Among the 50,000 targeting options with which Facebook has provided advertisers, the “ethnic affinity” subset of “demographics” is the root of sincere ethical and legal dilemmas.  Giving the opportunity for advertisers to decide to which audience members they can potentially extend credit, offer employment opportunities and provide housing options is in strict violation with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and The Fair Housing Act of 1986.  The platform’s engagement with the inclusion and exclusion of audience members’ perceptive environments leads to a slippery slope.  Behind the scenes, it enables the marketing field to divide the global network through an undisclosed equation. On the surface, it exposes audience members to narrowly tailored opportunities through microtargeting.  The conflicts that have arisen have led to incessant probing and a heightened angst.  Upon investigation, ProPublica has located numerous advertisements on the social media hub that have exemplified this feat.  In response, the independent newsroom has called for a reevaluation of “renters’ rights.”  The exposure garnered from advertisers’ actions on the site has led Facebook to launch a system to remove racial categories and advocate compliance with protected categories- i.e., gender, age, religion, etc. It is with anticipation that we, as users, begin understanding the process from which these statistics were derived and advocate for change across all media platforms and publications that partner with advertising companies.

The fundamental question to be asked is: How can Facebook “make the world more open and connected” (as promised by its mission statement) when it provides marketers with a discriminative tool?  As Chynelle described in her presentation, there are 49,999 categories other than “ethnic affinity” advertisers can use for segmentation. In practicality, these categories provide more indicative measures of one’s personal capabilities in the three aforementioned respects. Financial status/income, locational interests, marital status can be very telling individually and even more conducive collaboratively.  These are concrete details.  On the other hand, the mechanism by which Facebook enables advertisers to categorize people is relative and lacking in information quality.   The content one views is not necessarily determined by one’s race or ethnic affiliation.  Therefore, to answer Chynelle’s question of whether or not Facebook needs the “ethnic affinity” category, I respond “no.”

Firstly, the term “affinity” itself is troubling in and of itself.  “Affinity” is defined as “a similarity of characteristics, especially a resemblance in structure between animals, plants or people,” “a relationship by marriage” or “a spontaneous natural liking for something or someone” (Dictionary.com).  As per its multiple definitions, one’s “affinity” is broad, relative and at times, unclear; it is not a biologically secured separation. Secondly, on a standard application, one can define one’s ethnicity as “other” because one does not believe that one falls into a distinct category. In the 2010 administration of the United States Census, as much as 6.2% of the population identified as “other”. According to Nicholas Jones of the United States Census, “increasingly, Americans are saying they cannot find themselves” (Paw Research Center).  If one identifies as “other,” then to which category can an advertiser determine one fits?  How will the equation, whether statistical or not, justify itself in the “outlier” cases? Although the demographic subset may not branch out into 50,000 categories, one’s ethnicity is not directly correlated with one’s perceived fit.  For these reasons, regardless of the credit, housing, or unemployment, “ethnic affinity” generally does not seem to be an accurate, explanatory measure or placement tool.

Despite the three specific categories, it is no secret that Facebook’s advertisers and even Facebook itself target specific audience members to which they can best market their products/services. As I learned in my Marketing Course, “STP” or “segmentation, targeting, and positioning” are effective criteria that can provide opportune and cost-friendly benefits to an individual company.  Additionally, these criteria are helpful to the consumer. Companies allocate funding to the consumers from whom they are more likely expect a return on investment. In the same respect, consumers notice the personal connections to the products that show up in their news feeds.  From there, each establishes a sense of loyalty to the other. This seems to be very effective when dealing with unprotected clauses.  For example, as an avid Pinterest user, I am excited when new advertisements link me to fitness websites and nutritional guides.  I recognize that Pinterest understands an inherent interest in fitness and am satisfied when advertisements link me to other videos.  From these links, I have purchased foam rollers and yoga mats.

However, when shifting gears from the unprotected to protected clauses and from the trivial advertisements to the more critical ones in housing, credit, and employment, I am not sure I would feel the same connection as I do to a recommendation for “Kayla’s workouts” when a company is including me or excluding me from specific housing options, employment opportunities, or credit extensions due to my “ethnic affinity.”  In reality, I sometimes even wonder why I have never seen a Facebook advertisement for “New York City’s Chocolate World Tour.”  Is it my fitness-oriented nature that excludes me from my love dark chocolate? Transitively, I would feel even more weary if I were targeted for a specific house because of my “ethnic affinity.” A selective nature can very well exacerbate even the subtlest discrepancy and result in tension as well as perplexity.

Lastly, the “multicultural advertising effort” defeats the “melting pot” analogy with which the United States is most commonly associated.  Priding ourselves as a home of rich diversity, market segmentation by “ethnic affinity” strips zeal, standardizes members and defines boundaries for grouping based on unjustified perception. The beauty and success of housing communities and jobs is not only founded upon common interests, but moreso upon differences. These fields should capitalize on “ethnic diversity” and invest in it, instead.