Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 140 posts

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#21

Post by meric »

eridius wrote: post #19
fnbr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problems they're talking about are PR problems, not ethical problems (if you assume that advertising itself is ethical, which I don't necessarily think is true). Specific types of targeting are then bad because of the optics, not because of their efficacy. Put another way, there's no ethical problem with recommending that people who follow Jay-Z should follow Obama, but there's a PR problem there.

> Put another way, there's no ethical problem with recommending that people who follow Jay-Z should follow Obama, but there's a PR problem there. I agree with that specific statement, but I would say there is an ethical problem with the similar situation of recommending payday loans to poor people. The difference is recommending Obama to Jay-Z followers isn't harmful to those followers, but recommending payday loans…

And that difference is temporal - in the same way Obama as a person can change and payday loan interest rates and regulations can fluctuate

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#22

Post by hackuser »

I don't agree with his claims that the following are among "a long list of Truths That Cannot Be Stated Publicly". I don't think anyone would care; I care very much about racism and can't imagine anyone I know objecting to these.

* "people who liked Jay Z were more likely to like Obama"

* "Hispanics between the ages of 18 and 25 probably do engage with ads singing the charms and advantages of military service."

(I'm skipping the other example because it's an issue of economic exploitation, not ethnicity.)

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#23

Post by FridgeSeal »

lucasmullens wrote: post #10
Mendenhall wrote: post #9

Ahh the old "so what" argument. So what if I can target recovering alchoholics with alchohol ads? So what if I target gambling addicts with my gambling platform? So what?

There are alcohol and gambling ads on Facebook? Those two in particular often aren't allowed on ad networks.

I have definitely, definitely seen ads for gambling and sports betting on Facebook.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#24

Post by hammock »

moomin wrote: post #11

Wow, I can't decide if this guy is more morally or intellectually bankrupt. Seriously, "sometimes data behaves unethically"? Data doesn't do anything. Not even analysis or deep learning does anything. People (or programs written by people) execute decisions on the basis of data. It's still the people being unethical. Big data isn't some magic wand that absolves you of moral responsibility, but it's extremely interest…

You ought to continue to read past that. Because you missed his point. He goes on to basically question "ethics" entirely:

>What did this tool start spitting out? Every ethnic stereotype you can imagine....People who liked Jay Z were more likely to like Obama – it was one of the statistical truths Facebook couldn’t be seen espousing.

I disagreed. Jay Z is a millionaire music tycoon, so what if we associate him with the president? In our current world, there’s a long list of Truths That Cannot Be Stated Publicly, even though there’s plenty of data suggesting their correctness, and this was one of them.

African Americans living in postal codes with depressed incomes likely do respond disproportionately to ads for usurious “payday” loans. Hispanics between the ages of 18 and 25 probably do engage with ads singing the charms and advantages of military service.

Why should those examples of targeting be viewed as any less ethical than, say, ads selling $100 Lululemon yoga pants targeting thirtysomething women in affluent postal codes like San Francisco’s Marina district?

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#25

Post by CalChris »

moomin wrote: post #11

Wow, I can't decide if this guy is more morally or intellectually bankrupt. Seriously, "sometimes data behaves unethically"? Data doesn't do anything. Not even analysis or deep learning does anything. People (or programs written by people) execute decisions on the basis of data. It's still the people being unethical. Big data isn't some magic wand that absolves you of moral responsibility, but it's extremely interest…

Skim thru his book. He definitely has morally bankrupt covered. Also, was he an exec at Facebook?

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#26

Post by rconti »

moomin wrote: post #11

Wow, I can't decide if this guy is more morally or intellectually bankrupt. Seriously, "sometimes data behaves unethically"? Data doesn't do anything. Not even analysis or deep learning does anything. People (or programs written by people) execute decisions on the basis of data. It's still the people being unethical. Big data isn't some magic wand that absolves you of moral responsibility, but it's extremely interest…

It might be more correct to say "data reveals things that might be politically incorrect to state in public (or advertise based on).

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#27

Post by kakarot »

milesf wrote: post #17

"We are not Facebook's customer. We are their product." I have stated that fact so many times to so many people, and yet most people don't care. They continue to use Facebook. It's almost as if people are addicted to Facebook.

Well, they are. Addicted to immediate and frequent social validation. Telling people heroin is bad for them isn't going to make them quit if they are addicted to it. They have to witness or experience the hardships that come from such an addiction.

Telling people Facebook is bad for them, telling them why it is bad for them, isn't enough. We have to show them indisputable evidence of social media having an extreme negative impact on their lives.

We have to pull them away long enough for their brains to stop craving the dopamine release they associate with browsing their feeds and narcissistically posting several times a day.

Most importantly, we have to care and understand what they are going through. Being angry at them or thinking they are stupid for not knowing better is alienating and divisive behavior. They will rush to Facebook to alleviate their negative emotional response to what you are telling them. Even if they think that you're right.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#28

Post by ThrustVectoring »

eridius wrote: post #19
fnbr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problems they're talking about are PR problems, not ethical problems (if you assume that advertising itself is ethical, which I don't necessarily think is true). Specific types of targeting are then bad because of the optics, not because of their efficacy. Put another way, there's no ethical problem with recommending that people who follow Jay-Z should follow Obama, but there's a PR problem there.

> Put another way, there's no ethical problem with recommending that people who follow Jay-Z should follow Obama, but there's a PR problem there. I agree with that specific statement, but I would say there is an ethical problem with the similar situation of recommending payday loans to poor people. The difference is recommending Obama to Jay-Z followers isn't harmful to those followers, but recommending payday loans…

Targeting seems, to me, to be ethics-neutral in terms of first-order effects. It amplifies the effectiveness of both positive-value and negative-value advertising. Like, roads can be used both for transporting troops to invade a country as well as to transporting food to relieve a famine, and better roads improve the effectiveness of both.

Like, advertising payday loans to poor people may be an acceptable cost of advertising if it gets out valuable mesothelioma information as well.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#29

Post by nix0n »

milesf wrote: post #17

"We are not Facebook's customer. We are their product." I have stated that fact so many times to so many people, and yet most people don't care. They continue to use Facebook. It's almost as if people are addicted to Facebook.

We're both the customer and the product.

I'm the product to advertisers, but also to my friends.

Similarly I am the customer to the products that are my friends.

Re: I'm an ex-Facebook exec: don't believe what they tell you about ads

#30

Post by a3n »

lucasmullens wrote: post #15

>Why should those examples of targeting be viewed as any less ethical than, say, ads selling $100 Lululemon yoga pants targeting thirtysomething women in affluent postal codes like San Francisco’s Marina district? Because one can cause poverty and the other doesn't.

Which one?
Post reply on HN