Facebook has tightened the reins on its ad-targeting capabilities following a ProPublica investigation that found that Facebook's algorithmically generated categories allowed advertisements to be targeted to individuals who used phrases associated with anti-Semitism. Facebook denied that an algorithm was to blame, instead blaming manual entries by Facebook users (such as listing your occupation as "Jew Hater" with education from "Hitler's School of Hard Knocks"):
In a [September 20th post], Facebook's chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg made her first public statement on a recent ProPublica investigation of ad-targeting to hate groups, calling the issue "a fail on our part." Last week, ProPublica's investigation found that Facebook clients could target ads using keywords like "jew hater" and "Hitler did nothing wrong."
Sandberg claims the ad-targeting was the result of manual entries in the education and employer fields. (In simple terms, someone listed their job as "jew hater.") That explanation contradicts the initial ProPublica article, which claimed the categories were algorithmically generated. "We never intended or anticipated this functionality being used this way – and that is on us," Sandberg wrote. "And we did not find it ourselves – and that is also on us."
Sandberg laid out three changes in how the company targets ads, although each is largely an extension of existing efforts. After restricting self-reported fields for education and profession, Facebook will now restore approximately 5,000 of the most popular responses, all of which have now been reviewed to ensure they don't violate company standards. The company will also devote more resources to ensuring that "content that goes against our community standards cannot be used to target ads," and add more human oversight to its advertising system more broadly.
Facebook now has a vetted list of around 5,000 targeting options (such as "nurse" or "teacher") and will manually approve new ones.
Also at Recode, Slate, and Marketing Land.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @01:39AM (3 children)
That's Facebook's real issue, not the fact that it's conducting mass surveillance and violating the privacy of hundreds of millions of people (even those who don't use its garbage website). Priorities!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @05:29AM (2 children)
Stop it. Facebook is large enough to have multiple issues that can easily all be attacked at the same time.
This harping on about your pet hate is counter productive. Unless is it your intention to derail the thread.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 25 2017, @05:57AM
Actually, GP gets to the root of the problem. Without the tacit and explicit approval of mass surveillance, most of Suckaberg's other problems would simply disappear, or become negligible. Data mining is the core of Suckaberg's "business model", upon which everything else depends. You can't get that data without some form of surveillance, now can you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @07:29AM
This is an extremely insignificant issue that arises only because Facebook is a monstrous surveillance engine. People should stop letting themselves be used by Facebook, which is a much larger issue.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @01:53AM (22 children)
*Who* was targeting their ads at "Jew Haters" and the like.
What's more, I'd like to know the source of those groups' funding.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @02:05AM
Buy off Facebook, ask for a report.
Once your curiosity is satisfied, please do us a favor and close down Facebook, if that's not too much to ask.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @02:07AM (15 children)
Yeah nazis are such an issue. Can't goto the fucking store or the mall or school or anywhere without them everywhere. I am totally surrounded by them.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 25 2017, @02:17AM (12 children)
Jews are the issue. So much that even a Jew-run fixture of the internet has to admit so.
Unlike Nazis, Jews are everywhere. And they hold a disturbing amount of control over your lives. They bought out the NFL and are killing it! Killing its manhood! Because they don't like nationalism unless its their nationalism! We must stop them!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday September 25 2017, @02:31AM (3 children)
Personally, I'd be happy if they bought out the NFL, and then simply shut it down altogether. Good riddance.
Then, if they bought out all the golf courses in America and shut those down too, I'd be ecstatic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @02:50AM
I'll 2nd that motion. But it likely won't do any good as the NFL and golf type of humans
will still be around ....
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 25 2017, @05:59AM (1 child)
????????? GOLF COURSES??? Then what the hell would we do with all the freaky assed city people who like to fondle little balls? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @12:42PM
"freaky assed"
Is that why they wear those weird pants?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)
Found the Nazi. Defense industry employee, eh?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 25 2017, @02:39AM
Yes, I work for Boston Dynamics, and it was run by two or more Jews -- Eric Schmidt and Sergei Brin. Then it was sold to other Jews, and Schlomo Goldstein was one of them.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @09:29AM (5 children)
Well, maybe not so much. According to a recent poll [thehill.com]:
Given that the U.S. population is ~325 million [worldometers.info], this means that ~29 million people in the U.S. think Nazi/white supremacist ideas are acceptable.
Since there are (depending how you calculate the numbers) somewhere between 14 and 20 million jews in the entire world [wikipedia.org], with ~7 million in the U.S., there are actually more folks just in the U.S. who are fine with anti-semitism and other bigoted ideas espoused by nazis/white supremacists than there are jews in the entire world.
As such Eth, it's not nearly as bad as you've feared. So go ahead and have another drink or seven. Perhaps you can write a better troll when you're drunker.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Monday September 25 2017, @12:49PM (4 children)
That doesn't mean they agree with nazi or white supremacist views. They think that holding the views is acceptable. It's a subtle difference, but they may just be in favor of free speech.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Monday September 25 2017, @01:05PM (1 child)
Just holding the views. Not even expressing them necessarily. That's all. Simply holding the thought. I'm disappointed that such a small percentage of my fellow Americans believe in freedom of thought. I guess it's no surprise "thought police" is a real thing now. A real danger.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @03:04PM
An interesting point. At the same time, we were not given the actual text of the survey questions from which the responses were elicited. The respondents may have assumed (as I did) that finding such views "acceptable" was an endorsement of them.
I fell victim to that (perhaps incorrect) assumption myself (see my reply to an AC here [soylentnews.org]). As such, it isn't so far fetched that others may have made that assumption.
Freedom of thought and expression are essential to a truly free society. Those who are, in fact, nazis and white supremacists have every right to their thoughts and expression, however disgusting. In fact, those are exactly the sorts of people whose expression *must* be defended vigorously. If we don't defend unpopular speech, any and all speech and expression are at risk.
Given that I find the bigoted and exclusionary ideas of the nazis/white supremacists to be not just wrong from a logical standpoint, I find them disgusting and repugnant. As such, I am free to denounce such ideas and the worthless scum who subscribe to those ideas. I do not, however, believe the government should punish them simply for holding those views. [xkcd.com]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @02:45PM
A reasonable point. Lack of sleep may have contributed to my gliding over that, as you said, "subtle difference."
That, however, does put a rather big hole in my rebuke of Ethanol-Fueled. But fuck it. If Eth wants to play a bigoted scumbag on SoylentNews, I'm happy to call him on his hateful and sickening rhetoric. Maybe there are more jews in the US than there are actual nazis/neo-nazis. If that's true, I'm glad!
I, myself, don't wish to proscribe any thoughts or ideas from anyone. I believe that, at least in the longer term, that the marketplace of ideas [wikipedia.org] is the best way to sort things out.
That said, I find the bigoted and exclusionary rhetoric and goals of nthe Nazis/neo-nazis/white supremacists to be repugnant. And while I don't believe that folks who hold those repugnant views should be silenced or punished simply for holding or expressing any particular views (however, acts of violence, intimidation and the like should be punished vigorously). At the same time, I have the right to challenge (via my own free expression) those views and ideas too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Redundant) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @02:45PM
A reasonable point. Lack of sleep may have contributed to my gliding over that, as you said, "subtle difference."
That, however, does put a rather big hole in my rebuke of Ethanol-Fueled. But fuck it. If Eth wants to play a bigoted scumbag on SoylentNews, I'm happy to call him on his hateful and sickening rhetoric. Maybe there are more jews in the US than there are actual nazis/neo-nazis. If that's true, I'm glad!
I, myself, don't wish to proscribe any thoughts or ideas from anyone. I believe that, at least in the longer term, that the marketplace of ideas [wikipedia.org] is the best way to sort things out.
That said, I find the bigoted and exclusionary rhetoric and goals of nthe Nazis/neo-nazis/white supremacists to be repugnant. And while I don't believe that folks who hold those repugnant views should be silenced or punished simply for holding or expressing any particular views (however, acts of violence, intimidation and the like should be punished vigorously). At the same time, I have the right to challenge (via my own free expression) those views and ideas too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @03:25AM
Gee, that's strange. I didn't mention nazis. In fact, I'd be surprised if there were actual nazis behind the ads themselves.
it would also be quite interesting to see the *content* of the ads that were targeted in this manner.
I'm from the school of thought that believes if you *follow the money* you can get a good idea of the motives behind all manner of activities.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:53PM
I hate Illinois Nazis.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 25 2017, @03:09AM
Yeah me too, I want to buy them a beer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @01:22PM
Maybe people trying to fill the "Gas the Kikes Festival 2017"? Ticket sales have been down every year since 1945, and they are under tremendous pressure to turn it around, willing to try ANYTHING.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
Well, I could imagine some good-natured ads targeted at "Jew haters". For example ads for "get out of that Nazi milieu" programs.
I don't see a problem specifically with being able to target ads at this audience. Now specific ads targeted to that audience may be problematic, but then the problem is that ad, not the ability to target that demographic.
There's of course the general problem of data mining, which enables that ad-targeting. But that's independent of the nature of the targeted group.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @04:55PM
You misunderstand me. I want to know who targeted the ads and what their content was, not so they can be censored, but so that (given the context of the election cycle when the ads were run) we can better understand who was trying to motivate such scumbags, and to what purpose.
Censorship isn't the answer. As Louis Brandeis [wikiquote.org] explained in his concurrence on Whitney v. California [wikipedia.org]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:02PM
Facebook was always anti-Trump. The Networks were always anti-Trump hence, Fake News, @nytimes(apologized) & @WaPo were anti-Trump. Collusion? 🇺🇸
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 25 2017, @06:03AM (3 children)
There really are some nazis, neonazis, and white supremacists hanging around. But, most of today's "nazi problem" is a product of mass media's imagination, along with the "Russia problem" and a couple dozen other "problems" that somehow contributed to Hillary's defeat. We need an antiantifa organization is what I think.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by lx on Monday September 25 2017, @08:18AM
This kind of sectarian rhetoric, both right and left covering for their own sick militants and blaming the other side for all that's wrong in the world used to rampant in the '60s and '70s.
Somewhere in the eighties everybody got sick and tired of it. Now it's back and it is just as unhelpful today as it was then.
Being born in '71 I experienced only the tail end of the last wave. Honestly I don't know if I could handle two full decades of this shit.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday September 25 2017, @08:39AM
Actually, what we need is transparency in political funding. If someone (regardless of their political bent) wants to support or oppose a particular issue/candidate/party/whatever, they should be (and are) free to do so.
Where I think this needs to change is that when an individual/group/corporation/NGO/State actor/whatever provides support/opposition, whether that be via money/ads/volunteers/breaking windows/publishing propaganda/etc., a full and unambiguous disclosure of who is responsible should be required. In the U.S., that isn't even close to being the case. In fact, the way things are set up, it's almost impossible to determine who is responsible for a particular activity or message.
That will give those who encounter such activity a clear idea as to *who* is responsible, which can go a long way in helping to understand the dynamics, motives and nature of the activity. As I said in a previous comment [soylentnews.org]:
Then you can have actual evidence to blame those you've been instructed to hate, rather than just blathering on like you usually do, Runaway.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 27 2017, @07:10PM
We're nearly a year in and you're still talking about Russia and Hillary?