Why Gay Men Are Worth So Much To Facebook

Barence writes "PC Pro has a feature on how social networks sold your privacy, which includes some interesting comparisons on the value of different demographics to Facebook. For example, an advert that targets everyone within a 10-mile radius of a medium-sized British town (Dorking) is valued at 28p per click by Facebook's advertising tool. However, targeting single gay men in the area with a preference for nightclubbing raises the price to 71p per click — 2.5x the price of targeting the general public. Such precise targeting also raises other issues. Whittling down ads to target such precise demographics can result in ads targeting as few as 20 people, making it theoretically possible to identify those targeted. 'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them,' says Paul Francis, scientific director of the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems."

Comments

What about ladyboys/shemales?

[MasterMan]

Why does everyone always just talk about heterosexuals and gays? What about ladyboys and shemales? They get no mention in western world, and everyone looks weirdly at them, while they are perfectly fine in many south east asian countries. People aren't against gays anymore, they are against shemales.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[jawtheshark]

Why would anyone be against shemales? They know best how to give head while at least superficially looking like females ;-)

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[MasterMan]

I know, but that is the general feel I've got when mentioning someone is a shemale. Now, I am not personally one, but I've both spend time casually (drinking beers out etc) and dated a few ladyboys, some of whom are way more cuter and beautiful than actual females. On top of that they are much more pleasant to be with and don't have crazy moments like women. They are also much less lazy than woman. And of course, best sex I've ever had with women has been with ladyboys.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[jawtheshark]

Too bad moderators didn't see the humor in my comment. Oh, well, sex and slashdot are an odd couple in the first place.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Why does everyone always just talk about heterosexuals and gays? What about ladyboys and shemales? They get no mention in western world, and everyone looks weirdly at them, while they are perfectly fine in many south east asian countries. People aren't against gays anymore, they are against shemales.

Shirley is that you?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

A hole is a...hole? Not for everyone.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[crazyjj]

I believe the current politically-correct terminology in the West is "transgendered." I do feel that is a bit of a broad tent, though.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[SuperKendall]

You'll have to excuse Slashdot, you have to understand that to many of us a shemale is uncomfortably close to a transporter accident, so it's bothering us at a primal geek level.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares? if they're associated with negative connotations, changing what people may call them (the arrogance of PC bs) doesn't help.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Asic Eng]

Well, unless Facebook has different rates for advertising specifically to ladyboys, they would be off topic in this discussion.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[jawtheshark]

+1, Funny... You owe me a new keyboard. Coffee, I swear... coffee. Nothing else...

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[TWX]

I think that it's more that outside of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, we generally expect that the girl-looking person we see to have the correct plumbing.

I've never pulled a Danny Bonaduce, but I could imagine the experience to be quite horrifying if caught completely unexpected.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[PatDev]

While I'm not sure what part of the world you're in, I know that a large portion of the slashdot readership resides in the USA. And here (possibly other places, but I can only reliably talk about here), male-to-female transsexuals are generally offended by the term "shemale". They seem to prefer either "trans-women", "MtF" or just "women". That may explain your -1 troll.

That said, it seems humorous to complain about how trans-erasure has kept people from acknowledging male-to-female transsexuals while also ignoring female-to-male transsexuals. At least trans-women are noticed because they are sexualized - trans-men seem almost wholly ignored in the populace.

But to answer your question more directly, the reason nobody talked about them in *this* article is because they are not a lucrative target market for advertisements. The homosexual male community is not targeted for advertisement because they are so numerous, but because the retail and marketing world believes that gay males spend a lot of money and, more importantly, influence the fashions and tastes of the heterosexual people surrounding them. Clothing stores see gay men as trend setters, so they believe that getting gay men to adopt their clothes will lead the heterosexual people to follow. Because of rampant discrimination and erasure, trans people are not perceived as having the same trend-setting appeal.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[MasterMan]

Why? If she looks nice, is nice and you have good time and sex with her, what's the problem?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[jythie]

Actually, in general, the trans community (US) wants nothing to do with such people, they are pretty ostracized and many trans peeps consider their very mention (not by just term, but their existence) to be offensive.. so they are generally not welcome under the 'transgendered' umbrella.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[larry bagina]

I think the "sex with 'her'" is the problem.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, like you wouldn't bang the living bejesus out of (choose any of the following, and go look them up in google image search):

Bailey Jay.
Bianca Freire.
Ana Paula Samadhi.
Patricia Araujo.
Sarina Valentina.

Sorry, "straight" boys, but I just made you question your rigid notions of "hurr durr finding anything without a pussy attractive means you're a faget." I'd take a tumble with any of those shemales before I'd get with, say, Sarah Jessica Parker, or Camryn Manheim (who both reportedly have the requisite lady parts to make me not a faget, but are far, far, far less attractive than the aforementioned shemales.)

Also, for the tough guys who think wanting something with a pussy is the only thing that makes you straight, go look up Buck Angel. I'll wait.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

that isn't true, they are both gay and straight, generally straight, just like the majority population.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Higgins_Boson]

The only thing making ladyboys "way more cuter" than actual females is your fetish for them.

No amount of surgery makes them look like actual females without extensive makeup and photo angles taken to compliment a feature or to exaggerate one.

I say this as someone who is not against gays or transgender people. In fact, I have many LGBT friends and even some in the family... so it's not a bias, just stating what I see. I guess much the same way you are, but your fetish is clouding your eyesight.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

While this was trollish, it touches on a valid point: it's not the gay demographic that's worth so much, it's any narrowly targeted regional demographic. The summary is worded as if gay men were the focus of the article, but it's just a single example culled out of a four-page article.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[mbkennel]

why are average guys also not perceived---entirely correctly---as having the same trend-setting appeal?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[KhabaLox]

broad tent

I see what you did there.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Americano]

"Dear Pot,

What you find attractive is an abhorrent abomination in God's sight. What I find attractive is objectively beautiful, and in no way subject to my own tastes, preferences, and biases.

Also, while I'm no queer, I do have some faggot friends, so I think this qualifies me to speak as an expert on gay stuff.

No homo!

Sincerely, Kettle."

You like girls. He likes trans-women. On an individual basis, I'd be perfectly inclined to grant him the point that some "ladyboys" are "way more cuter" than some "actual females" - I've been to Wal Mart, and I'm here to tell you, possessing a vagina is no guarantee you won't grow up to be an uggo. I've also seen Maury Povich and Jerry Springer, and know that sometimes, the only remark any of us would make on seeing a transgendered woman walking down the street would be, "Damn, what a cutie," because you wouldn't think they're transgendered, because they really are that passable.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an average guy... perhaps because we tend not to give much of a damn about the latest trend let alone about setting such trends? In the morning, I put on whatever shirt I manage to hit first when I stick my hand in the closet. When I go out or have some formal occasion I might actually check to see if the colors match somewhat, but that's about it.

Disclaimer: I'm an average *married* guy.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Americano]

Hey, while you were out, every advertisement featuring hot girls in bikins (with absolutely no relevance to body spray, cars, guns, energy drinks, music, or any other product they're used to sell) called - they want their broad brush back, they need to paint something.

This just in: If you run a gay nightclub, it is a better value to target your advertising at gay males who like clubbing. Also, if you sell refrigerators, it is a better value to target your advertising at people who don't live at the north pole. Also, if you sell ketchup popsicles, it is a better value to target your advertising at people who are not wearing white gloves.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[MasterMan]

The only thing making ladyboys "way more cuter" than actual females is your fetish for them.

No amount of surgery makes them look like actual females without extensive makeup and photo angles taken to compliment a feature or to exaggerate one.

I say this as someone who is not against gays or transgender people. In fact, I have many LGBT friends and even some in the family... so it's not a bias, just stating what I see. I guess much the same way you are, but your fetish is clouding your eyesight.

I can personally say that this is not true. Not based on some images on the internet, but real life experience. Granted, I do live in Thailand and the ladyboys here are generally more feminine and look more like women than in western countries, but the point stands. Of course, there are also many that don't really pass that, but then there are those true gems too. Just last week I met one ladyboy who I sure as hell wouldn't had recognized as such if it weren't for the established I was at.

It has nothing to do with general fetish towards ladyboys. For the most part they don't interest me that much. Which of course is true for many "real" women too. However, she had spent the time and effort to make herself look beautiful and she really was. Sat down, had a few drinks, kissed some, went back to apartment and had some fun. Her "special" parts didn't matter, and why would they. I know geeks like to put everything into binary code and either 0 or 1, but in real life it's not that simple. And no, I'm not gay - I just don't discriminate ladyboys just for the fact that they have at one time been men. It's stupid to limit yourself like that if you otherwise like someone or think she looks nice.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[aristotle-dude]

Actually, in general, the trans community (US) wants nothing to do with such people, they are pretty ostracized and many trans peeps consider their very mention (not by just term, but their existence) to be offensive.. so they are generally not welcome under the 'transgendered' umbrella.

Well, well. It looks like gay people are only human after all. They have the same kind of prejudices and hypocrisy as the rest of us. I hear that gay people also attack men who identify themselves as bi-sexual too.

As an outsider looking in, I find the entire thing to be quite amusing. Perhaps the gay people should get their own house in order before they start attacking society in general demanding special rights and treatment.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[mcgrew]

Tough room. Or, in other words, your joke just wasn't funny. Unless your karma is rock solid or you're certain what you're writing is hilarious, going for funny can be dangerous. If you succeed in getting that +5 funny, it gains no karma at all, while if the joke fails you'll be modded "troll" or "flamebait".

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

A picture is worth 1,000 words. http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Transgendered+Miss+Universe+Canada+finalist+disappears+from+contest/6348674/story.html?tab=PHOT

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

male-to-female transsexuals are generally offended by the term "shemale". They seem to prefer either "trans-women", "MtF" or just "women". That may explain your -1 troll.

Who cares. The more someone is different from the average, the more people will say things about them that they may not like. People that are further away from average should expect this and should be able to deal with it. They are just words or thoughts someone has that they expressed. If are you ar enot mature enough oir stable enough to handle it, you are the one with the problem. If a person feels a certain way but doesnt say anything out loud to you or you don't know about their true feelings, is that any better? Is the situation really any differernt? They still feel the same exact way and just hid it from you. Same end game. Is someone offended by the way I feel and am I wrong for feeling that way? What if i do not like blonde hair and someone who talks to much about themselves? Am I wrong for feeling that? Am I wrong for telling a blonde that talks to much about herself that I don't like that? That is who she is and I don't like it. Why are my thoughts on someones sexual prefence any different or taboo and why am I "the problem"?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[jawtheshark]

My karma is rock solid. I'll be just fine. :-) My humour doesn't always work because people get offended too easily.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[MisterSquid]

But to answer your question more directly, the reason nobody talked about them in *this* article is because they are not a lucrative target market for advertisements. The homosexual male community is not targeted for advertisement because they are so numerous, but because the retail and marketing world believes that gay males spend a lot of money and, more importantly, influence the fashions and tastes of the heterosexual people surrounding them. Clothing stores see gay men as trend setters, so they believe that getting gay men to adopt their clothes will lead the heterosexual people to follow. Because of rampant discrimination and erasure, trans people are not perceived as having the same trend-setting appeal.

Trenchant analysis. Thanks for so thoughtful a post.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah it's all fun and games until you see that she has a dick, and yours goes soft instantly, and then feels like it's retracting into your body. Well, that's how it works for me and most guys who call themselves straight anyways. There's a reason guys prank each other with galleries of "hot women" who are revealed to have a dick in the final pic.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[realityimpaired]

Actually, most of the trans people I know don't have a problem with drag/ladyboys.... "shemales" is a different story... that's offensive because it's specifically tied to sexual fetishism, but drag and ladyboys are performance. Transsexualism isn't performance, it's real, and outside of people who are just beginning their "real life experience" period, I don't know any trans people who have a problem with the idea of drag. They don't like to be identified as it (because they aren't), but they can accept it as a different concept.

That being said, there's a whole lot more to "transgendered" than transsexualism. Genderqueer, people who simply refuse to associate with either specific gender, androgynous culture, etc., all fit within the umbrella term.

And yes, I do know several transgendered individuals, some of whom are also transsexual. It comes from my volunteer work with the local queer community center.

Also worth noting... historically treatment for transgender issues was restricted by a (now debunked) theory that very narrowly defined what could be accepted as "trans". That created an inaccurate skew in terms of the sexuality... in Canada, for example, until the last couple of years it was impossible for somebody who identified as homosexual to get gender reassignment therapy. If you were a transwoman, you, by definition, had to like men exclusively, sexually. That has changed, and a very large number of "gay" trans people have come out of the woodwork and are now seeking therapy. I would expect that when the dust settles it'll be somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of trans people who are homosexual.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, it seems humorous to complain about how trans-erasure has kept people from acknowledging male-to-female transsexuals while also ignoring female-to-male transsexuals. At least trans-women are noticed because they are sexualized - trans-men seem almost wholly ignored in the populace.

That's probably because a trans-man can use a readily available adapter to become physically compatible with cis-women. Trans-women can't.

Also the double standard is that lesbians are treated different than male homosexuals. So the whole issue of a whether a trans-man counts as a lesbian or a man is notably less of a hot topic than the corresponding question regarding a trans-women.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[TheRaven64]

Everybody looks down on someone. I try to be egalitarian and look down on all of you equally.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[MasterMan]

Yeah it's all fun and games until you see that she has a dick, and yours goes soft instantly, and then feels like it's retracting into your body. Well, that's how it works for me and most guys who call themselves straight anyways. There's a reason guys prank each other with galleries of "hot women" who are revealed to have a dick in the final pic.

And do you have a real life experience of this, or are you basing it on someone surprising you with such image on the internet? Because in real life it is quite different. I used to think just like that, and still somewhat do, but it only applies to internet. In real world, not so much, if the "girl" is nice looking.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[TheRaven64]

Not necessarily. Gender identity and sexual preference are not always related. There are some transgender people who are attracted to members of the gender that they identify with, rather than the one that they were born with, which makes life very difficult for them.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[MasterMan]

but drag and ladyboys are performance. Transsexualism isn't performance, it's real,

Uh, no. Ladyboy is just the term used in South East Asia. It isn't "performance".

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying it's okay to call black people niggers, Chinese people chinks, and the like?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it's all fun and games until you see that she has a dick, and yours goes soft instantly, and then feels like it's retracting into your body. Well, that's how it works for me and most guys who call themselves straight anyways. There's a reason guys prank each other with galleries of "hot women" who are revealed to have a dick in the final pic.

I find this view of sex to be absolutely hilarious, to be honest. Fucking a woman in the ass is "hot" - tons of "straight" porn out there with anal scenes. Getting a blowjob or a handjob from a woman is "hot" - tons of "straight" porn out there with oral and handjob scenes. None of those acts with "regular girls" even remotely involves a vagina, and yet these scenes are common in porn, and nobody gets bent out of shape over them.

I'd respectfully submit that many of the "2 guys - one girl" threesome scenes common in "regular" porn are just as "gay" as a guy and a tranny going at it. Is it more or less gay to have a threesome scene with a man, a woman, and a shemale, comparatively? And how about all those double-anal or double-vaginal scenes, with two dicks in one hole?

No, what's more likely is the fact that transsexuals challenge your idiotic binary black and white notions of "man/woman, straight/gay," and that's what makes you so uncomfortable when you see one. But thanks for blustering about how big a non-faggot you are. It's comforting to us to know that the very thought of someone who is - by all indications except for a small patch of skin between her legs - an attractive woman, unmans you to such an extent that your penis actually inverts.

Do me a favor: Pull up a picture of Buck Angel, and a picture of Ana Paula Samadhi. If Ana Paula Samadhi revolts you because she happens to have a penis, may we assume that you're at full mast looking at Buck Angel and his pussy? After all, if the vagina is the only thing that matters, Buck Angel is no different from Gisele Bundchen... right?

Or is it possible that there are lots of analog points between "straight" and "gay," to the point that those labels become meaningless baggage that only really serves to tell give us an insight into the minds of the people claiming so vehemently that they are "totally straight, not a faget at ALL"?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Reservoir Penguin]

Not so many of them here in Malaysia, need to pay you a visit sometime :)

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Genda]

You don't know what you're talking about. There are only two issues for transpeople. Age and body type (ecto vs. endomorphic.) You begin hormone therapy early in puberty and you can't tell the person is trans... period. You catch a person in their 20s and they are reasonably endomorphic and they pass well after hormone therapy. In fact there are a number of professional models, a few actresses, and competitive beauty contestants in other countries who are transgendered. The key is bone structure and in some cases intersexing (the mixing of sexual expression from birth.) The reason you say transpeople don't pass is because all you've ever seen were the one's who didn't. The rest have simply melted into society and you'll never know who they are, because they lead quiet normal lives in their gender of choice.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[GameboyRMH]

I admit, only on the Internet. Maybe I'd feel different if it happened in real life but I can't imagine not being irked at all by it.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Genda]

Friend, you should stop talking for God... I hear he doesn't like that. I know transpeople who are ordained ministers and lead lives of devout spiritual devotion. I know several transpeople who are lawyers and spend most of their time fighting for people's rights, protecting those that have no power and little say. I know transpeople (soldiers, fire fighters and police) whose heroism on and off the battlefield would shock you to within an inch of your life and shame you for your prejudice.

There is solid evidence that transgendered people are the result of a complex developmental anomaly resulting in a form of intersexing (we know the brain actually get's wired male during a fairly short period with the presence of testosterone.) If the process is disturbed, or happens at the wrong time, brain sex remains female (we all start out female and it take a series of events to make an embryo male.) This is further supported by the high frequency of other physical intersexing that transpeople frequently experience.

So tell me why, a process that occurs in the womb, and produces a human being with attributes of both sexes, and a highly feminized brain (and that has been demonstrated in research using MRI brain scans), would be a problem with the almighty seeing as since it happens in the womb, would arguably be the work of the almighty? It is only in our highly sexualized and fetishistic society that transpeople are tuned into wierd sex objects. In other societies and cultures, transpeople have been consistently respected and are mostly held as shamans, healers, clerics, and people of great intellect and spirituality. In my personal experience, gay men are typical a standard deviation more intelligent than the standard population and transpeople tend to be about 2 standard deviations more intelligent. A large percentage of transpeople are engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, professors, doctors, lawyers and scientists from many fields of study (please believe me when I say I've met more than a few of these folks.) Sadly, a large number of transpeople either come from poverty or are marginalized by a society filled with prejudice, and find themselves as sex workers or homeless and unemployed. Tell me that our society doesn't make entire classes of human beings disposable. Do you even think about such things?

This is an expensive and profoundly painful process. A person doesn't do this on a whim. Its like cutting off your hand. If you saw the movies 127 hours, you understand a person only takes that kind of action when they experience their life being threatened. By the way, suicide levels among transpeople are off the chart, as are murders and violence perpetrated on them be people of prejudice. A transperson is hundreds of time more likely to be assaulted or murdered. So before you go around judging people (another one of those things I hear God doesn't like), bother to find out about who you are judging. A where the real sins rest.

Oh and just in case you're wondering, some of us have close family members who are trans. Some of us are very proud of the human beings they've become.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Genda]

"Broad Tent"?... is that some kind of transgendered erection joke???

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Higgins_Boson]

I do know what I am talking about. I pointed that out already.

I love my transgender friends dearly, but they do NOT look like the sex they feel they look like. They either look like men in drag or women in drag. Most of them admit to it and say it's a constant voice in the back of their head, telling them they aren't female or male enough yet. So they keep having procedures and trying new this or that, only to continually be disappointed.

Yeah... I don't know who they are. Every year at the PRIDE parade, I am asked to "point out the tranny" by my gay friends. I am yet to be wrong.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Americano]

Friend, you should stop talking for God... I hear he doesn't like that.

Friend, you should probably re-read what I wrote. In fact, I believe we're rather in agreement.

I responded to somebody who claimed that somebody finding a "ladyboy" as cute (or cuter) than an "actual woman" was operating solely from a fetishistic standpoint, and he went on to say that there is no way, barring the operation of a fetish, that one could find a transgendered person to be as attractive as a genetic female. I've seen some really ugly genetic females, and some really beautiful trans-women. There is no need for a "fetish" to be in effect to admit this to be the truth.

That part in quotes? That was me, paraphrasing back what the person I responded to wrote. You know, where he asserted that only the operation of a fetish would make a transwoman attractive, as if there is some sort of universal, objective standard for beauty and attractiveness which he is uniquely qualified to judge. I found it even more amusing that he offered the credentials of "I know plenty of gay people, so it's not like I'm biased here," as if "knowing some gay people" would make him qualified to be a universal arbiter of beauty.

I found his tone and his statement distasteful, so I ridiculed him. I'm sorry you missed it.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not nice to have secrets like that and spring them unexpectedly on people who may not be comfortable with them. If she looks nice, is nice, she'll respect their dignity enough to tell them about it in advance.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Genda]

Its actually worse... because homo-erectii like this don't stop at having idiot opinions... they like to act them out. So if you don't happen to fit in his herd, he feels perfectly justified in bombing you out of existence (if you're a little brown person), or just crushing your skull with a shovel (if you're a transperson) walking down the street.

There's this thing called a hate crime. We want society to grow up. We want people to stop judging and assaulting one another because of their differences, because there are now 7,000,000,000 of us, and if we can't get along things are going to get really ugly soon. So stop making it alright to kill the pink ape (if you don't know the reference, look it up), the time for the worst of lower primate behavior among human beings has come and now should go. Please don't make an arguement for bigotry, hatred or phobic behavior and for the love of Jebus, don't blame the victims of hate for not being able to take a joke, because having a crowd of idiots chasing you down the street then beating you half to death just isn't as funny from the perspective of the poundee.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[GameboyRMH]

I don't know where you get this idea that I was arguing that sexuality is binary or anything like that. And yes IMO there's something very homoerotic about "2 dicks in 1 hole" and, although to a lesser extent, other threesome scenes where guys aren't rubbing their dicks together.

Anyways, I'll try not to speak for other straight guys this time so we stay on topic, but to me a masculine body and/or penis on a sex partner is a massive turn-off. It's that simple. A good-looking feminine body with a dick on it is just a mix of a big turn-on and a big turn-off that somehow is still a huge turn-off, like a tasty cupcake with a tarantula embedded in the base. A man's body with a vagina I find to be an even bigger turn-off, as a vagina alone is nowhere near as appealing as a feminine body to me.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Americano]

I love my transgender friends dearly,

Your tone when talking about them would certainly call that statement into question.

All you have "proven" is that you have some friends who you don't feel are passable. From that, you have generalized to the assertion that "no transgendered person is passable as the opposite sex, and the only reason somebody would find them attractive is a fetish." Pointing out the obvious transgendered person at a gay pride parade doesn't prove your point, either.

And for what it's worth, I'm sure your attitude that "they do NOT look like the sex they feel they look like, they either look like men in drag or women in drag," is in no way contributory to your so-called friends feeling that "constant voice in the back of their head, telling them they aren't female or male enough yet," either. I mean, with "friends" like you eager to point out that nobody could ever find them attractive, or could only find them attractive as the object of a sick fetish, how could they not be happy with the results of their transition?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[V. P. Winterbuttocks]

The subjective linear scale of how attractive I find someone is not exactly perfectly parallel to the subjective linear scale of how beautiful I think they are. And neither of the two is necessarily correlated perfectly to the subjective linear scale of whether or not I'd like to have sex with them.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because only perfect people deserve to be treated like human beings.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you get this idea that I was arguing that sexuality is binary or anything like that.

Because you said, in not so many words, "when I think it's a female, I'm totally hot, but then as soon as there's no vagina, I experience the absolutely 100% textbook perfect reaction that any red-blooded "straight" guy must when he sees a penis: I become completely incapable of performing." You say there's something homoerotic about 2 dicks in 1 hole... okay... so does the image of 1 dick in 1 hole make you queasy too? Porn is often about fucking... they're showing you some naked dude's dick and hairy ass pumping away in a vagina... and that's hot? That's super not-gay to be turned on at that point? Because you're still looking at a dick doing it's business. Does it matter what hole it's really going into?

Speaking for myself, I agree with you that masculine bodies aren't all that attractive, and much prefer "feminine" bodies - curves, smooth skin, long hair, breasts... But all that focus on whether or not there's a penis or a vagina attached to a lovely feminine body? I don't see the point in making a fuss at that point. I've been with women and ladyboys - both pre-op and post-op... and I enjoyed myself immensely with all of them. I tend not to focus too much on the genitals, and just enjoy being physical with somebody who I enjoy being around. The goal is to feel good, and make that special someone else feel good. And the point is, most of this nonsense about "straight" and "gay" is just societal shit. Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with two consenting adults - regardless of their gender and sexuality - rubbing their genitals against various bits and parts of one another for pleasure.

Also, out of curiosity, is it more tolerable if the ladyboy has had full reassignment surgery, and now possesses a surgically crafted vagina? Or is there a genetic test for 2 X chromosomes required before you'll take your pants off?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[jythie]

Yep, you get that basic effect in most minority groups.. people within the group trying to associate themselves with the mainstream by demonstrating that they hate the same people the 'normal' people do, or being able to point to others saying 'see, we are not perverts, THEY are the real ones! we are normal just like you!'.

This has, unfortunately, become a real problem with the gay right's movement over the last two decades, which often puts me in a rather uncomfortable position of supporting their cause yet not wanting to support the professional activists/groups due to their attacks on groups they want to cast off now that they have some power....

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[jythie]

I see many who feel 'ladyboy' and 'newhalf' are just as offensive as 'shemale', essentially leaving the trans community with no non-offensive (english) word for such people, which I tend to interpret as their existence being offensive.

It might be an element of the groups I have dealt with, who tend to be pretty big on the 'gender binary' concept, so things like genderqueer/adrogynous/etc are attacked as hurting the absolutism they seek. Very similar to the attacks I see from gays against bi peeps since they see bisexually somehow underpinning both their normalcy and genetic argument. On the trans end it often seems to come down to clinging to the imagery of it being a simple birth defect, and thus there are still only two sexes and they simply have a correction to make.. anything inbetween threatens this idea.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[realityimpaired]

I see many who feel 'ladyboy' and 'newhalf' are just as offensive as 'shemale', essentially leaving the trans community with no non-offensive (english) word for such people, which I tend to interpret as their existence being offensive.

I suppose. In truth, I live in a country that's generally fairly open to it (still have our fair share of stupid, mind you), and in a city that's especially open to it. There's still a number of people for whom it's automatically a bad thing, and I don't think we'll ever reach a day when guys who think that getting aroused when looking at an attractive transwoman makes them gay will be gone, but things are getting better. Slowly but surely, things are improving for trans people, and I'm seeing it first hand, because I'm working directly in community outreach and education. (as recently as yesterday, I taught a seminar for a federal government department on how to create safer spaces and use inclusive language for the queer community). I don't really live in the part of the world where terms like "ladyboy" or "newhalf" are used commonly, though.

It might be an element of the groups I have dealt with, who tend to be pretty big on the 'gender binary' concept, so things like genderqueer/adrogynous/etc are attacked as hurting the absolutism they seek. Very similar to the attacks I see from gays against bi peeps since they see bisexually somehow underpinning both their normalcy and genetic argument. On the trans end it often seems to come down to clinging to the imagery of it being a simple birth defect, and thus there are still only two sexes and they simply have a correction to make.. anything inbetween threatens this idea.

You have a point... again, because I work on community education, I have a very good background in gender theory (have lectured on the subject at the local university). I can see how people would want to cling to the binary, but it's an idea that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and never really has. Binaries don't actually exist in nature, and in every way that we, as humans, have ever sought to define sex, there's variation beyond a simple A or B selection. I have never seen any reason to believe that gender isn't equally fluid, and I don't really see how that understanding is incompatible with the idea of transsexualism/transgenderism. It's a spectrum, just like sexual orientation and physical sex. Even if you are one of the folks who says that it's a birth defect, I don't really see how that's incompatible with the idea that there's a C - All of the Above, or D - None of the Above option. If you identify as the "opposite" end of the spectrum from what your physical body presents, and feel that you need to change the body, then who cares what the person across the street feels about their body? It's a deeply personal thing that shouldn't in any way be affected by what other people do with their lives.

I think the problem is that people, in general, have the notion that gender and sex are tied to each other. We're *finally* getting people to accept that sex and sexuality are not inexorably linked, but it seems an extremely difficult concept for some people to wrap their heads around that gender is also independant.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

As somebody for whom it has happened in real life, it's not that big a deal, in retrospect, though it was at the time.

Met the one I was with through work; we became friendly on account of her impeccable taste in music (read: she liked the same bullshit bands I did), and we bonded over that. I never even realized she was trans until I was like, "So why don't we get together outside work sometime?" She was like, "I need to tell you something..." and told me her story. Therapy and GID diagnosis in her teens led to hormones and a transition to full time life as a female during college, and it was only a few years later that I met her at work (me 25, she 24). When she told me, I was shocked - I had pretty much the standard "straight young guy" reaction, "Oh... well I'm not gay or nothing, so yeah, maybe we shouldn't." It was a kneejerk response that I'm not proud of now, looking back. But I was young, and had never confronted this sort of thing before, I acted poorly out of shock; which doesn't excuse, but I think can at least explain.

But I thought about it. And thought about it. There was ugly me, saying, "shit, I'm not some queer," and there was the rest of me, saying, "but this is the cool chick from the office who I really enjoy spending time with, and who I really click with. Does this really matter?" And in the end, I decided it didn't matter. I was attracted to this person, I wasn't simply interested in bumping genitals with her. So after some soul searching, I made an effort to patch up the rift that had opened, and I told her, "look, I really really like you, and that's what matters to me... I'd like to take you out sometime still." And so... we did. I ended up dating her for about 3 years... took us about 6 months before anything much more than a kiss or a hug happened, and that was mostly just overcoming my hangups. We had a couple aborted interludes in that first 6 months where I ended up going home with blue balls, because we'd start getting hot and heavy, and then I'd be like "oh god, i can feel her dick and balls pressing against my leg," and I'd be like, "I can't do this right now," and totally lose my focus. She was patient, and I tried to not be a complete prick, and eventually, we baby-stepped past that.

So yeah, my girlfriend was born as a boy, but was, aside from that accident of birth, feminine in every other way. We had very similar interests, enjoyed being with each other, and generally, it was a wonderful time, once I got past my fixed notions of "straight and gay". Turns out the sex was pretty great, and she had a fairly high sex drive, too, so it was frequent, too. Yeah, she had a dick - it was more or less non-functional from the hormones she was taking - got semi-hard occasionally, and she pretty much couldn't ejaculate - but I just didn't even think about it anymore, it was just "this is my lover's body, and I want her to enjoy this as much as I am."

It ended, unfortunately, with a job offer for her in California, and a decision by me that I couldn't justify going with her. We had been talking about "longer term" stuff for a while, and were quickly coming to the realization that, while we were compatible in the here and now, our long-term interests were divergent - I wanted children, she absolutely didn't want them in any way, and that was a major point of contention for us. I still talk to her now and then, and she's doing well, and very serious with a new boyfriend. When I was with her, she seemed very focused on eventually getting the SRS surgery, but last I talked to her, she was considering remaining non-op.

tl;dr - it's amazing what you'll decide is "worth it" in real life when you're emotionally invested in something. I don't regret it for an instant, and despite the insecure fools who will no doubt shout "LOL U FAGGOT," I identify as a straight male. I'm not interested in men at all, and if she had been masculine in look or behavior, I would've been turned off by that. I fell in love with *her,* not her vagina, or lack thereof.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you've found out that you're gay. Now maybe you can stop pretending that you're not, and enjoy yourself.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, tough guy. You got a purdy mouth... maybe I'll make use of it.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Asian men tend to look like women. Maybe they have a testosterone/estrogen imbalance (that would explain the small cocks).

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, in a topic about stereotypes and prejudices, you claim anyone against homosexuality intends or will seek out someone with the intention of inflicting physical harm. Is that the way you justify peoples negative opinion of this? Claim all that do not agree with what I you are doing must all be raving lunatics that would love to beat people with a shovel. Sounds like some cognitive dissonance going on there. Nice argument. Here's a thought, 90% of the people on a daily basis you meet are totally against it privately and just don't tell you because they want to be politically correct. People lie or don;t say anything at all because they don't want to cause a problem or hurt your feelings BUT those people can still be a part of your life because you and them still have many desirable traits that you each enjoy so being freidns or casual acquaintances is acceptable. That is a two way street. I have homosexual friends and I'm sure there are things they don't like about me and one of them very well may be my sexual preference but I'm okay with that because my sexual preference is MY decision..

My use of you is not directly related to you.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, anal sex? Did she wax her pubes and asshole?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are all nothing but words. Grow up and accept that everyone is different and not everyone has the same opinions. Why would some random person walking down the street or on a forum calling you a name bother you? What do you have to prove to a random person? They are shallow comments. You absolutely positively know that person knows nothing about you or who you are, why even acknowledge their existence and respond and why on earth would you get offended by what a random person thinks? They are ignorant and are provoking an argument you can not win right then and there and by no means should you have to.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay people do not demand special rights and treatment. They demand equal rights and treatment.

They do not have to be perfect in order to receive that. Just as you aren't perfect for find their mistreatment "quite amusing".

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[mcgrew]

Same here. Sometimes a joke just doesn't work, but that doesn't matter with excellent karma.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ass-hattery knows no boundaries. Barney Frank famously told transsexuals to 'wait their turn' during the recent federal rights laws debate(sorry, would cite a source but I'm writing on a Nook). He's one of my heroes, but he's not perfect. I really felt thrown under the bus by that one.

I think when a group starts gaining acceptance, they're terrified if anyone muddies the waters. LG folks did (and do) it to B folks. LGB folks do it to T folks. T folks do it to their own subcategories. I actually met another transwoman once who didn't want to be lumped in with gay people because she 'was a normal, straight woman,' not a distasteful gay person.I tried to point out that we're not at Pride marches together because WE see ourselves the same, but because the 'necks and assholes who beat us UP see us the same.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leviticus 18:22
Romans 1:27

There are others... but this is a good starting point.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. there's always someone lower down on the totem pole to jeer at. It's worst for the pedophiles. Like regular people, 99% of them have never done anything wrong, but they have to live in a closet for their entire life, like gay people used to. People think being gay is a stigma, and it is, but the transgendered and the pedophiles are get ostracized even by them.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[alexo]

Leviticus 18:22

Who did they play against?

Romans 1:27

Now, that's a crushing defeat.
Those Romans should be kicked out of the league!

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you mentioned that you have a good background in gender theory, I wanted to ask you something personal. I'm being sincere. What about those who are attracted only to prepubescents? In the DSM IV, pedophilia is listed as a mental disorder. What is your opinion on this? It has far-reaching implications for those who are saddled with this problem, because unlike the spectrum of gay -> bi -> straight, pedophilia and bestiality are not considered to be a part of the acceptable spectrum, but instead are considered mental defects. While someone who is a pedophile must admit to themselves that they are mentally ill, they cannot respond to other adults about their sexuality (If someone asks them if they are gay, the person can't reply with, 'I'm gay but only with little boys,' exactly...) and find themselves in a trap where they see themselves as growing old with no chance of having an (adult) significant other any further than a 'best friend.' It is difficult to have this person be in a position where they have never been attracted to male or female adults and are faced with having to accept being asexual and denying their sexuality completely.

There are no support groups for those with these problems, because the stigma is so great that any real support group would invite violent repercussions from the general public (I guess because any support groups are perceived as recognizing the problem, and to some people this means that it legitimizes the situation). I'm obviously not talking about NAMBLA or anything like that (which is the opposite of what a support group's goals are) but something more like AA or NA. The polarizing and chilling effects from the way society as a whole treats those with this problem inhibits any sort of scientific studies on the subject, because it's so difficult to find someone afflicted with the problem (i.e., someone who is a pedophile but has never offended; scientific studies based on federal prisoners about this subject have been done, but these are inherently biased and not representative of pedophilia as a whole).

Would you have any suggestions for someone who has to wrestle with this problem? (By that term 'wrestling', I don't mean that they wrestle with their physical urges, as the person I know is in no doubt about his ability to resist any unlawful urges; I specifically mean their problem with accepting themselves as they are). They have never offended and certain in their personal conviction not to offend; I thought about suggesting chemical castration, but that seems rather extreme in this specific circumstance. The only advice I have been able to give has been for them to not blame themselves for their sexuality and thoughts, and if possible, talk to a counselor about it. The problem there, of course, is that it is nearly impossible to open up to any one, even a counselor, about this problem. It then becomes repressed internally, which has unintended side effects (I repeat again, the side effects I refer to have nothing to do with offending against children, but rather, the pedophile damaging his or her own emotional and psychological development and how they have to admit to themselves that they are aberrations, with no true sexuality. This leads to substance abuse, self-harm and suicide). How can they love themselves when everybody hates them for what they are (if they knew what he was)?

Another problem is the inability to share or speak about their problem. There are very few outlets to allow them to relieve internal pressure, sexual or otherwise. In this case, I am willing to give my friend the benefit of the doubt as regards certain pornography, as I understand how that could be one outlet to help him or her constructively. But this person so far has to admit to themselves that they can never be 'out of the closet,' they can never talk about it freely, they can't put bumper stickers on their car about it, or march in their own 'pride' parade. How do they learn to not hate themselves if they cannot express anything whatsoever in relation to the subje

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[tolkienfan]

For what it's worth I agree with both of you.
I wonder if humans will ever outgrow this tribal exclusionary violent instinct.
Sadly, I fear not.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, anal sex, among other bedroom activities. And yes, she shaved/waxed everything. Just soft, smooth skin that smelled like whatever floral-y soap she used, all over.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales?

[BobVP]

Anonymous Coward, if you are going to quote the Bible then why post anonymously? Don't have the courage of your convictions to post under your own name, then why bother posting it at all? If you want to fall back on Old Testament restrictions like Lev. 18:22, then let me ask you these questions: Do you shave your side burns? Does your wife/sister(s)/mother enter church without a head covering? Do you wear any clothing that is of mixed fabric (e.g., polyester/cotton mix?) Do you eat pork, shrimp, crab, lobster? Did you ever disobey your parents? If so, how did you survive to adulthood without being stoned to death? Are you married? If so, was your wife a virgin on your wedding night? If not, did you stone her? Does your wife separate herself each month during her "cycle" and perform proper cleansing rituals after? The list goes on - if you want to use OT rules, you have to follow ALL of them.

Romans 1:27

Linguists and scholars have proven conclusively that Paul was speaking of temple prostitutes, NOT homosexuals in general. Paul was also known to be a homophone in general that injected his own personal feelings into his "letters". Jesus Christ never said a word about gays, period, not a single utterance. Read the Bible for yourself and quit listening to people like Pat Robertson.

Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Rogerborg]

Paul Francis, uh, "scientific" director of the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, has figured out that if I choose to declare that I'm gay on my public Failbook profile, then people can use that information to determine my sexuality?

Whoa, that's some cutting edge research there. Thanks for looking out for me, Paul.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[betterunixthanunix]

1. Not everyone makes their profile public. If, however, an advertisement were to be targetted only at those men who declared themselves to be gay on Facebook, and they happened to click on that ad (perhaps something seemingly innocent), then you could basically get them to identify themselves.
2. You can determine, with high probability, a person's sexual orientation based on other information in their Facebook profile; a person who might not want to "come out" could be identified this way. The attack described above could thus be used to "out" someone.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[bjourne]

Not only that, they can also figure out the probability that you are gay based on the number of gay people you have friended on Facebook. Or if you are tagged in photos that also features known gay males. Soon enough you'll see online ads for nail polish and ymca records..

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Pieroxy]

1. Not everyone makes their profile public. If, however, an advertisement were to be targetted only at those men who declared themselves to be gay on Facebook, and they happened to click on that ad (perhaps something seemingly innocent), then you could basically get them to identify themselves.
2. You can determine, with high probability, a person's sexual orientation based on other information in their Facebook profile; a person who might not want to "come out" could be identified this way. The attack described above could thus be used to "out" someone.

I see your point, but I'd reply that if you don't want to "come out", you shouldn't declare yourself gay anywhere and most certainly not on facebook of all places.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Dhalka226]

I agree that the idea is kind of silly, mostly because it's just too much damn work to attack a gay person when there are significantly easier avenues available, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

If your profile is wide open to the world, then yeah, it's precisely that silly. If it's restricted to friends and family, it's still available to targeted advertising and that advertising can "leak" data. Or at least that's his premise.

Public safety issue? Not really. If you want to attack some gays, just find a gay bar or a gay dating site or something. Paying money to target advertising to leak private data so you can track them down to attack is, well, an awful lot of effort. Then again I don't understand the whole homophobia thing, so I guess the entire concept is lost on me.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[SomePgmr]

The part I liked was this theory that some evil character might use facebook ads to find openly gay men by targeting their demographic with ads, hoping they fall for those ads, then somehow trying to convert their clicks to identities with real contact info... so, what, they can go commit a 'hate crime'...?

Even for crazy SOB's, that's about the worst plan ever. Like, villain in a TV special, dumb.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Glarimore]

I believe there was a story within the past year where a team of researchers found that they could determine with ~85% (if I recall) accuracy the sexual orientation of a facebook member simply by analyzing who they are friends with.

You don't have to declare yourself to come out -- someone else can do it for you. People who don't want to announce their sexuality (for whatever reason) are exposed every day -- not in the way stated above, maybe, but it certainly happens.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[betterunixthanunix]

This is why we read things. Point one was about people who are "out" on Facebook, who might become targets of strangers who cannot see their Facebook profiles. Point two was about epople are not "out," who could be identified as gay through inferences derived through their various postings and messages (if I remember correctly, it was shown that with high propbability, just a person's friends list is enough to identify their sexual orientation); such a person might again be identified by strangers using the advertising system.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

I know right? Homosexuals, after eventually coming out, are typically quite open about their sexuality. It is such a huge weight off their shoulders.

Sex attacks (full-on) are still pretty damn small, outside of schools and extremists.
The chances of it happening are less than being killed by going out to said night-club on average across the entire country by drinking too much and going through the various scenarios of drunkenness and ending up in Somalia or something.

If they don't want to come out, or are afraid, you'd think they would be smart enough to use 2 profiles.
If not? Well that is just their fault for thinking Facebook is secure. You could get more privacy from a paper bag over your heads when kissing in public.
Evolution of the fittest isn't just physical.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Dcnjoe60]

I believe there was a story within the past year where a team of researchers found that they could determine with ~85% (if I recall) accuracy the sexual orientation of a facebook member simply by analyzing who they are friends with.

You don't have to declare yourself to come out -- someone else can do it for you. People who don't want to announce their sexuality (for whatever reason) are exposed every day -- not in the way stated above, maybe, but it certainly happens.

Depending on whose numbers you use the gay population is as low as 3% to as much as 10%. So, I would think, in a random sample, that you could hit 85% accuracy without analyzing anything about the facebook user just by saying heterosexual.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[ArsenneLupin]

if I choose to declare that I'm gay

Pssht! I've got a secret for you: even if you leave the "prefers women or men" selector blank, Facebook can still figure it out. They just need to look at your friends, and if a sizable number of them did chose to come out of the closet, they can infer with a reasonable probability that you are gay too, even if you're still in the closet (as far as Facebook is concerned).

The effect is pretty obvious if you are gay, and live in a reasonably small town. Just click any person in the same town, look at the common friends. If almost all mutual friends are gay, chances are high that the target is gay too. Even without the "prefers men or women" box.

Of course there are exceptions. Some people just like to hang out with gay people without being so themselves. But in the majority of cases, it works out pretty well.

Also, participation in gay events is a pretty sure way to tell too, even if you're "just" invited and didn't admit you intend to join.

Or being tagged in photos at such events (but that's harder to find out automatically)

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[ArsenneLupin]

I see your point, but I'd reply that if you don't want to "come out", you shouldn't declare yourself gay anywhere and most certainly not on facebook of all places.

Some people may be "out" to friends and family, but not to coworkers. Facebook may interfere sexual orientation from friends and from participation in certain events, even if you left the "prefers" choice blank in your profile. And theoretically they could interfere it from the photos at which you look the longest/most often, even if you're still completely closeted...

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[ArsenneLupin]

Paying money to target advertising to leak private data so you can track them down to attack is, well, an awful lot of effort.

Could be interesting for politicians who want to "expose" politicians from opposing parties. Given that 10% of the population would be vulnerable, and most parties have more than 10 members, this could be a worthwhile method of embarassing opposing viewpoints.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

But it's not a matter of "declaring yourself" gay - it's a matter of facebook targeting being able to infer your orientation based on the information you provide (friends, locations, likes, un-friendings, etc) - information that by itself doesn't mean anything, and that many people might not consider revealing when considered individually.

That said, the article didn't focus on gay men - it was basically a paragraph and a couple of scattered references. The actual point is that facebook can provide remarkably accurate ad targeting for any given demographic -- based largely on the inferences drawn from your activity.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Americano]

drinking too much and going through the various scenarios of drunkenness and ending up in Somalia

Sweet jesus, if that's really how hard they party, I need more gay friends.

"Guys, I think we really gotta take it down a notch. This is the third time this month we've woken up, hung over, on Sunday morning in Mogadishu. It's fun, but this walk of shame is killing me."

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[digitig]

Given that 10% of the population would be vulnerable, and most parties have more than 10 members

But party members are unlikely to be a random sample from the population.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not how it works. 85% accuracy means given any unknown distribution of gay and straight people their orientation can be determined correctly 85% of the time.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[GameboyRMH]

If you have an Amazon account that you normally buy typical guy stuff with, buy women's clothes and see what happens, ideally something like a sexy women's halloween costume.

To make it stop, go into your recommendations section and tag the item as a gift.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[SilentStaid]

The Hangover, Part 3:

Bradley Cooper finds a husband and the gang ends up war torn Africa where nothing but highjinks and babies with AK-47s ensue.

Actually, am I the only one who would go see that?

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[TheRaven64]

You don't even have to buy anything. One of my friends asked for my opinion on some shoes she was considering buying and sent me the Amazon link to two options. For the next year, Amazon was convinced that I wanted to buy ladies shoes and dresses.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[TheRaven64]

That's true, but I don't think anyone has shown a strong correlation correlation between sociopathic tendencies and sexual orientation...

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Jawnn]

The part I liked was this theory that some evil character might use facebook ads to find openly gay men by targeting their demographic with ads, hoping they fall for those ads, then somehow trying to convert their clicks to identities with real contact info... so, what, they can go commit a 'hate crime'...?

Even for crazy SOB's, that's about the worst plan ever. Like, villain in a TV special, dumb.

Cue the squads of well-meaning, evangelical, gay "de-programmers" in three...two...one...

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Americano]

I'm throwing my ticket money at the computer screen right now. WHY WON'T YOU TAKE IT?

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the theory is a bit overdrawn, but it is valid.

And whether you find it feasible or not, you certainly are comfortable in how you think society works. Problem is, society changes over time. What is okay now, may not be in the future. Japanese get internment camps. Anime reader lists get put on pedophile watch lists.

My parents built their dream retirement home in a "wealthy" development. Pretty soon after, they got targeted by church groups in the area (I live in a much less wealth area 2 miles from them; those church groups visit here 10% of the time)--asking them to join, asking for donations. Nothing ridiculous or unexpected really. Right after that though, my mom, who was born a foreigner, started getting visits from various government types (confirmed with id after she related the first incident to me) asking about her residency and work status--my mother has been a naturalized citizen for more than 2 decades. A certain church group got more aggressive.

I found out later that one of the state's most rascist and homophobic "leaders" lived in our area (which I partly knew about), was a certain group's church member, and basically fed off of information provided by the more innocent activities to harass or simply bother. (Psst, that house there didn't give any money, who lives there, a foreigner, oh really...) He eventually moved out of the area, and oddly enough, so did nearly all of these visits and more aggressive campaigning for donations.

Do not, ever, underestimate what bored, biased people can do expedited by information, including that from sitting at s computer. Setting up an ad to gain information? Easily done. You should know by now people are getting more knowledgeable and driven. A targeted ad might not be the original source of the list generation, but it certainly can get passed with little oversight or review to people with more evil intentions.

In any case, I like the report, because while it may be obvious to you and me, it makes people with less of an evil or street smart mind possibly more aware.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[SomePgmr]

I imagine they'd probably have an equal amount of success (none at all) at an appropriate local bar or "book store" on any given friday night, without the aggravation of a costly, low-conversion ad campaign of attempted trickery on facebook.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

The part I liked was this theory that some evil character might use facebook ads to find openly gay men by targeting their demographic with ads, hoping they fall for those ads, then somehow trying to convert their clicks to identities with real contact info... so, what, they can go commit a 'hate crime'...?

Even for crazy SOB's, that's about the worst plan ever. Like, villain in a TV special, dumb.

Cue the squads of well-meaning, evangelical, gay "de-programmers" in three...two...one...

Woosh. Missed the point...

Umm, ok. The GP points out that the TFA posits cartoonish, caricature bad guys. So then you respond with a different set of cartoonish bad guys?

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

True story, I'm not gay, but when I was living in Atlanta, a lot of my good friends were. I started to see an influx of ads that said things like "Single gay male in NYC? Want to be?" It was kinda funny, if not slightly odd considering I was in an actual relationship at the time, and I was set on "looking for women." Cue the break up, and all of a sudden, Facebook comes to finally believe that I'm straight. They decide to serve me ads like this. This left me with a little bit of self doubt, because assuming their system isn't completely fucked up, what sort of vibe am I giving off?

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon recommendations can be pretty funny. A couple months ago I spent the better part of a weeknight shopping for an appropriate full-face respirator to do some etching work with, chemical containers and various glassware, electronics, books and such about various energetic compounds (model rocketry), etc.

If the next person to see my recommended items hadn't been me, they'd have probably called homeland security. All it really was, was hobby electronics stuff, model rocketry for my nephews, etc. God forbid they saw my wiki history and such too... what with the chlorine gas and hydrazine searches.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

normally buy typical guy stuff with, buy women's clothes and see what happens, ideally something like a sexy women's halloween costume.

I'm confused. Are you saying that typical guys don't have girlfriends, wives, and/or mistresses who they typically buy sexy gifts for?

Because otherwise, you seem to be doing a remarkable bit of conflation between "transvestism" and "homosexual." You are aware that one of the definitive studies of the matter (Doctor & Prince, 1997) found that 87% of respondents who fit the clinical description of "transvestic fetishism" identified as "exclusively heterosexual," right?

In other words - there is very little correlation between "being a cross dresser" and "being gay." In other words, stop worrying about whether Amazon's recommendations for you mean you're gay. If you buy women's clothes for yourself, it's in fact likely that you're NOT gay, you just get off on dressing like a woman. And if you buy women's clothes for someone else, who the fuck cares whether or not some faceless computer algorithm thinks you're gay?

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[CrimsonAvenger]

Facebook may interfere sexual orientation from

Infer. Not "interfere"....

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[quintus_horatius]

Given that 10% of the population would be vulnerable

10% of the population is homosexual? That's a bit high. More like 1%-5%, depending on who did the research and how loose your definition of "homosexual" is. While wikipedia mentions rates as high as 20% I don't think the higher estimates are considered reliable.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[V. P. Winterbuttocks]

ads that said things like "Single gay male in NYC? Want to be?"

The fuck exactly are they thinking when they ask that?

"Single gay male not in NYC: Want to move to NYC?"

"Single gay female in NYC: Want to become male?"

"Single hetero male in NYC: Want to go gay?"

"Non-single gay male in NYC: Wanna ditch that dude?"

I'm clutching at straws here. I really can't figure out who their demographic is.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Genda]

Of course with the exception of those who are oriented towards stabbing, shooting or strangling their sex partners...

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[GameboyRMH]

I'm confused. Are you saying that typical guys don't have girlfriends, wives, and/or mistresses who they typically buy sexy gifts for?

That is apparently what Amazon thinks, yes, which only adds to the hilarity. You see, *SPOILERS* Amazon will then recommend you a deluge of fishnet stockings, feather boas, super-high-heels and other typical transvestite wear, apparently completely forgetting the video games, PC parts, tools and auto accessories that made up the whole rest of your shopping history, and possibly the majority of the same order that one bit of women's clothes came in.

And actually I did know that most transvestites are straight.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[jc42]

... it's a matter of facebook targeting being able to infer your orientation based on the information you provide (friends, locations, likes, un-friendings, etc)

Though, as the earlier "85% accuracy" claimed in identifying homosexuals indicates, such things tend to have a rather high false-positive rate. Judging people on the basis of such statistics is prone to an equally high failure rate.

One example I've seen a lot of is the ads that "target" my wife. She like to tell people that all the online ad people have decided that she's a gay male. I can testify that she's neither. But she first noticed the pattern some years ago, after she started subscribing to Netflix, and it quickly became obvious that their recommendations for movies were very obviously aimed at gay males. She consulted a few gay male (and female) friends, and verified this. Since then, various websites that target their ads have also tended in the same direction. Youtube, Facebook, and Google Ads in general keep showing her things that really fit the stereotype of gay males. We have wondered whether this is just because she follows Andrew Sullivan's and Perez Hilton's blogs, but those by themselves probably don't really explain the pattern.

So far, she just has a sense of humor about it all. It's entertaining enough that she doesn't try to block the ads; she just glances at them occasionally to see if the pattern is changing. And she gets a kick out of telling her friends, acquaintances and co-workers about it.

Actually, I think it's partly just that the advertising industry still has a long ways to go before it can do successful targeting. Thus, I run a web site hosted on a machine in Cambridge, Massachusetts, dealing with a rather technical topic which isn't important here. What's interesting about it is that I tried Google Ads for a couple of years. I and various users were amused to see that Google's idea of a "targeted" ad to the site's visitors was rental and real-estate agents in Cambridge. I can guarantee that the site's users generally don't plan to visit, much less move to Cambridge. If anything, they're much more likely to carefully avoid moving into the middle of a major urban area. Questions to Google's support folks got no responses at all, and I'm no longer running the ads, which hardly ever got any clicks. When I asked the users, many replied that they'd never seen any ad there that they found at all relevant to their interests. Tagging the site's pages with lots of relevant keywords didn't help.

So neither I nor my wife is very impressed with Google's (or Facebooks's or Netflix's or ...) vaunted "targeting" ability. Maybe with a few more decades of experience, they can get a bit better at it. Or maybe they'll still have a 15% false-positive rate at identifying gays. And a 99.9% false-positive rate at prospective Cambridge residents. (I do know one guy in our user list who moved there, as an MIT student. ;-)

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[dev.null.matt]

What GP is suggesting is that by guessing straight every time, you will be correct with at least 90% certainty, based on the fact that out of 100 randomly chosen people, according to the statistics he cited, between three and ten of them are likely to be gay.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, you have to wonder how Max Planck would feel about someone at an institute bearing his name doing 'research' into social networks' per click prices for night club adverts.

Maybe I'm jaded but it hardly seems as important as the work Planck did. People will still be talking about the Planck Length in 200 years. I doubt anyone will know what Facebook was.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, it's very similar to those parents that get all worked up if you post a photo of their kids online because they think it puts their kids at risk. As if some pedo is going to search online, look at photos of kids, try to figure out from the photo where those kids are, go there in person and see if they can find the kid, then follow them around to see when they can get them alone so they can abduct them. Yep, so much more likely than just grabbing some kid at the nearest bus stop or something.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[digitig]

No, but if there were a "death to all gays" party there just might be a negative correlation between membership and homosexual orientation.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

How everything wound up as the freaky horse mask, I have no idea.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[bowlinearl]

Paul Francis is quoted because he's studied this exact phenomena. The relevant paper is here: Challenges in Measuring Online Advertising Systems Internet Measurement Conference 2011 Saikat Guha (Microsoft Research) Bin Cheng (MPI-SWS) Paul Francis (MPI-SWS) http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2010/papers/p81.pdf Part of the paper focuses on how Facebook ads are targeted. Experiment 8, page 5, looks at the impact of sexual preference on ads. The result is that gay men on Facebook are targeted with ads that 1) target them exclusively, and 2) don't mention that they are gay related. The example given is an ad for nursing school. The problem is even if a person isn't publicly revealing their sexual preference, an advertiser can infer user's preference based on clicks. The user has no idea that they are implicitly disclosing the information, because they have no idea they are being targeted by a very narrow segment of ads. I would agree though, if you're really, really worried about your sexual preference leaking, then Facebook isn't a wise organization to entrust the information to...

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if the fact that you are gay is deduced, not from an explicit statement on your part, but on the deductions of FB's algorithms, which piece together such information from the data they collect from all the sites you visit and FB monitors (e.g., through their "Like" buttons)? Sometimes the world extends beyond the end of our nose....

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right

[hawk]

In the early days of amazon selection, someone found himself (herself? It's been a while) being targettrd as a pregnant gay man. . . . (okay, near the top of things I wish I'd kept)

And speaking statistically, the lower. Nance of paying child support, even without considering the lower number of children to support on average, means that the statistical gay male easily has more than 50% more disposable income, and thus woth the premium, even without the object being advertised having a higher appeal to gay males.

I suspect gay males in long term relationships would be an even more desirable marketing demographic.

hawk

Because they're fabulous?

[Hatta]

Page 3 before gay men are even mentioned and that's the headline? I'm not even going to bother making an on topic post.

Re:Because they're fabulous?

[oldhack]

Nicely done, timmy boy. Absolutely fabulous.

axiom in real estate

[Anonymous Coward]

Follow the Men with Male Significant Others

It works, and not just for real estate.

The math is simple

[onyxruby]

The gay's tend not to have kids. That means that they have more discretionary income. More discretionary income equates to more readily purchasing more expensive toys more often than the guy that supports a family. It's why you see shiny things like the latest Itoy so often in the hands of gay people, they can afford them. It's just math and the logic is sound.

The second part though, the idea that someone would go to all the trouble to use something like this to track down a bunch of gays is absurd. Why bother doing that when if your a nutter you just go to your local gay bar instead? You know the one that advertises to attract all of those gays?

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay's what?

Re:The math is simple

[MasterMan]

The gay is tent. He typoed.

Re:The math is simple

[Hatta]

Doesn't it work the other way too? Parents have kids, kids that need things, things that you might buy from diaperdepot.com if there were a link on your facebook page that is your only remaining connection to the independant young adult you once were.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The anonymity offered by doing things with a computer enables the nutter. Going down to the bar would make his identity known in short order. Unless he wore a ski mask into the bar....

Re:The math is simple

[Hentes]

In the article it's only an example that more specific groups cost more per ad, it might be the case that limiting search to heterosexuals also rises the price according to their ratio.

Re:The math is simple

[geoffrobinson]

My guess would be that once buying habits are set for parents, they are hard to change. So advertising for that demographic would be worth less.

Re:The math is simple

[tnk1]

Yes and no. Yes, someone with kids would be more likely to go to a diaper store or something. Thing is, when you have kids, you now are splitting your income 3+ ways, with only two of the people in the family making the income, if that. Those sorts of people will be looking for discounts, not ways to spend their money at boutique baby stores, unless they are very well off. When you have dual income and no kids, which is most of the gay population, you ensure that the discretionary income is maximized.

Re:The math is simple

[Crick]

I hear this a lot but about gay people I've never seen any firm evidence to back it up. Just asserting the "math and logic is sound" is not a convincing argument. Gay people suffer from poverty, unemployment and recession like anyone else.

Re:The math is simple

[Tanktalus]

Spoken as one who doesn't have kids and therefore has never faced down the "I want that"s at the end of an exhaustingly long day and just can't put up with it anymore. Advertising doesn't target the parents.

My wife is not a "girly girl" (she plays D&D). Yet the amount of pink/princess stuff in the house... (first child: girl)

And, while space is "neat", it's not fascinating. We just held a space-themed birthday party (second child: boy). Got more than a couple space-themed toys laying around.

(Third child: boy, but he only just turned one, so hasn't started to display his own preferences. Yet.)

Re:The math is simple

[timeOday]

Yes, women newly pregnant for the first time are highly desirable and targeted demographic. That link describes the lengths Target goes to in order to identify those women, even if they haven't told anybody yet (on facebook or otherwise). But after the spike of one-time purchases and brand adoption during the pregnancy, most of the purchases for actually raising a child are recurring and made from habit, so advertising is less effective.

Re:The math is simple

[epyT-R]

not just because they're rich, but because they care more about form than function, just like women tend to.. ie the perfect apple customers.

would you like to take a free personality test?

Re:The math is simple

[Afty0r]

But all that money that "family guys" are spending - that's ALSO on products for which advertisers want to target you. The new 4x4, mortgage, insurance, family holidays, cleaning products, kids toys etc. etc.

Those are all products that get advertised heavily too, so the theory that "gays have more discretionary spend" doesn't necessarily lead to "gays are worth more per click".

Re:The math is simple

[Penguinisto]

Yes and no. Yes, someone with kids would be more likely to go to a diaper store or something.

Forget diapers... The real money comes from selling those parents toys, clothing, extra life insurance, sugar-frosted{quasi-food name}, and a mountain of stuff that they didn't really need until you convinced them that they did.

All that said, it's easier to sell parents your kid-oriented stuff by directly manipulating the kid, which means that Facebook is likely not going to charge you as much in advertising rates.

Re:The math is simple

[archen]

Kids restrict where you can direct your income even if you spend just as much. For instance there are a lot of regular things required to survive like food, medicine, daycare etc that you probably don't have much choice in (not marketable in a facebook way I would think). Not even addressing the possibility of saving for college, even something mundane like driving a kid to soccer practice requires both time and money. With more of both a person might be looser with income.

Re:The math is simple

[alen]

yep

both my kids didn't react well to pampers so my wife and I buy Seventh Generation diapers without a second thought.

Re:The math is simple

[antifoidulus]

Well, raw income data does not seem to bear the same conclusion, from the US Census:

Married opposite-sex couples report the highest average household income (nearly $100,000), while the same-sex couple household income is around $86,000, which is higher than the unmarried opposite-sex partners with only an average household income of $51,275.

Now of course it is difficult to get an exact fix as there are bound to be generational differences in how "out" people are(older people tend to earn more as a trend) and of course this data is a bit US-centric, but overall it does look like married couples earn more, though the gap seems to be closing.

One reason gays might be worth a bit more is that they tend to cluster in urban areas as when you only have realistically less than ~5% of the population that would even be theoretically romantically interested in you, you tend to move to places with high concentrations of people, significantly increasing your chances for romantic success.

Re:The math is simple

[DigiShaman]

They're called DINKs. Dual Income, No Kids.

Re:The math is simple

[GreatBunzinni]

The second part though, the idea that someone would go to all the trouble to use something like this to track down a bunch of gays is absurd. Why bother doing that when if your a nutter you just go to your local gay bar instead? You know the one that advertises to attract all of those gays?

I believe you missed the point. It's not a question of being possible to simply go to your local gay bar and track down a bunch of gays. The fundamental issue is that, with this, the nutters don't need to go to your local gay bar at all, because someone else happened to put a system in place that is able to generate a comprehensive list of all self-declared gays anywhere in the world. So, these nutters can easily get their hands on a list of potential targets which is much more extensive and thorough than any list they would otherwise be able to compile.

And, suffice to say, this is a recipee for disaster. And not just for gays. Imagine, for example, if Facebook existed in the 1950s and up until then there was absolutely no problem in being a member of the communist party, let alone being simply supportive of that organization or even a friend of any member of the communist party. What would happened if J. Edgar Hoover had access to the names, addresses and social network of anyone who ever joined a communist interest group in facebook, or anyone who ever clicked on the like button remotely related to any site which was pro-communism?

So, the ramifications are deeper than simply having alternative methods to gather information, and much more serioius at that.

Re:The math is simple

[Dcnjoe60]

The gay's tend not to have kids. That means that they have more discretionary income. More discretionary income equates to more readily purchasing more expensive toys more often than the guy that supports a family. It's why you see shiny things like the latest Itoy so often in the hands of gay people, they can afford them. It's just math and the logic is sound.

The second part though, the idea that someone would go to all the trouble to use something like this to track down a bunch of gays is absurd. Why bother doing that when if your a nutter you just go to your local gay bar instead? You know the one that advertises to attract all of those gays?

A single person (gay or otherwise) tends to spend the same as a married person with kids. The difference is what the spending is used for.

Re:The math is simple

[onyxruby]

I won't doubt your figures, my point is on disposable income. Kids are really expensive and they take up almost all of your discretionary income. Making more income doesn't help either as you just end up buying more expensive stuff for the kids.

It's the power of the DINK (Dual income No Kids) that makes gays such a juicy marketing target. The single guy doesn't have the Dual Income part to help his budget. Going by your figures a hetrosexual DINK couple would be even more valuable. However I would imagine that it would be harder to target that market than the gay market.

Re:The math is simple

[SQLGuru]

This exact point was made by a gay friend of mine a few days ago (but in a totally unrelated conversation). Of course, the original statement was that "Breeders don't have play money." But it's the same sentiment......advertisers want the dollars, so they target the people who have the most of them.

Re:The math is simple

[slashkitty]

Exactly. If you wanted to track down gay men.. go to a gay club and look around (or even stand outside and watch who goes in). You certainly don't waste your time making a fake facebook ad. OMG gay clubs are outing gay men!

Re:The math is simple

[Guppy06]

The gay's tend not to have kids.

Not being able to adopt has some effect on that.

Re:The math is simple

[icebraining]

That data is only about couples with children, not all couples.

Also, income != discretionary income.

Re:The math is simple

[FrootLoops]

Actually the numbers I've seen indicate that gay men (research usually focuses on gay men for whatever reason instead of lesbians--I suppose lesbianism is a little less contentious?) actually earn significantly less than our non-gay counterparts. For instance, this analysis says

...same-sex behaving men experience a statistically and economically significant income penalty on the order of 23-30 percent

I'm not really sure what the cause is. Workplace discrimination? Less interest in careers, more interest in sex (dubious)? Less impetus to earn a lot to support your family? Less education partly because of crappy high school experiences? I dunno, I'm just guessing. The only targeted advertising I've gotten that comes to mind as relevant is for gay dating/hookup/porn sites and gay vacations--the vacations are the only pricey thing, and they're relatively rare. I don't think advertisers on the whole think I have money burning a hole in my pocket.

Re:The math is simple

[IICV]

But after the spike of one-time purchases and brand adoption during the pregnancy, most of the purchases for actually raising a child are recurring and made from habit, so advertising is less effective.

Actually you missed the most important part - after the spike of one-time purchases during the pregnancy, most purchases for actually raising a child are made from habits that can be influenced during the pregnancy.

That's why advertising to newly pregnant women is so profitable; if you pull it off properly, you might have a customer who will now buy things from you for the next eighteen years - and then that child will have memories of shopping at Target, and refuse to shop anywhere else (e.g, my wife absolutely refuses to shop at K-Mart and will drive further to go to a Target, just because that's where her mother shopped when she was a kid).

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I work as a dev in a large company that manages huge data sets on virtually everyone, for marketing purposes. We have literally hundreds of data points to individuals and/households ranging from age and income to the types of magazines you subscribe to, your income/debt ratios and what classifications of goods and services you tend to spend your (credit)money on. I see tens of thousands of orders placed using these various data points, placed by everyone ranging from massive Fortune 500 companies to Bob's Pizza.

What I can tell you is that no one is out there marketing to gay individuals or households just for the sake of choosing "gay" and assuming they have income or not or kids or not. What they actually do is just select income ranges they want to target, areas they are interested in, perhaps credit ratings or income/debt ratios and possibly (if their product has a slant to indicate likeness/unlikeness to purchase) whether there are children in the household, and if so what ages, and genders.

The only company that would be choosing the "gay" criteria would be someone who is specifically offering a gay related product or service. Since to that company it is a high value select and allows them to save a fortune in print and postal costs versus sending to everyone in the region, the gay filter carries a high fee. It's that simple.

The rest of the speculation here is just hogwash.

Re:The math is simple

[digitig]

So you target the "hits from the musicals" collections at the gay men, the diaper ads at the heterosexual with kids demographic and the (str8) dating ads at the heterosexual without kids demographic. And of course that leads to lots of misdirected ads, but far fewer than blasting them out to the general population. Heck, if they just targeted the breast enlargement ads to women only then the amount of spam I got would go down by about 30%.

Re:The math is simple

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think the key term is Disposable Income.

Parents do spend more money on necessities which would make them valuable to advertisers selling "diapers", "groceries", "toys", etc.

However single people and couples without children, do not need to spend as much on necessities which would make them valuable to advertisers that sell luxury items like "sports cars", "gadgets", "alcoholic drinks", "restaurants", "concerts", etc. which are more lucrative.

Re:The math is simple

[TheRaven64]

It's also worth remembering that the margin on luxury products tends to be higher than on essentials. If someone with kids is spending $100 on food and other essentials, and someone else is spending $50 on toys, then the retailer may well be making more profit from the second person.

Re:The math is simple

[Belial6]

That is a funny example to me. While I agree with your point 100%, in the specific case of K-Mart vs. Target, I have a different experience. My family shopped at K-Mart when I was a child. My mother worked in a K-Mart for a number of years. K-Mart was where I would often play video games. I have fond childhood memories of K-Mart.

Today I happily drive 3x as far to go to Target over K-Mart. K-Mark has become a disgusting slum of a store, and has clearly given up. Target on the other hand still makes an effort to be clean, inviting, and sanitary. Target is still on it's way up, while K-Mart is on it's death bed. And it shows.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a typo is when you accidentally hit 'm' when you intended 'n' and you don't catch it. Putting in an apostrophe where there should not be one is not a typo. It required going to a specific key. It's the "watch out, here comes an 's'!!!" punctuation.

Re:The math is simple

[Hatta]

That's my confusion. Why does it matter to the advertiser whether it's disposible income or not?

Surely if you take two groups of people with the same income, and one group has a greater proportion of disposible income, that group will spend less overall. Seems like the group that has to spend money will be a more lucrative group than the one that doesn't have to spend as much money.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really sure what the cause is. Workplace discrimination? Less interest in careers, more interest in sex (dubious)? Less impetus to earn a lot to support your family? Less education partly because of crappy high school experiences? I dunno, I'm just guessing.

For many gays, there's a higher incidence of drug/alcohol use, higher incidence of suicide, I've heard possibly a higher incidence of sexual abuse as children, and some messed up home family lives. In short, life sometimes shits in your lemonade.

Many people go on to be happy, well productive members of society -- those ones tend to be professionals and the like. But there's always going to be the ones who came out quite messed up, and many of those can be really fucked up. (And, in fairness, sometimes the professionals are just as fucked up as the house painters.)

So, if you grew up with your family and your church and everyone at your school disliking you because you're different, that's not always a recipe for happy people.

Growing up queer can be a challenge. I know people who span the socioeconomic spectrum. You can definitely find a lot of people who got kicked out of home, never really got to get a good education, and consequently don't have good jobs, and sometimes have some bad vices (a friend dated two guys who were into some nasty street drugs, he's now got a strict zero-tolerance policy).

Then again, you can also find doctors and lawyers as well who have never drank or done drugs. Those ones are the stereotypical affluent ones who can afford to live a little better. But, I've known alcoholic lawyers who drank because they were so closeted at work and were miserable.

That doesn't even begin to cover any of the complexities of this. But I totally buy that many gays suffer a socioeconomic penalty. How well your childhood and youth worked out for you is a huge factor. I know many people who had to leave home in their teens and fend for themselves.

Re:The math is simple

[ravenspear]

If you are referring to the US, I believe gays adopting is legal in all but one state.

Re:The math is simple

[Opportunist]

What it gets down to is: Double incomes, no kids, more often disowned by relatives (and hence not prone to spending money on them as they get older and would need your support) and, odd as it may sound, a fair lot of gays are actually in pretty well paying positions, even though it's still harder for them than even for women to get into peak level management positions.

Looking around myself and looking from my homosexual to my heterosexual friends, I can tell that the former sure spend more money on vanity items and "toys" than the latter. The combination of geek and gay is a toy spending spree. Note especially that "able and willing to spend" is not necessarily directly connected to "being wealthy".

Re:The math is simple

[Bill_the_Engineer]

The group with the largest disposable income is more likely to purchase big ticket items. Also people who spend most of their money on necessities tend to be brand loyal on those necessities.

Re:The math is simple

[geoffrobinson]

I have 3 boys. I understand what you are saying well. But you still wouldn't be the target of advertising.

Re:The math is simple

[Opportunist]

This is very odd, and certainly clashes with my personal experience. But then, most gays I know don't "behave" gay. They are incredibly good programmers, though.

Re:The math is simple

[timeOday]

after the spike of one-time purchases during the pregnancy, most purchases for actually raising a child are made from habits that can be influenced during the pregnancy.

Yes, that's what "brand adoption" means.

Re:The math is simple

[Opportunist]

Pretty much this.

The advertisers don't care if they are gay. They care that someone in group X is likely to buy product Y. Whether that group is "gay" or "home owner" or "liking the color blue" only matters as far as they can identify it as a criterion to link their ad group to.

Re:The math is simple

[Guppy06]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gay_Adoption_Map_North_America.svg

Re:The math is simple

[Americano]

Depends what you're selling.

If you want to sell non-essential / "luxury" items, then the groups with disposable incomes are generally your target demographic. You won't find too many BMW 7-series ads in rural Appalachian mining towns, for instance.

If you want to sell essential commodities - food, clothing, etc., then yeah, mass market (i.e., not looking for "disposable" income) is your target.

Re:The math is simple

[Rtarara]

In a lot of states, it's as a single parent - even if you are a lesbian and had the child together using an anonymous donor. You can set up directive in case you die, but they are not guaranteed to be followed. The second parent has to have all kind of documentation just to make medical decisions or pick the child up from school. In my state (Ohio), you can adopt jointly, but not if the kid is already biologically one of yours (step-parent adoption). It's messed up. Because the state bans adoption by a non-married couples and also bans gay marriage, it's highly unfair. Single parents are lower down on the adoption ladder also. It could be worse, but gays really can't adopt children like straight people can in many states.

Re:The math is simple

[The Conductor]

I have always maintained that the existence of Target is a response to K-Mart trying to slug it out with Walmart on price, and losing, instead of building brand-equity and following their demographic upmarket into higher margin retailing (like Sears, who bought them, or Radio Shack, or JC Penney, etc.).

Re:The math is simple

[V. P. Winterbuttocks]

That's an interesting theory, but I like my theory better.

I have always maintained that the existence of Target is a response to the fact that I can walk in to a Wal-Mart and find airguns, spring guns, and hunting equipment, but I typically won't seem to find the raunchiest Unrated/R-rated editions of movies there. So I can walk in to a Target, where they don't even have cap pistols, but you can get the Unrated edition of the latest Not Another Teen Porno. (And if you appreciate irony at all, note the fact that the Target mascot is a dog with a bull's-eye painted on its head.)

I theorize that someone, somewhere, believes that children become violent due to exposure to weapons, but thinks that they are unlikely to want to emulate all of the unsafe sex that they'll see on the boob tube.

Re:The math is simple

[arse maker]

Ill bet that women are pregnant for the first time far less time than guys are gay.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you missed the most important part - after the spike of one-time purchases and brand adoption during the pregnancy during the pregnancy, most purchases for actually raising a child are made from habits that can be influenced during the pregnancy.

Actually that was exactly his point. I have added the relevant portion you intentionally removed in bold so you can see it easier.

Re:The math is simple

[FrootLoops]

I've seen other numbers indicating that your chances of being gay are drastically higher if you're highly intelligent: something like 2-3 times higher for the top few percent compared to average or dull people. (I saw those numbers in the context of an argument that highly intelligent people tend to display non-standard behavior of all kinds. Being night owls was another good example.) I have a pet theory that gay men tend to have a larger discrepancy than usual between low and high incomes weighted relative to population in each group with a particularly low low, though I've never researched it.

On the topic of gay guys behaving" gay", as far as I can tell that serves two purposes. It helps gay guys find each other (since the vast majority of guys are straight this can be helpful), and (the bigger reason) some people like identifying with gay culture for various reasons. I personally have never felt the need. A lot of guys prefer traditionally masculine men anyway.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't clash with mine, but I'm only a sample of 1.

It really sucks for me to be like I am, because I can't even post this under my normal account. I'm male and gay, but only attracted to boys. It really sucks (pun honestly not intended). I've never offended.

It means that I don't even have a group that I can hang out with. At least most gay people can make friends with each other and hang out together for solidarity... but I can't even do that, because I'm not attracted to male adults. This puts me in a spot where I have no clique or safe haven. No place. I'm not going to go hang out with other people of my type (those who aren't attracted to teens or adults, I'm tired of using the p word), because not only are they hard to find and come attached with mortal danger, but they encourage behavior that is unhealthy.

This is the main reason I've never held a job, really (one year of work ten years ago; I am in my 30s now). Substance abuse tied to this has kept me de-motivated and self-medicating and wishing I didn't exist. There's no support groups for someone like me, and no places for me to go where I would be tolerated. If people knew what I was they would probably want to stomp me down and kill me, even though I've never offended. I'm a pariah (even though what I am is a secret) and can't just be myself around anyone. I never have any money, avoid responsibility, have been depressed since I was 12. My social anxiety is extraordinarily high. I wonder why. Maybe it's the fact that every single facet of society hates my guts and wishes I was dead (if they knew my preferences).

So, I'm kinda stuck. I don't have a license or job, no career, and no friends. What am I supposed to do? What would you do in my position? I'm being supported by loved ones, but how do I break out of the cycle of dependence and avoidance? "Just" being gay would be great. Then I could hang out with others like me and feel accepted. It's not my fault what I'm attracted to. Maybe I should start participating in gay culture. It might help me, even if I basically have to lie and say I'm attracted to adults. I *am* gay, after all. It's just that so many events designed for gay people (clubs, etc) are to help them hook up with who they're attracted to, and this doesn't help me at all.

I just don't know. I'm stuck. Going to college at this point probably isn't the best idea, solely because of the student loan trap. That doesn't count my avoidant behavior, depression, lack of motivation, lack of money, no car, license, insurance, etc. I've never lived on my own. I do not qualify or accept any form of federal or state disability. I have to somehow learn how to become self-sufficient. Being helpless the way I am just encourages me to continue avoiding everything and to continue hating myself.

I really shouldn't even post this, as it's possible that someone could identify me through my writing habits.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the anonymous coward just above your comment (the stupid gay pedo person). I don't act gay either, although now that I think about it, people tend to pick up on it. It's probably because I'm meek and quiet... I meant that I don't have gay "flair." I'm also not highly intelligent. I'm the first person to admit my stupidity; It probably stems from my inferiority complex. I saw your post and found it interesting.

I just wanted to mention that there have also been studies showing that second sons have a higher chance of being gay. You probably heard that already. I know, I'm always late with the information.

I wish I was just gay! :(

It's just that I liked your comment and wanted to reply to it. Unfortunately I have to post AC. It hurts me a lot that I can't just post this as myself.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, I meant that I'm the Coward just underneath this comment. whatever.

Re:The math is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always dubious of studies like this. Isn't it more likely that the men who have extremely highly paying jobs are more likely to be closeted than those that lead perhaps less scrutinized lives?

Re:The math is simple

[ravenspear]

Thanks for the clarification, so in all but 5 states.

It's legal in the ambiguous states because there's no law against it.

Re:The math is simple

[Guppy06]

De jure ambiguity is de facto prohibition. The difference between "can" and "must" is personal preference, which is why civil rights laws are necessary to combat culturally-rooted discrimination to begin with.

Maybe it's not prohibited directly, but maybe state law gives preferential treatment to married couples while simultaneously prohibiting gay marriage. Or maybe the agent you deal with today will let you do it, but the one you deal with tomorrow, or their superior, doesn't like the idea. Perhaps it's only allowed during the present political administration, serving at the whim of the electoral majority.

Don't want to be targeted?

[dealmaster00]

Don't want to be targeted? Don't use Facebook.

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[Frenzied Apathy]

No mod points left!

Mod this guy up!!!

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Don't want to be targeted? Don't use Facebook

and don't live in a town called Dorking.

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[Dunega]

Why? We knew that already. It's posted every single time there's a story on Facebook.

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[timeOday]

Don't want to be targeted? Don't use Facebook.

Oh, and don't shop at stores.

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[Penguinisto]

and don't live in a town called Dorking.

Could be worse...

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[AliasMarlowe]

and don't live in a town called Dorking.

Could be worse...

And we can look forward to an aptly-named lager also.
On a side note, I spent a few weeks here, back in the 80s (the job was exhausting work, too).

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[Jumpin' Jon]

Hey! I actually live in Dorking you insensitive clod!!
;)

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[willworkforbeer]

"worse" as in, "1000x more awesome"?

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[Opportunist]

I wanted to, but there is no "duh" mod category.

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[Opportunist]

You say that now, until 99% of your orders get instantly sent to the spam folder just because you wrote down your delivery address.

Re:Don't want to be targeted?

[arse maker]

Don't shop.
These companies already target you based on shopping habbits of the group they figure you are in.
I think slashdot ran a story not long ago about pregnant women being upset by having tailored pamphlets sent to them with baby products.

How good is this targetting?

[crazyjj]

Will it also include all the deeply-closeted homosexuals who always seem to be the most vocal gay-bashers in any given group? Because I'm thinking that if someone like Ted Haggard sees his own house on the list, it may actually result in a helpful moment of epiphany.

Re:How good is this targetting?

[thesandtiger]

Eh, it's trivial to identify who is a Ted Haggard type:

Are they loudly, constantly, angrily anti-gay and bring up he issue constantly and without any reason?

If yes, they are almost certainly so deep into the closet the live in Narnia.

See: reaction formation.

Re:How good is this targetting?

[Opportunist]

If someone hates me for being something I cannot change, that's a character fault of mine?

I'm curious, care to elaborate? Let's start with the explanation how it's the black's fault.

Re:How good is this targetting?

[epyT-R]

if gays don't like gay bashing, the least they could do is avoid using the same kind of fallacy ridden attacks.. (ie if someone doesn't like gay people or doesn't support everything they want, he must fear them/be a closet case etc). There seems to be a lot of ego and pride in the victimhood marching these days, and not just for gays...pride that borders on superiority complex.

Stop feeding the troll that is facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't pay it any attention, it will go away. I deleted my account 3 years ago and have been fine.

This reminds me of the wal-mart episode of southpark only... well... I can't say much more because its pretty depressing how much people get off on facebook.

By this logic

[toetagger]

We should ban any weapons or other tools those people use as well, including cars, bats, and dogs

Worst thing that could happen? Hardly

[Anonymous Coward]

>>'I think the worst scenario...

What about more likely scenarios:
health/life insurance company raises your rates 20x (or just cancels the policy) for being in a high-risk group
employer fires you (for some other invented reason)
family & friends disown you
blackmail,
etc. etc. etc

Re:Worst thing that could happen? Hardly

[PastaLover]

I think the biggest threat is indeed somebody figuring this out as a business model. You could build a whole company around using various data breeches (+ publicly available data) on social networking sites to build entire profiles on people. Then companies pay you to screen their applicants for you. Banks use it to "adjust" credit ratings. Insurance companies use it to decide who to cover, and who to deny coverage.

The problem of privacy is not keeping the data from getting out there, it is keeping the data from being gathered and used in the wrong context.

I think this would be illegal in the EU of course, not so sure about the US.

Disappointed

[concealment]

"Firefox can't find the server at www.godhatesfacebook.com."

A profitable minority.

[jellomizer]

While Homosexuality gets a lot of discrimination and hate... For the most part they are living an above average standard of life, so they have money, so advertising targeted towards them is valuable.
It comes down to a group that doesn't quite fit in well with the general public and Adds saying We will welcome you to come to our location where you won't feel like an outcast. So Advertising targeted to that group is far more effective... Thus costs more.

Many Other Minorities don't work as well.
Minority Races - for the most part the have a lower then average salary. That means most of the people will be less likely to spend money.
Non-Christians - For the religious non-Christians they have their places of worship where they feel like they belong. For Atheists for most places they go they are able to pass as a normal citizen. And if their religion doesn't have much of a dress requirement they are normally able to pass off anyways. For some of the real minorities the numbers are too small to advertise for.

Re:A profitable minority.

[FrootLoops]

For the most part they are living an above average standard of life, so they have money

Citation needed. The numbers I've seen indicate the opposite--that gay men earn significantly less than straight men which suggests a lower standard of living. A brief search for standard of living instead of earnings came up with nothing.

Re:A profitable minority.

[Ash-Fox]

While Homosexuality gets a lot of discrimination and hate... For the most part they are living an above average standard of life, so they have money, so advertising targeted towards them is valuable.

Cool story, bro.

Re:A profitable minority.

[HungWeiLo]

The answer is always - it depends.

I have several friends who are car salesmen - everything from entry level econoboxes to luxury. They tell me consistently that they are much more likely to be able to get the largest sales margins from the least economically and socially advantaged people.

That's why Hispanics are the new advert cash cow.

Re:A profitable minority.

[Anonymous Coward]

>For Atheists for most places they go they are able to pass as a normal citizen.
So, you're not a normal citizen if you are atheist?

Meaningless numbers

[Kjella]

For example, an advert that targets everyone within a 10-mile radius of a medium-sized British town (Dorking) is valued at 28p per click by Facebook's advertising tool. However, targeting single gay men in the area with a preference for nightclubbing raises the price to 71p per click

That typically means young and single, which has always been a very attractive market with a lot of disposable time and money. Can we get a comparison to straight people with a preference to nightclubbing? Of course a blanket ad trying to sell to everyone is worth far far less...

The consumer.

[MaWeiTao]

All companies care about is advertising turning into real sales. Gay guys are likely closer to females in terms of frequent frivolous spending, i.e. spending on clothing and other accessories. Not that guys necessarily spend less, but their spending is more focused and comes in bigger chunks at less frequent intervals. Also, gay guys, like women, are more fashion and image conscious which means they'll buy into fads more readily and willfully overpay for products they fund appealing. The invention of the metrosexual was an attempt to bring that same mindset to straight men. I'd say it's met with some success, but it's certainly not as reliable as other demographics.

The interest in Facebook is obvious; targeted advertising. The ultimate goal for any company in the consumer space is that we all turn into consumer whores; gender or sexual orientation is irrelevant unless a particular demographic shows increased inclination to spend.

Re:The consumer.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I am somehow unsure of the Dorking "metrosexual" demographic.

I'd suppose it to be similar to that of rural New Hamshire, or Labrador, if you like.

"My name is Daffydd, and I am the only gay in the village."

Re:The consumer.

[Overzeetop]

The ultimate goal for any company in the consumer space is that we all turn into consumer whores

Yes and no. That's more the hard-core side of marketing, or the cynical perception of it. The simple fact is that everybody buys stuff. In the corporate world, everybody sells stuff. The goal of marketing is to influence the first group to buy the stuff of the second group. Yes, there's upselling and driven demand, but for a large number of products, businesses just want you to choose them instead of their competitor when you break out your wallet.

As you said - for discretionary spending gays are prime real estate because they are either single or DINKs - Double Income, No Kids. That means both toys and travel budgets which far exceed the typical household.

Re:The consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of ignorance and bigotry in your post is... breathtaking. Simply stunning.

"I will make a post in which I assert nothing but crass stereotypes, offer absolutely no backing evidence for any claim I made, and the basement dwelling aspies will mod me up because gay stuff makes them super uncomfortable, and it's much easier to assume that gays are more like chicks, because you know, they're all mincing fairies, not hardcore gamers who listen to death metal."

Re:The consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, as a gay man whose fashion sense is generally described as "poor," I find your stereotyping of us to be rather insulting. I suspect my spending on things is generally in line with your assumed puchasing habits of the "typical guy" as opposed to the "typical gay." Blanket statements covering a whole group of which you appear to have, at the most, interacted with only a small subset or, at worst, seen stereotypically portrayed in TV are unwise.

Re:The consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of ignorance and bigotry in your post is... breathtaking.

"I will make a post in which I assert nothing but crass stereotypes,

and the basement dwelling aspies will mod me up because gay stuff makes them super uncomfortable

Re:The consumer.

[Hollinger]

Gay guys are likely closer to females in terms of frequent frivolous spending, i.e. spending on clothing and other accessories. Not that guys necessarily spend less, but their spending is more focused and comes in bigger chunks at less frequent intervals. Also, gay guys, like women, are more fashion and image conscious which means they'll buy into fads more readily and willfully overpay for products they fund appealing.

Umm, Not all of us? Trying to draw a connection between gay males' shopping habits and straight women's habits is superficial, and keep in mind that "gay male" is not a single population.

As one of the aforementioned gay males (and a 5-digit UID Slashdot geek), I should point out that my boyfriend and I certainly don't spend on "frivolous" things. He's more image-conscious than I am, certainly, (blame Gilt Group's iPhone app for that), but neither of us is "buys into fads more readily" than any other guy. We both have more cash because we both have pretty good jobs (game developer, sw architect) and we invest, save, and (currently) have no kids. I, personally, buy what I want, when I want, but not "fashion accessories." I buy experiences (e.g. flying into the grand canyon), and nice things (e.g. my shiny new Weber Genesis Grill).

I agree that orientation is irrelevant, but you should take a step back and reconsider what you wrote.

Re:The consumer.

[Ash-Fox]

Gay guys are likely closer to females in terms of frequent frivolous spending, i.e. spending on clothing and other accessories. Not that guys necessarily spend less, but their spending is more focused and comes in bigger chunks at less frequent intervals. Also, gay guys, like women, are more fashion and image conscious which means they'll buy into fads more readily and willfully overpay for products they fund appealing.

Cool story, bro.

Re:The consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you saw what I did there: congratulations, you win a cookie! You might have noticed the quotes around that, indicating that it was in GP's "voice". I was pointing out his blatant hypocrisy, using a technique known as humor.

Most people here take great offense at being painted as basement dwelling social retards, but there are plenty of those who will happily engage in stereotyping of other groups they don't happen to belong to, and mod up people who blithely assert vapid generalizations that simply serve to confirm their biases.

Re:The consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a perfectly ordinary guy, with all the behaviours and preferences you expect of ordinary guys. Now change one thing, just this one thing: he is attracted to men instead of women. Every other aspect of him stays the same. Is he gay? Yes, he is. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, it's about whom you are attracted to. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm a homosexual man. I don't fit in your stereotypes at all (I'm not a frivolous spender, I hate buying clothes, I'm not interested in fashion, I'm not image conscious), and I'm pretty certain that I would be exactly the same guy if I had been heterosexual except for whom I am attracted to. Most homosexuals I know are just ordinary people, you wouldn't know they are gay unless someone told you. That doesn't mean that people exhibiting those gay stereotypes don't exist. But there are stereotypical heterosexual behaviours too, there are men and women who emphasize their heterosexuality every minute of the day. You don't assume that everyone who is less outspoken is gay, do you? Then please stop making the same mistake about homosexual people.

Re:The consumer.

[GuB-42]

Of course not all of you are into frivolous shopping.
But advertisers don't care about pigeonholing and correlation!=causation debates. If they find that, a target group is more likely to buy their fashion accessories, they advertise for them. It can be gays, vegans, Muslims,... the reason doesn't matter as long as they register a higher score on their stats.

Re:The consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the law of averages at work. Men look for mates based on physical appearance more then women, thus if you are male and looking for a man's interest it will pay dividends to look good. Furthermore it also states "frivolous spending". As a practical geek I would consider experiences (e.g. flying into the grand canyon), and nice things (e.g. my shiny new Weber Genesis Grill) as frivolous.

Since it matters to you, should I not value anonymity and use my slashdot registration, my uid would be just slightly over half of yours (80xx ish). So in that sense I am a bigger geek than you and should be respected...also my captcha is registry. Lady luck is my bitch.

Re:The consumer.

[KevReedUK]

I buy experiences (e.g. flying into the grand canyon)

Sounds like a once-in-a-lifetime type experience to me...

Now... flying through or over the Grand Canyon, on the other hand, is something I've always wanted to get around to at some point in my lifetime, but with a wife and four step-kids, and living on the other side of the pond, the likelihood is not what I would wish it to be...

Two sides to every coin

[Overzeetop]

There's a certain dichotomy to targeted advertising. It's ideal for both the consumer and business in the sense that advertising costs less when you only have to pay for people who are likely to be interested in your product. Even if the per-click is 2.5x as much, if you are targeting an audience that is 1/10 the size of the general population (or smaller), its better. While there are some businesses which operate on a premium product, in general market pressures will keep costs to a typical margin over the cost of production. The vendor can lower prices if marketing costs go down - or just put that extra cash into development of the next product.

Yes, FB and other sites with lots of your data can allow advertisers to drill down to very fine detail, but in order for you to be identified you still need to give your personal information to them. This is, I suppose, a cautionary tale for only entering data into sites you trust, and not to associate your sign-ups with referral links if you're the paranoid type.

I see it as an opportunity. I happen to run an a cappella chorus, and we're always looking for new members. Only about 5% of the population has the ability to do what we do. We know the age range we want, we know most are already involved in or like certain musical groups, we have a geographic area. We'd pay more to attract certain types of people (i.e. music or music ed background). We're in the process of considering a G+/FB ad campaign for our spring membership drive, because it will allow us to target singers who fit the profile without having to place (very expensive) traditional media ads.

For the most part, advertisers don't care who you are as long as we can make you a customer. Once you're a customer we still don't care who you are, personally, but rather that you have a good time and enjoy or value the product enough to continue using it (retention). You become part of our inside pool of customers, and outside advertising means less and less. Sites like FB are used to get new customers and move you from either no brand or competing brands to our brand - because customer retention is far easier than obtaining new. Farming for other reasons (like general collection of personally identifiable information) really is a bastardization of the system.

Welcome to Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the product, not the customer. And products don't get to complain about privacy, they're products!

Re:Welcome to Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I like being a product. It makes me feel dirty.

Re:Welcome to Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn how to use a semicolon, cunt.

Re:Welcome to Facebook

[V. P. Winterbuttocks]

If you think that the colon is somehow connected to the cunt, you're doing it wrong.

Gay men and iDevices

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to stop perpetuating that hurtful stereotype. Just because I like men doesn't mean I don't like digital freedom.

Dammit

[RivenAleem]

I knew something was odd about that add for a Gay Male who finished school in '95 in the small town of Skibbereen working as a barista in Starbucks in Blackrock, with horn rim glasses and wearing a hoodie currently typing on ... aaaarrrrgggggggggg

WTF Slashdotters!?

[MacGyver2210]

Are you serious? People still see ads on the web?

http://www.firefox.com/
http://www.adblockplus.com/

Please help me help the advertisers realize they are useless and unwanted. Use ABP today.

Re:WTF Slashdotters!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Preaching to the choir yadda yadda yadda...

Tell that to the FB users.

BUT, those add-ons do not prevent Facebook from targeting the users (i.e. selling a list of people who fit a profile) - they just keep ads from showing up on a page.

Re:WTF Slashdotters!?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, bad advertisers are useless and unwanted.

Something as simple as text ads that are completely not-scummy are fine.
Static pictures are okay.
Anything animated or plugin based is typically crap and should be blocked.
If they can't grab my attention with a very basic, simple ad banner or few lines of text that isn't trying to ruin my retina by the time I am 40, they don't deserve my views.

Please help spread the word that there are decent advertisers and not all of them are terrible. Also inform webmasters that you are blocking abusive ads in protest of a better web. Most websites have a webmaster@website.tld or admin@website.tld address, if not a contact page on the frontpage.
Also for those who abuse ads by having about 50 of them on a page, or spread articles out across so many pages to increase impressions.
If you kill the advertising-funded web, you kill the web. Because let's face it, most people who want to "stick it to the man" are typically cheap, kids, or in the majority of cases those that are just too lazy to care either way. (who also typically don't vote since they think it doesn't affect them, when it really really does)

Do you really want to kill the free web? Would you be willing to pay a high minimum amount of money that can be paid towards a site due to transaction fees nonsense, for every site you visit?
Or are you clinging on to some desperate hope that some people will step in and make a unified payment method for websites... oh wait, that leads to more tracking.
Let's face it, it is very likely banks are already, or would, happily sell(ing) your information on the black market and the reason you get so much spam through the door each day.
Then they can do all sorts of weird things to that information, weird, sexual, disturbing things. Things that nobody must speak of. Praise Xenu.

But seriously. Free web > paid web.
It was horrible back then, it would be even worse now.
The premium services system would work much better. But this also typically leads to some sites abusing the method, which turns a lot of people off it.
Ads or paid, not both.
I don't know why people have steered away from premium accounts.
I'd probably not bother since I am fine with most ads that aren't abusive, but some people just plain hate to see Ads in their content. (such as the image of having an ad in the middle of your brand new Novel you just bought, that'd be a right kick in the teeth)
Some people like newspaper format, some people like novels. Why sites don't cater to both is beyond me. It is so simple to do and can be handled by quite a few external payment providers (NOT PAYPAL) these days.

Dangerous

[readin]

'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them

Given events of the last 40 years, I think a much bigger danger is that someone would use Facebook's targeting to identify Jews in their area and attack them.

Re:Dangerous

[mbkennel]

following people home from the synagogue just isn't Kewl enough for millenial haters I guess.

Targeting 20 people not profitable...

[Drethon]

Its not value per click that they should care about, its value per minute. You could have 20 people worth 100x the rest of the population but if the rest of the population is 10,000x bigger than that small population, which group is really going to provide more profit?

PROF WANTS MOAR SAUSAGE AND ATTENTION.

[Anonymous Coward]

IN THE NEWS...

o/Bilgatory Troll!
For all this philosophy and non-sense, If there is Homophobia, there is such a thing as Hetreophobia...
First your human and we all have bias. But to be clear, Pro-Palestinian =! Anti-Semite.
endB/

These values of pay per click boil down to this... Traditional family units may have different ways of planning of and for spending patterns? They may SAVE money for their children and other types of things and are not typically target-able for having weights assigned of spending values. Other demographics have different trends. Teens, Singles, Etc... The BOTTOM LINE IS... Corporations would love it if you slept and the office and spent all your money, not having a family is important for this type of formula to take place.

Look the Oompa-Loompa's and The Worm Ridden Fruit company are all collecting this data. Hell, they even have so called Sociology/Psychology Professors themselves to attempt to manipulate ad's and spending habits such... Quatro Wireless *cough*, CarrierIQ *cough*

And we are surprised that FakeBook is doing this? Try this on for size move to a new city/state/country and see if you can find someone from the OPPOSITE SEX that has similar interests as you WITHOUT Fakebook auto rejecting your friend requests.

new song?

[DewDude]

"but I only liked will & grace, one time, one day. Wish I hadn't, cause Facebook now thinks I'm gay"

I really have to wonder how they're determining who's gay and who's not. We already tell it out relationship stats, and sometimes, who. If you're not telling Facebook any of that....then I'm worried about how much data they're collecting and how many assumptions they're making. I already know that since I interact Facebook in a totally different way than I normally would. So...what are they assuming about me?

Ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who looks at Ads these days?

Adblocker pro anyone? I cant remember the last time I saw an Ad on a website!

Damn it, Bob, you got it totally wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

... I said "GAMING"! I said we needed more GAMING on Facebook, not gay men!

Signed, MZ.

Hack Attack

[stealth_finger]

"'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them,'" I don't think that anyone that irrational would have the intelligence to do this.

Useless topic

[mitashki]

Why should anyone get concerned about Facebook preferences? Unless you work for them of course...

Use it or block it. Do not get concerned (Sorry for the paraphrase Master Yoda)

Are there people still seeing ads ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems about everyone is using ad block plus on their favorite browser, surprised people arnt mentioning that.

"Atheists for most places they go are able to"

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheists for most places they go they are able to pass as a normal citizen.

Ummm
Are you implying that atheists aren't normal citizens?

Re:"Atheists for most places they go are able to"

[jellomizer]

Well yes and no.

I am Implying that Atheists are a Minority Group that if they are known they are an Atheist they will be treated as some type of social outcast from the general public.

Still the Normal Citizen are WASP White Anglo Saxon Protestant. The fact that a group is so how not normal doesn't mean that they are bad or should strive towards normality. But for the most part if you are WAS most people will assume the P, unless they make a point about it. By stating that they are Catholic, Atheist, Jewish or some other religion.

Re:"Atheists for most places they go are able to"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that really how bad it's got in the US? (assuming that's where you're posting from, sorry if not.)

In Blighty, for all our other problems, there are very few places that people of any religion would not go. Atheism or agnosticism in practice is very common, though probably not quite the true majority. Large numbers of people might identify as Christian but have not been to church in years, so we are getting into how you define religion here, but there are certainly very few places that a Muslim or practicing Christian would not feel comfortable. It's for the most part seen as a non-issue.

I always interpreted the 'P' in WASP as meaning non-Catholic, as that's where Protestantism came from. Others might have a different interpretation I suppose. I and my family are certainly WASPs (Quakers for most of the c20th), even though we've no belief in the supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Attendance

This is News for Nerds and Stuff that Matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, not so much. Thanks for the waste of bandwidth.

Yes, I do still see ads!

[SmallFurryCreature]

Two right there! How can I filter them?

What?!? Wait?!? Why?!?

[Oswald McWeany]

Not a facebook user- so this seems rather odd to me.

So there is a checkbox for "orientation" that is a default profile set up on facebook? That just seems wrong from the outset.

Given many in society actively discriminate against gays- it sounds like facebook is just making it easier for people to do that. Why on earth does facebook need to ask that? It's not a dating site.

Staight people wouldn't hesitate checking the straight box. So if people are "undeclared" on facebook, I imagine there is a good chance they are not straight. Thus- FB are setting them up from the start to be discriminated against. In our society I can see why many chose to remain in the closet- FB is making it hard for them to be so.

Or am I misunderstand FB- or gays to think this is wrong? Just seems like the system is pre-disposed to help people discriminate.

Jewbook!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me I'm not the only one who thought the subject line said "Why goyims are worth so much to Facebook"!

Whatever!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and since Slashdot has a lax attitude towards monitoring, it's also a call to arms if anyone speaks up and says that they just plain don't give a r@t's @ss about alternate lifestyles of any type. Heaven forbid that the discussion list go back to anything technical!

You've heard from your masters. You will obey!

I've been buying advertising on facebook for years

[Anonymous Coward]

1. facebook advertising has a minimal target audience threshold for placing an ad, it varies but usually revolves around 1-2k, you can see what is the potential target audience in hops of 20 but you can not actually run that ad.

2. even if you did manage to create such an ad you have no way of identifying the accounts unless your landing URL is an app which the user then approves. that is assuming someone does _click_ the ad. also Facebook does not forward the user ID in the landing url itself.

Facebook's lack of privacy has a lot of issues but using it to "track down gay people" seems quite stupid.

Data quality?

[c]

I wonder if maybe Facebook is one of the only (or best) sources of demographic data which can accurately tag someone as "gay", particularly since the users themselves tend to be the ones providing that data?

The Worst Singerio

[neoshroom]

'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them,'says Paul Francis, scientific director of the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems."

I think the best scenario might be where someone who hates Justin Bieber uses Facebook's targeting to identify Justin Beeber and later attack him.

Re:I've been buying advertising on facebook for ye

[Oswald McWeany]

They could place an add for free beer... umm... free appletinis.

Based on who responded to the ad- they could collect a list... worst of all- they need never give out the free appletinis.

Re:What?!? Wait?!? Why?!?

[Ksevio]

There's an "Interested in [] Men [] Women" field which many people will hide just because they hide lots of information. You have to remember that the site was set up as a college network of people, so that is the type of information people were looking for. It doesn't have to be a dating site for people to go to it for dating information.

Think broader

[MountainLogic]

Sexual orientation is only one example. As this sort of technology becomes more broadly available, others will use it. Complain to your senator or city official about spending on a defense program or pot holes. Do you think their staffer might look up who you contributed (or failed to contribute) to in the last campaign? You bet they do and those data bases are now all over the web just type in your neighbors name and address to see how they spent their political dollars. Did the official give you the results you wanted or just a thanks for your concern letter?

Apply for a job: Think the the hiring manager doesn't google you to see if you are "their kind of people?" Think what religious affiliation you do or do not have fails to influence if you get the job? Think your membership (or lack) in the NRA might make the difference?

As these personal information aggregaters are able to provide more and more details about your most personal and private life and these conclusions become more and more available to those who have significant impact on your life what happens if that information is wrong? How do you continue to have a private, thoughtful and reflective life if you can not even explore ideas without consequences. What happens when a "friend" of a "friend" of a "friend" gets labeled as a Nazi or a child molester? Are you now tared? How much time, fear and money will we scrubbing our e-reputation like we now have to do our credit reports for fraud and false reports? Will companies sell me their product or provide cell service if I am likely to give them a bad review? Why should it matter to an employer or the government what books I read at night?

Wrong Story, RIIIIGHT story

[doston]

The story you wont read about is why it's all of a sudden ok to be gay...and become mainstream. It certainly wasn't ok before...even in the 'liberal media' (yeah, right). The reason it's almost ok to be gay now is that the American PR machine smelled a buck. Where there's disposable income and self esteem issues, you've got a recipe for $$$$$, so suddenly 'gay rights' and 'gay marriage' became the *right* story. The media is owned by advertisers and advertisers can sell garbage to gay men faster than they can sell fat women diet pills (also very profitable and for *exactly* the same reasons). Make them feel lousy about being something, then make then feel better for wearing something. Same reason blacks like bling and gaudy cars...they feel lousy for being shat upon, so they make up for it with whatever.... If you're fat, you like things that are LOW in something (low fat, low sodium, low cal)...makes you feel better about being a fat pig...like you're doing something about it. It's about the same for gay men and luxurious vacations and Prada. Makes them feel better after someone yells "FAG" at them walking down the street...they think "yeah but I can afford a $400 pair of sneakers". If gay men weren't profitable, gay rights and gay marriage would be the *wrong* stories and all about disease carrying sex club activities....that would be the story you read about (like yesteryear). So while you're wondering if gay men make more than you do, just stop and look at the evidence. They most certainly, as a demographic, have much more disposable income and time than you and your wife, otherwise corporations wouldn't like them and you'd be reading awful stories about gays instead of happy gay stories. Gay men would be like indians or something...and probably living on ''reservations". Beore you think I'm "gay bashing" keep in mind that I'm gay and happily wearing bargain shoes because I know how crap works.

I'm so boring that I don't see ads on FB.

[BLToday]

I must be the most boring person around because I never see advertising on FB. My "Sponsored" area is always blank.

Re. Paul Francis

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, is there ANYTHING for which there isn't a Max Planck Institute to study it?

Re:Re. Paul Francis

[BLToday]

Honey roasted peanuts.

In this case...

[nitehawk214]

Everybody looks down on someone. I try to be egalitarian and look down on all of you equally.

I only look down on people that look down on others.

(Note: I look down on myself as well due to this rule.)

Your objection...

[TheEmperorOfSlashdot]

...is that you do not believe homophobes would undertake a ridiculous, ill-conceived, but technically-sound plan to identify and harass gays. The Emperor does not believe you have interacted with very many homophobes.

im not gay but facebook says i am.

[rh775]

My facebook says im male and im interested in males. I also have all sorts of comments about homosexuality. But im not gay. How does facebook deal with this type of profile? how am i targeted?

about the word transgender

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the called transgender instead of mutatagender or something more clever. Its seems like they changed genders instead of moving across genders.

For 80% of the US,

[Anonymous Coward]

and 95% of the world, those are in fact frivolous and extravagant purchases.

You are more like Rmoney than I imagine you can wrap your head around.