point (which has now been downvoted into oblivion, presumably because it raises uncomfortable questions) is that we as an industry need to ask the question "What next?". We know that these regulations will not in fact stop housing discrimination and that more will follow. It's disappointing that we're unable to have a frank discussion of this subject, since it's important both legally and economically. All the responses in this thread have essentially been that we shouldn't ask "What next?" because the "next" part hasn't happened yet. That's just ostrich-in-sand thinking.
freeone3000 8y ago
It doesn't expose me to relevant ads. I live in Montreal. My last three twitter ads were for a drug (reported as illegal) something about a new york lawsuit against an oil company? And for a pizza place which doesn't exist in my country. User targeted ads do not produce better ads, despite everyone selling ads saying so.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Am I supposed to accept your anecdote as evidence? I mean, on the one hand, we have the massive and continued success of platforms that tailor ads to target audiences, and on the other, we have freeone3000's complaint about a pizza ad not being relevant. Ad targeting works. That's a fact. You can argue that we should kill ad targeting anyway, that's fine. You can make that case, and I'd disagree. But to flatly deny that ad targeting works? That's adopting a private set of alternative facts, and if you do that, we can't have a conversation.
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    Have you seen targeted ads that do work? An advertisement for a product you actually want?
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      Yes. Do you have an argument based on evidence, or at least reason, or are we going to continue like this?
      - freeone3000 8y ago
        Your arguments are irrelevant because they do not match my experiences. Are you telling me to disbelieve my eyes?
    - astura 8y ago
      Yes, I participated in a clinical trial I only found though Facebook ads. Since clinical trials are very specific on who they are recruiting, it's a great use of targeted ads. I also once bought soap that was advertised to me on Facebook. It's my go to brand of soap now. I also read here on HN someone successfully using Facebook ads to target people planning on moving in their city to find an apartment before it reached the open market. EDIT: here it is, https://medium.com/good-signals/apartment-baiting-with-facebook-ads-1e5cff81d6b2 https://medium.com/good-signals/apartment-baiting-with-faceb...
maym86 8y ago
Why do people always go on to the abstract cases when we are discussing a specific example? > Where exactly does it stop? It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Housing and job adverts cannot be explicitly descriminatory. It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. You have to do your best and take precautions to avoid descrimination. When a platform doesn't do that then there's a problem.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  > It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Since we're discussing the scenarios that the law might cover, your claim seems rather circular. > It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. The entire point of my post is that the line isn't neat and clear at all. Very similar concerns come up in various other contexts, and we as a society are going to have to deal with the internal contradictions of current orthodox thinking one way or another, and probably soon. Your comment is just asserting that the problem I described doesn't exist. It does. Wishing away reality doesn't make it disappear.
  - maym86 8y ago
    Sure, but the point is Facebook should be taking minimum steps to actively avoid descrimination. It currently is not. Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good and they can do better.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      I'm not sure people understand the inevitable progression here. Step 1: HUD files a complaint against Facebook for allowing ad targeting based on certain criteria. Step 2: Facebook bans advertising targeting based on the criteria in the HUD complaint. Step 3: Advertisers react by targeting based on demographic correlates of the categories from step #1. Step 4: HUD notices that ads are still getting delivered more to one group than another. GOTO STEP #1. There's no clear point at which this process stops. Demographic correlates are numerous and strong. Are you going to ban all of them? That's tantamount to banning ad targeting generally!
james-mcelwain 8y ago
The FHA is a 50 year old law. Facebook isn't getting in trouble for offering targeted advertising, they're getting in trouble for allowing explicit discrimination on the basis of sex and ethnicity. This has nothing to do with correlations.
quadrangle 8y ago
Anything that sabotages advertising, especially ad-tech, is a positive thing for the world.

ticviking 8y ago

So it eliminates the financial incentive for massive private surveillance?

wcrichton 8y ago

It stops at the product, no? It seems more acceptable to target advertisements for toys than housing.

quotemstr 8y ago
Should Facebook be liable for allowing an advertiser to target a housing ad at people with preferences for organic food?
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Our legal system will not hold Facebook liable for a case like that. Should?? Like how things ought to be with the world? Facebook shouldn't even know who prefers organic food. There should be nothing tying that preference to any other aspect of people's lives. Facebook should be more like Reddit where people can have whatever accounts they want and can interact on organic food topics without identifying themselves or tying that preference to other interests. Or maybe Facebook should have an explicit opt-in for users to choose what they're okay with being used for ads… … should? everyone should use an adblocker and block Facebook's ads. Also, Facebook should offer a service where you can choose to portray yourself as whatever mix of qualities you want to set for each time you search for something. So anyone should be able to see what the algorithm delivers for a set of characteristics they can adjust at will… Also, I should stop procrastinating on HN
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    > Our legal system will not hold Facebook liable for a case like that. I have to disagree with you on that. I'd put money on targeting a housing advertisement toward someone with a preference for organic food to be ruled discriminatory within five years. It's an unavoidable logical consequence of the logic driving today's complaint.
    - MBCook 8y ago
      The problem with your argument is FB doesn’t matter to your point. The law already exists if that will happen as you say, it will happen no matter what FB does. So why should FB get to ignore the law unlike thousands of other businesses? Why do they get an exception?
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        You are misrepresenting my position. Where did I suggest that FB get an exemption from the law? I never said that FB should get special treatment. For clarity, FB should follow the law and prohibit targeting of housing ads based on this list of criteria. My original point (which has now been downvoted into oblivion, presumably because it raises uncomfortable questions) is that we as an industry need to ask the question "What next?". We know that these regulations will not in fact stop housing discrimination and that more will follow. It's disappointing that we're unable to have a frank discussion of this subject, since it's important both legally and economically. All the responses in this thread have essentially been that we shouldn't ask "What next?" because the "next" part hasn't happened yet. That's just ostrich-in-sand thinking.

freeone3000 8y ago

It doesn't expose me to relevant ads. I live in Montreal. My last three twitter ads were for a drug (reported as illegal) something about a new york lawsuit against an oil company? And for a pizza place which doesn't exist in my country. User targeted ads do not produce better ads, despite everyone selling ads saying so.

quotemstr 8y ago
Am I supposed to accept your anecdote as evidence? I mean, on the one hand, we have the massive and continued success of platforms that tailor ads to target audiences, and on the other, we have freeone3000's complaint about a pizza ad not being relevant. Ad targeting works. That's a fact. You can argue that we should kill ad targeting anyway, that's fine. You can make that case, and I'd disagree. But to flatly deny that ad targeting works? That's adopting a private set of alternative facts, and if you do that, we can't have a conversation.
- freeone3000 8y ago
  Have you seen targeted ads that do work? An advertisement for a product you actually want?
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Yes. Do you have an argument based on evidence, or at least reason, or are we going to continue like this?
    - freeone3000 8y ago
      Your arguments are irrelevant because they do not match my experiences. Are you telling me to disbelieve my eyes?
  - astura 8y ago
    Yes, I participated in a clinical trial I only found though Facebook ads. Since clinical trials are very specific on who they are recruiting, it's a great use of targeted ads. I also once bought soap that was advertised to me on Facebook. It's my go to brand of soap now. I also read here on HN someone successfully using Facebook ads to target people planning on moving in their city to find an apartment before it reached the open market. EDIT: here it is, https://medium.com/good-signals/apartment-baiting-with-facebook-ads-1e5cff81d6b2 https://medium.com/good-signals/apartment-baiting-with-faceb...

maym86 8y ago

Why do people always go on to the abstract cases when we are discussing a specific example? > Where exactly does it stop? It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Housing and job adverts cannot be explicitly descriminatory. It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. You have to do your best and take precautions to avoid descrimination. When a platform doesn't do that then there's a problem.

quotemstr 8y ago
> It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Since we're discussing the scenarios that the law might cover, your claim seems rather circular. > It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. The entire point of my post is that the line isn't neat and clear at all. Very similar concerns come up in various other contexts, and we as a society are going to have to deal with the internal contradictions of current orthodox thinking one way or another, and probably soon. Your comment is just asserting that the problem I described doesn't exist. It does. Wishing away reality doesn't make it disappear.
- maym86 8y ago
  Sure, but the point is Facebook should be taking minimum steps to actively avoid descrimination. It currently is not. Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good and they can do better.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    I'm not sure people understand the inevitable progression here. Step 1: HUD files a complaint against Facebook for allowing ad targeting based on certain criteria. Step 2: Facebook bans advertising targeting based on the criteria in the HUD complaint. Step 3: Advertisers react by targeting based on demographic correlates of the categories from step #1. Step 4: HUD notices that ads are still getting delivered more to one group than another. GOTO STEP #1. There's no clear point at which this process stops. Demographic correlates are numerous and strong. Are you going to ban all of them? That's tantamount to banning ad targeting generally!

james-mcelwain 8y ago

The FHA is a 50 year old law. Facebook isn't getting in trouble for offering targeted advertising, they're getting in trouble for allowing explicit discrimination on the basis of sex and ethnicity. This has nothing to do with correlations.

quadrangle 8y ago

Anything that sabotages advertising, especially ad-tech, is a positive thing for the world.