5 ms·

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 prot

by 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!
    - maym86 8y ago
      So what about your argument means they shouldn't handle the explicit descrimination cases on their platform better? Just because there might be a fuzzy case in they future why shouldn't they handle the clear cases now? FYI these are the specific points they are going after: -display housing ads either only to men or women; -not show ads to Facebook users interested in an "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessibility" or "deaf culture"; -not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or show ads only to users with children above a specified age; -to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the "Christian Church," "Sikhism," "Hinduism," or the "Bible." -not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "Latin America," "Canada," "Southeast Asia," "China," "Honduras," or "Somalia." -draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes. Pretty damn clear: gender, race, disability and religion.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        A lot of really bad policy gets enacted because advocates don't honestly ask themselves, "What are the foreseeable consequences of the policy I'm advocating?" That is, a failure to ask the question "And then what?" results in a lot of unnecessary misery. Your comment essentially restates the HUD's complaint. It doesn't engage with my discussion of the fundamental incompatibility of the HUD's regulatory regime and ad targeting in general. Nobody was ever convinced of anything by someone typing "FYI: [restatement of original premise]".
        maym86 8y ago
        My point was your premise is making up imaginary scenarios that aren't actually happening as a way of creating an issue with the clear problems outlined and this isn't helpful. Creating an imaginary general problem as a way of attacking the specific issue is disingenuous.
        ghaff 8y ago
- quadrangle 8y ago
  The other person's reply to you was really this simple: You are asserting a slippery-slope argument, but this is a situation where there are clear places this doesn't lead. It may be fuzzy instead of a clear line, but there's not actually a slippery slope necessarily. And you need to bear burden to show that there is a slippery slope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
  - maym86 8y ago
    Exactly. Thank you.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    The slippy slope here is already in operation. It's the entire rationale behind prohibiting targeting based on zip code: demographics change from zip code to zip code, so the HUD concludes that targeting by zip code is de facto targeting by demographic. What logical basis is there for stopping at zip code targeting and not applying the same logic to other demographic correlates?
    - MBCook 8y ago
      > The slippy slope here is already in operation. Except there are 40 years of court decisions clarifying how the law should be interpreted.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        Most of the case law dates from before internet advertising microtargeting. We're in novel legal territory here. That said, it's possible that a forward-thinking court has already resolved the question under discussion. Can you point me to case law that discusses the boundary between discriminatory and non-discriminatory ad targeting based on demographic correlates?
        MBCook 8y ago
        The fact it’s an online entity may or may not be novel (I imagine Craig’s List has been sued over this). I meant my comment to refer to the idea of a slippery slope on what does/does not count as a discriminatory. There is lots of case law on that. I think it’s safe to say if a court has previous rules you can’t put ‘No X’ or ‘Y only’ in a newspaper ads you can use t as a filter for ad targeting.

by maym86 8y ago

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!
  - maym86 8y ago
    So what about your argument means they shouldn't handle the explicit descrimination cases on their platform better? Just because there might be a fuzzy case in they future why shouldn't they handle the clear cases now? FYI these are the specific points they are going after: -display housing ads either only to men or women; -not show ads to Facebook users interested in an "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessibility" or "deaf culture"; -not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or show ads only to users with children above a specified age; -to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the "Christian Church," "Sikhism," "Hinduism," or the "Bible." -not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "Latin America," "Canada," "Southeast Asia," "China," "Honduras," or "Somalia." -draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes. Pretty damn clear: gender, race, disability and religion.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      A lot of really bad policy gets enacted because advocates don't honestly ask themselves, "What are the foreseeable consequences of the policy I'm advocating?" That is, a failure to ask the question "And then what?" results in a lot of unnecessary misery. Your comment essentially restates the HUD's complaint. It doesn't engage with my discussion of the fundamental incompatibility of the HUD's regulatory regime and ad targeting in general. Nobody was ever convinced of anything by someone typing "FYI: [restatement of original premise]".
      - maym86 8y ago
        My point was your premise is making up imaginary scenarios that aren't actually happening as a way of creating an issue with the clear problems outlined and this isn't helpful. Creating an imaginary general problem as a way of attacking the specific issue is disingenuous.
        ghaff 8y ago
quadrangle 8y ago
The other person's reply to you was really this simple: You are asserting a slippery-slope argument, but this is a situation where there are clear places this doesn't lead. It may be fuzzy instead of a clear line, but there's not actually a slippery slope necessarily. And you need to bear burden to show that there is a slippery slope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- maym86 8y ago
  Exactly. Thank you.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  The slippy slope here is already in operation. It's the entire rationale behind prohibiting targeting based on zip code: demographics change from zip code to zip code, so the HUD concludes that targeting by zip code is de facto targeting by demographic. What logical basis is there for stopping at zip code targeting and not applying the same logic to other demographic correlates?
  - MBCook 8y ago
    > The slippy slope here is already in operation. Except there are 40 years of court decisions clarifying how the law should be interpreted.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      Most of the case law dates from before internet advertising microtargeting. We're in novel legal territory here. That said, it's possible that a forward-thinking court has already resolved the question under discussion. Can you point me to case law that discusses the boundary between discriminatory and non-discriminatory ad targeting based on demographic correlates?
      - MBCook 8y ago
        The fact it’s an online entity may or may not be novel (I imagine Craig’s List has been sued over this). I meant my comment to refer to the idea of a slippery slope on what does/does not count as a discriminatory. There is lots of case law on that. I think it’s safe to say if a court has previous rules you can’t put ‘No X’ or ‘Y only’ in a newspaper ads you can use t as a filter for ad targeting.