Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook To Stop Ads that Target, Exclude Races (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on from the fixing-things dept.

An anonymous reader shares a USA Today report: Facebook says it will no longer allow advertisers to exclude specific racial and ethnic groups when placing ads related to housing, credit or employment. "We are going to turn off, actually prohibit, the use of ethnic affinity marketing for ads that we identify as offering housing, employment and credit," Erin Egan, Facebook's vice president of U.S. public policy, told USA TODAY. Facebook will also require advertisers to affirm that they will not place discriminatory ads on Facebook and will offer educational materials to help advertisers understand their obligations, Egan said. The policy changes came after discussions with Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Illinois) and the Congressional Black Caucus, and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

143 comments

  1. Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are they collecting this in the first place? Is it any of their business?

    1. Re:Question is... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everything about you is their business. It's how they collect their money by selling your data on, or advertising to you based on what they perceive your needs or wants to be.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything about you is their business.

      Doubtful.

    3. Re:Question is... by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      anyone who uses facebook agrees to this. look at your eula when you sign up. doh.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    4. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are in the personalized advertising business.
      Showing sunblock ads to black people is useless for example.

    5. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that makes it right?

    6. Re:Question is... by gnick · · Score: 2

      That makes it legal and profitable. "Right" doesn't factor in.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are they collecting this in the first place? Is it any of their business?

      It's facebook. Of course your demographical information is their business.

    8. Re:Question is... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why not? You're offering a service in exchange for something. You could always give the users the option to pay a monthly subscription fee in exchange for not being tracked. I'm sure a whole 0.0001% of users will take them up on that option too.

    9. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't.

    10. Re: Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      African Americans get sunburned just like everyone else. It's less visible on people with black skin though.

    11. Re: Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come Jan 21 2017 this racial diversity fembolshevik homosexual bullshit will come to an abrupt end.

    12. Re:Question is... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Everything about you is their business.

      Literally

      --
      Dark Reflection
    13. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A contract in which you agree to enter into slavery is null and void, and legally unenforceable. There are some things a party cannot offer for you to agree to.

    14. Re: Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone will have to be white or orange.

    15. Re: Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does American have to do with this?? What if you're a Liberan African?

    16. Re:Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More stupid nanny-state interference.
      --
      roman_mir

    17. Re: Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you signed up as Facebook's product, of course Facebook's customers will want to know everything about that product. Because it is literally their business.

  2. Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What nutter codes that in the first place?
    Walk out.

    1. Re:Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You code what you are told to code. So the better question is what suit called the shot.

    2. Re:Engineers by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      how do you think google and facebook make money?

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    3. Re:Engineers by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Who needs to code it period?


      for attribute in profile_attributes:
          if target["attribute"]:
              displayAd()

      That way when your profile attributes change you don't have to re-write your ad tools.

    4. Re:Engineers by gnick · · Score: 1

      So the better question is what suit called the shot.

      The one that acknowledged that there was an edge to be had by including these statistics in their advertising bias and somehow thought there would be no repercussions.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re: Engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's big data, it's the hot shit. Just like census days on punch cards was the hot shit for IBM engineers 80 years ago.

  3. Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...prohibit, the use of ethnic affinity marketing for ads that we identify as offering housing, employment and credit"

    Why only those types of adverts? Why not just turn it off altogether?

    1. Re:Just those things? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      There are probably some cultural things that they see as being more likely relevant to certain races.

      Such as: advertising a Kanye West event to white people or Garth Brooks to black people. Sure, some black people like Garth, and some whites like Kanye; but they're probably more likely to reach a receptive audience to those people by advertising to a certain race.

      That said, I'd imagine most things they might want to advertise, race would be irrelevant.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re: Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the particular ones that the wary have turned a scrupulous eye towards.

      Being well-recognized points of iniquity, as they are significant influences on quality of life, there are specific legal protections on a federal, state, and even local level.

      And Facebook still wants the money they can make for selling targeted services.

    3. Re:Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of revenue, most black artists generate way more from white audiences. Kanye West makes his money and his label's money from white suburban kids.

      I should note that FB will continue to use this in profile building, just like Google and everyone else. They're just making a show about "predatory advertising".

    4. Re:Just those things? by ai4px · · Score: 1

      The cynic in me says you are right.... I could care less about some things such as Kanye West, but because they can't filter on race, they advertiser will have to pay for my page view.

      1)make a rule where you can't filter by race
      2)tell marketers they have to pay for useless renderings of their content ....
      4)PROFIT!!

    5. Re:Just those things? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Good point but, Dude, that was a possible example.It was obvious enough to get, but neutral enough to rely on stereotypes. (He could have referred to the racial stereotype of the lazy black eating watermelon or something similar, less true but even more insulting than Kanye West)

      --
      bickerdyke
    6. Re:Just those things? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's in areas where targeting advertising disadvantages certain races.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i can see from ur post history ur pretty racist against latina americans

    8. Re:Just those things? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Try marketing sunblock to a black man. "You need the level 20 sunblock for your skin".

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    9. Re:Just those things? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      lol. I picked Kanye instead of, say Beyoncé, or Chaka Khan, because I thought he was more appropriate. I wasn't trying to be insulting.

      Everyone loves Chaka Khan and Beyoncé is quite popular with all races too! Most white people I know think Kanye is a joke, I didn't realize black people would be offended to be associated with him too! Perhaps there is a better example I could have used. I fully admit to being completely ignorant of who is popular with whom in pop-culture these days.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    10. Re:Just those things? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Most white people I know think Kanye is a joke, I didn't realize black people would be offended to be associated with him too!

      Well, I would! But I'm neither black nor American, so...

      --
      bickerdyke
    11. Re: Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If there are legal protections against using race as a criterion for employment, then how come Abraham Lincoln is portrayed by a black actor 0% of the time?

    12. Re:Just those things? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Black people get sunburn too. Not as easily and it isn't as visible when it happens but it happens.

    13. Re:Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those specific items are specifically codified in law as illegal. Others areas aren't, so their lawyers would be able to clobber any end user who sued, especially when you need to show you were harmed to have standing. If blacks are only shown ads for a specific type of hoodie, it'd be difficult for them to claim that it hurt them enough to file a lawsuit. Noting being shown employment ads when you're unemployed can much more easily be shown to have hurt you.

      So Facebook was breaking discrimination laws and only made the tiniest change to make themselves look legal again. They are likely still engaged in illegal discrimination, but you'd have to fight it out in court. It wouldn't be an open and shut case anymore. Those areas are specifically mentioned in the laws because there were already lawsuits about them in the past.

    14. Re:Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why only those types of adverts? Why not just turn it off altogether?

      Because it is specifically prohibited by US law for certain types of ads.

      For other types of ads, it isn't explicitly illegal.

    15. Re:Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you were not being insulting! why would anybody be insulted by your complete ignorance?

      Kanye West is a mega-popular star with white people; there aren't enough black people in the population to come close to buying all the music he sells.

      you just assume Kanye==black, his appeal==black which is completely ignorant and relies on ignorant assumptions, but it's not offensive, so don't feel bad!

    16. Re: Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you picked two white artists to compare. try Fredo Santana vs Garth Brooks

    17. Re:Just those things? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Why only those types of adverts? Why not just turn it off altogether?

      Beauty products. It's quite likely that ladies with different skin colors want different beauty products.

    18. Re:Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are situations where it is perfectly rational to target advertising towards specific ethnic groups.

      Example: Pickled Herring.
      Would there be an ethical problem to target such ads towards people wiht scandinavian sounding names or, if the data is available, of scandinavian descent?
      Would be perfectly rational to target ethnic groups in that case as almost everyone outside of that group finds that food disgusting.

    19. Re:Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...prohibit, the use of ethnic affinity marketing for ads that we identify as offering housing, employment and credit"

      Why only those types of adverts? Why not just turn it off altogether?

      Probably because somone realized they might be treading close enough to the laws that prohibit racial discrimination in housing or employment to get sued over it (most likely because someone sued them and their lawyers said "they might have a valid case here").

    20. Re: Just those things? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Give it time. Not that you've seen 100% of theatrical portrayals of Lincoln, I'd suspect.

      The Marvel Universe movies picked out the best actor they could for Nick Fury, despite the fact that Fury's backstory absolutely does not work with Jackson's race.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re: Just those things? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Check out Ultimate Nick Fury. He is basically the spitting image of Samuel Jackson, and predates the movies by quite a bit.

    22. Re:Just those things? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      There are legitimate reasons you want to target particular groups of people.

      Housing, Employment, and Credit are all flat out illegal.

      ---
      Here's an example: it costs you 10 cents per thousand hits. you are selling hair straightener to blacks. If you can limit your target to blacks, then your advertising will cost you 1.2 cents (because you won't be sending adds to 880 people who don't care about hair straightener).

      That make sense?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    23. Re: Just those things? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Abraham Lincoln has often been portrayed by blacks in school settings often.

      But Abe is an actual historical figure (not a fictional one created in a highly racist environment where every character was white and minorities were basically invisible like Nick Fury) so most often a white actor who looks like photos of abe lincoln will be selected.

      However, Romans (and Roman Ceasars) are often portrayed by British instead of italians. So it's certainly possible that in a few hundred years Lincoln might be portrayed by Chinese actors.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re: Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there are legal protections against using race as a criterion for employment, then how come Abraham Lincoln is portrayed by a black actor 0% of the time?

      You have it backwards, the question is, if race was a criterion for employment why would a black presidentbe played by a white man? Since by your allegation (untrue though it is), they've all been white, it must be that they're race blind. Right?

      More seriously, if you wanted to actually have a conversation about the the issues of racial bias in movies, we can have one. There's a lot to talk about. From depictions in Tropic Thunder, to the outrage over the remakes of Annie, 12 Angry Men, or Wonder Woman. Or even the idea that Saint Nicholas, the historical antecedent of the popular conception of Santa Claus, resembled the popular depiction of him. You know, a real discussion. Not just a pointless remark that you think is witty and cutting, right?

    25. Re: Just those things? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      I recently saw a professional production of Macbeth with a black actor in the role. Not unusual nowadays and no big deal. A good actor can transcend race and gender.

    26. Re: Just those things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're missing a lot of customers because pickled herring is eaten by a whole host of northern Europeans, and Jews. Advertising kosher food to Jews or Islamic services to Moslems are more likely targets if you're going by surname.

    27. Re: Just those things? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It's a little harder with othello tho.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    28. Re: Just those things? by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      It's ok as long as they don't black up.

    29. Re:Just those things? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      AC that has it origins in the US going back to the 1950-70's.
      The real issue now is that fine granular ad consumer tracking and product placement.
      English, Portuguese, French, Spanish within the Americas, Africa and much more fine demographics down to small region, parishes, districts.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    30. Re: Just those things? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      That was a bit appalling. It should just be makeup but you know, blackface has a terrible history so it's not just makeup.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    31. Re: Just those things? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure. However, I seem to remember a certain Sergeant Fury and the Howling Commandos - or something like that - nominally from WWII. That would not have happened at all had Fury been colored (to use the military terminology of the day).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re: Just those things? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      There were black officers and black units in WWII dude...

  4. Can they target political fanboyism? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 0

    Seriously, it's as though there is nothing else going on in some people's lives that they are constantly posting some political commentary. Guess what? Nobody asked for your opinion.

    1. Re:Can they target political fanboyism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put down the coffee. You've had too much. And the crack.

    2. Re:Can they target political fanboyism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your solution is to go Off-topic and post some political commentary of your own?

  5. Traget Races?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I won't be getting NASCAR ads anymore?

  6. Did this election teach us nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to stop being so politically correct. A few overly sensitive people have completely ruined this country for the vast majority of us. When are we going to take control back from the people who are easily butthurt and whine and complain constantly? The founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

    1. Re:Did this election teach us nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we should all discriminate against assholes like you

  7. Get ready white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ready white people. Prepare to see lots more ads for:

    - hair butter
    - hair picks
    - hair weaves
    - burritos
    - pinatas
    - sombreros
    - yarmulkes
    - dreidels
    - bagels
    - towels
    - men's dresses
    - prayer rugs

    And so on and so forth.

    1. Re:Get ready white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You forgot buttplugs for assholes like you

    2. Re:Get ready white people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't dreidels ALREADY be advertised mainly to white people?

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Get ready white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they would advertise to Jews, right? What's the confusion?

    4. Re:Get ready white people by FacePlant · · Score: 1

      Bagels? Really? Bagels?

      --
      My Heart Is A Flower
    5. Re:Get ready white people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Jewish people ARE white. You don't see a "Jewish" option for race when filling in a document at the DMV. Most western Jews (and even Jewish people that moved back to the middle east) have much more European DNA than middle eastern DNA after their ancestors lived with (and consequently bred with) Europeans for many centuries.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    6. Re:Get ready white people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I liked that one, and Burritos. White people NEVER eat burritos. Most white people look at a burrito and wonder what it is: is it food, is it a living animal? Why is it on a plate.

      White people are going to be astonished to realize the burrito exists.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Get ready white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because all those items fall under the categories of housing, employment and credit.

    8. Re:Get ready white people by tepples · · Score: 1

      White people NEVER eat burritos.

      Yet they eat Hot Pockets, which are the same thing.

      Besides, "never" is a strong word. Was MTV being unrealistic when it depicted Beavis and Butt-head seeking burritos in "The Great Cornholio"?

    9. Re:Get ready white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't see a lot of options when filling out documents at the DMV, but that doesn't make all the people they'd apply to white. Now instead of actually typing out a full list of the racial slurs I can think of, I will leave this to the reader's imagination.

    10. Re:Get ready white people by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize I was being sarcastic.

      However:

      Hot Pocket is to Burritos what Velveeta is to real cheese.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    11. Re:Get ready white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what (((they))) want you to believe.

    12. Re:Get ready white people by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      To think it is a living animal (presumably a small donkey) would presumably require they have sufficient knowledge of Spanish...which would in turn likely imply they already know it is a food item. (I know, woosh.)

    13. Re:Get ready white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Jews are just another kind of sand nig6er., Definitely dirty enough to qualify as brown by my book...

  8. Just exclude? How about inclusion targeting? by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    The article says Facebook will "...no longer allow advertisers to exclude specific racial and ethnic groups when placing ads related to housing, credit or employment."

    What about advertisers that inclusively target specific racial and ethnic groups? For example, money transfer services to Mexican-Americans?

    1. Re:Just exclude? How about inclusion targeting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Including set A" is equivalent to "excluding the complement of A", so it makes no difference in that respect. Next you check if "money transfer services" is related to "housing, credit or employment". No, so you're good to go.

    2. Re:Just exclude? How about inclusion targeting? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      What about advertisers that inclusively target specific racial and ethnic groups?

      Or hair care products? Dark and Lovely

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re: Just exclude? How about inclusion targeting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those money transfers will be stopping soon anyway.

      Build that wall !!

  9. Turn off by necro81 · · Score: 1

    We are going to turn off, actually prohibit, ....

    Does this imply that such a feature was actually available up until now? Who the thought that would ever be permissible?

    1. Re:Turn off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's how marketing often works. "White women over 40" is absolutely a valid and widespread example of a target audience definition. And while FB may prohibit the use of "white" in this example, it will just be a PR stunt. You can easily profile people by other qualities - political preference, income, zip code, number of children, education, etc, etc. So you can't target white people anymore, you have to build a profile which happens to include 90%+ whites.

    2. Re:Turn off by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      They're not disabling racial profiling for ads completely; only for housing and financial things. (things where there is more likely nefarious purposes for racial profiling rather than just finding the most appropriate demographic for an ad).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Turn off by necro81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Marketing to various demographics based on race is indeed widespread, and generally valid. However, the financial services industry, have very specific laws to follow about that kind of thing, based on a long history of discrimination and abuse. Even if Facebook wasn't originally aware of that (which, frankly, they should have: every advertising and media company are aware of them, and that's what Facebook is), the people actually crafting the ads should have known.

    4. Re:Turn off by nightcats · · Score: 1

      It's the fake news ads that caused any and all the trouble (though it's a non-provable claim that they tilted the election to Trump). So the horse is out of the barn by now, Mr. Z -- continue with your obsessive money-grab as you were doing.

      --
      Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
    5. Re:Turn off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the people actually crafting the ads ...

      The graphic designers, or general idea-people? No.
      The admins in marketing, outreach, and regional mangeters. Not the schmucks at the mouse.
      -signed a schmuck

    6. Re:Turn off by necro81 · · Score: 1

      The admins in marketing, outreach, and regional mangeters. Not the schmucks at the mouse.

      And the admins aren't responsible, nor have oversight of, the content created and executed by the schmucks at the mouse?

    7. Re:Turn off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually as they're only doing it for the things that have specific legal requirements against using race as a discriminating factor they're probably not doing it for PR but to cover their ass from lawsuits.

      The corollary of which is, that somone most likely was using it to advertise housing in "whites only" communities or "loans for broke black people".

    8. Re:Turn off by DerpQuake · · Score: 1

      Is Facebook really expected to police the decisions of advertiser target selection? If we have laws and businesses are expected to know and follow the law then they are ones responsible for their ad choices. If we really carry the logic through, in that Facebook has a responsibility, then I'd ask why Facebook should even track race? Any time people are divided by race via algorithms the end result is always discrimination, sometimes benign, sometimes malicious, but knowing and categorizing people by race always results in some kind of discrimination.

    9. Re: Turn off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people actually crafting the ads did know and that's why Facebook are turning it off.

  10. This will not stand under Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No government entity will be allowed to expend resources in addressing discriminatory behavior.

    Tax breaks for the rich will require reductions in government expenses, and any agency responsible for standards of civility or environment is an obvious candidate for the kill list.

    1. Re:This will not stand under Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if the GNAA posts will stop now that Trump will be busy elsewhere?

  11. so long leonard,, until we meet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks so much,, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IfmiKnZi3E .. lofty goals.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkk6phMBkOs .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpLBtWG3JR4 .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDTph7mer3I ..

    1. Re:so long leonard,, until we meet again by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Agreed .. the soundtrack to my life just died :(

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  12. Donald by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    The Donald will make them start again!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Donald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn, enough already with you fucking racists! Stop projecting onto everyone else.

    2. Re:Donald by tepples · · Score: 1

      I doubt that 1-Term Donald alone has power to end the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the equal employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Though the House and Senate will be Republican, Congress can't be too reactionary or they risk losing control at the end of the second year just as easily as they gained it in 1994.

    3. Re:Donald by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I doubt that 1-Term Donald

      King George only had one term.

      Congress can't be too reactionary

      I suspect they can.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Donald by tepples · · Score: 1

      George III was King of Great Britain and Ireland for a period equivalent to almost fifteen U.S. President terms. Are you claiming that the U.S. Constitution will be amended to give President-elect Trump a term an order of magnitude longer than that for which it presently provides?

      Congress can't be too reactionary

      I suspect they can.

      At this point I doubt it. House Speaker Paul Ryan is reluctant to support a lot of what Mr. Trump stands for.

    5. Re:Donald by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming that the U.S. Constitution will be amended to give President-elect Trump a term an order of magnitude longer than that for which it presently provides?

      I'm a pretty successful businessman. I didn't become a successful businessman by letting people tell me what to do. I became a successful businessman by getting things done...

      Can you imagine him making a speech starting like that? I can. Can you imagine the people falling for it? They already have, so why not again?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. systemic racism by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I've long believed that even well-meaning groups and services that are explicitly established to help only people of a particular race or ethnicity are actually keeping racism going much more than eliminating the problem, and as such should be illegal. You either provide soup/scholarships/whatever equally for everyone that needs it or no-one.

    Another example: All those government forms that ask your ethnicity... yes I know its optional to reply, but that shouldn't even be a question in the first place.

    1. Re:systemic racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the idea is to compensate for past racism. If someone steps on your yellow flowers but not on your blue flowers, then you'll help the yellow flowers. The problem is to know when you've compensated enough and should stop giving special attention to the yellow flowers.

    2. Re:systemic racism by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I think that the idea is to compensate for past racism.

      Because two wrongs always makes a right

    3. Re:systemic racism by Solandri · · Score: 1
      From an engineering perspective, this is the difference between an over-damped, critically damped, and under-damped system. The system starts with an offset (past racism). Once that offset is eliminated, it will move back to a neutral state (no racism). The speed at which it does so varies on the dampening.
      • The over-damped system corresponds to lingering racism. The system is moving towards a neutral state, but is slowed down by residual racism that still continues (racists teaching their kids to be racist).
      • The critically damped system corresponds to no racism. The system is moving towards a neutral state with no impediment of residual racism, and is only slowed down by inherent time constants in the system (in this case, the time for racist bigots to grow old and die).
      • The underdamped system corresponds to affirmative action. You can move the system to a neutral state more quickly than it naturally would by actively favoring races which were discriminated against in the past. The danger however is that you're going to overshoot and pass the neutral state (as has happened in education - girls now outperform boys and earn the majority of college degrees). In an active control system, you can change the dampening as you approach the neutral state to minimize or even eliminate the overshoot. But I have yet to see any affirmative action legislation which attempts this - defines conditions when the affirmative action should end.
    4. Re:systemic racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three lefts make a right

    5. Re:systemic racism by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Yes but you're talking about logical, predictable systems. That is not human nature.
      Just look at groups like BLM. It should be more than obvious by now that "Affirmative action" is just a lame peecee excuse for more racism.
      The only way to properly end the problem is to eliminate racism, not encourage more (in either direction).

    6. Re:systemic racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because two wrongs sometimes make a right, and they think that it is one of these cases.

    7. Re:systemic racism by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      The people getting wronged today are most certainly not the people who did the first wrong years ago. There's no getting around it, it's just two wrongs. Moreover the beneficiaries are also not the people who suffered the first wrong. To summarize we are punishing the innocent people as well as rewarding undeserving people.

    8. Re:systemic racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are uneducated because you were a slave, then you won't be able to help your kids with their homework, so the first wrong (slavery) is making a different person suffer (the kid). Apply this recursively and the current beneficiaries are suffering the first wrong (just indirectly). The kid which is successful because his parents were not slaves had an unfair advantage (compared to the average kid) so the kid is not completely innocent.

    9. Re:systemic racism by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      If you are uneducated because you were a slave, then you won't be able to help your kids with their homework, so the first wrong (slavery) is making a different person suffer (the kid). Apply this recursively and the current beneficiaries are suffering the first wrong (just indirectly). The kid which is successful because his parents were not slaves had an unfair advantage (compared to the average kid) so the kid is not completely innocent.

      You realize that means you're trying to right wrongs committed ~150 years ago. Talk about punishing the wrong people. Does this never end?

      I'm curious though, what's your plan for helping the Chinese who built the railroads at approximately the same time? Or maybe you have a plan for the poor Irish who also built railroads at about the same time?

    10. Re:systemic racism by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Not 150 years ago, more like 50 years ago. The civil rights movement is still in living memory.

    11. Re: systemic racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused by your use of "punish" here.

      If I give a step stool to short person to help them see over a wall I would consider that to be helping the short person, not punishing the tall person that happens to be standing next to them.

    12. Re:systemic racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From an engineering perspective

      Ah, you want to talk about it as an engineer? The most important thing for an engineer is to know the system they're working on, and figuring out its particulars is very important, because a small change can matter. Sometimes it can have big consequences when you don't know well enough what you're doing.

      Your understanding of human nature, in case you're not getting the implication, is one I would call incomplete at best.

      The system starts with an offset (past racism).

      Your terminology is off. Leave off the past modifier. It isn't past, even now. The system had racism. Racism is a problem. We don't want racism, correct?

      We want to address it? Therefore, we must ask the right question, how do we prevent, deter, and most importantly, recognize racism?

      Unfortunately, all of these things can be done correctly, or incorrectly. And there are elements that will gain by the latter.

      Once that offset is eliminated, it will move back to a neutral state (no racism).

      Ah, you think the system will move natural back to a neutral state? There's an inherent presumption here, that racism is an aberrant state, somehow introduced externally. This is bad engineering on your part, as it assumes that the undesired condition will go away. There are many people who claim to think that.

      However, I believe experience has shown that they're either naive or lying. I'm not sure where the idea comes from, it is similar to the ideas of anarchists and the concept of the noble savage, who believe man is somehow pure, and if only the artificial constraints that have arisen are removed, all will be well.

      I wish it could be a touching innocence, but unfortunately, as I said, there are people who are lying. Simply nefariously claiming we don't need to do anything about racism any more, in fact, people who protest racism, why they're the ones who are the problem now. They're still protesting racism, why doesn't they just go away, so we aren't racist anymore!

      The over-damped system corresponds to lingering racism. The system is moving towards a neutral state, but is slowed down by residual racism that still
      continues (racists teaching their kids to be racist).

      See, this is where you're missing the point, you know that parents teach their kids, then it's not a residual problem, it's a continuing one.

      You seem to think it's just a "lingering" issue, that'll go away on its own. What if that wasn't true?

      The critically damped system corresponds to no racism. The system is moving towards a neutral state with no impediment of residual racism, and is only slowed down by inherent time constants in the system (in this case, the time for racist bigots to grow old and die).

      And this is where you show the issue I mentioned above most clearly. You're leaving out what you already mentioned, that people teach their kids. And sadly, no, you cannot simply eliminate that problem by taking away the kids. Even if that were acceptable, which it is not, the thing is, discrimination is a value that can arise through a variety of origins.

      Maybe, maybe if you somehow developed a far far greater understanding of humanity, you could make a convincing demonstration of your ability to eliminate it, but you have not reached it. Even here, to another observer, namely me, you're showing signs of error.

      The underdamped system corresponds to affirmative action. You can move the system to a neutral state more quickly than it naturally would by actively favoring races which were discriminated against in the past.

      And this where you end up confirming the problem I have with you. All it to

    13. Re:systemic racism by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      You mentioned slavery. You realize that ended ~150 years ago right? At least in the US. Globally there are still places where slavery is practiced so anyone who wants to do their part to end slavery still has a chance. But going back to the US it ended a long time ago. You also mentioned the Civil rights movement. The original goals of this movement were to get equal rights for all regardless of race. That has been accomplished. Indeed it was accomplished around 50 years ago. Now it has morphed into getting special privileges for select favored groups. For example special government programs just for certain groups, quotas forcing hires and promotions of favored groups, set asides in colleges for favored groups, etc. Special treatment for groups based on factors like race or gender is virtually the definition of discrimination. Yet that is what the "civil rights" groups have devolved into, a scam where they get preferential treatment of their particular constituent group.

    14. Re: systemic racism by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I'm confused by your use of "punish" here.

      If I give a step stool to short person to help them see over a wall I would consider that to be helping the short person, not punishing the tall person that happens to be standing next to them.

      For situations where it's a zero sum game to give preferential treatment to one is to harm the other. Moreover the current implementation is not based on something logical, such as a short person getting a stool. It's based on averages for large groups. So it's more akin to giving a tall person a stool because he comes from a family that includes a lot of short people while the short person next to him is denied a stool because his family includes a lot of tall people. Thus the short person from a tall family is punished.

    15. Re:systemic racism by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      If you are playing a rigged game for hundreds of years where your team gets systemic advantages, builds up property and wealth, you can't just say "ok now everyone is equal, that is fair." It is not fair. How do white people not understand this?

    16. Re:systemic racism by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      How do white people not understand this?

      Looking at this in terms of teams based on race is incorrect. While many rich people are white, most white people are not rich - a fact that seems lost on you. You should be looking at Team 1% and Team 99%. I am mixed on my politics but I am a huge fan of the phrase "we are the 99%". The 99% contains everyone. Even the left's punching bag white Christian male. My personal view is that to keep the 99% from actually recognizing that they are not getting a fair share team 1% fragment it by promoting disunity. BLM from an economics perspective is a bunch of useful idiots who fragment society while the rich get richer. Team 1% loves BLM because it keeps team 99% squabbling among themselves - like we're doing now.

      I'm happy to take this discussion either in the direction of how to promote the 99% or why I don't support continuing racism in the name of helping past racism. That offer should tell you a lot. You can get more done by working together or you can be a drama queen and say that it's all about us BLM style. Note that BLM style is only a temporary high from smug moral righteousness, they won't (and indeed couldn't) make any lasting change.

  14. NASCAR will never be the same by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    What do you mean it's not that kind of race?

  15. So no Spanish speaking ads in the US THEN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slippery slope. But as this is a company, not a gov org, they can go do whatever they want.

    1. Re:So no Spanish speaking ads in the US THEN? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Better yet, no English-speaking ads since they'd disproportionately target non-hispanics.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  16. So no more trump stuff but pro H1B's is ok? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    So no more trump stuff but pro H1B's is ok?

  17. How about turn off all discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And also turn off all ads

  18. Great by HBI · · Score: 1

    Now I can see ads for suckers like car title loans and payday cash advances. Thanks, Facebook.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  19. 42 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Kyle Larson of Earnhardt Ganassi Racing is going to be pissed.

  20. I don't see ads on facebook/youtube etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Disclaimer - I don't keep accts on 'em but view 'em) Via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?...

    Ads rob speed, security (malvertising) & privacy (tracking).

    Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) natively.

    Works vs. caps & PUSH ads.

    Avg. page = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of it.

    Hosts != ClarityRay blockable (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode addons)

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity.

    Compliments firewalls (blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load).

    Gets data via 10 security sites.

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

  21. Better yet turn off all Facebook by tepples · · Score: 1

    Here's one way to turn off Facebook ads on any machine where you have root. If you've been around Slashdot for a while, you probably already know which file these entries go in.

    0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 apps.facebook.com
    0.0.0.0 connect.facebook.net
    0.0.0.0 fbcdn.net

    1. Re:Better yet turn off all Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just block it at the router so I don't have to configure individual devices

  22. Oh, the social justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why stop at the race? Exclude age, sex and the like too while you're at it. After all, you don't get to choose these attributes, so it must be unfair to target them positively or negatively. (Well, for sex it's "mostly".)

  23. Re:To FORCE people to assimilate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrats hate the truth. This is why they modded you down. This is why. Hate. They hate you. They hate white people and white countries. They hate you. They want you to be brown. Brown. They love brown. They hate white. They hate you. Hate. Hate is what the Democrats are filled with. They hate that you are free and own property. Freedom and property belong to brown people. Brown good, white bad. Love brown, hate white. Hate you. Hate.

  24. Really? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    Wot? They are going to follow the law existing in most civilized countries already forbidding this?

    And they want applause? A pat on the back?

    1. Re:Really? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      What laws prohibit a marketer from specifically targeting a particular demographic, even if it's a protected class?

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cigarette advertising aimed at children?

    3. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who accomplishes anything, no matter how minor it is, needs accolades these days.

  25. ProPublica advertised an event, not housing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.propublica.org/documents/item/3191165-Facebook-Propublica-Ad.html

    I still don't get it. How does this turn into illegal discrimination for housing? It was an event about illegally high rent. This whole thing only makes sense if a landlord tried doing it with property. This whole thing is based on a hypothetical.

  26. What about gender targeting/exclusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame on those advertisers that for instance target only females with commercials of tampons etc

  27. Re:To FORCE people to assimilate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, white people never forced themselves into non-white territories, there was never any sailing around the world with armor and guns "claiming" shit.

    You might want to think about why white people have countries in the first place....

  28. Re: To FORCE people to assimilate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they are generically superior to the dark races.
    Even though its non PC, it also happens to be true.
    Its probably due to synergies with the neanderthal genes that white people inherited.
    Boosts brain power.

  29. What about tageting (reverse exclusion)? by KenHansen · · Score: 1

    Does this ruling also mean that, say, a minority-owned bank in a minority-majority neighborhood can't target members of their own minority group for mortgages?