• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Id imagine the issue isn’t “not showing some people ads”, they probably just got different ads instead if these are the regularly placed ads being talked about.

      The article mentions something about this being started by someone who went to Facebook looking for an insurance provider though, so this sounds more like if Amazon didn’t show certain product listings to people of some specific category for one reason or another- those listings are technically advertising a product, but they’re something one actually does want to see, when shopping for something relevant to the listing at least. If, say, some company wanted to offer a product at a discount, but only wanted to offer that discount to a certain category of person for some reason, it’d be pretty scummy of the online retailer to comply and only show other people that product at the more expensive price, or not at all.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If, say, some company wanted to offer a product at a discount, but only wanted to offer that discount to a certain category of person for some reason

        That’s literally how the entire insurance industry works in the first place. So I wonder, is there a special exception that insurance companies get that Facebook does not?

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Might it depend on the specifics? Im unsure what the relevant laws are here, but it’s easy to imagine that offering a special discount to, say, non-smokers, would be considered far more acceptable than offering a discount only to men

      • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We know women are heavy shoppers, thus they have more competitive ad space.

        We know people like to scam elderly, thus they have more competitive ad space.

        Sounds like big insurance might be complaining that they’re worse at SEO than the Nigerian prince.

    • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would you feel differently if they weren’t showing real estate ads for homes in largely white communities to PoC? Because that’s the same principle, given that that’s why the law was made. I’m not upset that we’re enforcing nondiscrimination law; we don’t do it enough.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just consider how much privilege people like you and I have, that we’re able to call it “boring”. For many people, it’s far from boring.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    who turned to Facebook to find an insurance provider

    Well there’s your first problem right there.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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!

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Speaking of FB ads I’ve noticed a rise in trash ads that show big breasted woman for things that have nothing to do with boobs. I remember during the home refinancing boom I was bombarded with ads from mortgage companies slapping a photo of a chesty woman on them.

  • ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aren’t women generally considered lower risk for insurance? Less risk of needing to pay out means more profit for the insurance companies. Plus of course not having your ads shown to 50% of the population. Seems like it should be the advertisers going after Facebook for this directly.