4 ms·

There is a single quote from a single lawyer and all it says is that he thinks it is a violation. There is nothing from the lawyer concerning targeted advertisi

There is a single quote from a single lawyer and all it says is that he thinks it is a violation. There is nothing from the lawyer concerning targeted advertising specifically. From my point of view, he saw the UI screenshot and screamed that it was a violation without any further research (the article backs this up since it says he gasped and immediately responded). I don't find that a very convincing legal assessment and the article seems to assume that it is violating the act due to that statement with no proof or reasoning backing it up. Edit: To me, this is no different from choosing to mail advertisements to various zip codes or neighborhoods based on demographics.

chadgeidel 10y ago
I see. Thanks for explaining your position.
ubernostrum 10y ago
You admit you are not a lawyer, but give and prefer your own opinion on it over that of someone who is a lawyer in the relevant field, and when confronted with the opinion of the lawyer in the relevant field you choose the least charitable explanation of how that lawyer came to give the opinion, in order to continue preferring your view over the lawyer's. But tech people don't have blind spots or problems when it comes to issues like race, nope, no sir.
danudey 10y ago
The law apparently makes it illegal to create an ad which expresses any preference for a specific racial group. I would assume his argument is that by being invisible to a certain racial group, you are expressing a preference against them.