10 ms·

Facebook Still Letting Housing Advertisers Exclude Users by Race

131 points by topspin 9y ago

apk-d 9y ago
Is there a non-negligible fraction of ads that do this for this to be an actual problem? Or is it another article riding the wave of the media crusade against Facebook? Genuine question, I don't have a Facebook account and I live in a country rather separated from the racial discrimination concerns present in the US.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  I think the main beef is with PACs targeting political ads by race.
- Proven 9y ago
  The percentage doesn’t matter. The problem is that the SJW mob is trying to tell FB how to run their business.
- michaelbuckbee 9y ago
  Facebook doesn't publish what interest categories and demographics go into their ads (aka you can't click on an ad in FB and see what led to it being shown to you). But we're talking billions of dollars a year in ads, of which real estate is a respectable percentage (FB is very good at doing geographic targeting). And you certainly also have these relatively unsupervised and opaque "interest categories" that are being presented to advertisers.
gcatalfamo 9y ago
Recognizing race does not equal being racist at all, imho. I don't want to live in a society where I can't objectively (in no bad way whatsoever) acknowledge trait differences, whether they be skin colour or hair length.
- stevenmays 9y ago
  I think the issue here is the possibility of digital red-lining. While recognizing race is not racist, treating people differently because of their race is racist.
  - w0m 9y ago
    Not necessarily - not showing African Americans spray-tan advertisements as an example - is that racist?
    - jquery 9y ago
      I think where it crosses the line is where we've explicitly made things illegal (such as housing discrimination) due to past bad behavior. I don't think targeting based on race is wrong, per se. BET shouldn't be forced to advertise to white people, a Christian dating site should be allowed to target Christians, etc. But housing is another category altogether and ad targeting based on protected categories should be disallowed. It sounds like Facebook realizes this and called this a "technical error."
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      There are not federal laws prohibiting discrimination in spray-tans, because there is not a very long history of horrendous behavior in discrimination in spray-tans. There is that history, and now those laws, for housing discrimination. Despite those laws, housing discrimination continues to exist. Enforcing those laws is a bare minimum.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > There are not federal laws prohibiting discrimination in spray-tans Insofar as the spray-tan vendor constitutes a public accommodation, this is untrue. But those laws have different precise contours than those for housing and employment, and would not seem as likely to apply to ad targeting.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
Proven 9y ago
So what? That’s a private company who customers are exercising their freedom of speech
sologoub 9y ago
Can any attorney with knowledge of fair housing weigh in on this? Law quotes states that the ad cannot say these things, but the publishing of an ad in a medium targeted based on these seems like a relatively new ground, since the ad itself is likely fine, but how it is distributed is definitely not in the spirit of the law. In finance, I'm fairly sure zip+4 is off limits in many pricing models for this exact reason - it is too specific. However, I'm not aware of anything like this in advertising publishing that a given ad has to have a chance of being seen regardless of the protected categories. Regardless of the law, it's definitely extremely unethical to do this.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  It's not new ground, nor do I believe it to be necessarily unethical. People can and do advertise in predominantly white settings or black settings, e.g. a church or a sports game or a magazine. Advertising has always, always, always been a numbers game. Didn't advertise on billboards in the middle of Wyoming? Maybe because there was lower ROI than elsewhere.
dudul 9y ago
Do these laws really yield results? If somebody doesn't want to rent to or hire a person of a certain race they just won't. They may be forced to not be specific in their ad, but in the end they still won't call you back.
- djohnston 9y ago
  Right... This is basically what happens in a neighborhood like Chinatown, where they can't explicitly deny you because you aren't Chinese but you won't be signing a lease any time soon. Maybe it's because I'm currently reading "The Sellout," but I don't think that it's universally bad to have a practice like that. I don't want Chinatown to be filled with white people. It's different when the people being denied housing actually can't find housing anywhere because the practice is so ubiquitous.
- jacalata 9y ago
  For a single person renting out one house, they will get away with it. But for an apartment complex, they can get investigated and have secret shoppers come in and then they get in trouble for not treating the two marker customers the same.
trumpownsyou420 9y ago
good, no one wants to live near trash!
joelrunyon 9y ago
If people keep following the logical end of this, then facebook and google's entire business model is going to implode on itself. All of online marketing is basically segmenting populations by various group traits. It says nothing about the individual, but as a marketer you think in those broad categories that maybe, just maybe different ages, races, locations might respond differently to ads.
- jacalata 9y ago
  Are you using the slippery slope fallacy to argue against the existence of federal protected classes?
  - rednerrus 9y ago
    Isn't the argument one about targeting ads to the right people? I don't need to see ads online for statin drugs. Should drug manufacturers be required to show their statin drug ads to me?
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    Nope. I'm just saying that if you remove the ability to target ads based on specific person characteristics, you remove a piece of what makes fb so valuable of an advertising platform (that is to target people so microscopically). Just pointing it out.
    - solatic 9y ago
      The number of products to which such non-discrimination law applies to is vanishingly small though. It's not illegal, for instance, to racially target advertisements for flagship smartphones towards white people (since white people tend to be richer and thus have more disposable income), not that any marketing agency would do that in practice. Completely avoiding bias in advertisement is an exercise in futility. Are you a toy manufacturer? Advertise on children's TV shows - not that such a marketing strategy states that adults will never buy the toys, or that the business of adults buying such toys for themselves is unwelcome. Are you a cosmetics manufacturer? Advertise in cisfemale interest magazines - not that such a marketing strategy states that noncisgender individuals will never buy cisfemale-targeted cosmetics, or that the business of noncisgender individuals buying such cosmetics for themselves is unwelcome.
tareqak 9y ago
Techmeme summary: ProPublica: Ads for housing that exclude demographics are still being approved by Facebook, a year after a study highlighted the illegal discriminatory practice on Facebook
lopatin 9y ago
And that's not all, I hear they're still letting make-up advertisers to exclude users by gender.
egwynn 9y ago
The text of the law[0] is surprisingly clear that FB's acceptance of these ads is illegal (unless I'm missing something big). As made applicable by section 3603 of this title and except as exempted by sections 3603(b) and 3607 of this title, it shall be unlawful— ... (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3604#c https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3604#c
- RandallBrown 9y ago
  The ads aren't discriminating are they? This seems identical to posting paper ads in primarily white neighborhoods, which I don't think is illegal. To me the issue is that Facebook said they fixed this, and they haven't.
- superchink 9y ago
  See, I didn't read it that way. "…that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination…" If the ad itself does not mention the preference, then it does not seem to be covered by this clause. Would it not be analogous to advertising the property to a particular racial or religious group, such as a church bulletin board? The distribution of the ad is being targeted, but the ad itself does not indicate any preference. It seems as if the latter is the only thing that is deemed illegal by the law. Am I reading it correctly?
  - Lukeas14 9y ago
    I agree it doesn't seem to violate the letter of this particular law. But it's close to being the digital version of redlining. Before the Fair Housing Act real estate brokers would show certain houses only to white clients and other houses only to clients of color. That was explicitly deemed illegal. If you see real estate brokers as a medium through which sellers would advertise their houses I don't see how this is much different.
Balgair 9y ago
Not to de-rail the thread, but man, FB's slide here has been fast. Just about 1 year ago we were talking about 'fake news' as a threat separate from FB. FB was still considered 'neutral' at worst, if not a 'good' thing. Now? It seems like everyone hates them. Not that they are doing themselves favors at all, but them and Uber are downright villains now.
koliber 9y ago
Someone explained to me a while ago, in New York State, it was illegal to discriminate on race, color, religion, sex, etc. for renting out apartments in 3+ unit dwellings. As an owner of a single home, renting out the upstairs apartment, it was supposedly perfectly OK to discriminate based on those things. I never dug into this, but if it is true, the question is: "Should Facebook ad tools facilitate such discrimination, even if it is not forbidden by law?".
- extra88 9y ago
  It's this federal law the Fair Housing Act, not state law, that has an exception for smaller properties where the owner lives (New York may further extend federal protections). The exception only allows discrimination in not allowing someone to live there, it's still illegal to advertise in a discriminatory way. https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-basics/the-mrs-murphy-exemption-to-the-fair-housing-act/ https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-b...
ggg9990 9y ago
They can just advertise to people who like Bing Crosby instead.

131 points by topspin 9y ago

Is there a non-negligible fraction of ads that do this for this to be an actual problem? Or is it another article riding the wave of the media crusade against Facebook? Genuine question, I don't have a Facebook account and I live in a country rather separated from the racial discrimination concerns present in the US.

creaghpatr 9y ago
I think the main beef is with PACs targeting political ads by race.
Proven 9y ago
The percentage doesn’t matter. The problem is that the SJW mob is trying to tell FB how to run their business.
michaelbuckbee 9y ago
Facebook doesn't publish what interest categories and demographics go into their ads (aka you can't click on an ad in FB and see what led to it being shown to you). But we're talking billions of dollars a year in ads, of which real estate is a respectable percentage (FB is very good at doing geographic targeting). And you certainly also have these relatively unsupervised and opaque "interest categories" that are being presented to advertisers.

gcatalfamo 9y ago

Recognizing race does not equal being racist at all, imho. I don't want to live in a society where I can't objectively (in no bad way whatsoever) acknowledge trait differences, whether they be skin colour or hair length.

stevenmays 9y ago
I think the issue here is the possibility of digital red-lining. While recognizing race is not racist, treating people differently because of their race is racist.
- w0m 9y ago
  Not necessarily - not showing African Americans spray-tan advertisements as an example - is that racist?
  - jquery 9y ago
    I think where it crosses the line is where we've explicitly made things illegal (such as housing discrimination) due to past bad behavior. I don't think targeting based on race is wrong, per se. BET shouldn't be forced to advertise to white people, a Christian dating site should be allowed to target Christians, etc. But housing is another category altogether and ad targeting based on protected categories should be disallowed. It sounds like Facebook realizes this and called this a "technical error."
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    There are not federal laws prohibiting discrimination in spray-tans, because there is not a very long history of horrendous behavior in discrimination in spray-tans. There is that history, and now those laws, for housing discrimination. Despite those laws, housing discrimination continues to exist. Enforcing those laws is a bare minimum.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > There are not federal laws prohibiting discrimination in spray-tans Insofar as the spray-tan vendor constitutes a public accommodation, this is untrue. But those laws have different precise contours than those for housing and employment, and would not seem as likely to apply to ad targeting.
  - PeterisP 9y ago

Proven 9y ago

So what? That’s a private company who customers are exercising their freedom of speech

sologoub 9y ago

Can any attorney with knowledge of fair housing weigh in on this? Law quotes states that the ad cannot say these things, but the publishing of an ad in a medium targeted based on these seems like a relatively new ground, since the ad itself is likely fine, but how it is distributed is definitely not in the spirit of the law. In finance, I'm fairly sure zip+4 is off limits in many pricing models for this exact reason - it is too specific. However, I'm not aware of anything like this in advertising publishing that a given ad has to have a chance of being seen regardless of the protected categories. Regardless of the law, it's definitely extremely unethical to do this.

paulddraper 9y ago
It's not new ground, nor do I believe it to be necessarily unethical. People can and do advertise in predominantly white settings or black settings, e.g. a church or a sports game or a magazine. Advertising has always, always, always been a numbers game. Didn't advertise on billboards in the middle of Wyoming? Maybe because there was lower ROI than elsewhere.

dudul 9y ago

Do these laws really yield results? If somebody doesn't want to rent to or hire a person of a certain race they just won't. They may be forced to not be specific in their ad, but in the end they still won't call you back.

djohnston 9y ago
Right... This is basically what happens in a neighborhood like Chinatown, where they can't explicitly deny you because you aren't Chinese but you won't be signing a lease any time soon. Maybe it's because I'm currently reading "The Sellout," but I don't think that it's universally bad to have a practice like that. I don't want Chinatown to be filled with white people. It's different when the people being denied housing actually can't find housing anywhere because the practice is so ubiquitous.
jacalata 9y ago
For a single person renting out one house, they will get away with it. But for an apartment complex, they can get investigated and have secret shoppers come in and then they get in trouble for not treating the two marker customers the same.

trumpownsyou420 9y ago

good, no one wants to live near trash!

joelrunyon 9y ago

If people keep following the logical end of this, then facebook and google's entire business model is going to implode on itself. All of online marketing is basically segmenting populations by various group traits. It says nothing about the individual, but as a marketer you think in those broad categories that maybe, just maybe different ages, races, locations might respond differently to ads.

jacalata 9y ago
Are you using the slippery slope fallacy to argue against the existence of federal protected classes?
- rednerrus 9y ago
  Isn't the argument one about targeting ads to the right people? I don't need to see ads online for statin drugs. Should drug manufacturers be required to show their statin drug ads to me?
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  Nope. I'm just saying that if you remove the ability to target ads based on specific person characteristics, you remove a piece of what makes fb so valuable of an advertising platform (that is to target people so microscopically). Just pointing it out.
  - solatic 9y ago
    The number of products to which such non-discrimination law applies to is vanishingly small though. It's not illegal, for instance, to racially target advertisements for flagship smartphones towards white people (since white people tend to be richer and thus have more disposable income), not that any marketing agency would do that in practice. Completely avoiding bias in advertisement is an exercise in futility. Are you a toy manufacturer? Advertise on children's TV shows - not that such a marketing strategy states that adults will never buy the toys, or that the business of adults buying such toys for themselves is unwelcome. Are you a cosmetics manufacturer? Advertise in cisfemale interest magazines - not that such a marketing strategy states that noncisgender individuals will never buy cisfemale-targeted cosmetics, or that the business of noncisgender individuals buying such cosmetics for themselves is unwelcome.

tareqak 9y ago

Techmeme summary: ProPublica: Ads for housing that exclude demographics are still being approved by Facebook, a year after a study highlighted the illegal discriminatory practice on Facebook

lopatin 9y ago

And that's not all, I hear they're still letting make-up advertisers to exclude users by gender.

egwynn 9y ago

The text of the law[0] is surprisingly clear that FB's acceptance of these ads is illegal (unless I'm missing something big). As made applicable by section 3603 of this title and except as exempted by sections 3603(b) and 3607 of this title, it shall be unlawful— ... (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3604#c https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3604#c

RandallBrown 9y ago
The ads aren't discriminating are they? This seems identical to posting paper ads in primarily white neighborhoods, which I don't think is illegal. To me the issue is that Facebook said they fixed this, and they haven't.
superchink 9y ago
See, I didn't read it that way. "…that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination…" If the ad itself does not mention the preference, then it does not seem to be covered by this clause. Would it not be analogous to advertising the property to a particular racial or religious group, such as a church bulletin board? The distribution of the ad is being targeted, but the ad itself does not indicate any preference. It seems as if the latter is the only thing that is deemed illegal by the law. Am I reading it correctly?
- Lukeas14 9y ago
  I agree it doesn't seem to violate the letter of this particular law. But it's close to being the digital version of redlining. Before the Fair Housing Act real estate brokers would show certain houses only to white clients and other houses only to clients of color. That was explicitly deemed illegal. If you see real estate brokers as a medium through which sellers would advertise their houses I don't see how this is much different.

Balgair 9y ago

Not to de-rail the thread, but man, FB's slide here has been fast. Just about 1 year ago we were talking about 'fake news' as a threat separate from FB. FB was still considered 'neutral' at worst, if not a 'good' thing. Now? It seems like everyone hates them. Not that they are doing themselves favors at all, but them and Uber are downright villains now.

koliber 9y ago

Someone explained to me a while ago, in New York State, it was illegal to discriminate on race, color, religion, sex, etc. for renting out apartments in 3+ unit dwellings. As an owner of a single home, renting out the upstairs apartment, it was supposedly perfectly OK to discriminate based on those things. I never dug into this, but if it is true, the question is: "Should Facebook ad tools facilitate such discrimination, even if it is not forbidden by law?".

extra88 9y ago
It's this federal law the Fair Housing Act, not state law, that has an exception for smaller properties where the owner lives (New York may further extend federal protections). The exception only allows discrimination in not allowing someone to live there, it's still illegal to advertise in a discriminatory way. https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-basics/the-mrs-murphy-exemption-to-the-fair-housing-act/ https://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2010/06/articles/fha-b...

ggg9990 9y ago

They can just advertise to people who like Bing Crosby instead.