7 ms·

It seems to be a textbook form of discrimination.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
It's not, though. When I buy a page in Cosmo or something, I'm doing that with the intent and result that mostly women will see it. If targeted ads were illegal, it's hard to see how any publication with non-representative demographics could sell ads at all.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Yes but you don't control if a man or an old person can buy the magazine or not.
  - air7 7y ago
    While true, its a bit of a nitpick and misses the point GP made.
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      not really, because people are aware of the fact that they're going to find say, women targeted ads in cosmo, so they can seek them out. The 'discrimination' in this case is simply aggregate consumer preference, every individual outlier still gets precisely the content and ads they want. If facebook displays housing ads only to white people a black person is very likely not even aware that they're being discriminated against in some specific way, the entire control is in the hands of facebook and the ad buyer, and intransparent. The situation would be equivalent if facebook gave you complete control over their algorithm and let you choose what type of ads you want to be exposed to. Which would make discrimination much less of an issue. Or the other way around, the current facebook situation would be akin to the store owner quickly cutting the housing ads out of cosmo as soon as black people walk into the store.
    - nkrisc 7y ago
      No. If you place an ad on Facebook for housing and choose to exclude people who identify as "black", there's no way for those people to find your ad, save for creating a new Facebook account and pretending to be white. Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of Ebony magazine. It's targeted, but it's not exclusive.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        Is it really any better to make people choose just really good proxies for their intended audience which theoretically anyone could be a member of but in practice is not that way? And if this isn’t really any better, where does that leave you?
        nkrisc 7y ago
        Where else would you draw the line? I don't think what I described is a real problem in practice. Housing and jobs are often advertised in rather neutral publications, not special interest ones. But what Facebook enables goes beyond targeting based on interest, it's explicitly exclusionary. If your local newspaper could print a special edition for minority subscribers that didn't include job listings, that would be a problem. Advertising in a special interest publication is not, on its own, a problem. Of course there's no clear lines in reality, everything must be evaluated in context.
      - sturgill 7y ago
        But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people? I honestly don’t know where I come down on this issue: it feels different to say, “we have a better ROI if we exclude certain demographics from seeing our ads” than to say “black people can’t eat at this diner.” Let’s take a company like REI: is it wrong for them to put their stores in places that are most profitable? Should luxury good companies be required to have store fronts in inner cities? I’m legitimately not sure I’m comfortable with either answer. “Women / older people are unlikely to respond to this ad; so we’ll have a better ROI by excluding those groups” feels awkward but like a legitimate business interest. If I sell male hygiene products can I exclude women from seeing the ads, not because I don’t like women but because the ad is less likely to be relevant? “I don’t want to work with women or older people so I’ll not show them the ad” feels unquestionably wrong.
    - Lukeas14 7y ago
      I think that's the main reason why buying an ad in Cosmo is different from buying a targeted Facebook ad in terms of discrimination. Cosmo might be written with women in mind but anybody can go and buy it. But it's pretty much impossible for someone who identifies as a man on Facebook to see ads that are only targeted towards women. The Facebook example is more similar to a real estate agent who only shows certain properties to white families.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    When you're discriminating illegally, it doesn't usually matter whether it's possible for someone to subvert your discrimination.
  - wesammikhail 7y ago
    Serious question: How is that relevant though? Here is how I think about it: If my intention is to discriminate against men and publish an ad in a female magazine, sure, I cant control if a man buys and sees the ad or not. But discrimination was my intention to begin with regardless of how effective my efforts were. Besides, those efforts will be pretty effective. Instead of magazine advertising being 100% effective - as is in the case of FB targeted advertising - they will be just slightly less effective (lets say 90% or w/e number you want to put here). That´s because in the magazine´s case we know for certain that that vast majority of female magazine consumption is done by women - That´s literally what they are made for. So in a sense, we are arguing about degrees of effectiveness rather than the nature of discrimination. Not only is this a slippery slope, but imo it flips everything in business on its head as having a target audience for your product or a service will be considered discriminatory!
    - heavyset_go 7y ago
      > Not only is this a slippery slope, but imo it flips everything in business on its head as having a target audience for your product or a service will be considered discriminatory! No, it doesn't. If you determine that your target audience watches BET, and you decide to only advertise your product on BET, that's 100% legal. If you prevented anyone but your target audience from using your service, and you end up discriminating against a protected class, that's a different story. There are entirely different standards when it comes to hiring and employment.
    - dlp211 7y ago
      Facebook is way more like a newspaper than a target demo periodical but even when you put the Ad in Cosmo, you pay for the Ad impression no matter who views the Ad. You, as the advertiser have no control over that impression.
    - caf 7y ago
      If it were common for, say, nursing positions to be advertised in Cosmo, then presumably male nurses looking for work would know this and be able to buy that magazine.
    - scarface74 7y ago
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  You hire people through ads in Cosmo? I doubt that.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't think the original comment was asking about employment discrimination specifically. I've seen a lot of people get confused on this topic, and end up thinking it's illegal to discriminate by gender on any advertising at all.
- analog31 7y ago
  The targeted ads in question relate to employment, which is governed by standards for what kinds of discrimination are legal and illegal.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Ok, so are you allowed to place employment ads in Cosmo? Is it Ok just because it’s overwhelming likely to be women who see it, versus algorithmically targeting women?
    - gbear605 7y ago
      That is how it works legally, yes.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        No, that is not how it works. > The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. [0] [0] https://www.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/ https://www.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/
        nl 7y ago
        Are you a lawyer? I'm not. But I don't believe you are right - advertising in a magazine doesn't exclude people just because their demographic doesn't target them. If you ran a job ad for a make-up person in women's magazine there is nothing stopping a man who is also interested in make up seeing it and applying. That is different to the Facebook system, where there was no way for someone from the excluded classes to see the ad.
        7y ago
- kjs3 7y ago
  Are you actually equating placing ads for makeup or intimates with placing ads for a job? You are the very definition of the problem.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Not really, because it's a question of principle: is it okay to target to a specific demographic, or not; and does that vary based on whether we are discussing a legally-protected class? The significance of what is being advertised doesn't exactly change the definition of right and wrong. If we're being honest, cosmo is probably as accurate a filtering mechanism for white, middle-aged, middle-class women as facebook could be. The issue seems to be when people _exclude_ certain groups, rather than when people _target_ specific ones; i.e. I can filter for middle-aged white guys for testosterone-boosting pills, but most would balk at filtering _out_ blacks, young people, etc. for rental ads. The question is, is there an ethical difference, and why? I think all of us can agree that a cosmo ad for women is fine, and tossing out a black guy's resume is not; the question is where is that line, and why? These sorts of technologies are bringing us closer to either side, so it's relevant to figure out where it is.
    - kjs3 7y ago
      Quit conflating the issue. The poster you're defending (and, frankly, the whole argument) was trying to make the point that "targeted ads", as a category and devoid of context, was a good thing because you reach the target you want to reach. Fair enough. But if it's an employment ad, and you only want to reach upper class white males, well, that's discrimination. Period. If your "principles" enable that, well there you go.
      - big_chungus 7y ago
        Conflating the issue with what? Let's take the flip side. Pretend I am one of the many companies which have adopted discriminatory hiring practices in favor of certain minorities. I want to hire more of said minorities. I target facebook ads towards them. Is that any better or worse? As far as I'm concerned, they are the same; but many people I know would say that's fine.

It's not, though. When I buy a page in Cosmo or something, I'm doing that with the intent and result that mostly women will see it. If targeted ads were illegal, it's hard to see how any publication with non-representative demographics could sell ads at all.

mav3rick 7y ago
Yes but you don't control if a man or an old person can buy the magazine or not.
- air7 7y ago
  While true, its a bit of a nitpick and misses the point GP made.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    not really, because people are aware of the fact that they're going to find say, women targeted ads in cosmo, so they can seek them out. The 'discrimination' in this case is simply aggregate consumer preference, every individual outlier still gets precisely the content and ads they want. If facebook displays housing ads only to white people a black person is very likely not even aware that they're being discriminated against in some specific way, the entire control is in the hands of facebook and the ad buyer, and intransparent. The situation would be equivalent if facebook gave you complete control over their algorithm and let you choose what type of ads you want to be exposed to. Which would make discrimination much less of an issue. Or the other way around, the current facebook situation would be akin to the store owner quickly cutting the housing ads out of cosmo as soon as black people walk into the store.
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    No. If you place an ad on Facebook for housing and choose to exclude people who identify as "black", there's no way for those people to find your ad, save for creating a new Facebook account and pretending to be white. Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of Ebony magazine. It's targeted, but it's not exclusive.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      Is it really any better to make people choose just really good proxies for their intended audience which theoretically anyone could be a member of but in practice is not that way? And if this isn’t really any better, where does that leave you?
      - nkrisc 7y ago
        Where else would you draw the line? I don't think what I described is a real problem in practice. Housing and jobs are often advertised in rather neutral publications, not special interest ones. But what Facebook enables goes beyond targeting based on interest, it's explicitly exclusionary. If your local newspaper could print a special edition for minority subscribers that didn't include job listings, that would be a problem. Advertising in a special interest publication is not, on its own, a problem. Of course there's no clear lines in reality, everything must be evaluated in context.
    - sturgill 7y ago
      But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people? I honestly don’t know where I come down on this issue: it feels different to say, “we have a better ROI if we exclude certain demographics from seeing our ads” than to say “black people can’t eat at this diner.” Let’s take a company like REI: is it wrong for them to put their stores in places that are most profitable? Should luxury good companies be required to have store fronts in inner cities? I’m legitimately not sure I’m comfortable with either answer. “Women / older people are unlikely to respond to this ad; so we’ll have a better ROI by excluding those groups” feels awkward but like a legitimate business interest. If I sell male hygiene products can I exclude women from seeing the ads, not because I don’t like women but because the ad is less likely to be relevant? “I don’t want to work with women or older people so I’ll not show them the ad” feels unquestionably wrong.
  - Lukeas14 7y ago
    I think that's the main reason why buying an ad in Cosmo is different from buying a targeted Facebook ad in terms of discrimination. Cosmo might be written with women in mind but anybody can go and buy it. But it's pretty much impossible for someone who identifies as a man on Facebook to see ads that are only targeted towards women. The Facebook example is more similar to a real estate agent who only shows certain properties to white families.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  When you're discriminating illegally, it doesn't usually matter whether it's possible for someone to subvert your discrimination.
- wesammikhail 7y ago
  Serious question: How is that relevant though? Here is how I think about it: If my intention is to discriminate against men and publish an ad in a female magazine, sure, I cant control if a man buys and sees the ad or not. But discrimination was my intention to begin with regardless of how effective my efforts were. Besides, those efforts will be pretty effective. Instead of magazine advertising being 100% effective - as is in the case of FB targeted advertising - they will be just slightly less effective (lets say 90% or w/e number you want to put here). That´s because in the magazine´s case we know for certain that that vast majority of female magazine consumption is done by women - That´s literally what they are made for. So in a sense, we are arguing about degrees of effectiveness rather than the nature of discrimination. Not only is this a slippery slope, but imo it flips everything in business on its head as having a target audience for your product or a service will be considered discriminatory!
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    > Not only is this a slippery slope, but imo it flips everything in business on its head as having a target audience for your product or a service will be considered discriminatory! No, it doesn't. If you determine that your target audience watches BET, and you decide to only advertise your product on BET, that's 100% legal. If you prevented anyone but your target audience from using your service, and you end up discriminating against a protected class, that's a different story. There are entirely different standards when it comes to hiring and employment.
  - dlp211 7y ago
    Facebook is way more like a newspaper than a target demo periodical but even when you put the Ad in Cosmo, you pay for the Ad impression no matter who views the Ad. You, as the advertiser have no control over that impression.
  - caf 7y ago
    If it were common for, say, nursing positions to be advertised in Cosmo, then presumably male nurses looking for work would know this and be able to buy that magazine.
  - scarface74 7y ago
anigbrowl 7y ago
You hire people through ads in Cosmo? I doubt that.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't think the original comment was asking about employment discrimination specifically. I've seen a lot of people get confused on this topic, and end up thinking it's illegal to discriminate by gender on any advertising at all.
analog31 7y ago
The targeted ads in question relate to employment, which is governed by standards for what kinds of discrimination are legal and illegal.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Ok, so are you allowed to place employment ads in Cosmo? Is it Ok just because it’s overwhelming likely to be women who see it, versus algorithmically targeting women?
  - gbear605 7y ago
    That is how it works legally, yes.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      No, that is not how it works. > The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. [0] [0] https://www.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/ https://www.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/
      - nl 7y ago
        Are you a lawyer? I'm not. But I don't believe you are right - advertising in a magazine doesn't exclude people just because their demographic doesn't target them. If you ran a job ad for a make-up person in women's magazine there is nothing stopping a man who is also interested in make up seeing it and applying. That is different to the Facebook system, where there was no way for someone from the excluded classes to see the ad.
        7y ago
kjs3 7y ago
Are you actually equating placing ads for makeup or intimates with placing ads for a job? You are the very definition of the problem.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Not really, because it's a question of principle: is it okay to target to a specific demographic, or not; and does that vary based on whether we are discussing a legally-protected class? The significance of what is being advertised doesn't exactly change the definition of right and wrong. If we're being honest, cosmo is probably as accurate a filtering mechanism for white, middle-aged, middle-class women as facebook could be. The issue seems to be when people _exclude_ certain groups, rather than when people _target_ specific ones; i.e. I can filter for middle-aged white guys for testosterone-boosting pills, but most would balk at filtering _out_ blacks, young people, etc. for rental ads. The question is, is there an ethical difference, and why? I think all of us can agree that a cosmo ad for women is fine, and tossing out a black guy's resume is not; the question is where is that line, and why? These sorts of technologies are bringing us closer to either side, so it's relevant to figure out where it is.
  - kjs3 7y ago
    Quit conflating the issue. The poster you're defending (and, frankly, the whole argument) was trying to make the point that "targeted ads", as a category and devoid of context, was a good thing because you reach the target you want to reach. Fair enough. But if it's an employment ad, and you only want to reach upper class white males, well, that's discrimination. Period. If your "principles" enable that, well there you go.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Conflating the issue with what? Let's take the flip side. Pretend I am one of the many companies which have adopted discriminatory hiring practices in favor of certain minorities. I want to hire more of said minorities. I target facebook ads towards them. Is that any better or worse? As far as I'm concerned, they are the same; but many people I know would say that's fine.