Hacker News Reader

Comment by profunctor | Hacker News Reader

It seems to be a textbook form of discrimination.

It's not, though. When I buy a page in Cosmo or something, I'm doing that with the intent and result that mostly women will see it. If targeted ads were illegal, it's hard to see how any publication with non-representative demographics could sell ads at all.

Yes but you don't control if a man or an old person can buy the magazine or not.

While true, its a bit of a nitpick and misses the point GP made.

not really, because people are aware of the fact that they're going to find say, women targeted ads in cosmo, so they can seek them out. The 'discrimination' in this case is simply aggregate consumer preference, every individual outlier still gets precisely the content and ads they want.

If facebook displays housing ads only to white people a black person is very likely not even aware that they're being discriminated against in some specific way, the entire control is in the hands of facebook and the ad buyer, and intransparent.

The situation would be equivalent if facebook gave you complete control over their algorithm and let you choose what type of ads you want to be exposed to. Which would make discrimination much less of an issue. Or the other way around, the current facebook situation would be akin to the store owner quickly cutting the housing ads out of cosmo as soon as black people walk into the store.

No. If you place an ad on Facebook for housing and choose to exclude people who identify as "black", there's no way for those people to find your ad, save for creating a new Facebook account and pretending to be white.

Anyone is welcome to purchase a copy of Ebony magazine. It's targeted, but it's not exclusive.

Is it really any better to make people choose just really good proxies for their intended audience which theoretically anyone could be a member of but in practice is not that way?

And if this isn’t really any better, where does that leave you?

Where else would you draw the line? I don't think what I described is a real problem in practice. Housing and jobs are often advertised in rather neutral publications, not special interest ones. But what Facebook enables goes beyond targeting based on interest, it's explicitly exclusionary.

If your local newspaper could print a special edition for minority subscribers that didn't include job listings, that would be a problem. Advertising in a special interest publication is not, on its own, a problem. Of course there's no clear lines in reality, everything must be evaluated in context.

But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people? I honestly don’t know where I come down on this issue: it feels different to say, “we have a better ROI if we exclude certain demographics from seeing our ads” than to say “black people can’t eat at this diner.”

Let’s take a company like REI: is it wrong for them to put their stores in places that are most profitable? Should luxury good companies be required to have store fronts in inner cities?

I’m legitimately not sure I’m comfortable with either answer. “Women / older people are unlikely to respond to this ad; so we’ll have a better ROI by excluding those groups” feels awkward but like a legitimate business interest. If I sell male hygiene products can I exclude women from seeing the ads, not because I don’t like women but because the ad is less likely to be relevant?

“I don’t want to work with women or older people so I’ll not show them the ad” feels unquestionably wrong.

The short answer is: it depends. I don't think you'll run into much trouble in excluding women from your ads for beard care products, but you might of you're excluding them from your ads for housing.

I think you have to consider intent as well as outcome.

There is no might there are specific laws governing advertising when it comes to jobs and housing that don’t apply to other areas.

> But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people?

That's not what this thread is about. The question here is what is the difference between advertising on Facebook and excluding some demographics, and advertising in a paper magazine where you don't have the power to exclude anyone from viewing the ad.

Um.. I think most luxury goods stores are in inner cities.

Magazine buyer's aren't a protected class.

I think that's the main reason why buying an ad in Cosmo is different from buying a targeted Facebook ad in terms of discrimination. Cosmo might be written with women in mind but anybody can go and buy it. But it's pretty much impossible for someone who identifies as a man on Facebook to see ads that are only targeted towards women. The Facebook example is more similar to a real estate agent who only shows certain properties to white families.

When you're discriminating illegally, it doesn't usually matter whether it's possible for someone to subvert your discrimination.

Serious question: How is that relevant though?

Here is how I think about it: If my intention is to discriminate against men and publish an ad in a female magazine, sure, I cant control if a man buys and sees the ad or not. But discrimination was my intention to begin with regardless of how effective my efforts were. Besides, those efforts will be pretty effective. Instead of magazine advertising being 100% effective - as is in the case of FB targeted advertising - they will be just slightly less effective (lets say 90% or w/e number you want to put here). That´s because in the magazine´s case we know for certain that that vast majority of female magazine consumption is done by women - That´s literally what they are made for.

So in a sense, we are arguing about degrees of effectiveness rather than the nature of discrimination. Not only is this a slippery slope, but imo it flips everything in business on its head as having a target audience for your product or a service will be considered discriminatory!

> Not only is this a slippery slope, but imo it flips everything in business on its head as having a target audience for your product or a service will be considered discriminatory!

No, it doesn't. If you determine that your target audience watches BET, and you decide to only advertise your product on BET, that's 100% legal.

If you prevented anyone but your target audience from using your service, and you end up discriminating against a protected class, that's a different story.

There are entirely different standards when it comes to hiring and employment.

Facebook is way more like a newspaper than a target demo periodical but even when you put the Ad in Cosmo, you pay for the Ad impression no matter who views the Ad. You, as the advertiser have no control over that impression.

If it were common for, say, nursing positions to be advertised in Cosmo, then presumably male nurses looking for work would know this and be able to buy that magazine.

There is no need for slippery slopes or hypotheticals. All physical advertising platforms have policies against discrimination for job ads and rentals. Newspapers have had stricter requirements for those two areas for years and there are specific laws governing them. Just because it is “on the internet” doesn’t change anything.

Yes you can advertise jobs in Ebony or Cosmopolitan. There is nothing stopping a non Black or man from picking up those magazines.

> How is that relevant though?

It is not. Your intent to discriminate is not necessary for you to fall afoul of US equal opportunity laws. Demonstrating disparate impact of your employment policies on a protected class without a valid business is can be sufficient for you to lose your case.

You hire people through ads in Cosmo? I doubt that.

I don't think the original comment was asking about employment discrimination specifically. I've seen a lot of people get confused on this topic, and end up thinking it's illegal to discriminate by gender on any advertising at all.

The targeted ads in question relate to employment, which is governed by standards for what kinds of discrimination are legal and illegal.

Ok, so are you allowed to place employment ads in Cosmo?

Is it Ok just because it’s overwhelming likely to be women who see it, versus algorithmically targeting women?

That is how it works legally, yes.

No, that is not how it works.

> The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business. [0]

[0] https://www.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/

Are you a lawyer?

I'm not. But I don't believe you are right - advertising in a magazine doesn't exclude people just because their demographic doesn't target them.

If you ran a job ad for a make-up person in women's magazine there is nothing stopping a man who is also interested in make up seeing it and applying.

That is different to the Facebook system, where there was no way for someone from the excluded classes to see the ad.

I am not a lawyer, but I am directly quoting the US Government Agency that is responsible for enforcing these laws.

US employment law prohibits a large number of normally OK employment practices when they have a disparate impact on protected classes.

> For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic. [0]

[0] https://www.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/

Can someone tell me, does Cosmopolitan magazine run job ads?

It doesn't.

Working Mother Magazine runs ads for jobs if someone wants a more concrete example to use one way or another

https://jobs.workingmother.com/

> Ok, so are you allowed to place employment ads in Cosmo?

Yes, if you take care to balance your ad placement so that your job opening advertising policy is not biased against protected classes.

> because it’s overwhelming likely to be women who see it, versus algorithmically targeting women?

That doesn't matter. What matters is the end effect of the advertising policy.

In that case the targeted facebook ads would not be illegal if they were balanced by targeted ads at the groups excluded from the first? Or also not illegal if it can't be proven to have had an actual effect?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com