CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 72Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook's ad delivery can lead to skewed outcomes

Open access
Ali, Muhammad, Sapiezynski, Piotr, Bogen, Miranda, Korolova, Aleksandra, Mislove, Alan, Rieke, Aaron·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1904.02095arXiv 1904.02095
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The enormous financial success of online advertising platforms is partially due to the precise targeting features they offer. Although researchers and journalists have found many ways that advertisers can target---or exclude---particular groups of users seeing their ads, comparatively little attention has been paid to the implications of the platform's ad delivery process, comprised of the platform's choices about which users see which ads. It has been hypothesized that this process can "skew" ad delivery in ways that the advertisers do not intend, making some users less likely than others to see particular ads based on their demographic characteristics. In this paper, we demonstrate that such skewed delivery occurs on Facebook, due to market and financial optimization effects as well as the platform's own predictions about the "relevance" of ads to different groups of users. We find that both the advertiser's budget and the content of the ad each significantly contribute to the skew of Facebook's ad delivery. Critically, we observe significant skew in delivery along gender and racial lines for "real" ads for employment and housing opportunities despite neutral targeting parameters. Our results demonstrate previously unknown mechanisms that can lead to potentially discriminatory ad delivery, even when advertisers set their targeting parameters to be highly inclusive. This underscores the need for policymakers and platforms to carefully consider the role of the ad delivery optimization run by ad platforms themselves---and not just the targeting choices of advertisers---in preventing discrimination in digital advertising.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1904.02095

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The surveillance analysis adequately describes the potential use of marketing data by state surveillance actors and the increased risk of using Facebook advertising tools to discriminate against people and fabricate sensitive or illegal audience segments.

    “It adequately describes the potential use of this marketing data by state surveillance actors (Lyon, 2014) and the increased risk of using Facebook advertising tools to discriminate against people and fabricate sensitive or illegal audience segments”

    From How online advertising targets consumers: The uses of categories and algorithmic tools by audience planners (2024) · cites this paper as Ali, Sapiezynski, Bogen, et al., 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [14][14] Cabin, R. J. and Mitchell, R. J. To Bonferroni or not to Bonferroni: when and how are the questions. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81 , 3 (2000). -
  2. [20][20] Diakopoulos, N., Trielli, D., JenniferStark, and Mussenden, S. I Vote For-How Search Informs Our Choice of Candidate. In Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (2018), Oxford University Press, M. Moore and D. Tambini, eds. -
  3. [37][37] Ghosh, A., Venkatadri, G., and Mislove, A. Analyzing Facebook Political Advertisers' Targeting. In Workshop on Technology and Consumer Protection (San Francisco, California, USA, May 2019). -
  4. [52][52] Lecuyer, M., Ducoffe, G., Lan, F., Papancea, A., Petsios, T., Spahn, R., Chaintreau, A., and Geambasu, R. XRay: Enhancing the Web's Transparency with 53. Differential Correlation. In USENIX Security Symposium (San Diego, California, USA, Aug. 2014). -
  5. [61][61] Parra-Arnau, J., Achara, J. P., and Castelluccia, C. MyAdChoices: Bringing Transparency and Control to Online Advertising. ACM Transactions on the Web 11 (2017). -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ali, M., Sapiezynski, P., Bogen, M., Korolova, A., Mislove, A., & Rieke, A.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1904.02095
arXiv
1904.02095
OpenAlex
W2927639528
Cited by
72
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 8
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
algorithmic discrimination, Facebook, online advertising, targeted advertising, gender discrimination, racial discrimination, ad relevance, algorithmic fairness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review