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

Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#11

Post by _8j50 »

munk-a wrote: post #7
whiddershins wrote: post #6

I can’t understand, in succinct plain terms, what the desired outcome is here. What would it look like if the ads were not biased, or discriminating, in any bad way.

Maybe it'd just look like it looked in the 90's, there wouldn't be targeted advertising and everyone except the marketers would be happier.

You can whitelist what they can target, I mean if you really care about marketers, you can allow site owners to generate 'tags' ad networks can use for that specific page and the content of the tags can depend on the prefernces of the user on that specific site.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#12

Post by theartfuldodger »

sp332 wrote: post #8
whiddershins wrote: post #6

I can’t understand, in succinct plain terms, what the desired outcome is here. What would it look like if the ads were not biased, or discriminating, in any bad way.

For stuff like "employment, housing and credit", it's illegal to discriminate in advertising. That's why they made a whole new portal to try to avoid discrimination for those kinds of ads. So after a while if you gather data and realize that your algorithm is sexist and ageist, then continuing to use that algorithm to place ads is knowingly using sexist and ageist techniques in advertising. I think the EEOC has the a…

Those regulatory concerns should fall onto the purchasers list of responsibilities. The EEOC has the authority to censure the parties misusing their advertising options.

For example as a marketer who does work in all of the above industries , technology should not limit my use of my dollar.

If i have 10,000 for an apartment campaign, i should be able to spend 5k on ads showcasing my apartment gym focused on men and 5k on the view of the gym full of men targeted to women.( tongue in cheek example)

If the actual top level strategy is not discriminatory but rather is segmented to allow better messaging, any bullshit tech blocks shouldn't get in the way. Let the regulators do their jobs the old fashioned way.

You are right though, there are always ways to define the necessary audience using the the type of qualifiers you describe.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#14

Post by blackoil »

_8j50 wrote: post #10
whiddershins wrote: post #6

I can’t understand, in succinct plain terms, what the desired outcome is here. What would it look like if the ads were not biased, or discriminating, in any bad way.

In my opinion, incorrect bias can happen only if either the input or process is bad. So, if you consider the output undesirable then there is a problem with input or process. Ideally, ads would not be targeted at all in any way and micro targeting should be a crime (for privacy reasons as well). Short if that, you target people because of their proven individual preferences and tendencies as opposed to using their me…

This would entail no magazine/blog should also be targeting to a social group. i.e. no men's or women's magazine

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#15

Post by strbean »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #2

* housing, employment, and credit Ads I think the easiest solution would be to disallow ads of those categories on their platform. I'd think the risk of "facebook/instagram is racist" damaging their brand and the cost of federal discrimination lawsuits would outweigh whatever revenue they project. As an aside, I know it's faux pas to bring up any observed (and/or presumed) differences between the protected classes -…

Your aside is pretty much dead-on the big ethical issue with bias in ML right now.

For example, ML can do quite a good job of predicting recidivism rates in convicts, and justice systems have been using this to aid in sentencing and parole hearings. Obviously, these ML approaches are not supposed to consider ethnicity. So the factor that ends up having the greatest weight is "did your father / grandfather spend time in prison", which is an extremely effective proxy for "are you not white".

Basically, when your training data is based on a reality already heavily influenced by bias, your models will end up reflecting and perpetuating that bias.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#16

Post by munk-a »

sp332 wrote: post #9
munk-a wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it'd just look like it looked in the 90's, there wouldn't be targeted advertising and everyone except the marketers would be happier.

That's why, among other things, Facebook made "a tool so you can search for and view all current housing ads in the US targeted to different places across the country, regardless of whether the ads are shown to you." https://about.fb.com/news/2019/03/protecting-against-discrim... So advertisers can target you, but they can't keep you from seeing an ad if you go looking for it.

If this tool exists and allows ads to be viewed with the same visibility as their normal targeting then why are they bothering with targeted ads anymore?

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#17

Post by mulmen »

munk-a wrote: post #7
whiddershins wrote: post #6

I can’t understand, in succinct plain terms, what the desired outcome is here. What would it look like if the ads were not biased, or discriminating, in any bad way.

Maybe it'd just look like it looked in the 90's, there wouldn't be targeted advertising and everyone except the marketers would be happier.

Advertising has always been discriminatory. Even in the 90s there were multiple billboards, newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations in the world. Advertisers select what, when and where to advertise based on who they think is listening.

The only thing that has changed is how much we know about the "listener" (or page viewer). The nature of advertising is no different today than it was 100 years ago, only the resolution changed.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#18

Post by salawat »

theartfuldodger wrote: post #12
sp332 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For stuff like "employment, housing and credit", it's illegal to discriminate in advertising. That's why they made a whole new portal to try to avoid discrimination for those kinds of ads. So after a while if you gather data and realize that your algorithm is sexist and ageist, then continuing to use that algorithm to place ads is knowingly using sexist and ageist techniques in advertising. I think the EEOC has the a…

Those regulatory concerns should fall onto the purchasers list of responsibilities. The EEOC has the authority to censure the parties misusing their advertising options. For example as a marketer who does work in all of the above industries , technology should not limit my use of my dollar. If i have 10,000 for an apartment campaign, i should be able to spend 5k on ads showcasing my apartment gym focused on men and 5…

>Those regulatory concerns should fall onto the purchasers list of responsibilities.

Firearm/drug/financial regulations have already ruined that approach for you sadly.

It has been deemed time and again that the easiest place for regulators to apply pressure is on those producing the thing to be regulated. It is much easier to stop (undesirable thing) when the means of making (undesirable thing) happen are either tightly controlled or otherwise forbidden.

The smaller numbers of major players created by the necessarily high capital investment is much easier to control and surveil than having to keep every Tom, Dick, and Harry honest.

It's weird. I've been getting so disheartened as I branch out and diversify into various regulated fields of activity just to realize how much we have to hamstring ourselves to keep everyone honest; or at least to have a snowball's chance at figuring out what happened when something went wrong in order to ensure it won't happen again.

Half of me wants to chew my shoe over the degree of difficulty and implicit frustration encountered trying to get anything remotely compliant off the ground. The other half of just kind of bows it's head at the fact that the rule ended up coming into existence to solve one problem or another.

Cognitive dissonance and I seem to be full-time roommates nowadays, and it's rather exhausting. All part of growing up I suppose.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#19

Post by mulmen »

munk-a wrote: post #16
sp332 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why, among other things, Facebook made "a tool so you can search for and view all current housing ads in the US targeted to different places across the country, regardless of whether the ads are shown to you." https://about.fb.com/news/2019/03/protecting-against-discrim... So advertisers can target you, but they can't keep you from seeing an ad if you go looking for it.

If this tool exists and allows ads to be viewed with the same visibility as their normal targeting then why are they bothering with targeted ads anymore?

Because most people don't go out of their way to view advertising.

Re: Facebook Ads Can Still Discriminate, Despite a Civil Rights Settlement

#20

Post by [deleted] »

sp332 wrote: post #8
whiddershins wrote: post #6

I can’t understand, in succinct plain terms, what the desired outcome is here. What would it look like if the ads were not biased, or discriminating, in any bad way.

For stuff like "employment, housing and credit", it's illegal to discriminate in advertising. That's why they made a whole new portal to try to avoid discrimination for those kinds of ads. So after a while if you gather data and realize that your algorithm is sexist and ageist, then continuing to use that algorithm to place ads is knowingly using sexist and ageist techniques in advertising. I think the EEOC has the a…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN