8 ms·

I've never really understood how targeted ads, aside from things like job or housing opportunities, would be considered harmful discriminatory. Yes it's discrim

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.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Facebook forbade those only after reports. There were further issues followed by ACLU which ended in agreement that requries further changes. Chain of events: 1.) A series of investigative reports over the past two years have uncovered ways that users can abuse Facebook's ad platform in order to discriminate against some populations, mainly people of color, when it comes to certain marketing for certain opportunities, like housing, employment or credit. 2.) Following the reports, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) filed a complaint against Facebook [...], charging that the social network allows advertisers to illegally discriminate in housing ads by excluding some groups from seeing the ads. 3.) Shortly after, Facebook removed over 5,000 ad-targeting options to prevent that capability. 4.) In September, the ACLU and its law firm, representing the Communications Workers of America and several individual job seekers, filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Facebook and a number of employers, alleging that they had unlawfully discriminated against certain populations via their ad targeting platform. 5.) As part of the settlement, Facebook will pay $5 million to several groups, [...] It will also take three new steps to prevent advertisers from engaging in unlawful discrimination around employment, housing, and credit ads on Facebook and its subsidiaries (Instagram, Whatsapp, Messenger, etc.):archive for housing ads,
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - matt4077 8y ago
    "It will also take three new steps to prevent advertisers from engaging in unlawful discrimination around employment, housing, and credit ads on Facebook. [..] As part of this process, Facebook is further cutting the number of options advertisers [in housing, employment, credit] can use to target ads"
- educationdata 8y ago
  For housing, would it make sense that an apartment complex inside a Chinese community targets ads on Chinese speakers, who are much more likely to live in there? Is this considered as discrimination based on color? What if the landlord only speaks Chinese?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    One of the goals of the law is to hinder ethnic ghettoization like that.
    - adrenalinelol 8y ago
      An ethnically homogenous area doesn't always imply it's a ghetto though?
      - vorpalhex 8y ago
        The original meaning of "ghetto" was to be ethnically homogenous, it gained the additional meaning of being ramshackle or of poor condition.
        weberc2 8y ago
        Why should it be the goal of the law to hinder prosperous but ethnically homogenous areas? Personally I like my diverse neighborhood, but I also like that Chinatown is just down the street.
        SamReidHughes 8y ago
        The answer is obviously contingent on your values and maybe your prediction of sociological outcomes.
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        Because the reality of racial restriction covenants and redlining practices is that they weren't used to develop great locales; they were used to systemically exclude people of undesired races who otherwise had the means to live in said area. This doesn't mean that ethic areas just melt away, though. Chinatown can remain Chinatown on the basis that they value being close to Chinese community centres and Chinese grocery stores more than the average resident, meaning they're willing to pay more and price out other people to live there. They can't remain Chinatown by literally refusing to rent to someone because they're black, though. This allows ethic areas to remain if they provide a benefit to their community, but melt away to redistribute real-estate resources more efficiently if they don't.
burkaman 8y ago
> aside from things like job or housing opportunities That's what this was about. The ProPublica article explains it better than Axios: https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-discrimination-settlement-housing-employment-credit https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-discriminati...
- Kronopath 8y ago
  Exactly. Here’s another article that makes it clearer: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-ads-will-no-longer-discriminate-against-housing-seekers-company-says/?ref=hvper.com https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-ads-will-no-longer-dis...
SkyBelow 8y ago
>I've never really understood how targeted ads, aside from things like job or housing opportunities, would be considered harmful discriminatory. The question to me is, if it is so clearly wrong to do in these cases, then there must be a justification for it. To what extent could that justification be applied to other areas of life. Even worse, we do sometimes allow such discrimination, such as only allowing people 55+ to live in a retirement community is legal, so there must be some justification for why. Take a boy who wants to play with barbies but sees it only being advertised to girls. This feeds into the social expectation and can result in both negative internal feelings as he sees the social expectations and compared it to his own desire as well as creating a social more than he is now punished for violating. It is thus harmful. The question then remains what level of harm reaches the point to make it immoral or illegal.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Take a boy who wants to play with barbies but sees it only being advertised to girls. This feeds into the social expectation and can result in both negative internal feelings as he sees the social expectations and compared it to his own desire as well as creating a social more than he is now punished for violating. Sure (save for the negative part, which I'll expand upon later). > It is thus harmful. Citation needed. You're approaching this story with the a priori conclusion that any gendered social behavior is bad. If you're trying to convince me that boys are harmed by the fact that we don't advertise high heels and Barbies to them you're going to need to back this up with strong evidence. You're also assuming that a significant number of boys want to use such things but the advertising prevents that. I recall a couple studies in which children were raised from birth or early childhood in gender neutral environments, but the kids displayed gendered preferences and behavior much like the rest of society. Advertisers don't have machinations for society. They just want to make as much money as possible. A very probable explanation is that these behaviors occurred on their own, and advertisers perform targeting in response in order to maximize sales.
  - SkyBelow 8y ago
    >You're approaching this story with the a priori conclusion that any gendered social behavior is bad. No, I'm saying that the enforcement of the social norm on the child is wrong. Social norms are enforced through punishment, though the punishment is often very light (such as being the butt of a joke or even just being asked to justify one's behavior, but these are separate treatment than those who conform receive). At worse levels it can lead to ostracizing and bullying. >If you're trying to convince me that boys are harmed by the fact that we don't advertise high heels and Barbies to them you're going to need to back this up with strong evidence. You seem to be reading this backwards. It isn't the lack of advertisement, it is that the existing advertisement feeds into norms which are then enforced against those who don't meet those norms. >You're also assuming that a significant number of boys want to use such things but the advertising prevents that. I am assuming no such thing. There needs to only be a single individual harmed by the social expectations fed by the advertisement for it to be harmful. >I recall a couple studies in which children were raised from birth or early childhood in gender neutral environments, but the kids displayed gendered preferences and behavior much like the rest of society. Yes, kids do tend to have gendered preferences in what toys they play with. That you bring up something unrelated to my point makes me think there has been some misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. So let us give a different example and skip gender since that seems to lead to a lot of incorrect assumptions being made about what I'm saying. Go with an advertisement campaign that shows kids who play with a specific brand of soccer ball as being better than those who don't, either because of lack of access or lack of interest. If the marketing is aggressive enough, which isn't hard when dealing with young children, it can lead to children discriminating and engaging in social punishments against those who do not have the status symbol. While the exact advertising leading to it is far more complex than a single commercial, this is a real life problem with brand name clothing and displays of wealth among school age children (especially preteens and teens). Children who cannot afford the brand named goods to display to peers are treated negatively compared to those who do, which is a harm created by the advertisement. It can lead to some extreme cases of discrimination depending upon how strong the message sent to children is. The classical example being the teacher who told students of different eye colors that some were naturally better than others, a message that is often largely mimicked in advertisement with purchase of the brand swapped for eye color. >A very probable explanation is that these behaviors occurred on their own I've never known any animal other than human have a preference for Nike over New Balance.
sandworm101 8y ago
And what if a new hip eatery wants to target only white customers? What if thier adds are attached to a coupon? Such tools can quickly become the modern equivalent of a "whites only" sign above a door.
- stronglikedan 8y ago
  Ignoring the glaring hyperbole of your comment, if their main demographic is white people, then they would be doing themselves a disservice by not spending the majority of their ad revenue targeting white customers, and there's nothing wrong with that.
  - iron0013 8y ago
    there is something wrong with that, though.
    - stronglikedan 8y ago
      But there isn't. There is, however, something wrong with hanging a "whites only" sign above your door, but that was the hyperbolic part that I was ignoring, since it was not comparable to the first two sentences of the comment.
      - mcguire 8y ago
        Where would "this coupon only good for whites" lie on your comparability scale? It's the same effect, right?
        stronglikedan 8y ago
        Sure, you can keep moving the goalpost as much as you want, but offering a coupon in an ad targeted to a white demographic is not the same as refusing to accept that coupon from a non-white patron. Apple simply do not compare to oranges.
ajross 8y ago
> 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 The problem is "such categories" is squishy. What about elective medical treatments? What about vacation deals (often partially sponsored by real estate interests)? There is a broad, broad spectrum between "elective frivolity" and "hidden opportunity" in advertising, and who are you to make that decision? Step out of the obvious counterexamples and scary edge cases abound. I mean, yeah, advertising "soda for women" or whatever isn't going to harm anyone who doesn't see the ad. But would you say it's OK if I pitch my startup camp to asians only?
- manfredo 8y ago
  > What about elective medical treatments? Should companies have to advertise mammograms to men? Or vasectomies to women?I would object to this - not because of targeting certain populations but on the grounds that ads for medical treatment should not be run at all. > What about vacation deals (often partially sponsored by real estate interests)? Why not? I don't see how people would be negai impacted by not being exposed to vacation deals. Jobs, credit, and housing are necessities and if a group has lessened exposure to those opportunities they are at a disadvantage. Trips to Vegas are not necessities and not being exposed to deals to go to Vegas are not harmed (one could even argue that the ones being advertised to are the ones harmed here).
  - ajross 8y ago
    > Should companies have to advertise mammograms to men? That's the same strawman though! There are an endless list of products that are clearly targetted in some kind of inherent way. My point is that there is an equally large list of ones that are gray areas, and that if your policy is "advertise whatever to whoever you want" you're going to be engaging in an awful lot of accidental discrimination. So sure, make your exceptions for tampons and birth control. Just let them be exceptions. > Why not? I don't see how people would be negai impacted by not being exposed to vacation deals. You say that now, until, oops, it turns out you've been running ads for condos in a de facto whites-only resort community. Who could have known, amirite?

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.
- watwut 8y ago
  Facebook forbade those only after reports. There were further issues followed by ACLU which ended in agreement that requries further changes. Chain of events: 1.) A series of investigative reports over the past two years have uncovered ways that users can abuse Facebook's ad platform in order to discriminate against some populations, mainly people of color, when it comes to certain marketing for certain opportunities, like housing, employment or credit. 2.) Following the reports, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) filed a complaint against Facebook [...], charging that the social network allows advertisers to illegally discriminate in housing ads by excluding some groups from seeing the ads. 3.) Shortly after, Facebook removed over 5,000 ad-targeting options to prevent that capability. 4.) In September, the ACLU and its law firm, representing the Communications Workers of America and several individual job seekers, filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Facebook and a number of employers, alleging that they had unlawfully discriminated against certain populations via their ad targeting platform. 5.) As part of the settlement, Facebook will pay $5 million to several groups, [...] It will also take three new steps to prevent advertisers from engaging in unlawful discrimination around employment, housing, and credit ads on Facebook and its subsidiaries (Instagram, Whatsapp, Messenger, etc.):archive for housing ads,
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- matt4077 8y ago
  "It will also take three new steps to prevent advertisers from engaging in unlawful discrimination around employment, housing, and credit ads on Facebook. [..] As part of this process, Facebook is further cutting the number of options advertisers [in housing, employment, credit] can use to target ads"
educationdata 8y ago
For housing, would it make sense that an apartment complex inside a Chinese community targets ads on Chinese speakers, who are much more likely to live in there? Is this considered as discrimination based on color? What if the landlord only speaks Chinese?
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  One of the goals of the law is to hinder ethnic ghettoization like that.
  - adrenalinelol 8y ago
    An ethnically homogenous area doesn't always imply it's a ghetto though?
    - vorpalhex 8y ago
      The original meaning of "ghetto" was to be ethnically homogenous, it gained the additional meaning of being ramshackle or of poor condition.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        Why should it be the goal of the law to hinder prosperous but ethnically homogenous areas? Personally I like my diverse neighborhood, but I also like that Chinatown is just down the street.
        SamReidHughes 8y ago
        The answer is obviously contingent on your values and maybe your prediction of sociological outcomes.
        ABCLAW 8y ago
        Because the reality of racial restriction covenants and redlining practices is that they weren't used to develop great locales; they were used to systemically exclude people of undesired races who otherwise had the means to live in said area. This doesn't mean that ethic areas just melt away, though. Chinatown can remain Chinatown on the basis that they value being close to Chinese community centres and Chinese grocery stores more than the average resident, meaning they're willing to pay more and price out other people to live there. They can't remain Chinatown by literally refusing to rent to someone because they're black, though. This allows ethic areas to remain if they provide a benefit to their community, but melt away to redistribute real-estate resources more efficiently if they don't.

burkaman 8y ago

> aside from things like job or housing opportunities That's what this was about. The ProPublica article explains it better than Axios: https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-discrimination-settlement-housing-employment-credit https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-discriminati...

Kronopath 8y ago
Exactly. Here’s another article that makes it clearer: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-ads-will-no-longer-discriminate-against-housing-seekers-company-says/?ref=hvper.com https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-ads-will-no-longer-dis...

SkyBelow 8y ago

>I've never really understood how targeted ads, aside from things like job or housing opportunities, would be considered harmful discriminatory. The question to me is, if it is so clearly wrong to do in these cases, then there must be a justification for it. To what extent could that justification be applied to other areas of life. Even worse, we do sometimes allow such discrimination, such as only allowing people 55+ to live in a retirement community is legal, so there must be some justification for why. Take a boy who wants to play with barbies but sees it only being advertised to girls. This feeds into the social expectation and can result in both negative internal feelings as he sees the social expectations and compared it to his own desire as well as creating a social more than he is now punished for violating. It is thus harmful. The question then remains what level of harm reaches the point to make it immoral or illegal.

manfredo 8y ago
> Take a boy who wants to play with barbies but sees it only being advertised to girls. This feeds into the social expectation and can result in both negative internal feelings as he sees the social expectations and compared it to his own desire as well as creating a social more than he is now punished for violating. Sure (save for the negative part, which I'll expand upon later). > It is thus harmful. Citation needed. You're approaching this story with the a priori conclusion that any gendered social behavior is bad. If you're trying to convince me that boys are harmed by the fact that we don't advertise high heels and Barbies to them you're going to need to back this up with strong evidence. You're also assuming that a significant number of boys want to use such things but the advertising prevents that. I recall a couple studies in which children were raised from birth or early childhood in gender neutral environments, but the kids displayed gendered preferences and behavior much like the rest of society. Advertisers don't have machinations for society. They just want to make as much money as possible. A very probable explanation is that these behaviors occurred on their own, and advertisers perform targeting in response in order to maximize sales.
- SkyBelow 8y ago
  >You're approaching this story with the a priori conclusion that any gendered social behavior is bad. No, I'm saying that the enforcement of the social norm on the child is wrong. Social norms are enforced through punishment, though the punishment is often very light (such as being the butt of a joke or even just being asked to justify one's behavior, but these are separate treatment than those who conform receive). At worse levels it can lead to ostracizing and bullying. >If you're trying to convince me that boys are harmed by the fact that we don't advertise high heels and Barbies to them you're going to need to back this up with strong evidence. You seem to be reading this backwards. It isn't the lack of advertisement, it is that the existing advertisement feeds into norms which are then enforced against those who don't meet those norms. >You're also assuming that a significant number of boys want to use such things but the advertising prevents that. I am assuming no such thing. There needs to only be a single individual harmed by the social expectations fed by the advertisement for it to be harmful. >I recall a couple studies in which children were raised from birth or early childhood in gender neutral environments, but the kids displayed gendered preferences and behavior much like the rest of society. Yes, kids do tend to have gendered preferences in what toys they play with. That you bring up something unrelated to my point makes me think there has been some misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say. So let us give a different example and skip gender since that seems to lead to a lot of incorrect assumptions being made about what I'm saying. Go with an advertisement campaign that shows kids who play with a specific brand of soccer ball as being better than those who don't, either because of lack of access or lack of interest. If the marketing is aggressive enough, which isn't hard when dealing with young children, it can lead to children discriminating and engaging in social punishments against those who do not have the status symbol. While the exact advertising leading to it is far more complex than a single commercial, this is a real life problem with brand name clothing and displays of wealth among school age children (especially preteens and teens). Children who cannot afford the brand named goods to display to peers are treated negatively compared to those who do, which is a harm created by the advertisement. It can lead to some extreme cases of discrimination depending upon how strong the message sent to children is. The classical example being the teacher who told students of different eye colors that some were naturally better than others, a message that is often largely mimicked in advertisement with purchase of the brand swapped for eye color. >A very probable explanation is that these behaviors occurred on their own I've never known any animal other than human have a preference for Nike over New Balance.

sandworm101 8y ago

And what if a new hip eatery wants to target only white customers? What if thier adds are attached to a coupon? Such tools can quickly become the modern equivalent of a "whites only" sign above a door.

stronglikedan 8y ago
Ignoring the glaring hyperbole of your comment, if their main demographic is white people, then they would be doing themselves a disservice by not spending the majority of their ad revenue targeting white customers, and there's nothing wrong with that.
- iron0013 8y ago
  there is something wrong with that, though.
  - stronglikedan 8y ago
    But there isn't. There is, however, something wrong with hanging a "whites only" sign above your door, but that was the hyperbolic part that I was ignoring, since it was not comparable to the first two sentences of the comment.
    - mcguire 8y ago
      Where would "this coupon only good for whites" lie on your comparability scale? It's the same effect, right?
      - stronglikedan 8y ago
        Sure, you can keep moving the goalpost as much as you want, but offering a coupon in an ad targeted to a white demographic is not the same as refusing to accept that coupon from a non-white patron. Apple simply do not compare to oranges.

ajross 8y ago

> 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 The problem is "such categories" is squishy. What about elective medical treatments? What about vacation deals (often partially sponsored by real estate interests)? There is a broad, broad spectrum between "elective frivolity" and "hidden opportunity" in advertising, and who are you to make that decision? Step out of the obvious counterexamples and scary edge cases abound. I mean, yeah, advertising "soda for women" or whatever isn't going to harm anyone who doesn't see the ad. But would you say it's OK if I pitch my startup camp to asians only?

manfredo 8y ago
> What about elective medical treatments? Should companies have to advertise mammograms to men? Or vasectomies to women?I would object to this - not because of targeting certain populations but on the grounds that ads for medical treatment should not be run at all. > What about vacation deals (often partially sponsored by real estate interests)? Why not? I don't see how people would be negai impacted by not being exposed to vacation deals. Jobs, credit, and housing are necessities and if a group has lessened exposure to those opportunities they are at a disadvantage. Trips to Vegas are not necessities and not being exposed to deals to go to Vegas are not harmed (one could even argue that the ones being advertised to are the ones harmed here).
- ajross 8y ago
  > Should companies have to advertise mammograms to men? That's the same strawman though! There are an endless list of products that are clearly targetted in some kind of inherent way. My point is that there is an equally large list of ones that are gray areas, and that if your policy is "advertise whatever to whoever you want" you're going to be engaging in an awful lot of accidental discrimination. So sure, make your exceptions for tampons and birth control. Just let them be exceptions. > Why not? I don't see how people would be negai impacted by not being exposed to vacation deals. You say that now, until, oops, it turns out you've been running ads for condos in a de facto whites-only resort community. Who could have known, amirite?