autotldr@lemmings.world
on 26 Sep 2023 20:55
nextcollapse
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!
You’re baffled people went on one of the most used website in the world to search for something. bruh…
mateomaui@reddthat.com
on 27 Sep 2023 00:22
collapse
Yes, I am baffled that anyone, with Facebook’s reputation for ads, selling personal information, etc, would choose to search for insurance carriers there instead of any number of other options that aren’t that big a leap away from Facebook, bruh.
neo@lemmy.comfysnug.space
on 27 Sep 2023 03:10
nextcollapse
and yet 95% of humanity does exactly that
mateomaui@reddthat.com
on 27 Sep 2023 03:19
collapse
While I find it equally stupid as you do, you mustn’t forget that the overwhelming majority of users on the internet aren’t techies like us.
mateomaui@reddthat.com
on 28 Sep 2023 05:19
collapse
If this was grandma on AOL I would probably agree, but this person is cogent enough to actually file a lawsuit because the place she went to search didn’t serve her the ads she wanted. Hard to believe she didn’t also know at the very least that Google or Bing are options. I wouldn’t expect her to know about DuckDuckGo for instance.
edit: and the “95%” part of that reply was what made it more doubtful than anything. If people didn’t make such ridiculous overreaching claims, they’d be more believable. The exaggerations aren’t necessary or valid.
Hahaha. Don’t worry, we can sue companies or people in my country just fine as well. We just tend not to do it when, say, the hotdog is missing the sauce you asked for. ;)
mateomaui@reddthat.com
on 28 Sep 2023 07:08
collapse
Hotdog with the wrong sauce is just asking for vigilante justice here.
That honestly explains American litigation culture a lot better than anything I’ve ever read or watched.
RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml
on 27 Sep 2023 13:46
collapse
There are so many people who literally think Facebook is the internet and every other website is just a really personalized facebook page.
mateomaui@reddthat.com
on 28 Sep 2023 05:21
collapse
I’ll have to take your word for that. As I said to someone else, if she were on AOL I could totally see that, but it’s more of stretch for me to believe it with Facebook.
RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml
on 28 Sep 2023 12:45
collapse
I have literally known people who think this.
mateomaui@reddthat.com
on 28 Sep 2023 21:52
collapse
Like I said, I’ll have to take your word for that.
chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
on 27 Sep 2023 13:50
nextcollapse
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.
HughJanus@lemmy.ml
on 27 Sep 2023 02:27
nextcollapse
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.
recapitated@lemmy.world
on 29 Sep 2023 17:20
collapse
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?
aeternum@kbin.social
on 27 Sep 2023 13:03
nextcollapse
as if not use an ad blocker.
Squirrel@thelemmy.club
on 27 Sep 2023 14:46
nextcollapse
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.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz
on 28 Sep 2023 13:19
collapse
I guess in the technical sense of the term any targeting of advertising is discrimination.
CoderKat@lemm.ee
on 27 Sep 2023 17:09
nextcollapse
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?
dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de
on 28 Sep 2023 13:10
collapse
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.
threaded - newest
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!
Someone is angry because they’re not getting ads on Facebook?
That’s a switch.
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
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.
You’re baffled people went on one of the most used website in the world to search for something. bruh…
Yes, I am baffled that anyone, with Facebook’s reputation for ads, selling personal information, etc, would choose to search for insurance carriers there instead of any number of other options that aren’t that big a leap away from Facebook, bruh.
and yet 95% of humanity does exactly that
doubtful
While I find it equally stupid as you do, you mustn’t forget that the overwhelming majority of users on the internet aren’t techies like us.
If this was grandma on AOL I would probably agree, but this person is cogent enough to actually file a lawsuit because the place she went to search didn’t serve her the ads she wanted. Hard to believe she didn’t also know at the very least that Google or Bing are options. I wouldn’t expect her to know about DuckDuckGo for instance.
edit: and the “95%” part of that reply was what made it more doubtful than anything. If people didn’t make such ridiculous overreaching claims, they’d be more believable. The exaggerations aren’t necessary or valid.
Fair. Though it still makes me doubt it a little bit. It is still an American woman we’re talking about. Suing is your national pastime, isn’t it?
I guess. What’s the point in having legal rights if you can’t wield them in court for profit?
Hahaha. Don’t worry, we can sue companies or people in my country just fine as well. We just tend not to do it when, say, the hotdog is missing the sauce you asked for. ;)
Hotdog with the wrong sauce is just asking for vigilante justice here.
That honestly explains American litigation culture a lot better than anything I’ve ever read or watched.
There are so many people who literally think Facebook is the internet and every other website is just a really personalized facebook page.
I’ll have to take your word for that. As I said to someone else, if she were on AOL I could totally see that, but it’s more of stretch for me to believe it with Facebook.
I have literally known people who think this.
Like I said, I’ll have to take your word for that.
For some people, Facebook is internet
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.
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.
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?
as if not use an ad blocker.
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.
I guess in the technical sense of the term any targeting of advertising is discrimination.
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?
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.