3 ms·

Wait so someone at Meta entered somewhere that this person is gay? Or was this based on, say, cookies and general browsing habits? I think of the story where T

Wait so someone at Meta entered somewhere that this person is gay? Or was this based on, say, cookies and general browsing habits? I think of the story where Target was pushing diaper ads on someone before her dad (maybe even her?) knew she was pregnant

AStonesThrow 2y ago
Sure, Schrems' claims seem to hinge on the fact that the only evidence of direct self-identification by Schrems is that one instance of a verbal claim on a panel discussion. (That is not how sexual orientation works, by the way: it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests...) But if advertising works on a recommendation engine basis, or groups similar tastes together, then if someone uses the Meta platform enough, there will be circumstancial evidence that this person's interests and activities coincide with other gay people. Perhaps the merit of the case rested with Schrems barely using Meta/FB, not providing any direct data or engagement, and only to discover that advertising was targeted. Of course, Meta is a vast platform, including comments sections and widgets and third-party cookies across many websites. But Meta takes Meta's privacy very seriously, so perhaps nobody but the court will ever see what Meta and their partners learned about Schrems, or how they learned it.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > Perhaps the merit of the case rested with If only the AP had gone web-first instead of staying legacy, we'd all probably be able to just follow a link to the actual case information instead of having to guess.
- froh 2y ago
  > it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests. nit: did you mean conduct (which connotes moral principles) or did you mean plain behaviour (which doesn't lump what you do together with if it's "right" or "wrong", according to some but maybe not some other rulebook)
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    It's the difference between mere claims and actual being/status. Does Meta differentiate these when processing personal data? Does Meta seek truth/evidence? Does Meta weight inferences accordingly? does Meta accept subject's claims about self at face-value?
    - froh 2y ago
      I see. so there are _two_ replies necessary here. first, to your question above, repeated here. indeed meta "guesses" your age, gender identity, sexual orientation, political party affiliation, stance on various political issues, and many other traits, consumer profile and all. and meta guesses this from your interaction with your feed, from what you like or dislike and what you share and don't share, and where you comment in or don't. and it's accurate enough for your their purpose, placing content you'll positively react to, positive solely in the sense of those buying the content placement. that's the meta ad business. have profiles that are good enough to allow content targeting. is it scientific, fully spot on, diagnostically sound? hell no. is it good enough to overturn Britain (brexit...) or get trump im office? you bet. that's the first question, and the one you ask here and above. the second is what I'm talking about in my nit. it's about assumed and hypothesized nuances of gayness, and the language to express those nuances. and what I'm saying is that the concepts of "only gay feelings, attractions" vs "living by it" are a moral concepts. in other words, the language, the words in the questions you've posted imply, carry, a good and evil dichotomy. and I point that out and reject it. you are not less gay if you are closeted and suppress that trait. "oh I don't _do_ gay things, I 'only' am attracted to men, but I wouldn't allow myself to actually fall in love" is being gay, period. closeted. self-suppressing. but: gay. claiming you were only gay when you kissed may be an environmental necessity (oppressive states or affiliations) I give you that. but being gay is about attraction. fun fact: social sciences measure it by measuring arousal. if gay content turns you on, you're gay, scientifically speaking. simples.
      - AStonesThrow 2y ago
        Well, this case seemed to hinge on a single public self-identification vs. those accurate inferences. So your people, and my people, and Facebook, and the EU, may all have differing standards on what "being gay" means. But you would agree that a verbal assertion on a panel discussion would not necessarily be accurate or diagnostic. I would also suggest that it's not a "yes/no" binary as you imply; many terms are left ambiguous and subjective; and my people would say that "orientation" may change over time or based on situation. I don't know what you'd consider "gay content", but if you mean "Bewitched" or "The Wizard of Oz" or Marc Almond and The Smiths, then I must be gay as well, so where is my ad content?
- nprateem 2y ago
  > That is not how sexual orientation works, by the way The way it works according to this judgement seems to be that if you don't explicitly tell FB something, they can't use the data anyway for targetting ads. This sounds like it'll kill the vast majority of their inferred data points, as well as any ingested from 3rd parties. Sounds fair enough to me. Glad I sold my FB shares last month.
helsinkiandrew 2y ago
> Wait so someone at Meta entered somewhere that this person is gay? Or was this based on, say, cookies and general browsing habits? General browsing habits - he interacted with ‘gay content’ - websites, facebook groups etc. so could be targeted by advertisers that wanted their ads shown to people who interacted with that content. I don’t think FB have a gay checkbox for targeting now but advertisers can choose websites and FB groups. Im not sure if this ruling effectively kills FB targeted advertising using data from outside FB or just if you're gay or not

AStonesThrow 2y ago

Sure, Schrems' claims seem to hinge on the fact that the only evidence of direct self-identification by Schrems is that one instance of a verbal claim on a panel discussion. (That is not how sexual orientation works, by the way: it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests...) But if advertising works on a recommendation engine basis, or groups similar tastes together, then if someone uses the Meta platform enough, there will be circumstancial evidence that this person's interests and activities coincide with other gay people. Perhaps the merit of the case rested with Schrems barely using Meta/FB, not providing any direct data or engagement, and only to discover that advertising was targeted. Of course, Meta is a vast platform, including comments sections and widgets and third-party cookies across many websites. But Meta takes Meta's privacy very seriously, so perhaps nobody but the court will ever see what Meta and their partners learned about Schrems, or how they learned it.

tbrownaw 2y ago
> Perhaps the merit of the case rested with If only the AP had gone web-first instead of staying legacy, we'd all probably be able to just follow a link to the actual case information instead of having to guess.
froh 2y ago
> it necessarily involves conduct, activity or interests. nit: did you mean conduct (which connotes moral principles) or did you mean plain behaviour (which doesn't lump what you do together with if it's "right" or "wrong", according to some but maybe not some other rulebook)
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  It's the difference between mere claims and actual being/status. Does Meta differentiate these when processing personal data? Does Meta seek truth/evidence? Does Meta weight inferences accordingly? does Meta accept subject's claims about self at face-value?
  - froh 2y ago
    I see. so there are _two_ replies necessary here. first, to your question above, repeated here. indeed meta "guesses" your age, gender identity, sexual orientation, political party affiliation, stance on various political issues, and many other traits, consumer profile and all. and meta guesses this from your interaction with your feed, from what you like or dislike and what you share and don't share, and where you comment in or don't. and it's accurate enough for your their purpose, placing content you'll positively react to, positive solely in the sense of those buying the content placement. that's the meta ad business. have profiles that are good enough to allow content targeting. is it scientific, fully spot on, diagnostically sound? hell no. is it good enough to overturn Britain (brexit...) or get trump im office? you bet. that's the first question, and the one you ask here and above. the second is what I'm talking about in my nit. it's about assumed and hypothesized nuances of gayness, and the language to express those nuances. and what I'm saying is that the concepts of "only gay feelings, attractions" vs "living by it" are a moral concepts. in other words, the language, the words in the questions you've posted imply, carry, a good and evil dichotomy. and I point that out and reject it. you are not less gay if you are closeted and suppress that trait. "oh I don't _do_ gay things, I 'only' am attracted to men, but I wouldn't allow myself to actually fall in love" is being gay, period. closeted. self-suppressing. but: gay. claiming you were only gay when you kissed may be an environmental necessity (oppressive states or affiliations) I give you that. but being gay is about attraction. fun fact: social sciences measure it by measuring arousal. if gay content turns you on, you're gay, scientifically speaking. simples.
    - AStonesThrow 2y ago
      Well, this case seemed to hinge on a single public self-identification vs. those accurate inferences. So your people, and my people, and Facebook, and the EU, may all have differing standards on what "being gay" means. But you would agree that a verbal assertion on a panel discussion would not necessarily be accurate or diagnostic. I would also suggest that it's not a "yes/no" binary as you imply; many terms are left ambiguous and subjective; and my people would say that "orientation" may change over time or based on situation. I don't know what you'd consider "gay content", but if you mean "Bewitched" or "The Wizard of Oz" or Marc Almond and The Smiths, then I must be gay as well, so where is my ad content?
nprateem 2y ago
> That is not how sexual orientation works, by the way The way it works according to this judgement seems to be that if you don't explicitly tell FB something, they can't use the data anyway for targetting ads. This sounds like it'll kill the vast majority of their inferred data points, as well as any ingested from 3rd parties. Sounds fair enough to me. Glad I sold my FB shares last month.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago

> Wait so someone at Meta entered somewhere that this person is gay? Or was this based on, say, cookies and general browsing habits? General browsing habits - he interacted with ‘gay content’ - websites, facebook groups etc. so could be targeted by advertisers that wanted their ads shown to people who interacted with that content. I don’t think FB have a gay checkbox for targeting now but advertisers can choose websites and FB groups. Im not sure if this ruling effectively kills FB targeted advertising using data from outside FB or just if you're gay or not