User:LokiLaufeyson2019/sandbox

Digital redlining is the practice of creating and perpetuating inequities between racial, cultural, and class groups specifically through the use of digital technologies, digital content, and the internet.[1][2] The concept of digital redlining is an extension of the practice of redlining in housing discrimination,[3][4] a historical legal practice in the United States and Canada dating back to the 1930's where red lines were drawn on maps to indicate poor and primarily black neighborhoods that were deemed unsuitable for loans or further development; this created great economic disparities between neighborhoods.[5][6]

Though digital redlining is related to the digital divide and techniques such as weblining and personalization, it is distinct from these concepts as part of larger complex systemic issues.[7][8] It can refer to practices that create inequities of access to technology services in geographical areas, such as when internet service providers decide to not service specific geographic areas because they are perceived to be not as profitable and thus reduce access to crucial services and civic participation.[9] It can also be used to refer to inequities caused by the policies and practices of digital technologies.[3] For instance, with these methods inequities are accomplished through divisions that are created via algorithms which are hidden from the technology user; the use of big data and analytics allow for a much more nuanced form of discrimination that can target specific vulnerable populations.[10] These algorithmic means are enabled through the use of unregulated data technologies that apply a score to individuals that statistically categorize personality traits or tendencies which are similar to a credit score but are proprietary to the technology companies and not under outside oversight.[2][3]

While the roots of redlining lie in excluding populations based on geography, digital redlining occurs in both geographical and non-geographical contexts.[3] An example of both contexts can be found in the charges brought against Facebook on March 28 of 2019, by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD charged Facebook with violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by "encouraging, enabling, and causing housing discrimination through the company's advertising platform."[11] HUD stated that Facebook allowed advertisers to “exclude people who live in a specified area from seeing an ad by drawing a red line around that area.” The discrimination called out by HUD included those that were racist, homophobic, ableist, and classist. [11] Besides this example of geographically based digital redlining, HUD also charged that Facebook used profile information and designations to exclude classes of people. The charges stated: "Facebook enabled advertisers to exclude people whom Facebook classified as parents; non-American-born; non-Christian; interested in accessibility; interested in Hispanic culture; or a wide variety of other interests that closely align with the Fair Housing Act’s protected classes"[11] Several media outlets pointed out HUDs own history of housing discrimination through redlining, the establishment of the Fair Housing Act to combat redlining, and how the digital platform was recreating this discriminatory practice.[12][13][14][15]

Although digital redlining refers to a complex and varied set of practices, it has been most commonly applied to practices with a geographical dimension. Common examples include when an internet service providers decide to not service specific geographic areas because those areas are seen to be not as profitable, resulting in discrimination against low-income communities, with resulting impacts on access to crucial services and civic participation.[9][16] One of the companies that has most commonly been found to be responsible for this is AT&T. It has been reported that AT&T has been very classist, as it does not provide as many investments or places where data can be available in areas that are more impoverished.[ ]

Geographically based digital redlining can also apply to digital content or the distribution of goods sold online. Geographically based games such as Pokemon Go have been shown to offer more virtual stops and rewards in geographic areas that are less ethnically and racially diverse. Because of the proposed red lining in this area, a game that was meant to be fun for all ages turned into a form of discrimination. [17] In 2016, Amazon was rebuked for not offering their Prime same-day delivery service to many communities that were largely African American and had incomes that were beneath the national average.[18][19] Even services such as email can be impacted, with many email administrators creating filters for flagging particular email messages as spam based on the geographical origin of the message.[20]

A 2001 report looked to find if the reason for a gap in access to broadband internet by low-income and minority populations was due to a lack of availability or due to other factors.[27] The report found that there was "little evidence of digital redlining based on income or black or Hispanic concentrations" but that there was mixed evidence of redlining based on areas in which Native American or Asian populations were larger.