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.

14 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Muh Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Muh Rights by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you have a constitutional right to be advertised to?

      And if so, is it a right that I can renounce?

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Muh Rights by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact is there is a law on the books about this topic and through the self service portal you can violate it.
      I'm not sure that's FB's fault. The advertiser is the one selecting the exclusions.
      There are other ad campaigns where this targeting is perfectly valid and legal. I think the expectation from FBs devs is that you are responsible for not doing something illegal with their service.

      Same issue:
      If I post hate content on FB and cause someone to kill themselves is FB blamed for it? no. I am. (rightly so).
      This advertising issue should be no different.

      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Muh Rights by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you have a constitutional right to be advertised to?

      You have a constitutional right to not be not advertised to because of your race/religion/gender/other protected status. It's strange, but readily obvious. Imagine a smart billboard that advertised available CEO jobs only to men, and only advertised maid/schoolteacher/cook positions to women. Can you not see how fundamentally messed up that is?

      Basically, you have a right, as always, not to look at advertising.

      Frankly, I hate targeted ads, and would be quite happy with a law against targeted advertising. If for no other reason than it eliminates like 95% of the well-funded efforts to violate my privacy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Muh Rights by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You definitely don't, because the constitution is a set of restrictions on what the government is allowed to do to its citizens.

      Sure, hence the government cannot discriminately advertise. In a related story, the government extended legal protection over advertisements with regards to jobs and housing.

      But, yeah, I probably should have made that clearer in the response to the original poster who mentioned constitutional rights. Kinda wasn't thinking about the stupid semanticpart when I could address the meat of the moral issue .

      Hollywood would be constantly violating [equal employment law] by only offering roles to actors that matched the race/sex of that role

      Well, you are allowed to discriminate if its relevant to your ability to perform the job. For instance, a handicapped person could not sue under the ADA for a construction job (assuming they were incapable of doing it.)

      Why not just make a law against advertising in general?

      Because that would be an unconstitutional abridgment of your right to free speech. Targeted advertising, by definition, involves my right to privacy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Muh Rights by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... the race of the person being advertised to should not be a criteria that is even available for selection by the advertiser.

      Okay. I'll bite.

      If I am selling tickets to the BET Awards, I could save considerable money by excluding Caucasians in the marketing campaign.

      If I am selling holiday packages to Vietnam, I would want to not advertise to the Vietnamese.

      If I am selling flights to Thailand, I know the main markets are White-Americans, White-Australians and Asian-Australians, and Russians

      And in this case, if I was advertising a property in a neighbourhood that is not popular with Hispanic people according to the demographic study conducted, why would I spend hundreds or thousands of dollars advertising to them?

      Marketing 101: Identify your target market

      --
      [Rent This Space]
  2. Not the same thing by avandesande · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Not the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I may not have been clear. I'm simply saying that if I put my ad on Lifetime, men can still see it. If I use facebook's tool to filter out men, they can't see it. That's the difference. No one is preventing you from watching BET, for example. I was using the term minority sloppily/incorrectly. I wasn't trying to imply that targeting minorities is OK but "majorities" isn't.

  3. obvious violation is obvious by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I defy you to tell me how the Facebook Kwik-N-Easy Discrimination Toolkit can be used to discriminate!"

  4. So what? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what? How is this any different than advertising at hockey games, or on Univision? Advertisers have always targeted different ethnic groups differently.

  5. Should be no surprise by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. No crime, just hurt feelings by packrat0x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no violation of the law.

    --
    227-3517
  7. Uh by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Uh by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Even if it isn't illegal, using it to exclude certain ethic groups from your properties is immoral. People are allowed to criticise that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC