Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race

Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race

02/11/2016 0 Di Redazione

Que­sto arti­co­lo è sta­to let­to 9702 vol­te!

Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race

Ima­gi­ne if, during the Jim Crow era, a new­spa­per offe­red adver­ti­sers the option of pla­cing ads only in copies that went to whi­te rea­ders.

That’s basi­cal­ly what Face­book is doing nowa­days.

 The ubi­qui­tous social net­work not only allo­ws adver­ti­sers to tar­get users by their inte­rests or back­ground, it also gives adver­ti­sers the abi­li­ty to exclu­de spe­ci­fic groups it calls “Eth­nic Affi­ni­ties.” Ads that exclu­de peo­ple based on race, gen­der and other sen­si­ti­ve fac­tors are pro­hi­bi­ted by fede­ral law in hou­sing and employ­ment.

Here is a screen­shot of an ad we pur­cha­sed in Facebook’s hou­sing cate­go­ries via the company’s adver­ti­sing por­tal:

schermata-2016-11-02-alle-16-51-03

 

 

 

The ad we pur­cha­sed was tar­ge­ted to Face­book mem­bers who were hou­se hun­ting and exclu­ded anyo­ne with an “affi­ni­ty” for Afri­can-Ame­ri­can, Asian-Ame­ri­can or Hispa­nic peo­ple. (Here’s the ad itself.)

When we sho­wed Facebook’s racial exclu­sion options to a pro­mi­nent civil rights law­yer John Rel­man, he gasped and said, “This is hor­ri­fy­ing. This is mas­si­ve­ly ille­gal. This is about as bla­tant a vio­la­tion of the fede­ral Fair Hou­sing Act as one can find.”

The Fair Hou­sing Act of 1968 makes it ille­gal “to make, print, or publish, or cau­se to be made, prin­ted, or publi­shed any noti­ce, sta­te­ment, or adver­ti­se­ment, with respect to the sale or ren­tal of a dwel­ling that indi­ca­tes any pre­fe­ren­ce, limi­ta­tion, or discri­mi­na­tion based on race, color, reli­gion, sex, han­di­cap, fami­lial sta­tus, or natio­nal ori­gin.” Vio­la­tors can face tens of thou­sands of dol­lars in fines.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also pro­hi­bi­ts the “prin­ting or publi­ca­tion of noti­ces or adver­ti­se­men­ts indi­ca­ting pro­hi­bi­ted pre­fe­ren­ce, limi­ta­tion, spe­ci­fi­ca­tion or discri­mi­na­tion” in employ­ment recruit­ment.

Facebook’s busi­ness model is based on allo­wing adver­ti­sers to tar­get spe­ci­fic groups — or, appa­ren­tly to exclu­de spe­ci­fic groups — using huge reams of per­so­nal data the com­pa­ny has col­lec­ted about its users. Facebook’s micro­tar­ge­ting is par­ti­cu­lar­ly hel­p­ful for adver­ti­sers loo­king to reach niche audien­ces, such as swing-sta­te voters con­cer­ned about cli­ma­te chan­ge. Pro­Pu­bli­ca recen­tly offe­red a tool allo­wing users to see how Face­book is cate­go­ri­zing them. We found near­ly 50,000 uni­que cate­go­ries in which Face­book pla­ces its users.

Face­book says its poli­cies pro­hi­bit adver­ti­sers from using the tar­ge­ting options for discri­mi­na­tion, harass­ment, dispa­ra­ge­ment or pre­da­to­ry adver­ti­sing prac­ti­ces.

“We take a strong stand again­st adver­ti­sers misu­sing our plat­form: Our poli­cies pro­hi­bit using our tar­ge­ting options to discri­mi­na­te, and they requi­re com­plian­ce with the law,” said Ste­ve Sat­ter­field, pri­va­cy and public poli­cy mana­ger at Face­book. “We take prompt enfor­ce­ment action when we deter­mi­ne that ads vio­la­te our poli­cies.”

Sat­ter­field said it’s impor­tant for adver­ti­sers to have the abi­li­ty to both inclu­de and exclu­de groups as they test how their mar­ke­ting per­forms. For instan­ce, he said, an adver­ti­ser “might run one cam­pai­gn in English that exclu­des the Hispa­nic affi­ni­ty group to see how well the cam­pai­gn per­forms again­st run­ning that ad cam­pai­gn in Spa­nish. This is a com­mon prac­ti­ce in the indu­stry.”

He said Face­book began offe­ring the “Eth­nic Affi­ni­ty” cate­go­ries within the past two years as part of a “mul­ti­cul­tu­ral adver­ti­sing” effort.

Sat­ter­field added that the “Eth­nic Affi­ni­ty” is not the same as race — which Face­book does not ask its mem­bers about. Face­book assi­gns mem­bers an “Eth­nic Affi­ni­ty” based on pages and posts they have liked or enga­ged with on Face­book.

When we asked why “Eth­nic Affi­ni­ty” was inclu­ded in the “Demo­gra­phics” cate­go­ry of its ad-tar­ge­ting tool if it’s not a repre­sen­ta­tion of demo­gra­phics, Face­book respon­ded that it plans to move “Eth­nic Affi­ni­ty” to ano­ther sec­tion.

Breaking the Black Box

We live in an era of increa­sing auto­ma­tion. But as machi­nes make more deci­sions for us, it is increa­sin­gly impor­tant to under­stand the algo­ri­thms that pro­du­ce their judg­men­ts. See the series.

Machine Bias

We’re inve­sti­ga­ting algo­ri­th­mic inju­sti­ce and the for­mu­las that increa­sin­gly influen­ce our lives. See all of our repor­ting.

Face­book decli­ned to answer que­stions about why our hou­sing-cate­go­ries ad exclu­ding mino­ri­ty groups was appro­ved 15 minu­tes after we pla­ced the order.

By com­pa­ri­son, con­si­der the adver­ti­sing con­trols that the New York Times has put in pla­ce to pre­vent discri­mi­na­to­ry hou­sing ads. After the new­spa­per was suc­ces­sful­ly sued under the Fair Hou­sing Act in 1989, it agreed to review ads for poten­tial­ly discri­mi­na­to­ry con­tent befo­re accep­ting them for publi­ca­tion.

Ste­ph Jesper­sen, the Times’ direc­tor of adver­ti­sing accep­ta­bi­li­ty, said that the company’s staff runs auto­ma­ted pro­grams to make sure that ads that con­tain discri­mi­na­to­ry phra­ses such as “whi­tes only” and “no kids” are rejec­ted.

The Times’ auto­ma­ted pro­gram also highlights ads that con­tain poten­tial­ly discri­mi­na­to­ry code words such as “near chur­ches” or “clo­se to a coun­try club.” Humans then review tho­se ads befo­re they can be appro­ved.

Jesper­sen said the Times also rejec­ts hou­sing ads that con­tain pho­to­gra­phs of too many whi­te peo­ple. The peo­ple in the ads must repre­sent the diver­si­ty of the popu­la­tion of New York, and if they don’t, he says he will call up the adver­ti­ser and ask them to sub­mit an ad with a more diver­se lineup of models.

But, Jesper­sen said, the­se days most adver­ti­sers know not to sub­mit discri­mi­na­to­ry ads: “I haven’t seen an ad with ‘whi­tes only’ for a long time.”

Cla­ri­fi­ca­tion, Oct. 28, 2016: We’ve upda­ted the sto­ry to explain more clear­ly that the ad we bought was not for hou­sing itself — it was pla­ced in Facebook’s hou­sing cate­go­ries.

Sour­ce: ProPublica.org

Related Images: