11–20 of 487 posts
So does this mean that targeted ads are now considered discrimination?
Facebook has a history of facilitating this type of thing and crying ignorance later. A local landlord was caught using Facebook to target apartment listings to people who weren’t black, Hispanic, Jewish, or gay.
So does this mean that targeted ads are now considered discrimination?
It seems to be a textbook form of discrimination.
So does this mean that targeted ads are now considered discrimination?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to be a textbook form of discrimination.
It's not, though. When I buy a page in Cosmo or something, I'm doing that with the intent and result that mostly women will see it. If targeted ads were illegal, it's hard to see how any publication with non-representative demographics could sell ads at all.
So does this mean that targeted ads are now considered discrimination?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to be a textbook form of discrimination.
It's not, though. When I buy a page in Cosmo or something, I'm doing that with the intent and result that mostly women will see it. If targeted ads were illegal, it's hard to see how any publication with non-representative demographics could sell ads at all.
Wow, I didn't expect to see CapitalOne or Edward Jones on that list. I kind of figured it would be a bunch of smaller companies that were either ignorant of the law or, more likely, used to playing fast and loose without consequences.
I'm not sure if there was anything deliberate here. It's possible the companies targeted the jobs ads with factors or attributes that were correlated with younger men by the Facebook algorithm.
Now suppose through some weird fluke, the ads are actually only delivered to people of one single gender classification.
Has the company done everything required of them by trying to target an equal mix along this particular characteristic dimension that society attaches a legal criteria to? Or has the company failed to do what is required because they merely tried to target 50/50 but failed to guarantee that it actually happened?
Then flip it around. Suppose a company targets an ad segment that is 100% male because they are actively discriminating against women. But through some fluke of ad delivery they actually show the ad to a 50/50 mix. Are they free of committing a crime because nobody ended up being discriminated against? Or have they committed a crime merely by trying to target a certain subset of the population with a disapproved set of characteristics?
To me it begs a question of whether the company’s legal obligation occurs at the level of defining who to try to target, at the level of who is actually targeted (even if it is executed by a third party), or both?
A further interesting question is that if this applies to one type of resource (jobs) does it also apply to others like plain old goods and services?
Suppose a sporting goods company knows that only 100% males have ever bought their merchandise or expresssed willingness to buy in market research.
Is the company legally obligated to still show ads to women?
If not, what is the underlying criteria that supposedly separates job listings from product listings?
Another interesting question is whether accidental correlation with mix of the targeted audience also results in blame.
What if you target a set of people with behavioral characteristics A, B and C. None of them has any obvious connection to gender, sexual orientation, etc., but it turns out they are heavily correlated and (honestly) nobody knew ahead of time (maybe even the correlation is seasonal and prior data could not have shown it). Does this make the company responsible?
it's called ad targeting. If the govt. wants to pay for those low converting clicks/impressions, then i'm sure they, these employers, will be glad to serve ads to everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not, though. When I buy a page in Cosmo or something, I'm doing that with the intent and result that mostly women will see it. If targeted ads were illegal, it's hard to see how any publication with non-representative demographics could sell ads at all.
Yes but you don't control if a man or an old person can buy the magazine or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not, though. When I buy a page in Cosmo or something, I'm doing that with the intent and result that mostly women will see it. If targeted ads were illegal, it's hard to see how any publication with non-representative demographics could sell ads at all.
Yes but you don't control if a man or an old person can buy the magazine or not.