Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Gay Men Are Worth So Much To Facebook

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the commerce-mutes-prejudice dept.

Facebook 270

Barence writes "PC Pro has a feature on how social networks sold your privacy, which includes some interesting comparisons on the value of different demographics to Facebook. For example, an advert that targets everyone within a 10-mile radius of a medium-sized British town (Dorking) is valued at 28p per click by Facebook's advertising tool. However, targeting single gay men in the area with a preference for nightclubbing raises the price to 71p per click — 2.5x the price of targeting the general public. Such precise targeting also raises other issues. Whittling down ads to target such precise demographics can result in ads targeting as few as 20 people, making it theoretically possible to identify those targeted. 'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them,' says Paul Francis, scientific director of the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems."

cancel ×

270 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about ladyboys/shemales? (0, Troll)

MasterMan (2603851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483719)

Why does everyone always just talk about heterosexuals and gays? What about ladyboys and shemales? They get no mention in western world, and everyone looks weirdly at them, while they are perfectly fine in many south east asian countries. People aren't against gays anymore, they are against shemales.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (5, Funny)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483741)

Why would anyone be against shemales? They know best how to give head while at least superficially looking like females ;-)

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (0, Troll)

MasterMan (2603851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483817)

I know, but that is the general feel I've got when mentioning someone is a shemale. Now, I am not personally one, but I've both spend time casually (drinking beers out etc) and dated a few ladyboys, some of whom are way more cuter and beautiful than actual females. On top of that they are much more pleasant to be with and don't have crazy moments like women. They are also much less lazy than woman. And of course, best sex I've ever had with women has been with ladyboys.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (1, Troll)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483837)

Too bad moderators didn't see the humor in my comment. Oh, well, sex and slashdot are an odd couple in the first place.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (0)

MasterMan (2603851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483909)

I actually wonder why this whole thread is modded at -1 or 0. Proves my point, I guess.

Damn it, Bob, you got it totally wrong! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484219)

... I said "GAMING"! I said we needed more GAMING on Facebook, not gay men!

Signed, MZ.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (0)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484187)

I think that it's more that outside of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, we generally expect that the girl-looking person we see to have the correct plumbing.

I've never pulled a Danny Bonaduce, but I could imagine the experience to be quite horrifying if caught completely unexpected.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (2)

MasterMan (2603851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484211)

Why? If she looks nice, is nice and you have good time and sex with her, what's the problem?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (2)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484491)

I think the "sex with 'her'" is the problem.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483935)

You'll have to excuse Slashdot, you have to understand that to many of us a shemale is uncomfortably close to a transporter accident, so it's bothering us at a primal geek level.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484083)

+1, Funny... You owe me a new keyboard. Coffee, I swear... coffee. Nothing else...

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483757)

Twist it all you want, at the end of the day they are still gay.
Unless you are Jim Norton, of course.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483761)

As long as they have a mouth or an asshole I can fuck, I'm cool with it.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483901)

A hole is a...hole? Not for everyone.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483853)

Why does everyone always just talk about heterosexuals and gays? What about ladyboys and shemales? They get no mention in western world, and everyone looks weirdly at them, while they are perfectly fine in many south east asian countries. People aren't against gays anymore, they are against shemales.

Shirley is that you?

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483911)

I believe the current politically-correct terminology in the West is "transgendered." I do feel that is a bit of a broad tent, though.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483959)

who cares? if they're associated with negative connotations, changing what people may call them (the arrogance of PC bs) doesn't help.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484361)

Actually, in general, the trans community (US) wants nothing to do with such people, they are pretty ostracized and many trans peeps consider their very mention (not by just term, but their existence) to be offensive.. so they are generally not welcome under the 'transgendered' umbrella.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483999)

Well, unless Facebook has different rates for advertising specifically to ladyboys, they would be off topic in this discussion.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (4, Interesting)

PatDev (1344467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484191)

While I'm not sure what part of the world you're in, I know that a large portion of the slashdot readership resides in the USA. And here (possibly other places, but I can only reliably talk about here), male-to-female transsexuals are generally offended by the term "shemale". They seem to prefer either "trans-women", "MtF" or just "women". That may explain your -1 troll.

That said, it seems humorous to complain about how trans-erasure has kept people from acknowledging male-to-female transsexuals while also ignoring female-to-male transsexuals. At least trans-women are noticed because they are sexualized - trans-men seem almost wholly ignored in the populace.

But to answer your question more directly, the reason nobody talked about them in *this* article is because they are not a lucrative target market for advertisements. The homosexual male community is not targeted for advertisement because they are so numerous, but because the retail and marketing world believes that gay males spend a lot of money and, more importantly, influence the fashions and tastes of the heterosexual people surrounding them. Clothing stores see gay men as trend setters, so they believe that getting gay men to adopt their clothes will lead the heterosexual people to follow. Because of rampant discrimination and erasure, trans people are not perceived as having the same trend-setting appeal.

Re:What about ladyboys/shemales? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484249)

A shemale IS a gay man, regardless of what you think.

Wait, wait, let me get this right (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483747)

Paul Francis, uh, "scientific" director of the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, has figured out that if I choose to declare that I'm gay on my public Failbook profile, then people can use that information to determine my sexuality?

Whoa, that's some cutting edge research there. Thanks for looking out for me, Paul.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484045)

  1. Not everyone makes their profile public. If, however, an advertisement were to be targetted only at those men who declared themselves to be gay on Facebook, and they happened to click on that ad (perhaps something seemingly innocent), then you could basically get them to identify themselves.
  2. You can determine, with high probability, a person's sexual orientation based on other information in their Facebook profile; a person who might not want to "come out" could be identified this way. The attack described above could thus be used to "out" someone.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484081)

  1. Not everyone makes their profile public. If, however, an advertisement were to be targetted only at those men who declared themselves to be gay on Facebook, and they happened to click on that ad (perhaps something seemingly innocent), then you could basically get them to identify themselves.
  2. You can determine, with high probability, a person's sexual orientation based on other information in their Facebook profile; a person who might not want to "come out" could be identified this way. The attack described above could thus be used to "out" someone.

I see your point, but I'd reply that if you don't want to "come out", you shouldn't declare yourself gay anywhere and most certainly not on facebook of all places.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (2)

Glarimore (1795666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484127)

I believe there was a story within the past year where a team of researchers found that they could determine with ~85% (if I recall) accuracy the sexual orientation of a facebook member simply by analyzing who they are friends with.

You don't have to declare yourself to come out -- someone else can do it for you. People who don't want to announce their sexuality (for whatever reason) are exposed every day -- not in the way stated above, maybe, but it certainly happens.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484341)

I believe there was a story within the past year where a team of researchers found that they could determine with ~85% (if I recall) accuracy the sexual orientation of a facebook member simply by analyzing who they are friends with.

You don't have to declare yourself to come out -- someone else can do it for you. People who don't want to announce their sexuality (for whatever reason) are exposed every day -- not in the way stated above, maybe, but it certainly happens.

Depending on whose numbers you use the gay population is as low as 3% to as much as 10%. So, I would think, in a random sample, that you could hit 85% accuracy without analyzing anything about the facebook user just by saying heterosexual.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484267)

This is why we read things. Point one was about people who are "out" on Facebook, who might become targets of strangers who cannot see their Facebook profiles. Point two was about epople are not "out," who could be identified as gay through inferences derived through their various postings and messages (if I remember correctly, it was shown that with high propbability, just a person's friends list is enough to identify their sexual orientation); such a person might again be identified by strangers using the advertising system.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484407)

I see your point, but I'd reply that if you don't want to "come out", you shouldn't declare yourself gay anywhere and most certainly not on facebook of all places.

Some people may be "out" to friends and family, but not to coworkers. Facebook may interfere sexual orientation from friends and from participation in certain events, even if you left the "prefers" choice blank in your profile. And theoretically they could interfere it from the photos at which you look the longest/most often, even if you're still completely closeted...

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484225)

You can determine, with high probability, a person's sexual orientation based on other information in their Facebook profile;

For instance, the hommasexshuls tend to "Like" interior design shows, fashion designers, Lady Gaga, and Khloe Kardashian.

Straight guys tend to "Like" beef jerky (and assorted jerky products), guns, heavy metal and Kim Kardashian

Because everybody knows that faggots only like faggy things, not macho things. It's a scientific fact. And if you're one of them faggots that likes faggy things, well go be a fag somewhere else, faggot.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (4, Funny)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484047)

Not only that, they can also figure out the probability that you are gay based on the number of gay people you have friended on Facebook. Or if you are tagged in photos that also features known gay males. Soon enough you'll see online ads for nail polish and ymca records..

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484099)

I agree that the idea is kind of silly, mostly because it's just too much damn work to attack a gay person when there are significantly easier avenues available, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

If your profile is wide open to the world, then yeah, it's precisely that silly. If it's restricted to friends and family, it's still available to targeted advertising and that advertising can "leak" data. Or at least that's his premise.

Public safety issue? Not really. If you want to attack some gays, just find a gay bar or a gay dating site or something. Paying money to target advertising to leak private data so you can track them down to attack is, well, an awful lot of effort. Then again I don't understand the whole homophobia thing, so I guess the entire concept is lost on me.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484437)

Paying money to target advertising to leak private data so you can track them down to attack is, well, an awful lot of effort.

Could be interesting for politicians who want to "expose" politicians from opposing parties. Given that 10% of the population would be vulnerable, and most parties have more than 10 members, this could be a worthwhile method of embarassing opposing viewpoints.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (4, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484109)

The part I liked was this theory that some evil character might use facebook ads to find openly gay men by targeting their demographic with ads, hoping they fall for those ads, then somehow trying to convert their clicks to identities with real contact info... so, what, they can go commit a 'hate crime'...?

Even for crazy SOB's, that's about the worst plan ever. Like, villain in a TV special, dumb.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484287)

I know right? Homosexuals, after eventually coming out, are typically quite open about their sexuality. It is such a huge weight off their shoulders.

Sex attacks (full-on) are still pretty damn small, outside of schools and extremists.
The chances of it happening are less than being killed by going out to said night-club on average across the entire country by drinking too much and going through the various scenarios of drunkenness and ending up in Somalia or something.

If they don't want to come out, or are afraid, you'd think they would be smart enough to use 2 profiles.
If not? Well that is just their fault for thinking Facebook is secure. You could get more privacy from a paper bag over your heads when kissing in public.
Evolution of the fittest isn't just physical.

Re:Wait, wait, let me get this right (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484379)

if I choose to declare that I'm gay

Pssht! I've got a secret for you: even if you leave the "prefers women or men" selector blank, Facebook can still figure it out. They just need to look at your friends, and if a sizable number of them did chose to come out of the closet, they can infer with a reasonable probability that you are gay too, even if you're still in the closet (as far as Facebook is concerned).

The effect is pretty obvious if you are gay, and live in a reasonably small town. Just click any person in the same town, look at the common friends. If almost all mutual friends are gay, chances are high that the target is gay too. Even without the "prefers men or women" box.

Of course there are exceptions. Some people just like to hang out with gay people without being so themselves. But in the majority of cases, it works out pretty well.

Also, participation in gay events is a pretty sure way to tell too, even if you're "just" invited and didn't admit you intend to join.

Or being tagged in photos at such events (but that's harder to find out automatically)

Because they're fabulous? (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483749)

Page 3 before gay men are even mentioned and that's the headline? I'm not even going to bother making an on topic post.

Re:Because they're fabulous? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484093)

Nicely done, timmy boy. Absolutely fabulous.

axiom in real estate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483763)

Follow the Men with Male Significant Others

It works, and not just for real estate.

The math is simple (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483799)

The gay's tend not to have kids. That means that they have more discretionary income. More discretionary income equates to more readily purchasing more expensive toys more often than the guy that supports a family. It's why you see shiny things like the latest Itoy so often in the hands of gay people, they can afford them. It's just math and the logic is sound.

The second part though, the idea that someone would go to all the trouble to use something like this to track down a bunch of gays is absurd. Why bother doing that when if your a nutter you just go to your local gay bar instead? You know the one that advertises to attract all of those gays?

Re:The math is simple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483815)

Gay's what?

Re:The math is simple (1)

MasterMan (2603851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483847)

The gay is tent. He typoed.

Re:The math is simple (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483895)

Doesn't it work the other way too? Parents have kids, kids that need things, things that you might buy from diaperdepot.com if there were a link on your facebook page that is your only remaining connection to the independant young adult you once were.

Re:The math is simple (3, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483943)

My guess would be that once buying habits are set for parents, they are hard to change. So advertising for that demographic would be worth less.

Re:The math is simple (2)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484095)

Spoken as one who doesn't have kids and therefore has never faced down the "I want that"s at the end of an exhaustingly long day and just can't put up with it anymore. Advertising doesn't target the parents.

My wife is not a "girly girl" (she plays D&D). Yet the amount of pink/princess stuff in the house... (first child: girl)

And, while space is "neat", it's not fascinating. We just held a space-themed birthday party (second child: boy). Got more than a couple space-themed toys laying around.

(Third child: boy, but he only just turned one, so hasn't started to display his own preferences. Yet.)

Re:The math is simple (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484167)

yep

both my kids didn't react well to pampers so my wife and I buy Seventh Generation diapers without a second thought.

Re:The math is simple (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483963)

Yes and no. Yes, someone with kids would be more likely to go to a diaper store or something. Thing is, when you have kids, you now are splitting your income 3+ ways, with only two of the people in the family making the income, if that. Those sorts of people will be looking for discounts, not ways to spend their money at boutique baby stores, unless they are very well off. When you have dual income and no kids, which is most of the gay population, you ensure that the discretionary income is maximized.

Re:The math is simple (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484143)

Yes and no. Yes, someone with kids would be more likely to go to a diaper store or something.

Forget diapers... The real money comes from selling those parents toys, clothing, extra life insurance, sugar-frosted{quasi-food name}, and a mountain of stuff that they didn't really need until you convinced them that they did.

All that said, it's easier to sell parents your kid-oriented stuff by directly manipulating the kid, which means that Facebook is likely not going to charge you as much in advertising rates.

Re:The math is simple (5, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484105)

Yes [nytimes.com] , women newly pregnant for the first time are highly desirable and targeted demographic. That link describes the lengths Target goes to in order to identify those women, even if they haven't told anybody yet (on facebook or otherwise). But after the spike of one-time purchases and brand adoption during the pregnancy, most of the purchases for actually raising a child are recurring and made from habit, so advertising is less effective.

Re:The math is simple (1)

archen (447353) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484163)

Kids restrict where you can direct your income even if you spend just as much. For instance there are a lot of regular things required to survive like food, medicine, daycare etc that you probably don't have much choice in (not marketable in a facebook way I would think). Not even addressing the possibility of saving for college, even something mundane like driving a kid to soccer practice requires both time and money. With more of both a person might be looser with income.

Re:The math is simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483907)

The anonymity offered by doing things with a computer enables the nutter. Going down to the bar would make his identity known in short order. Unless he wore a ski mask into the bar....

Re:The math is simple (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483933)

In the article it's only an example that more specific groups cost more per ad, it might be the case that limiting search to heterosexuals also rises the price according to their ratio.

Gay men and iDevices (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484051)

You need to stop perpetuating that hurtful stereotype. Just because I like men doesn't mean I don't like digital freedom.

Re:Gay men and iDevices (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484193)

cry more emo kid.. fix your hormone imbalance and maybe you wouldn't be so miserable all the time. the last thing society needs is emotional gimps like you.

Re:The math is simple (1)

Crick (66973) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484089)

I hear this a lot but about gay people I've never seen any firm evidence to back it up. Just asserting the "math and logic is sound" is not a convincing argument. Gay people suffer from poverty, unemployment and recession like anyone else.

Re:The math is simple (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484117)

not just because they're rich, but because they care more about form than function, just like women tend to.. ie the perfect apple customers.

would you like to take a free personality test?

Re:The math is simple (1)

Afty0r (263037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484137)

But all that money that "family guys" are spending - that's ALSO on products for which advertisers want to target you. The new 4x4, mortgage, insurance, family holidays, cleaning products, kids toys etc. etc.

Those are all products that get advertised heavily too, so the theory that "gays have more discretionary spend" doesn't necessarily lead to "gays are worth more per click".

Re:The math is simple (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484237)

Well, raw income data does not seem to bear the same conclusion, from the US Census [census.gov] :

Married opposite-sex couples report the highest average household income (nearly $100,000), while the same-sex couple household income is around $86,000, which is higher than the unmarried opposite-sex partners with only an average household income of $51,275.

Now of course it is difficult to get an exact fix as there are bound to be generational differences in how "out" people are(older people tend to earn more as a trend) and of course this data is a bit US-centric, but overall it does look like married couples earn more, though the gap seems to be closing.

One reason gays might be worth a bit more is that they tend to cluster in urban areas as when you only have realistically less than ~5% of the population that would even be theoretically romantically interested in you, you tend to move to places with high concentrations of people, significantly increasing your chances for romantic success.

Re:The math is simple (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484477)

I won't doubt your figures, my point is on disposable income. Kids are really expensive and they take up almost all of your discretionary income. Making more income doesn't help either as you just end up buying more expensive stuff for the kids.

It's the power of the DINK (Dual income No Kids) that makes gays such a juicy marketing target. The single guy doesn't have the Dual Income part to help his budget. Going by your figures a hetrosexual DINK couple would be even more valuable. However I would imagine that it would be harder to target that market than the gay market.

Re:The math is simple (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484261)

They're called DINKs. Dual Income, No Kids.

Re:The math is simple (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484317)

The second part though, the idea that someone would go to all the trouble to use something like this to track down a bunch of gays is absurd. Why bother doing that when if your a nutter you just go to your local gay bar instead? You know the one that advertises to attract all of those gays?

I believe you missed the point. It's not a question of being possible to simply go to your local gay bar and track down a bunch of gays. The fundamental issue is that, with this, the nutters don't need to go to your local gay bar at all, because someone else happened to put a system in place that is able to generate a comprehensive list of all self-declared gays anywhere in the world. So, these nutters can easily get their hands on a list of potential targets which is much more extensive and thorough than any list they would otherwise be able to compile.

And, suffice to say, this is a recipee for disaster. And not just for gays. Imagine, for example, if Facebook existed in the 1950s and up until then there was absolutely no problem in being a member of the communist party, let alone being simply supportive of that organization or even a friend of any member of the communist party. What would happened if J. Edgar Hoover had access to the names, addresses and social network of anyone who ever joined a communist interest group in facebook, or anyone who ever clicked on the like button remotely related to any site which was pro-communism?

So, the ramifications are deeper than simply having alternative methods to gather information, and much more serioius at that.

Re:The math is simple (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484375)

The gay's tend not to have kids. That means that they have more discretionary income. More discretionary income equates to more readily purchasing more expensive toys more often than the guy that supports a family. It's why you see shiny things like the latest Itoy so often in the hands of gay people, they can afford them. It's just math and the logic is sound.

The second part though, the idea that someone would go to all the trouble to use something like this to track down a bunch of gays is absurd. Why bother doing that when if your a nutter you just go to your local gay bar instead? You know the one that advertises to attract all of those gays?

A single person (gay or otherwise) tends to spend the same as a married person with kids. The difference is what the spending is used for.

Don't want to be targeted? (5, Insightful)

dealmaster00 (904299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483825)

Don't want to be targeted? Don't use Facebook.

Re:Don't want to be targeted? (0)

Frenzied Apathy (2473340) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483883)

No mod points left!

Mod this guy up!!!

Re:Don't want to be targeted? (3, Informative)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484053)

Why? We knew that already. It's posted every single time there's a story on Facebook.

Re:Don't want to be targeted? (5, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483887)

Don't want to be targeted? Don't use Facebook

and don't live in a town called Dorking.

Re:Don't want to be targeted? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484161)

and don't live in a town called Dorking.

Could be worse... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Don't want to be targeted? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484447)

and don't live in a town called Dorking.

Could be worse... [wikipedia.org]

And we can look forward to an aptly-named [europa.eu] lager also.
On a side note, I spent a few weeks here [wikimedia.org] , back in the 80s (the job was exhausting work, too).

Re:Don't want to be targeted? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484123)

Don't want to be targeted? Don't use Facebook.

Oh, and don't shop at stores [nytimes.com] .

How good is this targetting? (2, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483831)

Will it also include all the deeply-closeted homosexuals who always seem to be the most vocal gay-bashers in any given group? Because I'm thinking that if someone like Ted Haggard [wikipedia.org] sees his own house on the list, it may actually result in a helpful moment of epiphany.

Re:How good is this targetting? (-1, Troll)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484277)

only if it also includes the overly prideful gays who think their attribute makes them think they deserve special dispensations from society like the other 'protected' castes. Someone disliking gays (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he's a closet case. However, logic appears outside their grasp, so gays resort to the same kinds of ad hominem and passive aggression women do when they don't want to admit to their own character faults.

Stop feeding the troll that is facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483863)

If you don't pay it any attention, it will go away. I deleted my account 3 years ago and have been fine.

This reminds me of the wal-mart episode of southpark only... well... I can't say much more because its pretty depressing how much people get off on facebook.

By this logic (1)

toetagger (642315) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483889)

We should ban any weapons or other tools those people use as well, including cars, bats, and dogs

Worst thing that could happen? Hardly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483891)

>>'I think the worst scenario...

What about more likely scenarios:
health/life insurance company raises your rates 20x (or just cancels the policy) for being in a high-risk group
employer fires you (for some other invented reason)
family & friends disown you
blackmail,
etc. etc. etc

Disappointed (1)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483921)

"Firefox can't find the server at www.godhatesfacebook.com."

A profitable minority. (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483939)

While Homosexuality gets a lot of discrimination and hate... For the most part they are living an above average standard of life, so they have money, so advertising targeted towards them is valuable.
It comes down to a group that doesn't quite fit in well with the general public and Adds saying We will welcome you to come to our location where you won't feel like an outcast. So Advertising targeted to that group is far more effective... Thus costs more.

Many Other Minorities don't work as well.
Minority Races - for the most part the have a lower then average salary. That means most of the people will be less likely to spend money.
Non-Christians - For the religious non-Christians they have their places of worship where they feel like they belong. For Atheists for most places they go they are able to pass as a normal citizen. And if their religion doesn't have much of a dress requirement they are normally able to pass off anyways. For some of the real minorities the numbers are too small to advertise for.

"Atheists for most places they go are able to" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484409)


Atheists for most places they go they are able to pass as a normal citizen.

Ummm
Are you implying that atheists aren't normal citizens?

Other Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39483945)

I thought 'twas that Zuckerman likes to zuck cock.

Meaningless numbers (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483955)

For example, an advert that targets everyone within a 10-mile radius of a medium-sized British town (Dorking) is valued at 28p per click by Facebook's advertising tool. However, targeting single gay men in the area with a preference for nightclubbing raises the price to 71p per click

That typically means young and single, which has always been a very attractive market with a lot of disposable time and money. Can we get a comparison to straight people with a preference to nightclubbing? Of course a blanket ad trying to sell to everyone is worth far far less...

The consumer. (2, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39483993)

All companies care about is advertising turning into real sales. Gay guys are likely closer to females in terms of frequent frivolous spending, i.e. spending on clothing and other accessories. Not that guys necessarily spend less, but their spending is more focused and comes in bigger chunks at less frequent intervals. Also, gay guys, like women, are more fashion and image conscious which means they'll buy into fads more readily and willfully overpay for products they fund appealing. The invention of the metrosexual was an attempt to bring that same mindset to straight men. I'd say it's met with some success, but it's certainly not as reliable as other demographics.

The interest in Facebook is obvious; targeted advertising. The ultimate goal for any company in the consumer space is that we all turn into consumer whores; gender or sexual orientation is irrelevant unless a particular demographic shows increased inclination to spend.

Re:The consumer. (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484097)

I am somehow unsure of the Dorking "metrosexual" demographic.

I'd suppose it to be similar to that of rural New Hamshire, or Labrador, if you like.

"My name is Daffydd, and I am the only gay in the village."

Re:The consumer. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484331)

The ultimate goal for any company in the consumer space is that we all turn into consumer whores

Yes and no. That's more the hard-core side of marketing, or the cynical perception of it. The simple fact is that everybody buys stuff. In the corporate world, everybody sells stuff. The goal of marketing is to influence the first group to buy the stuff of the second group. Yes, there's upselling and driven demand, but for a large number of products, businesses just want you to choose them instead of their competitor when you break out your wallet.

As you said - for discretionary spending gays are prime real estate because they are either single or DINKs - Double Income, No Kids. That means both toys and travel budgets which far exceed the typical household.

Re:The consumer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484351)

The amount of ignorance and bigotry in your post is... breathtaking. Simply stunning.

"I will make a post in which I assert nothing but crass stereotypes, offer absolutely no backing evidence for any claim I made, and the basement dwelling aspies will mod me up because gay stuff makes them super uncomfortable, and it's much easier to assume that gays are more like chicks, because you know, they're all mincing fairies, not hardcore gamers who listen to death metal."

Two sides to every coin (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484005)

There's a certain dichotomy to targeted advertising. It's ideal for both the consumer and business in the sense that advertising costs less when you only have to pay for people who are likely to be interested in your product. Even if the per-click is 2.5x as much, if you are targeting an audience that is 1/10 the size of the general population (or smaller), its better. While there are some businesses which operate on a premium product, in general market pressures will keep costs to a typical margin over the cost of production. The vendor can lower prices if marketing costs go down - or just put that extra cash into development of the next product.

Yes, FB and other sites with lots of your data can allow advertisers to drill down to very fine detail, but in order for you to be identified you still need to give your personal information to them. This is, I suppose, a cautionary tale for only entering data into sites you trust, and not to associate your sign-ups with referral links if you're the paranoid type.

I see it as an opportunity. I happen to run an a cappella chorus, and we're always looking for new members. Only about 5% of the population has the ability to do what we do. We know the age range we want, we know most are already involved in or like certain musical groups, we have a geographic area. We'd pay more to attract certain types of people (i.e. music or music ed background). We're in the process of considering a G+/FB ad campaign for our spring membership drive, because it will allow us to target singers who fit the profile without having to place (very expensive) traditional media ads.

For the most part, advertisers don't care who you are as long as we can make you a customer. Once you're a customer we still don't care who you are, personally, but rather that you have a good time and enjoy or value the product enough to continue using it (retention). You become part of our inside pool of customers, and outside advertising means less and less. Sites like FB are used to get new customers and move you from either no brand or competing brands to our brand - because customer retention is far easier than obtaining new. Farming for other reasons (like general collection of personally identifiable information) really is a bastardization of the system.

Welcome to Facebook (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484009)

You're the product, not the customer. And products don't get to complain about privacy, they're products!

Re:Welcome to Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484103)

I like being a product. It makes me feel dirty.

Dammit (4, Funny)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484069)

I knew something was odd about that add for a Gay Male who finished school in '95 in the small town of Skibbereen working as a barista in Starbucks in Blackrock, with horn rim glasses and wearing a hoodie currently typing on ... aaaarrrrgggggggggg

WTF Slashdotters!? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484107)

Are you serious? People still see ads on the web?

http://www.firefox.com/ [firefox.com]
http://www.adblockplus.com/ [adblockplus.com]

Please help me help the advertisers realize they are useless and unwanted. Use ABP today.

Re:WTF Slashdotters!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484195)

Preaching to the choir yadda yadda yadda...

Tell that to the FB users.

BUT, those add-ons do not prevent Facebook from targeting the users (i.e. selling a list of people who fit a profile) - they just keep ads from showing up on a page.

Yes, I do still see ads! (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484457)

Two right there! How can I filter them?

Re:WTF Slashdotters!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484489)

No, bad advertisers are useless and unwanted.

Something as simple as text ads that are completely not-scummy are fine.
Static pictures are okay.
Anything animated or plugin based is typically crap and should be blocked.
If they can't grab my attention with a very basic, simple ad banner or few lines of text that isn't trying to ruin my retina by the time I am 40, they don't deserve my views.

Please help spread the word that there are decent advertisers and not all of them are terrible. Also inform webmasters that you are blocking abusive ads in protest of a better web. Most websites have a webmaster@website.tld or admin@website.tld address, if not a contact page on the frontpage.
Also for those who abuse ads by having about 50 of them on a page, or spread articles out across so many pages to increase impressions.
If you kill the advertising-funded web, you kill the web. Because let's face it, most people who want to "stick it to the man" are typically cheap, kids, or in the majority of cases those that are just too lazy to care either way. (who also typically don't vote since they think it doesn't affect them, when it really really does)

Do you really want to kill the free web? Would you be willing to pay a high minimum amount of money that can be paid towards a site due to transaction fees nonsense, for every site you visit?
Or are you clinging on to some desperate hope that some people will step in and make a unified payment method for websites... oh wait, that leads to more tracking.
Let's face it, it is very likely banks are already, or would, happily sell(ing) your information on the black market and the reason you get so much spam through the door each day.
Then they can do all sorts of weird things to that information, weird, sexual, disturbing things. Things that nobody must speak of. Praise Xenu.

But seriously. Free web > paid web.
It was horrible back then, it would be even worse now.
The premium services system would work much better. But this also typically leads to some sites abusing the method, which turns a lot of people off it.
Ads or paid, not both.
I don't know why people have steered away from premium accounts.
I'd probably not bother since I am fine with most ads that aren't abusive, but some people just plain hate to see Ads in their content. (such as the image of having an ad in the middle of your brand new Novel you just bought, that'd be a right kick in the teeth)
Some people like newspaper format, some people like novels. Why sites don't cater to both is beyond me. It is so simple to do and can be handled by quite a few external payment providers (NOT PAYPAL) these days.

Dangerous (1)

readin (838620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484115)

'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them

Given events of the last 40 years, I think a much bigger danger is that someone would use Facebook's targeting to identify Jews in their area and attack them.

Targeting 20 people not profitable... (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484131)

Its not value per click that they should care about, its value per minute. You could have 20 people worth 100x the rest of the population but if the rest of the population is 10,000x bigger than that small population, which group is really going to provide more profit?

PROF WANTS MOAR SAUSAGE AND ATTENTION. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484151)

IN THE NEWS...

o/Bilgatory Troll!
For all this philosophy and non-sense, If there is Homophobia, there is such a thing as Hetreophobia...
First your human and we all have bias. But to be clear, Pro-Palestinian =! Anti-Semite.
endB/

These values of pay per click boil down to this... Traditional family units may have different ways of planning of and for spending patterns? They may SAVE money for their children and other types of things and are not typically target-able for having weights assigned of spending values. Other demographics have different trends. Teens, Singles, Etc... The BOTTOM LINE IS... Corporations would love it if you slept and the office and spent all your money, not having a family is important for this type of formula to take place.

Look the Oompa-Loompa's and The Worm Ridden Fruit company are all collecting this data. Hell, they even have so called Sociology/Psychology Professors themselves to attempt to manipulate ad's and spending habits such... Quatro Wireless *cough*, CarrierIQ *cough*

And we are surprised that FakeBook is doing this? Try this on for size move to a new city/state/country and see if you can find someone from the OPPOSITE SEX that has similar interests as you WITHOUT Fakebook auto rejecting your friend requests.

new song? (1)

DewDude (537374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484169)

"but I only liked will & grace, one time, one day. Wish I hadn't, cause Facebook now thinks I'm gay"

I really have to wonder how they're determining who's gay and who's not. We already tell it out relationship stats, and sometimes, who. If you're not telling Facebook any of that....then I'm worried about how much data they're collecting and how many assumptions they're making. I already know that since I interact Facebook in a totally different way than I normally would. So...what are they assuming about me?

Ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484209)

Who looks at Ads these days?

Adblocker pro anyone? I cant remember the last time I saw an Ad on a website!

Hack Attack (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484265)

"'I think the worst scenario might be where someone who hates gays uses Facebook's targeting to identify gay users and later attack them,'" I don't think that anyone that irrational would have the intelligence to do this.

Useless topic (1)

mitashki (1116893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484335)

Why should anyone get concerned about Facebook preferences? Unless you work for them of course...

Use it or block it. Do not get concerned (Sorry for the paraphrase Master Yoda)

Are there people still seeing ads ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484385)

It seems about everyone is using ad block plus on their favorite browser, surprised people arnt mentioning that.

This is News for Nerds and Stuff that Matters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39484443)

Yeah, not so much. Thanks for the waste of bandwidth.

What?!? Wait?!? Why?!? (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39484501)

Not a facebook user- so this seems rather odd to me.

So there is a checkbox for "orientation" that is a default profile set up on facebook? That just seems wrong from the outset.

Given many in society actively discriminate against gays- it sounds like facebook is just making it easier for people to do that. Why on earth does facebook need to ask that? It's not a dating site.

Staight people wouldn't hesitate checking the straight box. So if people are "undeclared" on facebook, I imagine there is a good chance they are not straight. Thus- FB are setting them up from the start to be discriminated against. In our society I can see why many chose to remain in the closet- FB is making it hard for them to be so.

Or am I misunderstand FB- or gays to think this is wrong? Just seems like the system is pre-disposed to help people discriminate.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>