Facebook Halts Ad Targeting Cited in Bias Complaints

So as a 67 year old, I can now expect to see ads for entry level firefighter jobs? How wonderful, that makes my life more just I suppose.

It seems clear that Facebook is a publisher, and Congress should enact legislation establishing that.This would save years of tinkering around the edges to force them to be more responsible.

The paucity of familiarity with civics and ethics in our country is staggering. It’s appears rife among some readers of the Times, too. I applaud those who’ve attempted to explain the law to those who don’t realize that purveyors of lipstick and those of rental housing operate under different sets of rules. Housing targeting toward white men is unlawful—with good reason. Targeting 18 year olds for lipstick is just that—lipstick advertising. I hope readers recognize that while housing, education, healthcare and jobs are not rights in the US, we have laws to prevent discrimination in these areas. What is most disturbing about this article is how long FB has gotten away with this. The laws banning discrimination are half a century old yet FB has engaged in actions that have a discriminatory impact and only now dealing with it...after being sued. FB’s ethical and civic breaches are legion. Why believe anything they say or do? The company has no conscience or responsibility and lawmakers’ unwillingness or inability to reign in these companies and apply the law or pass new ones is something to consider as we head toward an election. We’re living in the Wild West of Internet business where the companies with the business are making the rules.

It would have been nice if this article had some actual examples of the sort of discrimination that actually occurred. People commenting here are left to guess what will and won't be changed. Generally speaking, if I must see an ad, wouldn't I want it to be a targeted ad?

What is the difference between Internet advertising vs. newspaper or magazine ads that focus their wares on specific targets? If I were a fashion designer specializing in thousand dollar sweaters, I'd place my ad dollars in Vogue, not in the National Enquirer. If I had a three million dollar property for sale in NYC, I wouldn't place my ad in a small town's newspaper in Wyoming. I'm afraid where all of this control is leading is to a rigid oversight and total control of the Internet by some government entity. We're all upset with Facebook right now, but the government has more important things to worry about than targeted advertising. Don't let FB sell our information, but put the onus on the advertisers themselves to target their audiences.

So Facebook is sounding more and more like a publisher. Aren't there rules for that?

Facebook says that they will have the changes in place by the end of the year. And they agreed to pay $3 million. I wonder how much money they make each month from these discriminatory ads... As for why Facebook is liable for this (unlike, say, a telephone company that someone might use to commit blackmail) is that they make selecting the algorithms that do the unlawful discriminatory targeting available to those placing the ads. Those algorithms are under Facebook’s control. What Facebook agreed to was taking those options away from ad purchasers who are self identifying themselves as submitting the types of ads that were illegally discriminatory. And those who did unlawfully use those algorithms, are still liable. And those who fail to self identify as submitting unlawfully targeted ads by failing to self report will still be liable. (And according to the article, many of the laws that cover this type of discriminatory practice are state laws, and Facebook and these types of companies are still liable under those state laws.)

And how do we know Facebook is doing this? Because Facebook is telling us they're doing it. And what credible agency will examine the code(s) to confirm they function as advertised? There is none. And who will provide the 'new data' that proves the code(s) are functioning as advertised? Facebook will. 'Trump News' is news about Trump coming from Trump himself. 'Facebook News' is the same - news about Facebook coming from Facebook itself. But 'Trump News' is recorded in the Media & Social Media as a matter of course - let's say 1-100 items a day? 'Facebook News' is a billion items per second recorded - and subsequently sold - only by Facebook. 'FACEBOOK HALTS AD TARGETING CITED IN BIAS COMPLAINTS' 'You don't say? Sheryl, meet Donald - you have more in common than you might think.'

This is a smoke screen to take the attention of the media and regulatory agencies away from real issues such as Putin manipulating our elections.

Scavino should probably stop acting like a Russian Bot rather than complain that he was snared in an algorithm that looks for them. With that being said, that Facebook needed to be forced to do something like this shows how little regard they have for those who are on their platform.

Sheryl - Markie it’s very difficult to put stuff back in Pandora’s box - eh?

As someone with a business that actually uses Facebook ads, the description here and from Sandberg is self-serving propaganda. Facebook is simply trying to weasel out of lawsuits and in the process punishing all advertisers regardless of whether there is actual bias or not. Now its becoming impossible to post an ad, and even more difficult to target a relevant audience. Without advertising Facebook has no business model, maybe they can start charging people membership fees - they will certainly lose advertisers if they keep this up. Instead of blanket proposals they should develop ways to identify bias without punishing everyone.

We need to start blocking Facebook in countries outside the us.

Another symbolic “victory” for ethic, gender and age groups! Now you will see more adds that you won’t click on and less adds that you would click on. That sense of not being excluded from irrelevant advertising is really going to improve your life. Thanks ACLU! Keep up the good work of protecting traditional American liberties.

"The company said it planned to carry out the changes by the end of the year . . ." It's only March. These "changes" can't be carried out for nine months??

"Facebook announced on Tuesday that it would stop allowing advertisers.." Does anyone really believe them? There is no chance that they will make any positive decision.

Targeting Facebook for the abuse of advertisers is ridiculous. Why not punish the companies that are actually targeting ads in violation of law? If someone makes a threat over the phone should the government penalize Verizon? Facebook is a platform, not the originator of the content, nor a regulator. Though we seem to want them to be all of those and more.

Ad targeting is by definition discriminatory. It is right there in the characterization - "targeting". If I am placing an ad to sell or rent a condo in an adult community, what could can it possibly do to show the ad to teenagers or young adults? How annoying would be for those teenagers to see those ads? Similarly, If I'm placing an ad for a job that requires medical license with board certification, what good would it do to show that to teens and early 20s adults - they could not possibly have the qualifications. The interference with commerce and friction in the economy promoted by liberals is endless, I guess. I just home my teenage daughter old does not try to rent a condo in an adult community or apply for a job requiring a medical board certification. After all, she will now see all those ads. Nice job.

Wow! It took a long time for such basic reforms. Even given the lawsuits. FB knew they'd have to capitulate one day, but they stalled as long as possible. For a company with about $50 billion in revenue, a $5 million penalty is really going to make them change behavior.

Nothing wrong with having rules in place for a limited number of categories but let’s not go overboard here as otherwise we will just be all bombarded with irrelevant ads and then Facebook will be blamed for being a spreader if spam as well. One reason I can’t stand watching most TV channels any longer is the constant interruption with totally irrelevant commercials. Not what I want to face online too.

Oh great. Does this mean I'm going to be flooded with ads for Viagra or Diddy's new clothing line?

Fakebook is one of the world's leading promoters of hatred, violence and genocide. This is who Mark Zuckerberg is...to his core. Anything to get the money.

Raise your hand if you believe anything Facebook says! Anyone? Anyone at all? (Crickets chirping in background)

Would be a great experiment to close Facebook down two days a week. They have made so many mistakes and have abused their power that they need to be brought under control. Close Facebook on Wednesday’s and Sundays worldwide.

Facebook is going to stop allowing advertisers in key categories to show their message only to people of a certain race, gender or age group.........Sooooo, in addition to selling our private info to any third parties who have the cash to buy it, Facebook has been practicing Institutional Racism, sexism and ageism....Up until NOW?.....And why am I not suprised?

Facebook has become the Alex Jones of the tech industry. Paranoid and incompetent but making a ton of money.

Who needs Facebook? A email distribution list to friends do the same thing.

Advertising is supposed to be discriminatory. An effective advertising campaign targets likely customers. Must John Deere tractor advertisements now be shown on the pages of urban San Francisco residents ? Must men be inundated with adds for women's cosmetics ? The examples are endless. An ad that is shown to consumers who are likely never to purchase an item or service is a waste of time an money. Most ads concern products that appeal to limited users, and the advertiser should be permitted to identify and similarly limit its marketing potential customers .

Kind of the point of targeted advertising is bias. Hit only who you want. So if Facebook stops doing this, there goes Facebook's business model.

This is extremely insincere "promise" from Facebook, aiming at fooling people who are not tech-savvy. All these targets ads are behavioral based - they do not need demographic information AT ALL. It takes only browsing history of a few pages, tracked by cookies across websites/platforms, to accurately identify someone's race, gender, sex, age, and more. All done automatically using artificial intelligence models based on machine learning and/or stantistics. And then Facebook proudly and shamelessly claims its ads are "behavioral" based.

Far too little, far too late.

It's pretty remarkable that Facebook has been enabling this explicitly illegal conduct for quite some time, as reported months ago, and only now are making a promise to stop... but not immediately, it could take until the end of this year. It's illegal, they should have stopped as soon as it was reported, and been fined or otherwise sanctioned for past violations. It's unconscionable that they are going to be permitted to continuing breaking the law for most of the rest of the year.

Facebook offered this option in their advertising model and programmed their system to intentionally to allow discrimination, got caught, and are now claiming it is "historic and will go a long way toward making sure that these types of discriminatory practices can't happen". It shouldn't take a lawsuit to make Facebook know the difference between right and wrong, they should never have allowed the design to go forward. They did it because they could and if caught, just peddle back. The requirement should also require Facebook to list all the advertisers who engaged in discriminatory advertisement on Facebook using the features Facebook designed intentionally to discriminate. We consumers have the right to know who is racist, sexist, and/or ageist so that we can choose to support those that aren't.

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, are all free services. All privately owned. I would like to see them shut down for 72 hours! Wipe out all accounts. Everyone that's suing them, specially representative Nunez from California Republican Karma said hey it was free you don't like it don't use it! Just like you treat a child, you live under my roof you play by my rules. You don't like it find something or create your own. That you paid nothing for this service and advertisers will go wherever people are. I doubt anyone's business blew up because they advertise on social media... Just shut down all the social media for 72 hours. Wouldn't that be great?! Enough of all this whining and complaining for an absolutely free service.

If Facebook implements this as poorly as their effort at taking down offensive videos, this will be another massive failure.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why advertisers target certain people based upon income, sex, gender, etc. I guess I will be targeted by every single ad now because it isn't permitted to target?

Cancel your Facebook account right now. Everyone who stays on this platform for any reason is complicit in this and every other scandal/data breach/stolen presidential election.

"Advertisers that deliberately and repeatedly avoid the new portal when placing ads in the three regulated areas will probably face consequences, though the company said it had yet to determine those." "Probably"? How is this company credible enough to be allowed to "probably" develop a policy? Why not require it in the settlement? Every new headline about this company is infuriating.