3 ms·

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

by 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
        More generally, housing discrimination will happen at the individual level in all sorts of subtle and not so subtle ways that can’t be generally stopped. That doesn’t mean you throw your hands up and say that we might as allow any sort of discrimination.
        quotemstr 8y ago
        If the intent of policy X is to achieve goal Y and X does not in fact achieve Y, what is the point of continuing to pay the costs of X instead of proposing some X' that actually does achieve Y? Continuing to advocate X when X doesn't achieve Y suggests that the proponents of X don't really care about Y, but instead some unstated Z.
        MBCook 8y ago
        Because a simple and easily enforced X that hits 90% of cases is vastly preferable to the 1200 page tome that makes up X’ and requires 175k people to enforce after 20 years of law writing.

by 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
      More generally, housing discrimination will happen at the individual level in all sorts of subtle and not so subtle ways that can’t be generally stopped. That doesn’t mean you throw your hands up and say that we might as allow any sort of discrimination.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        If the intent of policy X is to achieve goal Y and X does not in fact achieve Y, what is the point of continuing to pay the costs of X instead of proposing some X' that actually does achieve Y? Continuing to advocate X when X doesn't achieve Y suggests that the proponents of X don't really care about Y, but instead some unstated Z.
        MBCook 8y ago
        Because a simple and easily enforced X that hits 90% of cases is vastly preferable to the 1200 page tome that makes up X’ and requires 175k people to enforce after 20 years of law writing.