Facebook lets advertisers exclude users by race(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Facebook lets advertisers exclude users by race
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race/
20 comments
FB claims that they don't leak information about the user, other than for advertising purposes, but is this really the case?
Here's how information leaks: if I want to know which people have an affinity with (e.g.) cats, I could target these users on facebook, and then use an advertisement where I sell (e.g.) coffee. Now, as a seller, I know if people click on the coffee link, these people are likely to be cat lovers.
So FB cannot claim that the information stays within their premises.
Of course the same holds for Google and others.
Hence all targeted advertisements should be made illegal until this problem is fixed. Good luck! :)
Here's how information leaks: if I want to know which people have an affinity with (e.g.) cats, I could target these users on facebook, and then use an advertisement where I sell (e.g.) coffee. Now, as a seller, I know if people click on the coffee link, these people are likely to be cat lovers.
So FB cannot claim that the information stays within their premises.
Of course the same holds for Google and others.
Hence all targeted advertisements should be made illegal until this problem is fixed. Good luck! :)
About same thing as putting your ad to a paper whose readers belong to a certain demographic group or just posting it to the country club notice board.
Are there still news papers and country clubs with an apartheid policy?
Pretty sure this has been done by gender for a long time but perhaps that was just by content categories...
I see no problem here. There aren't excluding certain races from purchasing their products, merely excluding them from seeing the advertising for it.
If I'm a white male, why would I want to see advertisements for skincare products designed for African-American women?
The advertisers would lose money as well, because instead of advertising to me, they could advertise it to someone that has a higher chance of clicking/buying.
I also find it a little hypocritical that users regularly use adblock toward websites they dislike (could be political or racial)..and this is allowed.
If I'm a white male, why would I want to see advertisements for skincare products designed for African-American women?
The advertisers would lose money as well, because instead of advertising to me, they could advertise it to someone that has a higher chance of clicking/buying.
I also find it a little hypocritical that users regularly use adblock toward websites they dislike (could be political or racial)..and this is allowed.
You can't make a racist housing ad and then defend yourself by saying you're not actually blocking people by race. The racist ad is a crime in itself.
I am having a hard time understanding how an add can be racist. How is not wanting to show/pay for ads to one demographic or another?
If those that are most likely to purchase my product are of a certain race, age, or location I am going to focus my resources there.
If those that are most likely to purchase my product are of a certain race, age, or location I am going to focus my resources there.
In this case there would be a clear motivation to exclude people of a certain race from living in your buildings.
The ad content may be neutral, but the person performing the act of advertisement is racist.
How about a newspaper ad that tells people to tell their white friends about some great housing? Technically those people down the chain are performing non-racist advertisements, but only to their white friends.
You couldn't tell a bunch of people this, so why could you tell a newspaper staffer to do this?
The ad content may be neutral, but the person performing the act of advertisement is racist.
How about a newspaper ad that tells people to tell their white friends about some great housing? Technically those people down the chain are performing non-racist advertisements, but only to their white friends.
You couldn't tell a bunch of people this, so why could you tell a newspaper staffer to do this?
Because you might have African-American girlfriend?
But do the statistics support advertising to all white males in order to convert the white males that both have African-American girlfriends and are educated enough about her hygiene habits/preferences to suggest/buy this cream for her?
I think that there are likely to be some products/services that would benefit from advertising based on race. Most products/services would likely benefit more from advertising based on culture though (since a single race can comprise of many cultures).
I think that there are likely to be some products/services that would benefit from advertising based on race. Most products/services would likely benefit more from advertising based on culture though (since a single race can comprise of many cultures).
Possibly, but the advertiser might already know that the chances are still lower that they would get clicks/buys and they have to pay for every click on Facebook.
It shouldn't really be up to you to decide.
It shouldn't really be up to you to decide.
Obviously not a lawyer but however you feel about it I don't think this technically violates the fair housing act by the letter of the law.
The advertisement itself(as seen by the public) does not indicate "any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin."
Rather, who is shown the advertisement is limited. You can argue that targeted advertising should be illegal in certain circumstances, but AFAIK there are currently no laws governing it.
The advertisement itself(as seen by the public) does not indicate "any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin."
Rather, who is shown the advertisement is limited. You can argue that targeted advertising should be illegal in certain circumstances, but AFAIK there are currently no laws governing it.
I'm struggling with this comment. The article is a conversation answering this very question. A lawyer thinks it does violate the Act, because the Act makes this form of "targeted advertising" illegal.
I might of course disagree with that assessment, but I would defer to a lawyer to make a case why it wouldn't be illegal.
I might of course disagree with that assessment, but I would defer to a lawyer to make a case why it wouldn't be illegal.
There is a single quote from a single lawyer and all it says is that he thinks it is a violation. There is nothing from the lawyer concerning targeted advertising specifically. From my point of view, he saw the UI screenshot and screamed that it was a violation without any further research (the article backs this up since it says he gasped and immediately responded).
I don't find that a very convincing legal assessment and the article seems to assume that it is violating the act due to that statement with no proof or reasoning backing it up.
Edit: To me, this is no different from choosing to mail advertisements to various zip codes or neighborhoods based on demographics.
I don't find that a very convincing legal assessment and the article seems to assume that it is violating the act due to that statement with no proof or reasoning backing it up.
Edit: To me, this is no different from choosing to mail advertisements to various zip codes or neighborhoods based on demographics.
You admit you are not a lawyer, but give and prefer your own opinion on it over that of someone who is a lawyer in the relevant field, and when confronted with the opinion of the lawyer in the relevant field you choose the least charitable explanation of how that lawyer came to give the opinion, in order to continue preferring your view over the lawyer's.
But tech people don't have blind spots or problems when it comes to issues like race, nope, no sir.
But tech people don't have blind spots or problems when it comes to issues like race, nope, no sir.
The law apparently makes it illegal to create an ad which expresses any preference for a specific racial group. I would assume his argument is that by being invisible to a certain racial group, you are expressing a preference against them.
I see. Thanks for explaining your position.
This is clearly discrimination: they literally excluded people based on ethnicity.
It'll be interesting to see if Facebook is financially liable for discrimination in ads. Unlike the NYT, Facebook built the tools to discriminate. Filtering the ads also gives an advantage to NYT (and Youtube, etc..) by raising the markets barrier to entry.
It'll be interesting to see if Facebook is financially liable for discrimination in ads. Unlike the NYT, Facebook built the tools to discriminate. Filtering the ads also gives an advantage to NYT (and Youtube, etc..) by raising the markets barrier to entry.
Regardless of specific laws and statutes this may violate, it's an affront to every part of the progress we've made as a species. In my country, South Africa, this tool seems to be literally against the constitutional principles (Chapter 2, ss 9, 3-4).
Regardless of moral or legal questions even, do we not need to query what the societal cost is of allowing corporations to be facile and duplicitous, automatically, at the scale of enterprises like Facebook?