Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race (how wonderful)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Free tampons in the Rutgers men's bathrooms?

People of all races can have different textures of hair.

We live in a global world, and are supposed to be working towards a global economy. The trend would seem to be toward global inclusiveness, not exclusivity.

At least is what thy keep saying.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But it is a fair point. If i have to pay for each person thta the ad is served to, then I want control over who gets it. Otherwise I would be advertising tampons to teenage boys. That seems like a waste of my money, and somewhat inappropriate.

We used to jam them up our nose in football to stop nosebleeds.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Its a nice sentiment. Except for the fact that its ridiculous to force businesses to buy advertising they don't need just to meet racial quotas.

Sure, i can make any asinine pairing of items and you can find some one off example of it being a thing. That has no bearing on whether or not I, as an advertiser participating in a marketing program that charges me for each person the ad is served to, should have to be forced to pay for ads that are useless?

Or do you think its reasonable that I should have to double my marketing budget to include white men over 50 when I am trying to market my new Justin Bieber album?

Adverse impact. That is the measure. If Facebooks marketing isn't having an adverse impact on a protected class, then there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Because as someone who uses FB to advertise, its just flat out stupid that I might have to include muslim men, or jewish men, when advertising my new Triple Stack BLT as a lunch special.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But it is a fair point. If i have to pay for each person thta the ad is served to, then I want control over who gets it. Otherwise I would be advertising tampons to teenage boys. That seems like a waste of my money, and somewhat inappropriate.

We used to jam them up our nose in football to stop nosebleeds.

My youngest (who will kill me for telling this story) is now 18. When he was 4 we had a tooth removed from his sinuses that caused frequent nosebleeds. Up until that point he would use what he called "Toupons" to stop the nose bleed.

When you have a really bad nose bleed and they pack your nose, its basically a set of tampon nunchuks that they tie off over your septum.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Look, I get it and agree with what you're trying to say... my point is that we live in a world where mom and pop businesses are forced under penalty of law and hefty court ordered restitutions to directly do business with protected individuals who they don't want to do business with. In that vein, I find it to be hypocritical that the law would allow megacorps to save a few bucks on advertising by using racial and gender dividing lines to direct their ads. To take it further... there was a huge navel gazing exercise a couple of years ago in major retail chains to eliminate the boys and girls toys aisles, or at least their identification as such.

I'd be lying if I said I gave a damn whether a company's ad policy is discriminative, targeted, or willy-nilly... I simply don't care, they hold all the risks so it should be entirely their call. BUT consistency would be nice.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Look, I get it and agree with what you're trying to say... my point is that we live in a world where mom and pop businesses are forced under penalty of law and hefty court ordered restitutions to directly do business with protected individuals who they don't want to do business with. In that vein, I find it to be hypocritical that the law would allow megacorps to save a few bucks on advertising by using racial and gender dividing lines to direct their ads. To take it further... there was a huge navel gazing exercise a couple of years ago in major retail chains to eliminate the boys and girls toys aisles, or at least their identification as such.

I'd be lying if I said I gave a damn whether a company's ad policy is discriminative, targeted, or willy-nilly... I simply don't care, they hold all the risks so it should be entirely their call. BUT consistency would be nice.

burdman30ott6 made the point I was trying to make. We live in a society today where we are being forced to accept laws, restrictions and demands to accommodate the few, in the quest for an all inclusive society. Even in cases where no one is adversely affected, we all have to walk the chalk line.

I agree with you 100% that often times the demands are flat out stupid, but as Burdman says, it has to be the same for everyone.

This isn't just FB. I live in an area that is between two distinct neighborhoods. North of me is a very upscale, mostly white country club neighborhood. A few miles south is a low income neighborhood.

If I drive north and go into the country club Walmart - the magazines at the checkout line are all "Forbes" and "Fortune". If I drive to the Walmart south of me the magazines at the registers are "Ebony" and "O".

It's just how things work. Hell, even the ads that you see on ATS ( and everywhere else ) are using your browsers history to tailor ads to you - to one degree or another.

originally posted by: Hefficide
If I drive north and go into the country club Walmart - the magazines at the checkout line are all "Forbes" and "Fortune".

Upscale Walmarts?

Holy God, I no longer want to remain on this planet. The fact that those exist speak volumes to what's wrong with consumerist America in general.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Absolutely!

I don't know if it's a universal thing or not, but around here conversations tend to go like this:

Person One: Hey, I'm going to Walmart - wanna ride along?
Person Two: You going to the good Walmart?
Person One: Nope. Other one's closer.
Person Two: Oh.... Nope. I'm good.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Its freedom of speech. my ads are speech. I can choose to talk to, or not talk to, whoever I want. At least until that precedence is set.

When that happens, BET is in deep trouble.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Its freedom of speech. my ads are speech. I can choose to talk to, or not talk to, whoever I want. At least until that precedence is set.

When that happens, BET is in deep trouble.

.
BET - Black Entertainment Television- is anything but Black.

BET has all its bases covered. They are owned by Viacom.

The previous board of directors of Viacom were George S. Abrams, David Andelman, Joseph Califano, Jr., William Cohen, Philippe Dauman, Alan C. Greenberg, Charles Phillips, Shari Redstone, Sumner Redstone, Frederic Salerno, William Schwartz, and Robert D. Walter. Following the Viacom/CBS split, the Viacom board consisted of George S. Abrams, Philippe Dauman, Thomas E. Dooley, Ellen V. Futter, Robert Kraft, Alan Greenberg, Charles Phillips, Sumner Redstone (Chairman), Shari Redstone (non-executive Vice-Chair), Frederic Salerno, and William Schwartz.

As of 2010, the Board consists of George Abrams, Philippe Dauman, Thomas E. Dooley, Alan Greenberg, Robert Kraft, Blythe McGarvie, Charles Phillips, Shari E. Redstone, Sumner M. Redstone, Frederic Salerno, and William Schwartz.

Their all encompassing facial scanning compositions probably label people's pictures by race. Nothing to see here, it's only the beginning...