Talk for Article "Facebook commits to ending ad discrimination"

Talk about this Article

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    As someone in advertising, I’m really unclear about what was asserted to be the discriminating act/enablement? Targeting is a fundamental principal behind “right message, right time, right person.” An easy example is exclusion of women when advertising male medical solutions or excluding men for female medical solutions.

    Would love to know what the specific accusation of discrimination was and what effects this has on navigating the nuances of relevant messaging/targeting for advertisers (and the brands they promote)

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      As someone in advertising, perhaps you could give a perspective on what is currently considered legal and good practice in targeting adverts based on, say, race, gender and other sensitive factors? For example is it currently considered legal and good practice to place job adverts in media or channels which makes them more likely to be read by white men than by black women, say?

      I ask because I simply don’t know — I’m not a marketing person and not familiar with marketing in the US — and thought you might be in a better position to answer your own question.

      1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

        My question was asking what the accusations in the legal proceedings are. Feels like that is a core fact within this piece that is missing.

        Your job post example is both obvious and feels pretty leading. I’m no lawyer, so I can’t speak to legalities, but in terms of best practices, the rule in digital advertising is what I stated above: right message, right time, right person.

        Like most tools, there are risks around abuse of targeted marketing (like Cambridge Analytica debacle, or your sexist job post example above). However, restriction of legitimate tools for legitimate use to control for edge-cases seems like a regressive process/stance. Which is why I posted my question – as-is, it seems to me like there is a huge misunderstanding in all this content.

        The expectation of the advertising industry is that platforms audit and verify for usage to ensure it complies with ethics. A big part of the Facebook thing was that all those Russian ads were expected (by industry) to have been screened and vetted before airing.

        The promise of targeted advertising is reducing wasted exposures on the internet. Things like gender, race, age, geography are often uses as pieces of a bigger picture that give advertisers propensities for a user to click-through or buy a brand’s product. The benefit to advertisers is to avoid buying wastefully, the benefit to users/recipients is that they aren’t bombarded by irrelevant content.

        i.e. how many viagra ads do women really need to be exposed to?

        Edited: 2018-07-30 18:02:40 By Patrick Mazzotta (talk | contribs) + 155 Characters .. + 11% change.‎‎ (Note | Diff)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us