4 ms·

There's actually something called "disparate impact" in Fair Housing that covers this. So if someone does something like that, especially intentionally, and it

There's actually something called "disparate impact" in Fair Housing that covers this. So if someone does something like that, especially intentionally, and it impacts a protected class, they can be sued and fined.

toddsiegel 8y ago
In fact, since most cases are not so blatantly obvious as this, using disparate impact is often how these cases are brought.
- MBCook 8y ago
  If only FB had an insane amount of data that could trivially be used to figure out if a given criteria would have a disparate impact. I can’t imag them fighting this, theyvseem so unlikely to win. But then again, I’m surprised corporate counsel wasn’t screaming about this. It’s not the first time I’ve read about this and I don’t work there.
  - quotemstr 8y ago
    Is your position that it should be illegal to use a criterion in ad targeting if the use of this criterion results in an ad being seen by one arm of a protected category more than another arm? That's a consistent position, but it amounts to banning of ad targeting. Is that the world you want?
    - MBCook 8y ago
      The law explicitly says you can’t discriminate housing ads against certain groups. Courts have held that Things that aren’t illegal on their face can be illegal if they have highly discriminatory effect in practice. So I don’t see why any of that should be allowed here. And it would only apply to things that have a heavy discriminatory effect. I don’t see why it would matter if you chose not to advertise your non-pet friendly apartment complex to people who have pets. Unless someone can show that’s a pretty direct proxy to a protected class it seems fine. Again, this only applies to kinds of ads covered by this (or similar) laws. Housing and employment are the only two kinds I know of. I see no reason why you should be restricted in who you choose to advertise your new T-shirt to.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        Is the answer to my question "yes" or "no"?
        MBCook 8y ago
        Sorry, I assumed you knew my answer was yes. The law says the answer is yes if the discriminatory effect is strong enough (don’t know what the actual test is), so the answer MUST be yes.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        > I don’t see why it would matter if you chose not to advertise your non-pet friendly apartment complex to people who have pets. Unless someone can show that’s a pretty direct proxy to a protected class it seems fine. As a matter of fact, pet ownership is a strong proxy for a protected class [1]. Is your position that an apartment building owner should have to advertise to pet owners and non pet owners equally even if the apartment complex doesn't allow pets? Come to think of it, isn't having a no-pets policy itself discriminatory? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/250858/dog-or-cat-ownership-rates-of-us-households-by-race-ethnicity/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/250858/dog-or-cat-owners...
        MBCook 8y ago
        I didn’t know that. Well, if it meets whatever HUD/the courts’ threshold is for something that’s too discriminatory then maybe that’s off the list. I know that pet friendly and non-pet friendly housing exists, so there must be some legal basis. But if the current legal standard meant that it would be illegal to advertise to (or away from) pet owners then yes, I would expect that FB would have to remove those options for housing ads. Guess that wasn’t the clear example I was hoping for.
        quotemstr 8y ago
        Is a "no pets" policy illegal housing discrimination? Why or why not? A "no pets" policy, on its face, would have a disparate impact on different arms of a protected group, and so, on its face, should be illegal. I know that "no pets" policies tolerated at this point. What I want to know is how you or anyone else can justify a "no pets" policy considering the protected group issue I raised above. Is the "no pets" policy just an unprincipled exception [1]? I see no explanation for allowing "no pets" policies other than "yeah, 'no pets' amounts to illegal discrimination, but everyone does it, so it's okay". That's not a good basis on which to organize a society. Why or why not shouldn't people make another unprincipled exception for ad targeting? [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/04/a-series-of-unprincipled-exceptions/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/04/a-series-of-unprinciple...
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      It’s not just (presumably) his position, it’s the law. And there is a good reason for it. Look up red lining.
      - quotemstr 8y ago
        So, is it your opinion that ad targeting is illegal?
        MBCook 8y ago
        That’s not what anyone here saying and you know it.
        quotemstr 8y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17791675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17791675
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        That's only a counter if you ignore the second half of the sentence. There is a very big difference between no micro-targeting ads ever, and no micro-targeting for housing ads.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    You don't need an insane amount of data. It's easy to figure out if any given criteria will have a disparate impact -- all criteria have a disparate impact.

toddsiegel 8y ago

In fact, since most cases are not so blatantly obvious as this, using disparate impact is often how these cases are brought.

MBCook 8y ago
If only FB had an insane amount of data that could trivially be used to figure out if a given criteria would have a disparate impact. I can’t imag them fighting this, theyvseem so unlikely to win. But then again, I’m surprised corporate counsel wasn’t screaming about this. It’s not the first time I’ve read about this and I don’t work there.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Is your position that it should be illegal to use a criterion in ad targeting if the use of this criterion results in an ad being seen by one arm of a protected category more than another arm? That's a consistent position, but it amounts to banning of ad targeting. Is that the world you want?
  - MBCook 8y ago
    The law explicitly says you can’t discriminate housing ads against certain groups. Courts have held that Things that aren’t illegal on their face can be illegal if they have highly discriminatory effect in practice. So I don’t see why any of that should be allowed here. And it would only apply to things that have a heavy discriminatory effect. I don’t see why it would matter if you chose not to advertise your non-pet friendly apartment complex to people who have pets. Unless someone can show that’s a pretty direct proxy to a protected class it seems fine. Again, this only applies to kinds of ads covered by this (or similar) laws. Housing and employment are the only two kinds I know of. I see no reason why you should be restricted in who you choose to advertise your new T-shirt to.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      Is the answer to my question "yes" or "no"?
      - MBCook 8y ago
        Sorry, I assumed you knew my answer was yes. The law says the answer is yes if the discriminatory effect is strong enough (don’t know what the actual test is), so the answer MUST be yes.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      > I don’t see why it would matter if you chose not to advertise your non-pet friendly apartment complex to people who have pets. Unless someone can show that’s a pretty direct proxy to a protected class it seems fine. As a matter of fact, pet ownership is a strong proxy for a protected class [1]. Is your position that an apartment building owner should have to advertise to pet owners and non pet owners equally even if the apartment complex doesn't allow pets? Come to think of it, isn't having a no-pets policy itself discriminatory? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/250858/dog-or-cat-ownership-rates-of-us-households-by-race-ethnicity/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/250858/dog-or-cat-owners...
      - MBCook 8y ago
        I didn’t know that. Well, if it meets whatever HUD/the courts’ threshold is for something that’s too discriminatory then maybe that’s off the list. I know that pet friendly and non-pet friendly housing exists, so there must be some legal basis. But if the current legal standard meant that it would be illegal to advertise to (or away from) pet owners then yes, I would expect that FB would have to remove those options for housing ads. Guess that wasn’t the clear example I was hoping for.
        quotemstr 8y ago
        Is a "no pets" policy illegal housing discrimination? Why or why not? A "no pets" policy, on its face, would have a disparate impact on different arms of a protected group, and so, on its face, should be illegal. I know that "no pets" policies tolerated at this point. What I want to know is how you or anyone else can justify a "no pets" policy considering the protected group issue I raised above. Is the "no pets" policy just an unprincipled exception [1]? I see no explanation for allowing "no pets" policies other than "yeah, 'no pets' amounts to illegal discrimination, but everyone does it, so it's okay". That's not a good basis on which to organize a society. Why or why not shouldn't people make another unprincipled exception for ad targeting? [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/04/a-series-of-unprincipled-exceptions/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/04/a-series-of-unprinciple...
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    It’s not just (presumably) his position, it’s the law. And there is a good reason for it. Look up red lining.
    - quotemstr 8y ago
      So, is it your opinion that ad targeting is illegal?
      - MBCook 8y ago
        That’s not what anyone here saying and you know it.
        quotemstr 8y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17791675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17791675
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        That's only a counter if you ignore the second half of the sentence. There is a very big difference between no micro-targeting ads ever, and no micro-targeting for housing ads.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  You don't need an insane amount of data. It's easy to figure out if any given criteria will have a disparate impact -- all criteria have a disparate impact.