this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
126 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

34971 readers
124 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone is angry because they’re not getting ads on Facebook?

That’s a switch.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's not about that actually, it's discrimination.

These people are still seeing ads, but not the ones which they need at their age

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, I understand that, which brings up the second baffling point that someone went to facebook to search for insurance providers in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

For some people, Facebook is internet

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

As much as most don’t like Facebook, I honestly don’t see why Facebook is at fault here. They’ve got a platform where advertisers come on, say “I want to sell ads to people Ages X-Y , Gender A, in Geography I, J and K”, and they serve ads accordingly. What are they supposed to do? Tell the advertisers “No no no, you need to also pay for ads on these other demographics that you explicitly excluded”? The plaintiff should be suing advertisers, not Facebook, for intentionally not targeting them.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The case centers around Samantha Liapes, a 48-year-old woman who turned to Facebook to find an insurance provider.

I'm sorry, whatnow?

So now if I search for car insurance and Facebook shows me ads for a buttplug from Kickstarter, I can sue them? Because we're all going to very rich, if so.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's how I shop. I scroll through loads of random thoughts and pictures by friends and family and people I barely know until someone tries to sell me insurance. What's the problem exactly?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So, is it actual discrimination, or is it just that their data Facebook has shows that other ads are better suited to them, statistically, in terms of profit? I'm sure all sorts of patterns show up in the quantity of data they have, and algorithms show ads based on these patterns. It's possible that gender is a factor, but it seems just as likely that there are other patterns (perhaps some common to a given gender) that factor into this result.

Edit: To be clear, I did not read the article, because I don't actually care that much. I just find statistics and patterns interesting. Having worked in insurance in the past, I was always curious about which exact information factored into premiums, and in what way. I know everything from marital status, to job, education, location, age, credit score, and much more, factored into decisions, and not always in ways you may expect -- all based on statistics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I guess in the technical sense of the term any targeting of advertising is discrimination.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I find this very unconvincing. Ads don't offer a service. They're not like a search engine or the likes. So why should ads have to target all groups equally?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Facebook can be sued over allegations that its advertising algorithm is discriminatory, a California state court of appeals ruled last week.

The decision stems from a class action lawsuit filed against Facebook in 2020, which accused the company of not showing insurance ads to women and older people in violation of civil rights laws.

In a September 21st ruling, the appeals court reversed a previous decision that said Section 230 (which protects online platforms from legal liability if users post illegal content) shields Facebook from accountability.

The appeals court concluded that the case “adequately” alleges that Facebook “knew insurance advertisers intentionally targeted its ads based on users’ age and gender” in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

It also found significant similarities between Facebook’s ad platform and Roommates.com, a service that exceeded the protections of Section 230 by including drop-down menus with options that allowed for discrimination.

Facebook’s ad algorithm has faced scrutiny for years now, with a federal lawsuit filed in 2018 accusing the company of enabling housing discrimination and subsequent studies backing up these claims.


The original article contains 274 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 35%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You buy ads with the target demographic criteria. That's often people with jobs, newlyweds etc.

It's not an "equal right" to be targeted by the ads.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

as if not use an ad blocker.