10 ms·
Credit Card Ads Targeted by Age, Violating Facebook’s Anti-Discrimination Policy
- jimmaswell 5y agoI really don't see why it should be illegal or even morally questionable at all to target ads at young or old people. It's what everyone already does with extra steps (TV timeslots, picking certain magazines) and it doesn't make sense to make a company waste money including 20 year olds in their Medicare supplement ad targeting.
- kube-system 5y agoI feel like it depends on the product. There are, for instance, more strict laws regarding the ways that financial institutions can lend money because of historical issues with unfair discrimination. And regarding things like that, it makes a lot of sense. https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal-credit-opportunity-rights https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal-credit...
- reaperducer 5y agoI really don't see why it should be illegal or even morally questionable at all to target ads at young or old people. It's not. But what you're positing is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Nobody says you have to advertise toys in AARP Magazine. But there are federal rules governing the advertising of certain products, such as credit cards. That's what's happening here.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Natsu 5y agoThis one really confused me, too. Can kids even get credit cards?
- AuryGlenz 5y agoI got one when I was 12, but that was also 20 years ago now. It was a business card and had a credit limit of $8,000. My parents weren’t on the card. It confused me then almost as much as it confuses me now. Maybe their income counted as household income? I got it because they didn’t like to use their credit cards online. I used it to buy my own PC.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ChrisRR 5y agoJesus, how can you allow a 12 year old to rack up $8000 in debt?
- Bjartr 5y agoUltimately, I don't think minors can legally enter such a contract, so if he did rack up debt and the card company pursued it, it might have been dismissable if his age then came to light.
- AuryGlenz 5y agoWell, that could have been a fun spree. They must have asked my date of birth, though.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- vxNsr 5y agoYou signed up online or in person at a bank? What did you say your “business” was?
- AuryGlenz 5y agoThis was long enough ago that I believe it was over the phone, and I don't remember. I wonder if I squeaked.
- clort 5y agoWhat I think is different about targeted online advertising is that the ads targeted at specific groups may never be visible to other groups. A company can outright lie to a pre-selected group who they consider do not have the knowledge, skill or time to counter the lies. There is a non-zero chance that TV timeslots are seen by people not in the targeted group. A billboard in a school zone may have a high chance of being seen by naive young moms but the canny young moms will also see it, along with dads and grandparents picking up kids, not to mention hundreds of other people who live and work in the area. > it doesn't make sense to make a company waste money except it does, to keep them accountable
- cheph 5y agoI get outright scam ads on YouTube, from YouTube once a week at least, and nothing ever happens to make them stop because I don't care enough to invest the insane amount of effort it will take to reach someone at YouTube that would care enough to stop it. And then the next outright scam add will pop up. So I am not sure by what mechanism this accountability functions if it can't stop blatant scams on YouTube adds.
- MathCodeLove 5y agoYou can report them fairly quickly, there should be a "report" button directly on/under the ad itself. I'm not sure how effective it is at stopping these sort of ads, but it is a step you can easily take.
- gnud 5y agoI've never reported a Youtube ad, but I have reported two Facebook ads that lied in their displayed URL. The the ads were for scummy "wonder-supplements", but displayed the URL of a newspaper that had nothing to do with the ad, I guess to try and get some legitimacy. I couldn't write what was wrong with the ad in my report, only choose from some very broad categories, and both the reports were rejected with "ad is not in voilation of our guidelines". I've stopped reporting lying Facebook ads. And I doubt Google does this much better.
- 5y ago
- ksec 5y agoModern day politics thinks All Tracking and Targeting are morally wrong. And anything against that are politically incorrect. This isn't just Twitter or Social Media, it is mainstream media also painting the same picture. A perception question: if the New York Times records every story I read on the site in the last month as a registered user, and uses that to determine what ads it shows me, is that 'tracking'? Out of 5,877 vote, 83% thinks that is "tracking". Which means in the modern day perception, any observation with regards to its user or anyone will be considered as "tracking". Which violate their privacy. The modern day usage of "privacy" has been twisted to mean more like anonymous. All thanks to Apple's PR.
- Bjartr 5y agoHow is recording, as you put it, distinct from tracking?
- ksec 5y agoLet's assume they are the same in literal sense. The problem is the current trend is about Zero Tracking, which means in the above example NYT could not even record the article their user have read on their site. And it was a poll from Benedict Evans. [1], Thanks to him there is at least some sanity still on the internet. [1] https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387414650443141120 https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1387414650443141120
- Nasrudith 5y agoIt is an overly broad and reductive concept but there is an implicit carve out - if it is literally required for the function. Putting aside the protocol captain obvious level of "a computer needs to know when your IP address asked for it to send the webpage to you" level, an online store with no tracking of transactions would be a useless mock up. No payments would be placed nor orders delivered.
- paul_f 5y agoWhat if Facebook created a look-alike audience for a reverse mortgage product, and turns out it never showed it to anyone under 30. Did facebook just violate their own policy? But it's OK because an algorithm did it?
- avalys 5y ago"Someone used the internet to do something illegal." This is not really news. "Someone used this specific product on the internet to do something illegal." Still not really news. "Some small business you've never heard of used an iPhone to do something illegal" I don't think this would have gotten any coverage. "Someone used Facebook to do something illegal." Why is this news? "You have these instances in which but for Facebook’s algorithms steering these opportunities away, someone may have been able to get one of these life-changing opportunities from a business that would have given it to them.” This is sort of a load of crap, given that we're talking about advertising. These same people probably turn right around and complain about "predatory advertisers" maliciously offering dangerous credit cards to disadvantaged groups. And why isn't this guy upset at the people in these companies who are making the illegal targeting decisions in the first place, as opposed to FB? As far as I can see the only thing FB failed to do here is fail to automatically detect that the subject matter of these specific advertisements were subject to a legal restriction on targeting that doesn't apply in the general case. EDIT: In fact upon further review it's not even clear to me that any of the behavior described here is actually illegal. Targeting advertising is not the same as discrimination in making credit decisions, which is the only thing actually identified as illegal in the article. The article only says that this is against FB policy and mentions some kind of a civil lawsuit and settlement.
- eganist 5y agoThough I see your argument, I feel you've abstracted the message too far, thus stripping it of its meaning and making your implied analogy falter. "[corporation] did something [illegal and morally reprehensible]" tends to get lots of news regardless of the method. Credit card providers fit the bill as corporations, and discrimination by age fits the bill for falling afoul of both laws and current established morals. Facebook only adds salt to the wound because their toolkit enables it so readily.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- runarberg 5y agoOne grain of sand does not make a pile. Adding one more grain of sand still doesn’t make it a pile. Keep adding grains, any one grain will not make a pile. Yet after a lot of grains you still have a pile. I think you are engaging in the same kind of fallacy. The individual grains that make a pile might be insignificant, but the pile definitely is. After you’ve spotted that you have a pile it is of interest to know how the grains got there. Facebook is definitely a pile. What Facebook does adds to the pile, what people do with Facebook adds to the pile. Seeing this pile and seeing people keep adding to it is worthy of interest.
- grayhatter 5y agoI think any company should be able to target ads by age. The Ad a teenager would click on is different than one a 40something would click on. Ads are expensive, so it makes sense to target the ad to make it relevant to the user. Facebook clearly does have a bug here, where they didn't warn the ad buyer that they were excluding an age range. Someone operating in good faith could have one ad for 18-29, another for 31-40, and one for 41 and up. According to the 'outrage' this is highly illegal. But clearly a simple mistake, an off by one error if you would :D. Facebook knows you don't want to excluded anyone, so they should warn about the excluded age range. No matter where it shows up. Also, is advertising to (demographic) most likely to buy your service really exclusion/discrimination? To the level of a crime? I'm unconvinced I agree it should be.
- robin_reala 5y agoI don’t think any ad company should be able to target people based on their age. I think ad companies should be able to target based on their context. If the context is primarily younger people then you’ll hit your market, but won’t exclude the odd older person that is also interested.
- 3np 5y agoWhat about recreational drugs (incl tobacco and alcohol), gambling, adult entertainment, etc? Surely those should not be targeted at minors.
- cerved 5y agovice advertising is typically regulated in a different manner, excluding minors for example
- vineyardmike 5y agoGenerally, targeting minors is treated differently in discrimination cases as a whole.
- lostlogin 5y ago> What about recreational drugs (incl tobacco and alcohol) Alcohol and tobacco advertising is banned or massively regulated in most countries. Facebook circumvents rules in various places due to their media platform being newer than the rules or because Facebook just sort of ignores the rule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marke... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_advertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_advertising https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/28/1/67 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/28/1/67
- rconti 5y agoI was so perplexed because I thought maybe they weren't targeting people under age 25 specifically because of some kind of anti-predation-of-young-people regulation. I could just as easily seen an outrage that Facebook was showing credit card ads to 12 year olds.
- astura 5y agoSpecifically excluding minors from viewing ads for financial products wouldn't be illegal according to the wikipedia quoted above >unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of [...] age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); Minors don't have the capacity to contract.
- cm2012 5y agoFB actually has a really strict automated blocker on ads it thinks are in protected categories. Regular ads get flagged falsely all the time. So if FB missed some it's not for lack of trying.
- intricatedetail 5y agoIf they have billions at their disposal, then that sounds a bit lame. Just trying shouldn't be enough.
- rahulsbisen 5y agoBillions dont solve hard problems at scale. People and investment over time do. This is why we don't have fully automated self driving cars or cancer cured even with billions invested.
- BBC-vs-neolibs 5y agoI don't understand. So invest the billions in people?
- bigbillheck 5y ago> Billions dont solve hard problems at scale. People and investment over time do Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y agoWhat I don't get is, why is it a problem that young adults don't get told to get credit cards enough? I get and agree that the companies shouldn't discriminate by age, as in turn away people who are of legal age to buy the product or service. But is it really discrimination to not urge everyone equally much to buy it?
- mrweasel 5y agoIn this case it seems to go both ways. Some credit card products are only advertised to younger people, while others are targeted at people above a certain age. I don’t really see the issue, age is just used at a rough way of filtering out those who aren’t the target consumer.
- intricatedetail 5y agoYou can't control your age just like you can't control your skin colour. Ageism is akin to racism (however an exception for adult only products should be in place)
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y agoWithout any evidence that they actually turn away non-target customers it seems like a stretch to call age-targeted advertising 'ageism'. Could you perhaps elaborate on this?
- mrweasel 5y agoThat’s a fair point, but some product just aren’t relevant for people beyond certain age ranges. Age isn’t used to discriminate, it just a cost control by not showing ads to people who won’t react to it anyway. To some extend all targetted ads are discriminating if we want to go that route.
- MathCodeLove 5y agoI don't buy this in the context of advertising. If a company selling do-rag's or haircare products for the hair type found in most black people targeted primarily black Americans would that be racism? No. Not in the malicious sense of the word at least. That should be perfectly within their rights as an organization.
- tareqak 5y agoThe Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) is a United States law (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted 28 October 1974,[1] that makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);[2] to the fact that all or part of the applicant's income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. [a] The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a piece of California legislation that specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. [b] [a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act [b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
- cheph 5y ago> discriminate against any applicant Does someone who has not applied but that you are just advertising to count as an applicant?
- nulbyte 5y agoNot a lawyer, but a bank employee. Steering a potential customer toward or away from a product or products on a protected basis, including in marketing materials, is a huge no-no.
- geoduck14 5y agoThis right here should be the top comment. There is nothing else worth reading in this thread. Good job.
- supernova87a 5y agoI mean, I get it, but isn't it also just a little ridiculous to think that someone lending money would not legitimately want to use a measure of creditworthiness, which might have some correlation with age? Credit score (or credit worthiness) is an indicator or reflection of how likely someone has been to pay his/her debts over time. You want a measure that indicates some track record to not have any correlation with someone's age? That's almost as nonsensical and headscratch-worthy as the job listings that ask for 5 years of experience in <xyz> for an entry level position. Sometimes trying to be so fair, you throw intelligence out the window.
- ehnto 5y agoDid I miss something, I thought Facebook sold advertising based on cohorts? That's surely just as discriminating? I seem to remember age ranges being part of that as well, but even without that specificity a cohort will naturally select for cultural groupings, which will include delineations like age, race, social standing etc.
- ttt0 5y agoI, for one, welcome every advertiser to discriminate against me on whatever basis they want and don't show me any ads.
- Grustaf 5y agoI thought targeting ads to specific demographics was the entire point of facebook. Besides, excluding young people when hawking a credit product seems like a good thing.
- Mindwipe 5y agoFacebook has an age discrimination policy? Because I get advertising from insurance companies based on my age literally every day (explicitly saying "premiums will go up massively on your next birthday" and calling out my age specifically).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- exabrial 5y agoTargeting by age is not discrimination; do you want me to send credit card ads to 12-year-olds? Now if they go directly to your site and apply, that is a much different story.
- whoknew1122 5y agoIf you're making determinations on whether to show an ad to someone based on their age, you're literally discriminating based on age. Like, that's the definition of the word. You're treating different categories of things (i.e. people) differently based on a characteristic (i.e. age). Not only are you discriminating, you're discriminating against a protected class. Now to handle your absurd question about sending credit card ads to children: Facebook policies already cover this. From Facebook's advertising policies: Facebook prohibits advertisers from using our ads products to discriminate against people. This means that advertisers may not (1) use our audience selection tools to (a) wrongfully target specific groups of people for advertising (see Advertising Policy 7.1 on Targeting), or (b) wrongfully exclude specific groups of people from seeing their ads; or (2) include discriminatory content in their ads. Advertisers are also required to comply with applicable laws that prohibit discrimination (see Advertising Policy 4.2 on Illegal Products or Services). These include laws that prohibit discriminating against groups of people in connection with, for example, offers of housing, employment, and credit. --- Obviously not sending ads to 12 years wouldn't be wrongful discrimination, since minors can't enter into legally binding contracts. But to be clear, not sending ads to 12 years is discrimination. It's just not considered wrongful.
- exabrial 5y agoUm. Ok.
- fidesomnes 5y agoDiscrimination means choice. Faceboogers Anti-Choice Policy is going to cause lots of handwringing. The only important implication for society is if any attorneys can make money off of this, that is the most important part of anti-discrimination policies.
- moistbar 5y agoYou have to be 18 to get a credit card though. Are they supposed to start marketing them to children now?
- astura 5y agoNo, the law covers this. >unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of [...] age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract) Children don't have the capacity to contract, so excluding them is lawful.