Auditing Digital Platforms for Discrimination in Economic Opportunity Advertising

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09656v1
• Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 19:18:34 GMT
• Title: Auditing Digital Platforms for Discrimination in Economic Opportunity Advertising
• Authors: Sara Kingsley, Clara Wang, Alex Mikhalenko, Proteeti Sinha, Chinmay Kulkarni
• Abstract summary: We present a methodology and software to audit digital platforms for bias and discrimination. An audit of the Facebook platform and advertising network was conducted. For each of the categories, we analyzed the distribution of the ad content by age group and gender.
• Score: 5.794035436345331
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Digital platforms, including social networks, are major sources of economic information. Evidence suggests that digital platforms display different socioeconomic opportunities to demographic groups. Our work addresses this issue by presenting a methodology and software to audit digital platforms for bias and discrimination. To demonstrate, an audit of the Facebook platform and advertising network was conducted. Between October 2019 and May 2020, we collected 141,063 ads from the Facebook Ad Library API. Using machine learning classifiers, each ad was automatically labeled by the primary marketing category (housing, employment, credit, political, other). For each of the categories, we analyzed the distribution of the ad content by age group and gender. From the audit findings, we considered and present the limitations, needs, infrastructure and policies that would enable researchers to conduct more systematic audits in the future and advocate for why this work must be done. We also discuss how biased distributions impact what socioeconomic opportunities people have, especially when on digital platforms some demographic groups are disproportionately excluded from the population(s) that receive(s) content regulated by law.

Related papers

• On the Use of Proxies in Political Ad Targeting [49.61009579554272]
  We show that major political advertisers circumvented mitigations by targeting proxy attributes. Our findings have crucial implications for the ongoing discussion on the regulation of political advertising.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:15:13Z)
• Auditing for Racial Discrimination in the Delivery of Education Ads [50.37313459134418]
  We propose a new third-party auditing method that can evaluate racial bias in the delivery of ads for education opportunities. We find evidence of racial discrimination in Meta's algorithmic delivery of ads for education opportunities, posing legal and ethical concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T02:00:55Z)
• Discrimination through Image Selection by Job Advertisers on Facebook [79.21648699199648]
  We propose and investigate the prevalence of a new means for discrimination in job advertising. It combines both targeting and delivery -- through the disproportionate representation or exclusion of people of certain demographics in job ad images. We use the Facebook Ad Library to demonstrate the prevalence of this practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-13T03:43:58Z)
• Design and analysis of tweet-based election models for the 2021 Mexican legislative election [55.41644538483948]
  We use a dataset of 15 million election-related tweets in the six months preceding election day. We find that models using data with geographical attributes determine the results of the election with better precision and accuracy than conventional polling methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-02T12:40:05Z)
• How Algorithms Shape the Distribution of Political Advertising: Case Studies of Facebook, Google, and TikTok [5.851101657703105]
  We analyze a dataset containing over 800,000 ads and 2.5 million videos about the 2020 U.S. presidential election from Facebook, Google, and TikTok. We conduct the first large scale data analysis of public data to critically evaluate how these platforms amplified or moderated the distribution of political advertisements. We conclude with recommendations for how to improve the disclosures so that the public can hold the platforms and political advertisers accountable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-09T18:19:30Z)
• Auditing for Discrimination in Algorithms Delivering Job Ads [70.02478301291264]
  We develop a new methodology for black-box auditing of algorithms for discrimination in the delivery of job advertisements. Our first contribution is to identify the distinction between skew in ad delivery due to protected categories such as gender or race. Second, we develop an auditing methodology that distinguishes between skew explainable by differences in qualifications from other factors. Third, we apply our proposed methodology to two prominent targeted advertising platforms for job ads: Facebook and LinkedIn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T17:38:36Z)
• A Normative approach to Attest Digital Discrimination [6.372554934045607]
  Examples include low-income neighbourhood's targeted with high-interest loans or low credit scores, and women being undervalued by 21% in online marketing. We use norms as an abstraction to represent different situations that may lead to digital discrimination. In particular, we formalise non-discrimination norms in the context of ML systems and propose an algorithm to check whether ML systems violate these norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T15:14:52Z)
• Echo Chambers on Social Media: A comparative analysis [64.2256216637683]
  We introduce an operational definition of echo chambers and perform a massive comparative analysis on 1B pieces of contents produced by 1M users on four social media platforms. We infer the leaning of users about controversial topics and reconstruct their interaction networks by analyzing different features. We find support for the hypothesis that platforms implementing news feed algorithms like Facebook may elicit the emergence of echo-chambers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T20:00:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.