5 ms·

I disagree, if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory and a 'black box', the company who made/provides it is responsible for what it does. Y

I disagree, if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory and a 'black box', the company who made/provides it is responsible for what it does. You can't just make millions selling an ethically questionable service and shift the blame to your customers who you kept in the dark.

notacoward 8y ago
> if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian. Yes, it can also be used in a discriminatory way, but Facebook already tried to address that in the cases HUD only nominally cares about. Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after the phone companies and the postal service too? You could probably apply the same argument to Uber, Airbnb, and every other "gig economy" service as well. What you're suggesting is tantamount to making all targeted advertising illegal. If that's the argument you want to make, make it.
- will_brown 8y ago
  I Agree certain ads can legitimately target on the basis of age, sex, race and religions. However, as a multi billion dollar ad company FB knows these options are illegal in other instances. I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies or give advertisers the option to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race and religion like Facebook. Last I used FB ads, the process included a submission of my ad to FB for review. Therefore, FB knows if an ad targets based on age, sex, race, and religion and I do think the onus shifts to them to throughly review these types of potentially illegal ads before publishing the same. Certainly FB prohibits advertisers from publishing other types of illegal ads to avoid potential liability (try publishing a cigarette or alcohol ad targeting children) so it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand on these matters and say they don’t bear any liability for the acts of their users.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation. > the onus shifts to them All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves? > it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand They haven't. They've already taken action on this exact matter, meeting the approval of ACLU and the Fair Housing Alliance. Since when does HUD really have a higher standard than those?
    - will_brown 8y ago
      > Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation. I think you are misattributing someone’s else’s quote to me, in my comment you replied to I specifically state these filters can be used in some instance lawfully, but Again FB is a multi billion dollar ad company and is aware of the unlawful potential of these tools. Discrimination certainly isn’t limited to ad companies, but again I dont think those other companies you reference in the gig economy offer options to only accept riders/guests of a certain age, sex, race or religion. Those types of filters are limited to online ads as far as I am aware. But please shed some light is those gig platforms allow drivers/hosts to filter who they do business with and discriminate against protected classes. > All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves? Certainly both the advertiser and FB could be liable for discrimination. But yes I think FB dragged themselves in by #1 giving these options to users (knowing these filters are also protected classes of people and in certain industries will violate the law); and #2 Reviewing/approving these illegal ads before publication. I certainly never claimed the individual advertisers could not be liable, “onus shifting” here essentially means FB was aware not only the filters used for these ads but they approved the ads themselves. Answering further, it’s obvious tax payer dollars are more efficiently spent going after FB and ending the unlawful practices on the platform entirely than an indefinite game of cat and mouse with individual advertisers.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  > Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after the phone companies and the postal service too? I love the arguments that amount to: "if we can't stop <bad thing> everywhere, we shouldn't bother stopping it here either". I'm not sure how one expects any kind of social progress to happen with that attitude. > Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian. Let's be real. The kind of ad targeting that happens on the internet is something quite different than demographic targeting by sending flyers to certain zip codes or putting ads in certain magazines. Because the process is largely a black box and the ads are only visible to those being targeted it's nearly impossible to audit by watchdog groups or go after the parties who placed the ads. In the realm of commerce this leads to a lot of borderline scams targeting the ignorant. In politics, this leads to radicalization and weird conspiracy theories like QAnon. At best, modern targeted ads are a way to convince people they need something they do not. Something that "classic" advertising did as well. At worst, it's a channel for misinformation, scams, and sometimes malware. Completely invisible to you and me because we're not the "target demographic".
- dustindiamond 8y ago
  “ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. ” It is called ‘redlining’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

notacoward 8y ago

> if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian. Yes, it can also be used in a discriminatory way, but Facebook already tried to address that in the cases HUD only nominally cares about. Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after the phone companies and the postal service too? You could probably apply the same argument to Uber, Airbnb, and every other "gig economy" service as well. What you're suggesting is tantamount to making all targeted advertising illegal. If that's the argument you want to make, make it.

will_brown 8y ago
I Agree certain ads can legitimately target on the basis of age, sex, race and religions. However, as a multi billion dollar ad company FB knows these options are illegal in other instances. I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies or give advertisers the option to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race and religion like Facebook. Last I used FB ads, the process included a submission of my ad to FB for review. Therefore, FB knows if an ad targets based on age, sex, race, and religion and I do think the onus shifts to them to throughly review these types of potentially illegal ads before publishing the same. Certainly FB prohibits advertisers from publishing other types of illegal ads to avoid potential liability (try publishing a cigarette or alcohol ad targeting children) so it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand on these matters and say they don’t bear any liability for the acts of their users.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation. > the onus shifts to them All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves? > it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand They haven't. They've already taken action on this exact matter, meeting the approval of ACLU and the Fair Housing Alliance. Since when does HUD really have a higher standard than those?
  - will_brown 8y ago
    > Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation. I think you are misattributing someone’s else’s quote to me, in my comment you replied to I specifically state these filters can be used in some instance lawfully, but Again FB is a multi billion dollar ad company and is aware of the unlawful potential of these tools. Discrimination certainly isn’t limited to ad companies, but again I dont think those other companies you reference in the gig economy offer options to only accept riders/guests of a certain age, sex, race or religion. Those types of filters are limited to online ads as far as I am aware. But please shed some light is those gig platforms allow drivers/hosts to filter who they do business with and discriminate against protected classes. > All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves? Certainly both the advertiser and FB could be liable for discrimination. But yes I think FB dragged themselves in by #1 giving these options to users (knowing these filters are also protected classes of people and in certain industries will violate the law); and #2 Reviewing/approving these illegal ads before publication. I certainly never claimed the individual advertisers could not be liable, “onus shifting” here essentially means FB was aware not only the filters used for these ads but they approved the ads themselves. Answering further, it’s obvious tax payer dollars are more efficiently spent going after FB and ending the unlawful practices on the platform entirely than an indefinite game of cat and mouse with individual advertisers.
AlexandrB 8y ago
> Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after the phone companies and the postal service too? I love the arguments that amount to: "if we can't stop <bad thing> everywhere, we shouldn't bother stopping it here either". I'm not sure how one expects any kind of social progress to happen with that attitude. > Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian. Let's be real. The kind of ad targeting that happens on the internet is something quite different than demographic targeting by sending flyers to certain zip codes or putting ads in certain magazines. Because the process is largely a black box and the ads are only visible to those being targeted it's nearly impossible to audit by watchdog groups or go after the parties who placed the ads. In the realm of commerce this leads to a lot of borderline scams targeting the ignorant. In politics, this leads to radicalization and weird conspiracy theories like QAnon. At best, modern targeted ads are a way to convince people they need something they do not. Something that "classic" advertising did as well. At worst, it's a channel for misinformation, scams, and sometimes malware. Completely invisible to you and me because we're not the "target demographic".
dustindiamond 8y ago
“ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. ” It is called ‘redlining’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining