4 ms·

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.

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.