4 ms·
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 raci
by 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 agoNot necessarily - not showing African Americans spray-tan advertisements as an example - is that racist?
- jquery 9y agoI 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 agoThere 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 agoSpray-tan is a very good example. However, as the article states - "Housing, employment and credit are the three areas in which federal law prohibits discriminatory ads" and it does make sense for those three areas.
- emerged 9y agoHow about if you're advertising for a job as spray-tan tester?