There are two common points of view when you talk to people about tech companies these days: 1. That these companies are toxic and immoral, and should be burnt to the ground; and 2. That these companies are too big to change, so we may as well make the most of what they can offer. Both of these perspectives (obviously) miss the mark. Enormous social good has been created by social media. For all the negative issues, there are undeniably thousands of examples of how Facebook or Twitter have changed someone’s life for the better. These companies are also not too big to change (just look at how much Facebook has done since the 2016 election), and the way in which we use them plays a big role in shaping their products and policies. That brings me to the subject of today’s newsletter feature: ethical ad targeting.
Let me explain.
When I sign up for a social media service, there is some information that I freely give about myself. My age, what Pages or accounts I follow, my gender, and if I choose to add them to my profile, my current city of residence, past employers, and alma matter. There are other things that services like Facebook figure out about us or collect without our informed consent, such as our political orientation, race, or the last time we were in a Wendy’s.
Is it possible to use the ad targeting tools made by Facebook, Google, and other tech companies while also adhering to moral guidelines on user privacy? I think that news organisations in particular should be asking themselves this question. When we target posts to audiences based on inferred or collected characteristics rather than ones that are explicitly given, we support the same overreaching data collection policies that we claim to be outraged by in headlines. We have a responsibility to stop asking for more and more and more data, and instead accept that choosing between slightly-less-efficient promoted posts or user privacy is an easy choice to make.
