9 ms·

ACLU reaches settlement with Facebook over discriminatory ads

psychometry 8y ago
I'm sure sneaky landlords can get around this. There are plenty of demographic categories that correlate with race that I'm sure are still available on FB.
- openasocket 8y ago
  Definitely, and that will make it harder to detect, but if you suspect it's the case and manage to sue, it becomes pretty obvious. They'll have a tough time explaining to the court why they chose to target their apartment ads to, say, people who buy sunscreen. And trying to pick a more subtle demographic will come off as even more ridiculous.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    I can imagine seemingly justifiable proxies. Targeting people who buy lawn care products and people who buy wild bird food is both arguably enriching to the neighborhood (birds and grass look nice) and probably correlates to WASPs fairly well. I remember the bird food example being brought up as something that credit ratings are influenced by, but I don't remember the source. Edit based on sketchy memory: s/organic/wild
- sheana_ahlqvist 8y ago
  Those demographic correlates of race are already illegal as substitutes in similar domains (like qualifying for a mortgage). If they aren't illegal already for (e.g.,) landlords, it seems like an easy expansion of current regulations.
- matt4077 8y ago
  One of the measures is a public archive of all ads in these categories and their targeting. That allows third parties to analyse ads for any remaining bias.
manfredo 8y ago
I've never really understood how targeted ads, aside from things like job or housing opportunities, would be considered harmful discriminatory. Yes it's discrimination in the basic sense of the word - the same way that my company discriminates between men and women in our work experience surveys so that we can see any differences in trends. If I'm selling high heeled shoes, why should I not be able to target my ads to women? If I'm trying to solicit support for, say, a charity focused on helping South American immigrants why should I not be able to target Latin immigrants if I have a belief that they will be more invested and likely to follow up? If I built a new church why shouldn't I be able to advertise to Christians? Certainly, using such categories for job and housing advertisements should not be allowed. But if I'm reading Facebook's announcement correctly targeting on race and gender is being completely removed [1]. I'd make more sense for me to just forbid it for jobs and housing. If that's too difficult, explicitly limit it to selling people consumer goods like shoes, concert tickets, and video games. 1. https://www.facebook.com/business/news/keeping-advertising-safe-and-civil https://www.facebook.com/business/news/keeping-advertising-s...
- sacheendra 8y ago
  This case was about targeted ads for housing, credit cards, etc. You can't target people of a gender or color for such things by law.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Facebook already forbade using those categories for targeting ads for those things: > For over a year, we have required advertisers we identify offering housing, employment or credit ads to certify compliance with our non-discrimination policy. It looks to me like they're removing this as an option for all types of ads: > We’re committed to protecting people from discriminatory advertising on our platforms. That’s why we’re removing over 5,000 targeting options to help prevent misuse. While these options have been used in legitimate ways to reach people interested in a certain product or service, we think minimizing the risk of abuse is more important. This includes limiting the ability for advertisers to exclude audiences that relate to attributes such as ethnicity or religion.
williesleg 8y ago
Meanwhile Facebook and Silicon Valley Elites are censoring based on their own coordinated ideology, driving millions away while increasing tracking and analysis on those who are left.
ItsOk4Be 8y ago
Why is a powerful white organization with backing from an ethnically homogenous white country deciding what is discriminatory for America?
sheana_ahlqvist 8y ago
> The big picture: Unlike television or radio, internet platforms that sell ads aren't regulated. I'm surprised that this continues to the case, especially in examples like this where EXISTING regulations seem to fit pretty squarely with "new" problems created on tech platforms. There's some really interesting work on how differently tech companies are regulated from other kinds of companies (e.g., here: https://innovationforallcast.com/2019/01/23/amanda-lotz-what-is-a-tech-company/ https://innovationforallcast.com/2019/01/23/amanda-lotz-what...)
tracker1 8y ago
Along a similar line... I'm always surprised we don't see more generalized less-targeted advertising on the web for regular products like Coca-Cola or Charmin, etc like you do on TV. Perhaps with click-through to online games for engagement or coupons, etc.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  Proposed reason that just popped into my head, and could be wrong: advertising that cannot be targeted to individuals is less effective, so there is less competition for it. Thus prices are low relative to ads that can be targeted. Thus companies with a wide target demographic can buy these spots cheaper, while companies that are targeting a specific niche get more bang for their buck from relatively expensive targeted ads.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    The size/scale of Twitter or Facebook, etc may be an example where it might be better for generic inline advertising over the "promoted" messages. I can understand where a smaller site may do better with random targeted ads... I'm just a little surprised it hasn't been done or tried much that I am aware of.
    - blotter_paper 8y ago
      I don't see why scale should affect whether targeting makes sense (with the exception of entities like facebook that have collected so much data on their own that they can target better than smaller competitors, which leads targeting increasing with scale, not decreasing). Television isn't targeted because it wasn't designed to be, and hasn't been updated (yet) -- they would need to deliver different ads to different homes. This is already done for different localities, but not individual homes (that I'm aware of). It's not a scale issue. Targeted billboards are coming[0], albeit not based on individual browsing habits (yet). I don't think this is about scale (mostly), I think it's about the technical feasibility of tracking and targeting customers on a given platform in $CURRENT_YEAR. >random targeted ads I'm genuinely confused by what this is supposed to mean. To me, random is antithetical to targeted. In my reading I decided to drop the random, but I should note that I may be parsing your intent incorrectly as a result of that. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2018-08-10/google-s-targeted-ads-are-coming-to-a-billboard-near-you https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/a...
crushcrashcrush 8y ago
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS? Seriously? That's it? What a fucking slap in the face. Mark Zuckerberg's home remodel's PARKING FEES in the Mission were about that.

I'm sure sneaky landlords can get around this. There are plenty of demographic categories that correlate with race that I'm sure are still available on FB.

openasocket 8y ago
Definitely, and that will make it harder to detect, but if you suspect it's the case and manage to sue, it becomes pretty obvious. They'll have a tough time explaining to the court why they chose to target their apartment ads to, say, people who buy sunscreen. And trying to pick a more subtle demographic will come off as even more ridiculous.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  I can imagine seemingly justifiable proxies. Targeting people who buy lawn care products and people who buy wild bird food is both arguably enriching to the neighborhood (birds and grass look nice) and probably correlates to WASPs fairly well. I remember the bird food example being brought up as something that credit ratings are influenced by, but I don't remember the source. Edit based on sketchy memory: s/organic/wild
sheana_ahlqvist 8y ago
Those demographic correlates of race are already illegal as substitutes in similar domains (like qualifying for a mortgage). If they aren't illegal already for (e.g.,) landlords, it seems like an easy expansion of current regulations.
matt4077 8y ago
One of the measures is a public archive of all ads in these categories and their targeting. That allows third parties to analyse ads for any remaining bias.

manfredo 8y ago

I've never really understood how targeted ads, aside from things like job or housing opportunities, would be considered harmful discriminatory. Yes it's discrimination in the basic sense of the word - the same way that my company discriminates between men and women in our work experience surveys so that we can see any differences in trends. If I'm selling high heeled shoes, why should I not be able to target my ads to women? If I'm trying to solicit support for, say, a charity focused on helping South American immigrants why should I not be able to target Latin immigrants if I have a belief that they will be more invested and likely to follow up? If I built a new church why shouldn't I be able to advertise to Christians? Certainly, using such categories for job and housing advertisements should not be allowed. But if I'm reading Facebook's announcement correctly targeting on race and gender is being completely removed [1]. I'd make more sense for me to just forbid it for jobs and housing. If that's too difficult, explicitly limit it to selling people consumer goods like shoes, concert tickets, and video games. 1. https://www.facebook.com/business/news/keeping-advertising-safe-and-civil https://www.facebook.com/business/news/keeping-advertising-s...

sacheendra 8y ago
This case was about targeted ads for housing, credit cards, etc. You can't target people of a gender or color for such things by law.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Facebook already forbade using those categories for targeting ads for those things: > For over a year, we have required advertisers we identify offering housing, employment or credit ads to certify compliance with our non-discrimination policy. It looks to me like they're removing this as an option for all types of ads: > We’re committed to protecting people from discriminatory advertising on our platforms. That’s why we’re removing over 5,000 targeting options to help prevent misuse. While these options have been used in legitimate ways to reach people interested in a certain product or service, we think minimizing the risk of abuse is more important. This includes limiting the ability for advertisers to exclude audiences that relate to attributes such as ethnicity or religion.

williesleg 8y ago

Meanwhile Facebook and Silicon Valley Elites are censoring based on their own coordinated ideology, driving millions away while increasing tracking and analysis on those who are left.

ItsOk4Be 8y ago

Why is a powerful white organization with backing from an ethnically homogenous white country deciding what is discriminatory for America?

sheana_ahlqvist 8y ago

> The big picture: Unlike television or radio, internet platforms that sell ads aren't regulated. I'm surprised that this continues to the case, especially in examples like this where EXISTING regulations seem to fit pretty squarely with "new" problems created on tech platforms. There's some really interesting work on how differently tech companies are regulated from other kinds of companies (e.g., here: https://innovationforallcast.com/2019/01/23/amanda-lotz-what-is-a-tech-company/ https://innovationforallcast.com/2019/01/23/amanda-lotz-what...)

tracker1 8y ago

Along a similar line... I'm always surprised we don't see more generalized less-targeted advertising on the web for regular products like Coca-Cola or Charmin, etc like you do on TV. Perhaps with click-through to online games for engagement or coupons, etc.

blotter_paper 8y ago
Proposed reason that just popped into my head, and could be wrong: advertising that cannot be targeted to individuals is less effective, so there is less competition for it. Thus prices are low relative to ads that can be targeted. Thus companies with a wide target demographic can buy these spots cheaper, while companies that are targeting a specific niche get more bang for their buck from relatively expensive targeted ads.
- tracker1 8y ago
  The size/scale of Twitter or Facebook, etc may be an example where it might be better for generic inline advertising over the "promoted" messages. I can understand where a smaller site may do better with random targeted ads... I'm just a little surprised it hasn't been done or tried much that I am aware of.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    I don't see why scale should affect whether targeting makes sense (with the exception of entities like facebook that have collected so much data on their own that they can target better than smaller competitors, which leads targeting increasing with scale, not decreasing). Television isn't targeted because it wasn't designed to be, and hasn't been updated (yet) -- they would need to deliver different ads to different homes. This is already done for different localities, but not individual homes (that I'm aware of). It's not a scale issue. Targeted billboards are coming[0], albeit not based on individual browsing habits (yet). I don't think this is about scale (mostly), I think it's about the technical feasibility of tracking and targeting customers on a given platform in $CURRENT_YEAR. >random targeted ads I'm genuinely confused by what this is supposed to mean. To me, random is antithetical to targeted. In my reading I decided to drop the random, but I should note that I may be parsing your intent incorrectly as a result of that. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2018-08-10/google-s-targeted-ads-are-coming-to-a-billboard-near-you https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/a...

crushcrashcrush 8y ago

FIVE MILLION DOLLARS? Seriously? That's it? What a fucking slap in the face. Mark Zuckerberg's home remodel's PARKING FEES in the Mission were about that.