skip to main content
10.1145/3593013.3594110acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Representation, Self-Determination, and Refusal: Queer People’s Experiences with Targeted Advertising

Published:12 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Targeted online advertising systems increasingly draw scrutiny for the surveillance underpinning their collection of people’s private data, and subsequent automated categorization and inference. The experiences of LGBTQ+ people, whose identities call into question dominant assumptions about who is seen as “normal,” and deserving of privacy, autonomy, and the right to self-determination, are a fruitful site for exploring the impacts of ad targeting. We conducted semi-structured interviews with LGBTQ+ individuals (N=18) to understand their experiences with online advertising, their perceptions of ad targeting, and the interplay of these systems with their queerness and other identities. Our results reflect participants’ overall negative experiences with online ad content—they described it as stereotypical and tokenizing in its lack of diversity and nuance. But their desires for better ad content also clashed with their more fundamental distrust and rejection of the non-consensual and extractive nature of ad targeting. They voiced privacy concerns about continuous data aggregation and behavior tracking, a desire for greater control over their data and attention, and even the right to opt-out entirely. Drawing on scholarship from queer and feminist theory, we explore targeted ads’ homonormativity in their failure to represent multiply-marginalized queer people, the harms of automated inference and categorization to identity formation and self-determination, and the theory of refusal underlying participants’ queer visions for a better online experience.

References

  1. ACLU. 2023. Over 120 Bills Restricting LGBTQ Rights Introduced Nationwide in 2023 So Far. http://www.aclu.org/press-releases/over-120-bills-restricting-lgbtq-rights-introduced-nationwide-2023-so-farGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Muhammad Ali, Piotr Sapiezynski, Miranda Bogen, Aleksandra Korolova, Alan Mislove, and Aaron Rieke. 2019. Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook’s ad delivery can lead to skewed outcomes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359301 arXiv:1904.02095 [cs].Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. ANA. 2022. A Diversity Report for the Advertising/Marketing Industry (2022). Technical Report. Association of National Advertisers. https://www.ana.net/miccontent/show/id/rr-2022-11-diversity-advertising-marketing-industryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. McKane Andrus and Sarah Villeneuve. 2022. Demographic-Reliant Algorithmic Fairness: Characterizing the Risks of Demographic Data Collection in the Pursuit of Fairness. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, 1709–1721. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533226Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Justin Bengry. 2015. Who is the Queer Consumer? Historical Perspectives on Capitalism and Homosexuality. In Consuming Behaviours : Identity, Politics and Pleasure in twentieth-Century Britain (1 ed.), Erika Rappaport, Sandra Trudgen Dawson, and Mark J. Crowley (Eds.). Bloomsbury Academic, 21–36. http://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/consuming-behaviours-identity-politics-and-pleasure-in-twentieth-century-britain/ch2-who-is-the-queer-consumer-historical-perspectives-on-capitalism-and-homosexuality/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ruha Benjamin. 2016. Informed Refusal: Toward a Justice-based Bioethics. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41, 6 (Nov. 2016), 967–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916656059Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Subodh Bhat, Thomas W. Leigh, and Daniel L. Wardlow. 1998. The Effect of Consumer Prejudices on Ad Processing: Heterosexual Consumers’ Responses to Homosexual Imagery in Ads. Journal of Advertising 27, 4 (Dec. 1998), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1998.10673566Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Abeba Birhane, Elayne Ruane, Thomas Laurent, Matthew S. Brown, Johnathan Flowers, Anthony Ventresque, and Christopher L. Dancy. 2022. The Forgotten Margins of AI Ethics. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533157 4 citations (Crossref) [2023-02-05].Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Rena Bivens. 2017. The gender binary will not be deprogrammed: Ten years of coding gender on Facebook. New Media & Society 19, 6 (June 2017), 880–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815621527Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lawrence Blum. 2004. Stereotypes And Stereotyping: A Moral Analysis. Philosophical Papers 33, 3 (Nov. 2004), 251–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568640409485143Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke, Nikki Hayfield, and Gareth Terry. 2019. Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, Pranee Liamputtong (Ed.). Springer, 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho-Chun Herbert Chang, Matthew Bui, and Charlton McIlwain. 2022. Targeted Ads and/as Racial Discrimination: Exploring Trends in New York City Ads for College Scholarships. In 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2022, Virtual Event / Maui, Hawaii, USA, January 4-7, 2022. ScholarSpace, 1–10. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/79682Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Kylie Cheung. 2021. After Pride, corporations will "ditch these gays" but the harm will already be done. https://www.salon.com/2021/06/18/pride-rainbow-capitalism-harm-exploitation/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M Cifor, P Garcia, T.L. Cowan, J Rault, T Sutherland, A Chan, J Rode, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, Niloufar Salehi, and L Nakamura. 2019. Feminist Data Manifest-No. https://www.manifestno.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Erica L. Ciszek and Kate Pounders. 2020. The bones are the same: an exploratory analysis of authentic communication with LGBTQ publics. Journal of Communication Management 24, 2 (2020), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-10-2019-0131 Num Pages: 15 Place: London, United Kingdom Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Human Rights Council. 2022. An Epidemic of Violence 2022. https://reports.hrc.org/an-epidemic-of-violence-2022Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ángel Cuevas, José González Cabañas, Aritz Arrate, and Rubén Cuevas. 2021. Does Facebook Use Sensitive Data for Advertising Purposes? Worldwide Analysis and GDPR Impact. Commun. ACM 64, 1 (Jan. 2021), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3426361Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta. 2015. Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discrimination. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2015, 1 (April 2015), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2015-0007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lisa Duggan. 2002. The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics 10 (2002), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jgrq.10Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Facebook. 2023. Being Your Authentic Self on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/help/186614050293763Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Roderick A. Ferguson. 2018. Queer of Color Critique. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.33Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Andrew R. Flores, Ilan H. Meyer, Lynn Langton, and Jody L. Herman. 2021. Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2018. American Journal of Public Health 111, 4 (April 2021), 726–729. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.306099Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Liza Gak, Seyi Olojo, and Niloufar Salehi. 2022. The Distressing Ads That Persist: Uncovering The Harms of Targeted Weight-Loss Ads Among Users with Histories of Disordered Eating. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555102Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. José González Cabañas, Ángel Cuevas, and Rubén Cuevas. 2017. FDVT: Data Valuation Tool for Facebook Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, 3799–3809. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025903Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Google. 2023. Control what data Google uses to show you ads. https://support.google.com/My-Ad-Center-Help/answer/12156161?hl=en&ref_topic=11583829#zippy=Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Heron Greenesmith. 2022. Violence Against Transgender People is on the Rise, Stopping it Requires a Holistic Solution. https://www.justsecurity.org/83597/violence-against-transgender-people-is-on-the-rise-stopping-it-requires-a-holistic-solution/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. D.E. Hall and A. Jagose. 2012. The Routledge Queer Studies Reader. Taylor & Francis, 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Foad Hamidi, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Gender Recognition or Gender Reductionism? The Social Implications of Embedded Gender Recognition Systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173582Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lelia Marie Hampton. 2021. Black Feminist Musings on Algorithmic Oppression. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Virtual Event, Canada) (FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445929Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Susan Hazeldean. 2019. Privacy as Pretext. Cornell Law Review 104, 7 (Nov. 2019), 1719–1774. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol104/iss7/2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosemary Hennessy. 1994. Queer Visibility in Commodity Culture. Cultural Critique Winter, 29 (1994), 31–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354421Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Kashmir Hill. 2018. ‘Do Not Track’ Privacy Tool Doesn’t Do Anything. https://gizmodo.com/do-not-track-the-privacy-tool-used-by-millions-of-peop-1828868324Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Basileal Imana, Aleksandra Korolova, and John Heidemann. 2021. Auditing for Discrimination in Algorithms Delivering Job Ads. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021(WWW ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, 3767–3778. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3450077Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Instagram. 2023. What are my ad topic preferences and how can I adjust them on Instagram. https://help.instagram.com/245100253430454?helpref=faq_contentGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Guillaume D. Johnson and Sonya A. Grier. 2012. "WHAT ABOUT THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES?" Examining the Effects of Race-Stereotyped Portrayals on Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 41, 3 (2012), 91–106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Steven M. Kates. 1999. Making the Ad Perfectly Queer: Marketing "Normality" to the Gay Men’s Community?Journal of Advertising 28, 1 (1999), 25–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4189098Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Os Keyes. 2018. The Misgendering Machines: Trans/HCI Implications of Automatic Gender Recognition. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 88:1–88:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274357Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Tami Kim, Kate Barasz, Michael I. Norton, and Leslie K. John. 2023. Calculators for Women: When Identity-Based Appeals Alienate Consumers. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 8, 1 (Nov. 2023), 000–000. https://doi.org/10.1086/722691Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Anja Lambrecht and Catherine Tucker. 2019. Algorithmic Bias? An Empirical Study of Apparent Gender-Based Discrimination in the Display of STEM Career Ads. Management Science 65, 7 (July 2019), 2966–2981. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3093Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Calvin A. Liang, Sean A. Munson, and Julie A. Kientz. 2021. Embracing Four Tensions in Human-Computer Interaction Research with Marginalized People. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 28, 2 (April 2021), 14:1–14:47. https://doi.org/10.1145/3443686Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Petrus Liu. 2020. Queer Theory and the Specter of Materialism. Social Text 38, 4 (145) (Dec. 2020), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-8680426Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Kevin A. McLemore. 2018. A minority stress perspective on transgender individuals’ experiences with misgendering. Stigma and Health 3 (2018), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000070Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Tressie McMillan Cottom. 2020. Where Platform Capitalism and Racial Capitalism Meet: The Sociology of Race and Racism in the Digital Society. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 6, 4 (Oct. 2020), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220949473Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Martha Mendoza. 2014. Facebook offers new gender options for users. https://apnews.com/article/beaf554bed6d4df0ab57c628292fcc0bGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Meta. 2023. Age and Gender. https://www.facebook.com/business/help/151999381652364Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Jalil B. Mustaffa and Caleb Dawson. 2021. Racial Capitalism and the Black Student Loan Debt Crisis. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 123, 6 (June 2021), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300601Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Ana-Isabel Nölke. 2018. Making Diversity Conform? An Intersectional, Longitudinal Analysis of LGBT-Specific Mainstream Media Advertisements. Journal of Homosexuality 65, 2 (Jan. 2018), 224–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1314163Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Kathryn J. Perkins. 2022. Willful lives: Self-determination in lesbian and trans feminisms. Journal of Lesbian Studies 26, 2 (April 2022), 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2021.1997073Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Stacy M. Branham, and Foad Hamidi. 2018. Safe Spaces and Safe Places: Unpacking Technology-Mediated Experiences of Safety and Harm with Transgender People. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 155:1–155:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274424Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Megan S. Schuler, Cara E. Rice, Rebecca J. Evans-Polce, and Rebecca Collins. 2018. Disparities in substance use behaviors and disorders among adult sexual minorities by age, gender, and sexual identity. Drug and alcohol dependence 189 (Aug. 2018), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.05.008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Audra Simpson. 2016. Consent’s Revenge. Cultural Anthropology 31, 3 (2016), 326–333. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca31.3.02Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. John Oliver Siy and Sapna Cheryan. 2013. When compliments fail to flatter: American individualism and responses to positive stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104, 1 (2013), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030183Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Francesca Sobande, Anne Fearfull, and Douglas Brownlie. 2020. Resisting media marginalisation: Black women’s digital content and collectivity. Consumption Markets & Culture 23, 5 (Sept. 2020), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2019.1571491Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Till Speicher, Muhammad Ali, Giridhari Venkatadri, Filipe Nunes Ribeiro, G. Arvanitakis, Fabrício Benevenuto, K. Gummadi, P. Loiseau, and A. Mislove. 2018. Potential for Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising. In Proceedings of the 1st conference on fairness, accountability and transparency(Proceedings of machine learning research, Vol. 81). PMLR, 5–19. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/speicher18a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Nick Srnicek. 2017. Platform capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge ; Malden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2208240Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Reality Check Team. 2021. Homosexuality: The countries where it is illegal to be gay. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Omer Tene and Jules Polenetsky. 2012. To Track or Do Not Track: Advancing Transparency and Individual Control in Online Behavioral Advertising. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 13, 1 (2012), 281–358. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/mipr13&i=281Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Nenad Tomasev, Kevin R. McKee, Jackie Kay, and Shakir Mohamed. 2021. Fairness for Unobserved Characteristics: Insights from Technological Impacts on Queer Communities. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(AIES ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462540Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Wan-Hsiu Sunny Tsai. 2010. Assimilating the Queers: Representations of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexual, and Transgender People in Mainstream Advertising. Advertising & Society Review 11, 1 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.0.0042Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Wan-Hsiu Sunny Tsai. 2012. Political issues in advertising polysemy: the case of gay window advertising. Consumption Markets & Culture 15, 1 (March 2012), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2011.637752Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Joseph Turow. 2012. The Daily You. In How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth. Yale University Press, 171–200. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300166521-009Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Imdad Ullah, Roksana Boreli, and Salil S. Kanhere. 2021. Privacy in Targeted Advertising: A Survey. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.06861Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Nam-Hyun Um. 2016. Consumers’ Responses to Implicit and Explicit Gay-Themed Advertising in Gay vs. Mainstream Media. Journal of Promotion Management 22, 3 (May 2016), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2016.1154923Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Francisco Valdes. 1996. Unpacking Hetero-Patriarchy: Tracing the Conflation of Sex, Gender & Sexual Orientation to Its Origins. Yale journal of law and the humanities 8 (1996), 161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Stephen Valocchi. 2017. Capitalisms and Gay Identities: Towards a Capitalist Theory of Social Movements. Social Problems 64, 2 (2017), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spx008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Jinyoung Jinnie Yoo. 2020. Does the Model Minority Image Work?: Consumer Responses to the Model Minority Stereotypes in Ads. Journal of Promotion Management 26, 6 (Sept. 2020), 911–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1745983Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. Surveillance Capitalism and the Challenge of Collective Action. New Labor Forum 28, 1 (2019), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796018819461Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Representation, Self-Determination, and Refusal: Queer People’s Experiences with Targeted Advertising

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      FAccT '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
      June 2023
      1929 pages
      ISBN:9798400701924
      DOI:10.1145/3593013

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 June 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)312
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format