12 ms·

I'm astonished that facebook is successfully able to pull the "we're a platform, its not our fault people are using it illegally" excuse here. There is a huge d

by tmh79 9y ago

I'm astonished that facebook is successfully able to pull the "we're a platform, its not our fault people are using it illegally" excuse here. There is a huge difference between allowing people to freely post content on places like FB, twitter, or Reddit, and selling access the attention of people that fit specific characteristics. How long until the tech giants are held accountable for willfully skirting decades of civil rights legislation.

mc32 9y ago
Well, i dunno. I think it's still on the advertiser to follow the law. Kind of like when some insurance co advertises some insurance product and that advert has to go through copy editors and legal to make sure it does not break any laws (representing product faithfully, not making false or dubious claims) before it gets okayed to be published. In this case HR should consult with legal before putting up job announcements. Or, here specifically these cos should consult with legal before making that job req buy.
- tmh79 9y ago
  Facebook is selling advertising. In this specific case, the product they are selling is illegal. Facebook should be held liable for selling illegal advertising. Do people find this challenging? Is there something wrong with this?
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    What would happen in the physical world with, say, a classified ad in a newspaper? It's on the poster of the ad to follow the law, not the paper, is it not?
    - slededit 9y ago
      Newspapers do review advertising both for illegal content and things that would negatively affect their brand. If you created an ad with "over 40 need not apply" most newspapers would reject the ad. However this case goes over and above. Facebook is actively adding a feature to screen users by age which increases their culpability.
    - spraak 9y ago
      In your example, what do you think would happen if someone posted an ad selling drugs?
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        No newspaper would run such a thing (key words: editorial control), but if the poster was using coded language, perhaps? I think that's the closest analog here. With that example in mind, that puts someone running the ad in a weird place, since literally every ad network in 2017 does demographic targeting. I don't think it's feasible to vet every ad that runs to ensure that the poster is complying with the law. All that being said, this smells like Facebook, much like any other popular virtual public square, hiding behind the "We're an open platform!" defense when convenient to avoid legal action, and hiding behind the "We're a private company!" defense when convenient to disclaim accusations of poor or inconsistent moderation. They should not get to have it both ways. Either they exercise editorial control and can be liable for what their users post, or they can keep their hands off and push that liability back to the poster. Rant aside, I'm more interested in the general case of demographic targeting when it comes to certain ads.
        spraak 9y ago
        Right, so why do you think they have editorial control? For that same reason, shouldn't Facebook?
    - tmh79 9y ago
      If the newspaper was somehow able to be physically manifested by or perceived only by white people, or people under 30, or in some way that excluded people of a protected class from ever seeing it if they knew about it and wanted to, then the newspaper should definitely be liable, as should the advertiser. The material difference between newspapers and facebook is that anyone is allowed to buy a newspaper, but someone of a protected class cannot view ads on facebook that are not targeted to them even if they want to, thus they are excluded.
      - jjeaff 9y ago
        You can set your age to whatever you want on Facebook. Seems no different than advertising a job in young skewing magazines vs targeting older demos.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Facebook is real, these are advertisements for jobs. It's not a game. Laws still apply. Discrimination still isn't legal. Just because you read it on a computer screen instead of on a dead tree carcass does not change the rules.
      - Karunamon 9y ago
        Who said it was a game or laws don't apply? Please reply to what I actually wrote in its entirety, not what you want me to have written. If you were seizing on "real world", I think it's pretty clear I meant "physical" rather than "virtual" since we're comparing newspapers to online ads, but I updated the post to clarify.
        mulmen 9y ago
        You edited your post, I replied to what you said.
    - beatpanda 9y ago
      Craigslist routinely takes down discriminatory housing and job ads and have been doing that at least since I started using it around 2005.
      - mc32 9y ago
        On the other hand they tend to allow "illegal" prostitution ads... so it's not like they pursue illegal postings in general -or postings which allow the violation of the law. And I generally agree. The authorities should be going after the perpetrators, not the neutral platform.
        mulmen 9y ago
        Is the platform neutral if this is illegal discrimination and they include the ability to do that illegal discrimination in their value proposition?
        mc32 9y ago
        Both (Craigslist prostitution ads and age specific jobs ads on Facebook) are publishing something which is illegal. The party which should be pursued is the one posting the post which goes contrary to law. I'm ok if FB or CL proactively root out those posts, but I'm not so sure I see it as their responsibility to do. It's good oversight but still I feel the people who should be punished are the agents of the wrongdoing. So, no, I don't see them as an accessory to the crime. That said, the companies/individuals doing the actual discrimination and or illegal solicitation should face the consequences of their actions. In this case, I'm not condoning companies discriminating on the basis of age.
        mulmen 9y ago
        Facebook has a setting where you can enter the age of a person for a job posting and they even have a special site for job ads. It's not comparable. Craigslist does not market a platform that explicitly says "target prostitution ads at people who are looking for prostitutes". What Facebook is doing is far more explicit and they are clearly aware of what is happening because they built functionality to do it specifically.
  - jklinger410 9y ago
    For the record, we are talking about the right to be served ads. Not saying I disagree with you, many commenters in here are making good points.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      We're not talking about the right to be served ads. We are talking about the right to not be discriminated against.
  - Sephr 9y ago
    There are many legal reasons to want to limit ads to the elderly. If you're selling a product that disproportionately is bought by elderly people, such as adult diapers, would you prefer to show everyone the ad, or save money and only target the ad to the elderly? Edit: I'm referring to the Facebook ads platform in general, and not specifically job ads. I agree that job ads shouldn't have the option to target age groups.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      I think you can do that. What is not allowed is discriminating against employment seekers over the age of 40. I believe this means it is actually ok to discriminate against employment seekers under the age of 40 and also to discriminate against people over the age of 40 for purposes other than employment, including selling diapers. In this case "ok" means "not made illegal by this law". What's important here though is that Facebook isn't selling diaper ads, they're selling job ads and so they are discriminating against a protected class.
      - jjeaff 9y ago
        So would it also be illegal to advertise your job positions in teen Vogue but NOT in AARP magazine? It doesn't seem much different in this case. Bit methods target young people.
        mulmen 9y ago
        No of course not. Anyone can buy either magazine. Those two examples are completely different. In the magazine case you are taking out an advertisement with no ability to discriminate. In the Facebook case there is a specific setting based on age to show job ads. Job seekers over the age of 40 are protected so this is discrimination against a protected class. The problem is not that young people were targeted, the problem is that those over 40 were not.
        cutcss 9y ago
        You say it like it is that simple to fix; they could ask for photo in the curriculum and just discard the few that looks old, -after targeting job ads on pages that are disproportionaly "liked" by the age range they want- The only true way to solve this is to force by law to hire older people (e.g. 30% of your workforce must be over 40); otherwise all this proxies like trying to regulate third-party ads and else its just an endless cat-and-mouse game.
  - lmm 9y ago
    An ad space that will be shown to people in a specific age range isn't and shouldn't be illegal. A few specific classes of ads (e.g. for jobs or housing) are illegal to run in such an ad space, but I would expect the vast majority of ads are legal to run in such an ad space. As such I'd take the view that what Facebook is selling is legal, and if someone is running an ad that is regulated to a higher standard than normal ads then it's on that person to ensure their ad complies with those higher standards. Imagine a drug advert that didn't properly list the drug's side effects. To my mind that would be the advertising company's responsibility, not the TV station or billboard owner's.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      These ads were explicitly submitted as job ads, per the article.
- MaysonL 9y ago
  Newspapers have been prohibited from running discriminatory ads, Facebook should also be.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Yeah this is worse than anything a newspaper has imagined doing in the last several decades.
- CGamesPlay 9y ago
  It’s in Facebook’s interest to do the policing here. You’re right, the responsibility is on the advertiser, and the law needs enforcement mechanisms. Facebook doesn’t want to be regulated, but if they through malice or ignorance perpetuate civil rights violations, then they will be.
pmc1 9y ago
Facebook turns the blind eye once again. They don't want to be held responsible for what's posted on their platform. Facebook is enabling discrimination. I left facebook 2 1/2 years ago very happy with the decision
avar 9y ago
If you mainly advertised for employees in certain newspapers you'd get people of a given political leaning. If you advertised on the radio at 6 in the morning you probably wouldn't get anyone under 35. It's not obvious to me why employers should be able to use the implicit filtering traditional media provides, but not the explicit filtering new advertising platforms provide.
- eanzenberg 9y ago
  Probably because the filtering is too powerful and accurate? Anyone can get up at 6am to listen to the radio. If you don't show certain people job ads they may never see or know about the listing.
  - chronic193 9y ago
    > Anyone can get up at 6am to listen to the radio. Anyone could lie about their likes/interests or even age on Facebook. What's your point?
  - avar 9y ago
    Anyone can create multiple Facebook profiles of various ages and look at job advertisements, which is both cheaper than subscribing to a bunch of newspapers, and less of a hassle than having to get up at 6 am (in the days before people could easily record the radio).
    - paulie_a 9y ago
      Isn't that against tos and potentially a cfaa violation? You are interfering with their platforms ad targeting.
    - rcthompson 9y ago
      Age isn't the only filtering criterion, though. Do I need to create a fake account for every combination of age, gender, read, socioeconomic status, etc. if I want to look at all the job ads?
cutcss 9y ago
Selling access for attention of people that fit specific characteristics has been done for decades and its fully legal; that's why bingo shows aimed to old people get Viagra ads, that's why the Seventeen magazine gets acne treatment ads; sure there are some non-teenagers buying the Seventeen magazine but its such a tiny minority that its irrelevant.
- walshemj 9y ago
  But to categories that are not protected its against the law also FB was until recently allowing people to sell adds targeting people with anti semitic views
joering2 9y ago
Good question! Imagine Ross Ulbricht saying the same... Too bad Ulbricht did not have lobbyst working for him.
profalseidol 9y ago
Well Uber is finally being treated as a taxi company in the EU.
totalZero 9y ago
I can imagine two independent arguments that Facebook might use. 1. It is the responsibility of the advertiser to ensure that the advertisement is legal. Facebook is certainly not the employer, nor is it registered or defined as an employment agency, so by the language of the law [1] it does not meet the definition of an applicable party. 2. If the advertisement itself did not _indicate_ any preference based on age, then it may not have violated the law even if it was disseminated according to age. The second argument is tenuous because (my understanding is that) users could click the ad to plainly see the targeting criteria, but displaying this is not the doing of the employer, which is the only entity to which the language of the law seems to apply. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm "It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on age."
- twobyfour 9y ago
  I assume, though, that Facebook prohibits other forms of illegal advertising: for instance, advertising of prostitution services in most locations; advertising of the sale of heroin or methamphetamine; advertising of the services of hit men.
- wils1245 9y ago
  The tide of public opinion seems to have turned against argument 1. I don't follow law close enough to really know if legal decisions have also been turning against it.

by tmh79 9y ago

mc32 9y ago

Well, i dunno. I think it's still on the advertiser to follow the law. Kind of like when some insurance co advertises some insurance product and that advert has to go through copy editors and legal to make sure it does not break any laws (representing product faithfully, not making false or dubious claims) before it gets okayed to be published. In this case HR should consult with legal before putting up job announcements. Or, here specifically these cos should consult with legal before making that job req buy.

tmh79 9y ago
Facebook is selling advertising. In this specific case, the product they are selling is illegal. Facebook should be held liable for selling illegal advertising. Do people find this challenging? Is there something wrong with this?
- Karunamon 9y ago
  What would happen in the physical world with, say, a classified ad in a newspaper? It's on the poster of the ad to follow the law, not the paper, is it not?
  - slededit 9y ago
    Newspapers do review advertising both for illegal content and things that would negatively affect their brand. If you created an ad with "over 40 need not apply" most newspapers would reject the ad. However this case goes over and above. Facebook is actively adding a feature to screen users by age which increases their culpability.
  - spraak 9y ago
    In your example, what do you think would happen if someone posted an ad selling drugs?
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      No newspaper would run such a thing (key words: editorial control), but if the poster was using coded language, perhaps? I think that's the closest analog here. With that example in mind, that puts someone running the ad in a weird place, since literally every ad network in 2017 does demographic targeting. I don't think it's feasible to vet every ad that runs to ensure that the poster is complying with the law. All that being said, this smells like Facebook, much like any other popular virtual public square, hiding behind the "We're an open platform!" defense when convenient to avoid legal action, and hiding behind the "We're a private company!" defense when convenient to disclaim accusations of poor or inconsistent moderation. They should not get to have it both ways. Either they exercise editorial control and can be liable for what their users post, or they can keep their hands off and push that liability back to the poster. Rant aside, I'm more interested in the general case of demographic targeting when it comes to certain ads.
      - spraak 9y ago
        Right, so why do you think they have editorial control? For that same reason, shouldn't Facebook?
  - tmh79 9y ago
    If the newspaper was somehow able to be physically manifested by or perceived only by white people, or people under 30, or in some way that excluded people of a protected class from ever seeing it if they knew about it and wanted to, then the newspaper should definitely be liable, as should the advertiser. The material difference between newspapers and facebook is that anyone is allowed to buy a newspaper, but someone of a protected class cannot view ads on facebook that are not targeted to them even if they want to, thus they are excluded.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      You can set your age to whatever you want on Facebook. Seems no different than advertising a job in young skewing magazines vs targeting older demos.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Facebook is real, these are advertisements for jobs. It's not a game. Laws still apply. Discrimination still isn't legal. Just because you read it on a computer screen instead of on a dead tree carcass does not change the rules.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      Who said it was a game or laws don't apply? Please reply to what I actually wrote in its entirety, not what you want me to have written. If you were seizing on "real world", I think it's pretty clear I meant "physical" rather than "virtual" since we're comparing newspapers to online ads, but I updated the post to clarify.
      - mulmen 9y ago
        You edited your post, I replied to what you said.
  - beatpanda 9y ago
    Craigslist routinely takes down discriminatory housing and job ads and have been doing that at least since I started using it around 2005.
    - mc32 9y ago
      On the other hand they tend to allow "illegal" prostitution ads... so it's not like they pursue illegal postings in general -or postings which allow the violation of the law. And I generally agree. The authorities should be going after the perpetrators, not the neutral platform.
      - mulmen 9y ago
        Is the platform neutral if this is illegal discrimination and they include the ability to do that illegal discrimination in their value proposition?
        mc32 9y ago
        Both (Craigslist prostitution ads and age specific jobs ads on Facebook) are publishing something which is illegal. The party which should be pursued is the one posting the post which goes contrary to law. I'm ok if FB or CL proactively root out those posts, but I'm not so sure I see it as their responsibility to do. It's good oversight but still I feel the people who should be punished are the agents of the wrongdoing. So, no, I don't see them as an accessory to the crime. That said, the companies/individuals doing the actual discrimination and or illegal solicitation should face the consequences of their actions. In this case, I'm not condoning companies discriminating on the basis of age.
        mulmen 9y ago
        Facebook has a setting where you can enter the age of a person for a job posting and they even have a special site for job ads. It's not comparable. Craigslist does not market a platform that explicitly says "target prostitution ads at people who are looking for prostitutes". What Facebook is doing is far more explicit and they are clearly aware of what is happening because they built functionality to do it specifically.
- jklinger410 9y ago
  For the record, we are talking about the right to be served ads. Not saying I disagree with you, many commenters in here are making good points.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    We're not talking about the right to be served ads. We are talking about the right to not be discriminated against.
- Sephr 9y ago
  There are many legal reasons to want to limit ads to the elderly. If you're selling a product that disproportionately is bought by elderly people, such as adult diapers, would you prefer to show everyone the ad, or save money and only target the ad to the elderly? Edit: I'm referring to the Facebook ads platform in general, and not specifically job ads. I agree that job ads shouldn't have the option to target age groups.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    I think you can do that. What is not allowed is discriminating against employment seekers over the age of 40. I believe this means it is actually ok to discriminate against employment seekers under the age of 40 and also to discriminate against people over the age of 40 for purposes other than employment, including selling diapers. In this case "ok" means "not made illegal by this law". What's important here though is that Facebook isn't selling diaper ads, they're selling job ads and so they are discriminating against a protected class.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      So would it also be illegal to advertise your job positions in teen Vogue but NOT in AARP magazine? It doesn't seem much different in this case. Bit methods target young people.
      - mulmen 9y ago
        No of course not. Anyone can buy either magazine. Those two examples are completely different. In the magazine case you are taking out an advertisement with no ability to discriminate. In the Facebook case there is a specific setting based on age to show job ads. Job seekers over the age of 40 are protected so this is discrimination against a protected class. The problem is not that young people were targeted, the problem is that those over 40 were not.
        cutcss 9y ago
        You say it like it is that simple to fix; they could ask for photo in the curriculum and just discard the few that looks old, -after targeting job ads on pages that are disproportionaly "liked" by the age range they want- The only true way to solve this is to force by law to hire older people (e.g. 30% of your workforce must be over 40); otherwise all this proxies like trying to regulate third-party ads and else its just an endless cat-and-mouse game.
- lmm 9y ago
  An ad space that will be shown to people in a specific age range isn't and shouldn't be illegal. A few specific classes of ads (e.g. for jobs or housing) are illegal to run in such an ad space, but I would expect the vast majority of ads are legal to run in such an ad space. As such I'd take the view that what Facebook is selling is legal, and if someone is running an ad that is regulated to a higher standard than normal ads then it's on that person to ensure their ad complies with those higher standards. Imagine a drug advert that didn't properly list the drug's side effects. To my mind that would be the advertising company's responsibility, not the TV station or billboard owner's.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    These ads were explicitly submitted as job ads, per the article.
MaysonL 9y ago
Newspapers have been prohibited from running discriminatory ads, Facebook should also be.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Yeah this is worse than anything a newspaper has imagined doing in the last several decades.
CGamesPlay 9y ago
It’s in Facebook’s interest to do the policing here. You’re right, the responsibility is on the advertiser, and the law needs enforcement mechanisms. Facebook doesn’t want to be regulated, but if they through malice or ignorance perpetuate civil rights violations, then they will be.

pmc1 9y ago

Facebook turns the blind eye once again. They don't want to be held responsible for what's posted on their platform. Facebook is enabling discrimination. I left facebook 2 1/2 years ago very happy with the decision

avar 9y ago

If you mainly advertised for employees in certain newspapers you'd get people of a given political leaning. If you advertised on the radio at 6 in the morning you probably wouldn't get anyone under 35. It's not obvious to me why employers should be able to use the implicit filtering traditional media provides, but not the explicit filtering new advertising platforms provide.

eanzenberg 9y ago
Probably because the filtering is too powerful and accurate? Anyone can get up at 6am to listen to the radio. If you don't show certain people job ads they may never see or know about the listing.
- chronic193 9y ago
  > Anyone can get up at 6am to listen to the radio. Anyone could lie about their likes/interests or even age on Facebook. What's your point?
- avar 9y ago
  Anyone can create multiple Facebook profiles of various ages and look at job advertisements, which is both cheaper than subscribing to a bunch of newspapers, and less of a hassle than having to get up at 6 am (in the days before people could easily record the radio).
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    Isn't that against tos and potentially a cfaa violation? You are interfering with their platforms ad targeting.
  - rcthompson 9y ago
    Age isn't the only filtering criterion, though. Do I need to create a fake account for every combination of age, gender, read, socioeconomic status, etc. if I want to look at all the job ads?

cutcss 9y ago

Selling access for attention of people that fit specific characteristics has been done for decades and its fully legal; that's why bingo shows aimed to old people get Viagra ads, that's why the Seventeen magazine gets acne treatment ads; sure there are some non-teenagers buying the Seventeen magazine but its such a tiny minority that its irrelevant.

walshemj 9y ago
But to categories that are not protected its against the law also FB was until recently allowing people to sell adds targeting people with anti semitic views

joering2 9y ago

Good question! Imagine Ross Ulbricht saying the same... Too bad Ulbricht did not have lobbyst working for him.

profalseidol 9y ago

Well Uber is finally being treated as a taxi company in the EU.

totalZero 9y ago

I can imagine two independent arguments that Facebook might use. 1. It is the responsibility of the advertiser to ensure that the advertisement is legal. Facebook is certainly not the employer, nor is it registered or defined as an employment agency, so by the language of the law [1] it does not meet the definition of an applicable party. 2. If the advertisement itself did not _indicate_ any preference based on age, then it may not have violated the law even if it was disseminated according to age. The second argument is tenuous because (my understanding is that) users could click the ad to plainly see the targeting criteria, but displaying this is not the doing of the employer, which is the only entity to which the language of the law seems to apply. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm "It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on age."

twobyfour 9y ago
I assume, though, that Facebook prohibits other forms of illegal advertising: for instance, advertising of prostitution services in most locations; advertising of the sale of heroin or methamphetamine; advertising of the services of hit men.
wils1245 9y ago
The tide of public opinion seems to have turned against argument 1. I don't follow law close enough to really know if legal decisions have also been turning against it.