undefined | Better HN

0 pointsquotemstr7y ago0 comments

I'm not sure people understand the inevitable progression here.

Step 1: HUD files a complaint against Facebook for allowing ad targeting based on certain criteria.

Step 2: Facebook bans advertising targeting based on the criteria in the HUD complaint.

Step 3: Advertisers react by targeting based on demographic correlates of the categories from step #1.

Step 4: HUD notices that ads are still getting delivered more to one group than another.

GOTO STEP #1.

There's no clear point at which this process stops. Demographic correlates are numerous and strong. Are you going to ban all of them? That's tantamount to banning ad targeting generally!

0 comments

maym867y ago

So what about your argument means they shouldn't handle the explicit descrimination cases on their platform better? Just because there might be a fuzzy case in they future why shouldn't they handle the clear cases now?

FYI these are the specific points they are going after:

-display housing ads either only to men or women;

-not show ads to Facebook users interested in an "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessibility" or "deaf culture";

-not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or show ads only to users with children above a specified age;

-to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the "Christian Church," "Sikhism," "Hinduism," or the "Bible."

-not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "Latin America," "Canada," "Southeast Asia," "China," "Honduras," or "Somalia."

-draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes.

Pretty damn clear: gender, race, disability and religion.

quotemstrOP7y ago

A lot of really bad policy gets enacted because advocates don't honestly ask themselves, "What are the foreseeable consequences of the policy I'm advocating?" That is, a failure to ask the question "And then what?" results in a lot of unnecessary misery.

Your comment essentially restates the HUD's complaint. It doesn't engage with my discussion of the fundamental incompatibility of the HUD's regulatory regime and ad targeting in general. Nobody was ever convinced of anything by someone typing "FYI: [restatement of original premise]".

maym867y ago

My point was your premise is making up imaginary scenarios that aren't actually happening as a way of creating an issue with the clear problems outlined and this isn't helpful.

Creating an imaginary general problem as a way of attacking the specific issue is disingenuous.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsquotemstr7y ago0 comments

I'm not sure people understand the inevitable progression here.

Step 1: HUD files a complaint against Facebook for allowing ad targeting based on certain criteria.

Step 2: Facebook bans advertising targeting based on the criteria in the HUD complaint.

Step 3: Advertisers react by targeting based on demographic correlates of the categories from step #1.

Step 4: HUD notices that ads are still getting delivered more to one group than another.

GOTO STEP #1.

There's no clear point at which this process stops. Demographic correlates are numerous and strong. Are you going to ban all of them? That's tantamount to banning ad targeting generally!

0 comments

maym867y ago

FYI these are the specific points they are going after:

-display housing ads either only to men or women;

-not show ads to Facebook users interested in an "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessibility" or "deaf culture";

-not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or show ads only to users with children above a specified age;

-not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "Latin America," "Canada," "Southeast Asia," "China," "Honduras," or "Somalia."

-draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes.

Pretty damn clear: gender, race, disability and religion.

quotemstrOP7y ago

maym867y ago

My point was your premise is making up imaginary scenarios that aren't actually happening as a way of creating an issue with the clear problems outlined and this isn't helpful.

Creating an imaginary general problem as a way of attacking the specific issue is disingenuous.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse