Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users By Race (propublica.org)
schwit1 quotes a report from ProPublica: Imagine if, during the Jim Crow era, a newspaper offered advertisers the option of placing ads only in copies that went to white readers. That's basically what Facebook is doing nowadays. The ubiquitous social network not only allows advertisers to target users by their interests or background, it also gives advertisers the ability to exclude specific groups it calls "Ethnic Affinities." Ads that exclude people based on race, gender and other sensitive factors are prohibited by federal law in housing and employment. You can view a screenshot of a housing advertisement that ProPublica's Julia Angwin and Terry Parris Jr. purchased from Facebook's self-service advertising portal here. The report adds: "The ad we purchased was targeted to Facebook members who were house hunting and excluded anyone with an "affinity" for African-American, Asian-American or Hispanic people. (Here's the ad itself.) The Fair Housing Act of 1968 makes it illegal "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin." Violators can face tens of thousands of dollars in fines. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits the "printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification or discrimination" in employment recruitment. Facebook's business model is based on allowing advertisers to target specific groups -- or, apparently to exclude specific groups -- using huge reams of personal data the company has collected about its users. Facebook's micro-targeting is particularly helpful for advertisers looking to reach niche audiences, such as swing-state voters concerned about climate change. Facebook says its policies prohibit advertisers from using the targeting options for discrimination, harassment, disparagement or predatory advertising practices.
Ads that exclude people based on race, gender and other sensitive factors are prohibited by federal law in housing and employment.
Do you have a constitutional right to be advertised to?
Soul Glow
You got the touch!
There is a big difference between having an ad that states there is a racial preference and targeting readers by race.
love is just extroverted narcissism
"I defy you to tell me how the Facebook Kwik-N-Easy Discrimination Toolkit can be used to discriminate!"
So what? How is this any different than advertising at hockey games, or on Univision? Advertisers have always targeted different ethnic groups differently.
Facebook promotes censorship, it does not protect speech. In fact they have been reported by former employees of censorship. Just like Twitter and Google, they are in the bag as propagandists, not outlets for free speech.
If you censor political opinions, why would you not allow other forms of censorship? It should be obvious that free speech is not a concern in one case, so would not be a concern in others. Oh, they may make phony claims that they care but that is simply to prevent people from abandoning the platform and finding/inventing other mediums.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you owned property you'd quickly realize that renting to section 8, NRA/Walmart shopping nuts, heavy smokers, heavy drinkers, or people who are already over extended is a fucking nightmare. How is advertising exclusion to them an issue? You can disapprove anyone with a criminal record or shit credit, so what's the point in advertising to them and wasting time and money? That sense of indignant privilege will last until you're put in that situation as the owner and not the asshole.
There is no violation of the law.
227-3517
Uh, they aren't in violation of the law. If you actually read the law it doesn't prevent you from selective marketing. You just can't express preference in the advertisement itself. What a bunch of fucking morons.
Facebook hates gays
If targeting ads by race is suddenly racist then we should ban BET and Univision and any other media company that offers programming and advertising targeted for a racial group.
"Facebook says its policies prohibit advertisers from using the targeting options for discrimination, harassment, disparagement or predatory advertising practices."
See, nothing to worry about, they have a policy in place... LOL
For sale: Pylons! construct them all day long!!
[EXCLUDE: ZERG]
Good people go to bed earlier.
Of course, you're too fucking stupid to read TFA and realize that there are specific laws for real estate, employment and lending advertising.
Just my onion
>"Ads that exclude people based on race, gender and other sensitive factors are prohibited by federal law in housing and employment."
Um, WTF? That is so wrong and used completely out of context. This has nothing to do with discrimination or not offering something to particular groups of people because you are trying to harm them or exclude them from something they should or would need. There is no sense in showing an ad for feminine products to men. There is little sense in showing an ad for a men's underwear to women. It is silly to show an ad for Geri-curl to someone who is white. There is probably no reason to show an ad for makeup tinted for very light skin to someone who is black. This isn't something to get in a huff about AT ALL. If you offer a product that is targeting a specific age range, gender, race, religion, orientation, hair color, height, home owner, motorcycle driver, language, WHATEVER, what harm is there in making sure those costly exposures are more likely to be sent to people who actually care about your product?
If you don't understand how two similar immoral acts relate to character you have no right to call other people names.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Exclusion on national origin can definitely be included in labor ads.
...as racist. You live in an apartheid country: https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/... Learn about it. Accept it. Deal with it. Maybe one day you can find it in your heart to change and stop thinking as a racist.
Some products appeal more to white people than black people and vise-versa. Also some products appeal more to men than woman.
Someone buying a spots on Facebook does not want to waste money paying to show their products to people who are not interested in their products.
duh..
AdFuel
No, not really. The only purpose and intended effect of this construct is to achieve racial discrimination in who sees these properties for rent. What you're doing is trying to construct an excuse based on an extremely narrow and literal interpretation of the law cited in the article.
I am not a lawyer, but I really doubt whether a court would let either the advertiser or Facebook get away with such an obvious ploy.
However if you insist on arguing you can wiggle out of it by splitting semantic hairs, you might want to take a look at this site, which explains a little about anti-discrimination laws: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...
Check out the third item from the top in the list of banned actions: "Making housing unavailable". I'd say that deliberately flagging advertisements to exclude blacks, asians, and hispanics (as Facebook is offering as a service here) can be construed as "making housing unavailable" to those groups.
It's interesting to see Facebook doing this because it provides an extremely clear example of just how pervasive racial discrimination still is in the US.
So from what I gather here from TFA is that Facebook's self service engine allows you to construct and submit an advertisement that violates the Fair Housing Act. Wouldn't that place the wrongdoing on the party creating the ad and not on Facebook? Or are we arguing that Facebook is liable for the lack of oversight or foresight on ads being created on its medium, because from the looks of it this seems akin to someone holding the magnet manufacturer responsible for hate speech because someone, somewhere was able to arrange refrigerator magnets to say something racist.
Such laws are bogus, in violation of the First Amendment
Keep reading. Let us know when you get to 14. Pay particular attention to Section 5, which states "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".
The thing about the U.S. Constitution, is that you can't just pick and choose the parts you like.
You could say the same thing about The Bible, but that has more cherry picking than a summer camp.
Captcha: outstrip
So black people don't get bombarded by ads?
So much for being disadvantaged!
(Dear SJWs: This is what we call a "joke". You might want to look it up some time)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Fourteenth applies to discrimination by governments, which I already said should remain illegal (sadly, it currently is not). I'm talking about that by private entities.
If you insist on the 14th being applicable to corporations, then it must apply to individuals too. A girl rejecting four Black suitors, but then going out with an Asian one would have to explain the statistics and prove herself not racist. Will you accept such laws too, or do you think, that would be a ridiculous overreach?
But, of course, the 14th Amendment is not applicable to corporations, otherwise there would've been no need for the laws cited in the write-up...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 makes it illegal "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
That is some very dangerous wording they got there. What constitutes "causing something"? If I put up a community message board, and someone posts a discriminatory ad on it, have I "caused to be made" that ad because I provided a platform on which any message may be posted?
That's not for you to decide.
There are business's that are intentionally divided by ethnic lines that aren't inherently racist. For instance, there are black barber shops that sell products specifically black people. Why? Because their hair is entirely different from most other ethnicity's. Most white barbers are not that familiar with black hair. So if I had a black barber shop, I'd only want to advertise to the black population.
I can see how this can be abused, but I understand why it exists.
You have poor reading comprehension. Does not targeting group X with advertising:
* abridge any citizen's privileges or immunities? NO.
* deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property? NO.
* deny any person equal protection of the law? NO.
Does it have anything whatever to do with proportional apportionment of representation? NO.
Does it have anything whatever to do with eligibility of candidates for President, Vice President, Senator, Representative, or holding civil or military office? NO.
In case you're talking about "civil rights" rather than the subject of this article, the Fourteeth Amendment has absolutely squat to say about personal or business discrimination. All laws based on that absurd premise are VOID on their face.
In case there is any confusion the whole point of advertising companies building profiles of people is so they can JUDGE them based on statistical datasets and use the resulting judgment to maximize their own profits. Their activities are inherently prejudicial.
Inventing what amounts to public signage which can only be read by certain people isn't illegal. You after all are not expressing a preference within content of the sign.
The same way stealing your shit (civil forfeiture) doesn't violate the 14th amendment.
Or stalking cell phone users, reading emails and collecting everyone's phone records without warrant does not violate the fourth amendment. Neither is the 7th amendment violated by undecipherable nonnegotiable omnipresent EULAs requiring submission to arbitration.
Up is down, left is right there is no spoon.
Fact of the matter is, different ethnicities have different needs. Black people need different hair products, prefer to buy different clothing and shoes, listen to different music, eat different foods. Men don't buy high heels or cosmetics. Women aren't very interested in power tools or car related trinkets. And so on and so forth. There's this notion that differentiating by need is sexism/racism/etc-ism somehow, but it really isn't. Stereotypes are rooted in reality. All those advertisers are trying to do is sell as much stuff as possible while paying as little for advertising as possible. They couldn't care less about which exact demographics buy stuff. They only care that those demographics are more or less likely to make a purchase decision as a result of seeing an ad. So yes, chicken and watermelons will get shown to black folks, and coffee, by and large, won't be. The way to "fight" this (if you feel passionate enough about the issue) is not by getting your panties in a bunch, but by eliminating the incentive: that is, by getting the particular demographic to _not_ make a particular purchase decision. Do that, and the "problem" will go away on its own.
I thought it was impossible for me to hate Facebook any more than I already did, but whaddya know......
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I would much rather ads be targeted at me based on my race than other more sensitive stuff (that for some reason SJWs are not outraged about) like my browsing history and the contents of my private correspondence that is already being used.
I don't want to see hiphop ads, and I'm sure black people don't want to see mayonnaise ads.
Democrats have always been the real racists, from the Civil War through the Civil Rights era all the way until today. Oh, they accuse the other side of it, but if you watch closely, they always accuse others of what they're really guilty of doing.
This is not racist. Users identify with a race, willingly. Should they be called racist by identifying with a particular one? Certainly not. Should a business be able to specifically target a specif audience? YES. Should we also ad age discrimination when we know that the (I dont remember the exact age) 28-40 group. Should we penalize viagra for not advertising to 18YO's? Should we punish AARP for not advertising to 22 YO's? Should we punish golf cart manufacturers for not publishing to 25YO's.
This is not racism but good business sense.
That the same advertisers and services that want to browbeat everyone for ever minor misstep are the absolute worst about "discriminating" when it comes to their targeting and demographic marketing. It's not outrageous, so what if I'm selling a product and think a certain market is going to buy more of them so that's who I target? Is this news to anyone?
The thing is, it's the hypocrisy of it all that bothers me. Well, that and the erasing of personal preference. I prefer not to date women with red hair, I don't find it attractive. Should I be called a hair-ist? She had no control over being born with red hair, should I be forced by law to date a redhead even if I don't find her attractive because "discrimination"? Where does it end?
Dat's Rayciss!
Such laws are bogus, in violation of the First Amendment
Keep reading. Let us know when you get to 14. Pay particular attention to Section 5, which states "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".
Ok, what about it? I see no mention about free speech being repealed. And since it doesn't, that means that the only "appropriate legislation" for doing so is to pass another constitutional amendment.
The thing about the U.S. Constitution, is that you can't just pick and choose the parts you like.
You also can't just make shit up. Like you're trying to do.
Facebook is run by democrats, and democrats are the historical party of racisim. The Democratic Party created the KKK, and while they're not overtly racist any more, they do and say lot of insidious behind-the-scenes racist stuff like wanting to kill minority babies, they say that Obama should have been "serving them coffee", and right now, they're attacking Native Americans. Notice what protesting without guns gets you from the Democrats: beaten like a rabid dog. Who wants to take away minorities' rights to bear arms? Democrats.
So, it appears ProPublica may have violated the Fair Housing Act by placing this ad. HUD should investigate and fine them as appropriate. I suggest that everyone here file a complaint with HUD about ProPublica's behavior.
The publisher (Facebook) didn't place the ad, the advertiser did.
I'd bet that Facebook has adequate disclosure on its site and in its terms of service for advertisers (although, I've not confirmed this) about the Fair Housing Act's requirements.
The fact that an individual ad is, for example, targeting non-Hispanics in ads they place on Facebook does not mean they are discriminating against Hispanics in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The advertiser may be spending 95% of their overall advertising budget specifically targeting Hispanics in forums (such as Telemundo) other than Facebook and be trying to reach non-Hispanics as well as part of an overall balanced advertising strategy. Facebook can't possibly be expected to know this as Facebook has no idea what the advertiser is doing in other media.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
While your basic premise is true (to determine if something is 'unconstitutional' requires applying the whole constitution wherein some part of it may conflict with another), you may actually want to try to find an amendment that actually applies in this case. The 14th amendment doesn't say ANYTHING about laws passed by the the US federal government. What it says is that STATES can not pass laws that selectively apply (e.g. 'discriminate') or apply their laws in a select way.
That is a fundamental difference in what it means that Congress shall have the power to 'enforce' especially with respect to 'the provisions of this article'.
Let's take our current example in fact. No state could actually get away with actually passing the FHA or a similar law at the state level at ALL because it would restrict a citizen's right to freedom of speech. In so much as such a law may be nominally passed to promote non-discrimation in a given area that doesn't actually matter. Now, whether or not Congress would enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment against a state that passed a law like the FHA is actually open to debate and nothing in the 14th amendment actually says they HAVE to it only says they 'shall have the power' in other words they COULD exercise that power & have constitutional protection to do so.
Push comes to shove, 'freedom of speech' being a right of a citizen conferred at the Federal level the 14th amendment has 0 to do with federal FHA laws. So while you are correct that you "can't just pick and choose the parts you like", you can't "pick and choose parts that do NOT APPLY!" and you certainly can't read parts of an article and try to make them apply to the whole! You are of course free to find another article you'd like to use to grant to the federal government the power to pass laws that restrict your freedom of speech (I can think of a few that have been 'shoe horned' in to making this possible, none however that undeniably grant the Federal government this power).
Yep, that's what they're going to be left with; they're allowed to discriminate against Luddites in app provision, but not many others.
Asians? Really? Is this a china thing?
severe fuck up - correct immediately
Indeed such stuff looks shocking to me, but on the other hand it has some advantage: it could free us of some mistargetted ads, such as hair care for black women served to bald white men.
Companies can buy aggregated credit scores that is aggregated basically really only at the street level between two intersections. These companies then mail out coupons or special offers to only the streets they care about. So they don't discriminate against who takes them up on the coupon, special credit card, mortgage rate or what ever else because they don't have to. The people they want to discriminate against never knew about the offer in the first place.
...and even then ProPublica didn't break the law. They advertised a forum, not housing.
You can argue that Facebook's system is rife with abuse, but ProPublica is the one that used it to break the law.
Aiming at certain demographics is pretty common in advertising. You'd buy ads on Univision to aim for Hispanic consumers, UPN (when it existed) to aim at an "urban" audience, and various news networks that reflect political beliefs.
Facebook's quick solution would be to ban housing ads.
Ad targetting means trying to get the ads to certain groups of people, to get it to the people interested in the product (or falling for your scam).
If you target on the finanicial income, gender, the color of my car or the color of my skin doesn't matter.
People may target their ads based on stereotypes, but they probably won't. They will target them in a way, which maximizes their profit. The evolved way (think of a-b-tests) will possibly show, that some stereotypes emerge, because they are true (in the sense of the law of big numbers, not in the sense of every individual), others will just be equal as the stereotype isn't verified by the data.
You may argue, that targetting is bad for several reasons (i.e. that this is the reason why companies think they need to spy on you), but if you accept targeting, you should not make any difference in the criteria.
So by that same logic, is it illegal to have ads that discriminate against women (i.e. targeting men) or vice-versa ?
I'm a white chick with an affinity for Angela Davis and the Black Panthers. I was also born and raised in East LA, so most of my personal interests on FB revolve around things having to do with Chicano culture, art and history. So Facebook has no fucking idea who I really am.
It has been years that I only got **Friends** among Indians and only Indians reply to my texts, like, etc.! It is not ridiculous, I do prefer blue eyed Europeans than Indians and want no Africans in there, they always find how to insult me. I would definitely appreciate control over what countries I can be seen in, I could not find again the option, I do not even remember if it was Facebook or youtube. Funny that this article mentions 1964 and 1968. Did they have computers? NOOOO!!!! Then what the hell did they know about the world when their Africans were but a bunch compared to the much increased population nowadays? Truly, law does not mean it can never be reviewed, but here is not a matter of housing but of being contacted by OUTSIDE a MARKET. Unless, of course, you do not mind having a mob of civil righters invading your place and disposing of your bodies to keep the place...
You don't want to associate with me, so I try to force you (via government)?
We don't accept that in dating and marriage, as it's called stalking and rape, yet somehow it is virtuous to force in the context of other human relationships?
The "cure" seems even less civilized than the problem. It is using aggressive force against people who act peaceful (although distastefully in some cases).
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.