Search for: All records

The 2022 settlement between Meta and the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve allegations of discriminatory advertising resulted is a first-of-its-kind change to Meta's ad delivery system aimed to address algorithmic discrimination in its housing ad delivery. In this work, we explore direct and indirect effects of both the settlement's choice of terms and the Variance Reduction System (VRS) implemented by Meta on the actual reduction in discrimination. \newline We first show that the settlement terms allow for an implementation that does not meaningfully improve access to opportunities for individuals. The settlement measures impact of ad delivery in terms of impressions, instead of unique individuals reached by an ad; it allows the platform to level down access, reducing disparities by decreasing the overall access to opportunities; and it allows the platform to selectively apply VRS to only small advertisers. \newline We then conduct experiments to evaluate VRS with real-world ads, and show that while VRS does reduce variance, it also raises advertiser costs (measured per-individuals-reached), therefore decreasing user exposure to opportunity ads for a given ad budget. VRS thus \emph{passes the cost of decreasing variance to advertisers}. \newline Finally, we explore an alternative approach to achieve the settlement goals, that is significantly more intuitive and transparent than VRS. We show our approach outperforms VRS by both increasing ad exposure for users from \emph{all} groups and reducing cost to advertisers, thus demonstrating that the increase in cost to advertisers when implementing the settlement is not inevitable. \newline Our methodologies use a black-box approach that relies on capabilities available to any regular advertiser, rather than on privileged access to data, allowing others to reproduce or extend our work. 

We consider the problem of allocating divisible items among multiple agents, and consider the setting where any agent is allowed to introduce {\emph diversity constraints} on the items they are allocated. We motivate this via settings where the items themselves correspond to user ad slots or task workers with attributes such as race and gender on which the principal seeks to achieve demographic parity. We consider the following question: When an agent expresses diversity constraints into an allocation rule, is the allocation of other agents hurt significantly? If this happens, the cost of introducing such constraints is disproportionately borne by agents who do not benefit from diversity. We codify this via two desiderata capturing {\em robustness}. These are {\emph no negative externality} -- other agents are not hurt -- and {\emph monotonicity} -- the agent enforcing the constraint does not see a large increase in value. We show in a formal sense that the Nash Welfare rule that maximizes product of agent values is {\emph uniquely} positioned to be robust when diversity constraints are introduced, while almost all other natural allocation rules fail this criterion. We also show that the guarantees achieved by Nash Welfare are nearly optimal within a widely studied class of allocation rules. We finally perform an empirical simulation on real-world data that models ad allocations to show that this gap between Nash Welfare and other rules persists in the wild.