Facebook Ad Platform Could Be Inherently Discriminatory, Researchers Say (theregister.co.uk)

Researchers from Northeastern Unviersity, the University of Southern Carolina, and tech accountability non-profit Upturn have released a paper that says Facebook's ad delivery system itself can steer ads intended to be inclusive toward discrimination without explicit intent. "In a paper titled, 'Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook's ad delivery can lead to skewed outcomes,' co-authors Muhammad Ali, Piotr Sapiezynski, Miranda Bogen, Aleksandra Korolova, Alan Mislove, and Aaron Rieke find that advertiser budgets and ad content affect ad delivery, skewing it along gender and racial lines even when neutral ad targeting settings are used," reports The Register. From the report: The researchers found that Facebook ads tend to be shown to men because women tend to click on ads more often, making them more expensive to reach through Facebook's system. That divide becomes apparent when ad budgets are compared, because the ad budget affects ad distribution. As the paper explains, "the higher the daily budget, the smaller the fraction of men in the audience." Such segregation may be appropriate and desirable for certain types of marketing pitches, but when applied to credit, employment and housing ads, the consequences can be problematic.

Ad content -- text and images -- also has a strong effect on whether ads get shown to men or women, even when the bidding strategy is the same and gender-agnostic targeting is used. In particular, the researchers found images had a surprisingly large effect on ad delivery. Ad URL destination has some effect -- an ad pointing to a bodybuilding site and an ad pointing to a cosmetics site had a baseline delivery distribution of 48 percent men and 40 percent men respectively. The addition of a title and headline doesn't change that much. But once the researchers added an image to the ad, the distribution pattern changed, with the bodybuilding site ad reaching an audience that was 75 percent male and the cosmetics ad reaching an audience that was 90 percent female. According to the researchers, their tests suggest, "Facebook has an automated image classification mechanism in place that is used to steer different ads towards different subsets of the user population." "In terms of credit, employment and housing ads, the problem with this system is that it discriminates where it shouldn't: Five ads for lumber industry jobs were delivered to an audience that was more than 90 percent men and more than 70 percent white; five ads for janitorial work were delivered to an audience that was more than 65 percent women and 75 percent black," the report adds. "Housing ads also showed a racial skew."

The latest findings come after years of criticism of Facebook's ad system. Last month, Facebook announced changes to the platform intended to prevent advertisers from deploying unfair credit, employment and housing ads. One week later, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development sued Facebook for violating the Fair Housing Act.

Comments

This part makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

"ads tend to be shown to men because women tend to click on ads more often, making them more expensive to reach through Facebook's system." - wait, what? Each time they click one they're being "reached"...

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Luthair]

I think the idea is that the man's click is more valuable since they're less likely to do it. Without reading the article (hey, its slashdot) logically this would actually favour women because the advertiser would get more impressions per dollar.

Also worth pointing out that this also existed before Facebook, advertisers chose which magazines to place ads in, for example Vanity Fair vs GQ.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Jarwulf]

Also, I love how its unfair discrimination to treat people differently based upon actual verified different behaviour. Its wrong to treat women different even if its directly due to them actually behaving differently.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[moschner]

"ads tend to be shown to men because women tend to click on ads more often, making them more expensive to reach through Facebook's system." - wait, what? Each time they click one they're being "reached"...

"reached" means the person saw your ad.

Often advertisers will pay based on how often their ad is clicked. So let's say it costs you $1 per click. If 1% of men and 3% of women click on your ad, then to reach 100 men costs $1, while reaching 100 women costs $3. An while women click on ads more often, they are not necessarily making a purchases at the same rate.
So at the end of the day $3 could reach 300 men and make 2 direct sales, while $3 would only reach 100 women and also only make 2 direct sales. However having reached more men, the indirect sales could be higher.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Hognoxious]

Whoever chose to use the word discriminatory since that sort of implies it, doesn't it?

adjective: discriminatory

        making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can explain this. Women like to window-shop. So they may click on the same ad multiple times (I've done this) on different days and see if the price has changed, or if a product is back in stock. Men do not do this. Men want to buy the thing now, and don't do comparison shopping for pretty much anything that isn't a big-ticket purchase.

The problem is that a women's "ad vote" is not weighted the same as an man's "ad vote", and thus Men are more likely to block ads (out of spite for news sites especially, because they're full of clickbait garbage,) while a woman is more likely to click on the clickbait scams, not noticing they are not content on the site.

Hence how people go down the rabbit hole of insane conspiracy theories.

Like the best thing that ad companies could do at this point is remove algorithms that adjust ads based on gender, race or wealth, and only permit geofenced ads on whole urban sectors (eg LA, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, Miami, etc) if they are for physical stores inside that geofence (eg car dealerships.) The way geotargeting works right now, you can quite literately target individuals at the zip/postal code level, and since many census tracts in many countries have poor/wealthy divides and racial divides it's too easy to target individuals by race by targeting zip codes.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Democrats that depend on discrimination. Every time you bucket a group, make special rules for a group, pander to a group, call one group privileged, you're discriminating. What Republicans are for is not designating any group as special. Then we get called racist for being against government programs which try to make groups special by discriminating against others. We just want an even playing field where everyone plays by the same rules and laws are followed equally by all. We get called racist for being against illegal immigration because the left frames it as being against Hispanics. No, we're just against one group being given privilege to break laws while legal immigrants spend years waiting in line and doing all the paper work.

Calls of racism are just political games to try to own the moral authority. When, in fact, the left just wants to own minority groups for the sake of power, not because they actually want to help people. Helping them and not breeding a victim culture would lose them votes as they could no longer pander that dialog. The real reason Democrats won't work on real immigration reform that fixes the problems we have is because they'd lose the entire campaign they've heavily invested in against Republicans.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[sabbede]

What's your understanding of the term "discrimination"? What do you think it means?

Re:This part makes no sense.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That definition seems bogus.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[sabbede]

Women's magazines do seem to be little more than books of advertisements with an interview somewhere in the middle. No men's magazines get delivered to my house, so I can't speak to them past my memory of Playboy, which had far fewer ads than these things addressed to my girlfriend.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Anubis IV]

Discriminatory when you're talking abstractly is not "unfair" by default.

Actually, it is. While "discriminate" and many of its derivations carry both meanings—the ability to draw a distinction or making a prejudicial/unfair distinction—you happened to pick the one word that always carries the latter meaning. For your reference:

Both Meanings
- Discriminate
- Discriminative
- Discriminately

Prejudicial/Unfair Meaning Only
- Discriminatory

Something Else Altogether
- Discriminating (a refined taste)
- Indiscriminately (without care or judgment)

Feel free to consult your local English dictionary if you think I'm wrong (I'm not), but it's in your best interest to use these words correctly, given that your choice could make the difference between a grave insult and a simple description of practices.

Re: This part makes no sense.

[Anubis IV]

Like lots of English words, there are multiple meanings. It's not solely the negative.

Actually, "discriminatory" only has one meaning and it's always negative. Your confusion is understandable.

1) Discriminatory: an adjective that always carries a negative meaning.
2) Discriminative: an adjective that carries multiple meanings.
3) Discriminating: an adjective with an unrelated meaning.

They may all be adjectives that derive from the same root, but discriminatory != discriminative != discriminating. Feel free to fact check me if you doubt what I'm saying, but you'll find I'm correct.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Anubis IV]

That definition seems bogus.

And yet, it's not. He's completely correct. Consult any English dictionary and you'll find a similar definition to the one he provided. Lots of people get it confused because "discriminate" can be used in multiple ways, but "discriminatory" always carries a negative meaning. If you're looking to use "discriminate" as an adjective, the word you want is "discriminative", not "discriminatory" (also not "discriminating", which means something else entirely).

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Shotgun]

You stop discrimination by first admitting where it exists and addressing it.

Which is exactly what the GP did. Democrats couldn't bring themselves to call out Ilhar Omar for her antisemitism. All of the Democrat Presidential candidates showed up to pay homage to Al Sharpton whose racism is legendary. The Democrats need to call out the racists among their ranks and deal with them like the Republicans took care of Steve King. Until you do that, just shut up already.

You surely don't stop discrimination by making it your theme song. Make America Great Again is a less blatant way of saying, "As long as I've got mine, to hell with you." It's an appeal to the lowest parts of human nature.

Now your just wandering off into the twisted world of Democrat talking points. It wasn't "MAGAFWP" (MAGA for white people). You don't get to decide what the words I say mean.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Shotgun]

And yet nearly every series written for the last 20 years has been written FOR WOMEN. Women do most of the household shopping, and shows are written to target and retain them. How many prime-time shows can you name that has a strong, "John Wayne" arch-type? How many have a waffling, passive-aggressive "Raymond" arch-type, with a smart, motherly type to take care of him?

Re:This part makes no sense.

[nukenerd]

Diversity is good because racial and gender differences bring greater variety of views and ideas.

No, they all have the same idea - which is to favour themselves.

Re: This part makes no sense.

[nukenerd]

"targeted advertising" by its definition is discriminatory.

Indeed. No adman wants to waste money advertising for janitorial jobs in a magazine about ocean yacht racing.

Re: This part makes no sense.

[Hognoxious]

Indeed. But it helps to actually get the right fucking word. Did your finger get tired after 11 letters or something?

Re:This part makes no sense.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

*Any* English dictionary? MW says: discriminatory: 1) : DISCRIMINATIVE sense 1, 2) applying or favoring discrimination in treatment. As for discriminative, it says: 1) making distinctions, 2) DISCRIMINATORY sense 2.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[Anubis IV]

I stand corrected. While I may not enjoy it, I always appreciate when someone calls me out, so I thank you for doing so.

Re:This part makes no sense.

[quenda]

I can't speak to them past my memory of Playboy.

Playboy was a serious publication back in the day. Sadly, "men's" magazines these days seem to be every bit as trashy as women's magazines.
Just look at the covers: the same clickbait or "20 ways to ..." headlines, celebrity faces on the cover, infomercial content, appeal to vanity, what to wear, ...

It must be all the artificial oestrogens in the environment.

Targeted Ads Discriminate?

[Jarwulf]

Targeting certain ads toward certain people targets (ie discriminates between) different people? Wow who knew.

Re:Targeted Ads Discriminate?

[ShanghaiBill]

Targeting certain ads toward certain people targets (ie discriminates between) different people? Wow who knew.

That is not what TFA is saying. It is saying even untargeted ads can be discriminatory.

Re:Targeted Ads Discriminate?

[Tranzistors]

You might want to read the friendly summary up to the very end. The researchers found that the discrimination is done by the algorithm itself. In previous stories about discriminatory advertisement it was implied that the advertisers probably put in some sort of “No Irish need apply” filter, the news here is that might not necessary be the case.

Re:Targeted Ads Discriminate?

[Tranzistors]

My previous answer was to the OP, misclicked.

Re:Targeted Ads Discriminate?

[CrimsonAvenger]

That is not what TFA is saying. It is saying even untargeted ads can be discriminatory.

Yeah, who even suspected that men and women might be interested in different things?

I mean, really! Men are more inclined to look at ads for body-building businesses, and women are more inclined to look at ads for cosmetics?!? Is that even possible without deep, systemic bias in Facebook???

Re: Discrimination

[TimMD909]

Great... Another flat earther...

And???

[EvilSS]

It's always been this way. Why do you think network ratings are based on age demographics? Companies spend more money to target younger audiences because guess what! Younger audiences watch less TV. It's to get ads in front of them so companies spend more money putting ads on shows that tend to attract younger audiences*. Older audiences watch more of it. At a certain point, they watch so much it's cheap and easy to reach their eyeballs.

Certain brands target certain ages, sexes, incomes, even races. Just because "the internet!" doesn't suddenly make this a new.

*Yes, yes, I know. No one under 50 watches network TV anymore, but this is how it has always worked and that's the point: it's not some new problem brought on by the face books.

Re:And???

[grasshoppa]

Not quite.

The intent isn't simply to get your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible. Down that path lay madness. It's about getting your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible that are attached to disposable income.

That's why the 18-34 demographic is so coveted; They're more likely to have the cash to burn AND they are more likely to make emotional decisions ( although how true that is anymore is the subject of debate )

Re:And???

[Aighearach]

You're allowed to segment some types of advertising based on age. You're not allowed to segment advertising of certain things, including housing, on race.

You're allowed to charge different amounts of money for advertising using a formula based on things like age ranges and income levels. That does not guarantee it would also be legal to determine who to show the adds to based on age. In some cases, such as housing, when displaying the ads you might only be allowed the distinctions over 18 and over 55. But it would be legal to only show the ads based on income level.

None of this is new, or really that hard to understand.

Re:And???

[Kartu]

What if targeting is based on ROI of showing ads to particular groups completely handled by AI?
Even if you forbid AI to use race or gender as a factor, it would figure that people called "Jane" are more interested in certain types of ads than people called "John".
That people called "Mike" tend to have different behavior than those, called Jose.

I think we need to differenciate between human being projecting stereotypes to optimize ads (that's what "targeted" ads are) vs AI that is literally driven by ads effect doing it.

Targeted advertising is either legal or not. If it is, you'll always get "discrimination" mentioned in OP, which actually isn't discrimination at all.

Re:And???

[Aighearach]

"But the AI did it" is not any sort of valid excuse for anything.

That's like shooting somebody and blaming the bullet.

No, we don't need to allow you to be racist if you make the right excuse.

Complete fail.

And yes, it is clearly not legal, as the lawyers have pointed out.

Re:And???

[EvilSS]

The intent isn't simply to get your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible.

I never said that. I said they spend money to target an audience that's harder to target due to their habits. The older people get, the more likely it is they will be exposed to more ads each night, the cheaper it is to advertise to them.

It's about getting your ad in front of as many eyeballs as possible that are attached to disposable income.

Actually older demographics have more disposable income, not younger ones. This is why luxury items tend to be targeted to the middle aged crowd. 18-34 is so coveted because they are harder to get ads in front of and companies want to begin building their brands in those "new" consumer eyes. This is why, for example, beer companies target younger audiences. If you are 35, you probably already have a preferred brand. If you are a new drinker (let's pretend you're 21) you are still figuring that out. But to get those new drinkers, you have to get your banding and ads to them. That's harder to do since they don't sit at home watching TV from 6-10pm every night. So shows that attract them can command higher rates. Hell how do you think the CW stays in business? Their overall ratings are extremely low, but a lot of their shows skew younger than most other network shows. This allows for an opportunity for advertisers to target an audience that normally doesn't watch a lot of other broadcast network shows.

Re:And???

[EvilSS]

While I agree that illegal discrimination should be addressed, let me pose a hypothetical: If I own an apartment complex, and I chose to advertise it in the local business journal, which will no doubt be mostly white males who subscribe to it (but not the reason I chose it), is that illegal?

Re:And???

[grasshoppa]

Actually older demographics have more disposable income, not younger ones.

Kinda. The older demographics have more money, but they A) have more fiscal responsibilities ( such as families and retirement ) and B) Aren't as easy to manipulate.

Meanwhile, the younger crowd may have less money, but they have fewer obligations AND are more likely to make emotional decisions.

Re:And???

[EvilSS]

The term "Mid-life crisis" exists for a reason. People in the 40-65 range tend to start amassing expensive "hobbies" when they hit that magic mark where their kids are out of the house and they are at the peak of their earnings potential. Men in particular. Advertising to youth is mostly about building brand loyalty. Sure some things like clothing and entertainment are marketed specifically to them as they are the target buyers because youth like trendy stuff and those categories are kind of "in the moment", but it's mostly about getting into their heads so when they get to their peak they move from that Chevy econo-box to the Cadillac. Or they start buying those things they couldn't afford but wanted in their youth.

Re:And???

[q4Fry]

This is why, for example, beer companies target younger audiences. If you are 35, you probably already have a preferred brand. If you are a new drinker (let's pretend you're 21) you are still figuring that out. But to get those new drinkers, you have to get your banding and ads to them.

I have many, many preferred beer brands. I have yet to see an ad for a single one of them.

Who writes this. Full of typos/errors

[supercell]

"Researchers from Northeastern Unviersity, the University of Southern Carolina"

There is no University of Southern Carolina. Check your spelling. Makes it look like the whole article is contrived.

The descrimination is not theoretical

[Required Snark]

This is the part everyone is ignoring:

"In terms of credit, employment and housing ads, the problem with this system is that it discriminates where it shouldn't: Five ads for lumber industry jobs were delivered to an audience that was more than 90 percent men and more than 70 percent white; five ads for janitorial work were delivered to an audience that was more than 65 percent women and 75 percent black," the report adds. "Housing ads also showed a racial skew."

That is discriminatory and illegal. The researchers looked at lots of factors, including areas where targeting is acceptable practice. They wanted to know if Facebook was using their targeting algorithm where it should not be used. The answer seems to be that Facebook is breaking the law.

All the whining fools questioning the study are too stupid to read the summery and/or too dumb to understand it: typical Slashdot knuckle dragging idiots who still live in their parent's basement.

Re:The descrimination is not theoretical

[Kartu]

They wanted to know if Facebook was using their targeting algorithm where it should not be used.

Could you elaborate how a generic targeting algorithm can "discriminate".

Re:The descrimination is not theoretical

[AmiMoJo]

Some people have to been trained to have a Pavolvian response to any mention of discrimination. They immediately deny it and pile in with the usual arguments (it's just personal/racial/gender preference, it's the discriminated groups's fault, it's too small/trivial to matter, what about straight white men, it's justified by crime stats etc.)

Re:The descrimination is not theoretical

[Kjella]

Could you elaborate how a generic targeting algorithm can "discriminate".

A generic ad optimization algorithm will create a bunch of proxy variables that effectively work like the non-discriminating factor, even if it's explicitly denied access to that variable. It's actually a lot harder to avoid than to do, basically treat every time you show an ad like an experiment. If you click the ad it counts for every property about you, if you don't click the ad it counts against every property about you. So you say it's not to discriminate on sex, the algorithm doesn't get your gender. But it'll pretty soon figure out whether people who are fans of Justin Bieber and a million other gender-skewed metrics respond to your ad or not.

It's absolutely feasible to build an algorithm that tries to find relevant candidates while respecting an imposed equality, for example that they draw from separate pools so you must have half male and half female ad impressions. But it gets pretty hard when you want for example a jobs ad that doesn't discriminate on ethnicity, like if the population is 50-30-15-5 percent something you want a 50-30-15-5 percent distribution. It gets really hard if you don't want to discriminate on religion, sexual orientation, political stance or something else where you don't actually have the underlying data but you're pretty sure your proxy variables are effectively filtering on that anyway.

If you're going to reply with "how's an algorithm that's only preserving the status quo or amplifying a feedback loop that's already there discriminatory" well if it was up to an algorithm an all-white school would stay all-white. After all there's never been a black person attending this school, so there's no reason to try to make a black kid apply. It's a feedback loop that'll keep bashing those unlikely to succeed because they're unlikely to succeed, even if they as individuals are doing everything they can. If you're constantly going to measured against what people "like you" do you'll never truly be in charge of your own destiny, which is kinda the essence of the American dream.

Re:The descrimination is not theoretical

[DNS-and-BIND]

The only news here is that a mob of witch-hunters found witches. What do you know, they're everywhere once you know how to search for them. They hide in the tiniest spaces, but good witch-hunters can always find them.

Or

[AHuxley]

the ads have to work in the way the person paying for the ad wants.
Thats the service and that is their money to spend.
Why pay for and send out ads to people who will not want such ads?
Thats less ads for people who might be interested in the ads?
For that ability to really get the ads to a set of interest people filters, rules are needed.
Don't try and sell products to people who will not buy that brand, can't afford that brand, live in the wrong area to use that brand.
Say a smaller company has a few vans and a set range of service from a central location.
One person has a van and wants to sell a service to a range of people within set distances.
All kinds of different math goes into the reasons why service and product exists and will not exist all over a city, state, nation.
The other problem is what is a person doing to make an ad show?
Using social media/the internet to look up news, gossip, fun, games, cosmetics, cars, trucks, vans, holidays, banking services, a new home?
Only one ad can be displayed at a price point any one time so make sure that ad will get a persons interest and attention.
All data, past use, profile and what is ad is paying for is considered.
What will sell to that person in that hour, moment in time?
No past history due to blocking, a new account? Some ads can be set to display. Some ads want more user info before they can be placed.

Nobody wants to spend their ad budget balancing out average user counts to virtue signal.
They want every ad they pay for to get seen by a set of people they know might buy a product.

Re:Or

[Aighearach]

the ads have to work in the way the person paying for the ad wants.

Thats the service and that is their money to spend.

Naw. Society sets rules. It was already that way before you were born. Get over it.

Re:Or

[AHuxley]

Who is going to want to pay for ads all over social media to random people?
How many random people have to see a totally unrelated ad so that it becomes an approved ad?
Double the ad buying cost to cover a virtue signal count?
People only have so much to spend to pay to place ads.
Who wants to see their ad budget for set ads getting used on people who will never buy that product?
For a product/service not even in their area?

Re:Or

[Aighearach]

Who cares? They still have to follow housing law.

And if they don't, who makes them? Any lawyer. So this gets enforced.

None of the blathering matters. None of that hand-wringing will be done by any of the people involved in the lawsuits.

I definitely discriminate ads

[Just A Gigolo]

I use adblockers.

Re:I definitely discriminate ads

[sabbede]

Which is why this is so absurd! People are freaking out over making sure we don't miss out on certain ads, while we don't want to see any.

Re:It's not fair until...

[AHuxley]

Re "That will show ads are being non-discriminatory."
Have to double the ad buy so at least some of the ads will get to people who may use the product?

Could be...

[Chas]

Lefty-speak for "Is discriminatory".

Targeting is "discrimination," but not immoral.

[phenylphenol]

To discriminate, by its primary definition, is simply to recognize differences or distinguish between things. By its secondary definition, discrimination refers to the unjust application of discrimination along categories like race, sex, or age. Facebook's trying to provide a platform that's attractive to marketers, and seems to be doing some optimizations of targeting "under the hood." Obviously, performance marketers are trying to optimize for number of clicks per placement, and if Facebook as a channel has better stats on this, they'll choose to invest more advertising dollar into Facebook. This is their entire business model. I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever. They're providing more value by connecting people with the right content, facilitating transactions. More so, they seem to be doing it by understanding who is interested in what sorts of products or services. The information they'd be leveraging to get at this is purely the outcome of aggregating an enormous amount of individual choices -- click, or don't click. This isn't unjust discrimination, it's just application of knowledge about who is most interested in what at the time, full stop. I think what people are starting to pick up on here, and why people are upset by this, is that advertising messaging gives people what they want, and tech-enabled message targeting can do that far more effectively than ever before. Tech has enabled targeted marketing to subsume a person's day-to-day experience of the outside world far more than in the past. This makes it an agent of unprecedented social control -- information exposure and availability is now administered, de facto, by a handful of large privately held corporations. I suppose I'm just suggesting that the motivations for the civil rights acts of half a century ago, and the narrative based around unjust discrimination based on protected classes, is simply not the right level of analysis. And Facebook isn't the enemy here, any more so than any one of the marketing channels competing with them for advertiser dollars. This is industry-wide, and it's an existential concern about the exercise of information delivery.

There's something ridiculous under all of this.

[sabbede]

It's really simple. The ads are an annoying distraction. Something you tolerate seeing because it pays for the site, not something that shapes your life.

This is a fight over making sure consumers see certain kinds of ads, while consumers don't want to see any. That's ridiculous. Show me the person who is upset because they weren't bombarded with ads about improving their credit and I'll give their number to all the robocallers I hear from.

WRT any private discrimination

[temcat]

You are not entitled to interaction, including a business interaction, with anyone else any more than an arbitrary person is entitled to having sex with you. Laws to the contrary do exist; we do live with them and also call them bullshit which they are.

Wait...what??

[neo-mkrey]

There are people that actually click on ads?

This explains so much of what is wrong with the world wide web today.

The unwashed masses and souless social media (aka ad companies) have ruined what was once a wonderful thing.

Now get off my lawn!

Targeted ads.

[Highdude702]

Isnt discrimination the main factor in targeted ads? Seriously how else do you target the people most likely to buy your shit? I thought that was the point..

\Who care and it doesn't matter

[Murdoch5]

At some point everyone will be discriminated against, even if by accident, so it doesn't matter. Unless someone at Facebook is intentionally routing traffic or ads so it's exclusionary as a form of hate, then it doesn't matter.

I just must be weird...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Targeted advertising doesn't really bother me. I mean... it would sure be *nice* if we could get along without ads in general. And, on the internet, I use a blocker to get rid of the more obnoxious ones which actively interfere with my ability to get to content, or which drive up my CPU usage or pose a security risk. But I get that internet infrastructure has to be paid for; and that, when you're not paying a subscription fee (And paying for a subscription damn well BETTER come with a 100% ad-free experience.), someone ELSE is paying for the service. And the only real way that happens is if that someone is advertising to me.

So, I figure if I have to see ads anyway, why SHOULDN'T they be targeted at me so they'll actually be relevant? In fact, considering the data that Google and Facebook already have on me, they damn well BETTER be relevant. Thus, it's not targeted ads that really bother me. But POORLY targeted ads trigger an irrational level of rage. I can't fathom ever wanting to buy a house in somewhere boring and suburban like Marin or Contra Costa counties; or taking a job as a cop or security guard. You can call Miller low-life "the champagne of beers", but as far as I'm concerned, that swill should be poured back into the horse it came from. You can wrap micro-transaction shovelware in a Star Trek or Game of Thrones skin and call it an iOS "game"; but it's still trash I'll never pay in to. And Google and Facebook sure as hell have enough data that they should know this. So, dammit, not a single whit of my time, attention, bandwidth or CPU capacity should be wasted with ads for any of the same. Creditkarma.com knows my FICO score, so I shouldn't have to see ads there for credit repair tools for people fresh out of bankruptcy or student loan default. (And hell... if Google and Facebook *DON'T* know my actual FICO, they should sure as hell be able to make a pretty good guess.) And no, it's not Orwellian, you tools. Corporations don't want us to embrace Insoc, hate Eurasia (or is is Eastasia?) or to love Big Brother. They just want our money.

Sure, people can be assholes. So maybe... MAYBE... there are some categories should not be allowed to be manually targeted for some categories of product. But if it's an automated and algorithmically targeted advertisement? If a computer (Which, not being human, is inherently NOT racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or whatever.) is making the call without human intervention? I'm kind of on Facebook's side on this one.

Re:Counterpoint.

[Shotgun]

The Federal Government.