4 ms·

I'm not really seeing how it's Facebook's job to enforce this particular law as opposed to the HUD whose job it is to go after landlords/sellers doing the actua

I'm not really seeing how it's Facebook's job to enforce this particular law as opposed to the HUD whose job it is to go after landlords/sellers doing the actual discriminating. Just because the advertiser can use these tools to discriminate doesn't mean they actually do or mean they aren't 100% personally responsible to comply with the law. I was kind of under the impression there were checks and balances to prevent these sorts of governmental fishing expeditions...

MBCook 8y ago
Because the text of the law literally says it is. This isn’t a question of an agency interpretating a law to mean X, it’s right there in the text. It was written with newspaper classifieds in mind (and probably other things). But it clearly applies.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination then the section which applies to this case is the "intention to discriminate" clause which requires Facebook to determine intent behind the targeting of the advertisements. And, as we all know, nobody wants Facebook to be the Thought Police. Umm, well...most people don't want Facebook to be the Thought Police but that's besides the point. Now (if HUD's arguments are valid) Facebook needs to determine if a landlord trying to run an efficient ad campaign or is making sure the "wrong kind of people" don't apply to be tenants. Either way the burden of proof is on Facebook since they are directly accountable for the thought processes of a third party simply by giving them the ability to discriminate against prospective tenants while (one would hope) not intending to discriminate against anyone themselves. So, yes, I'm sticking by my original opinion that it isn't Facebook's responsibility to do HUD's job of rooting out the bad actors.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    > If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination Why should we ignore it? It sounds like Facebook allows you to use those exact things to target your ad. Thus the problem.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      Because it applies to cases like "only WASP's need apply" and is clearly not what HUD is concerned with here. Absolutely nobody is arguing that Facebook isn't liable in such a case because it's clearly spelled out in the letter of the law.
      - MBCook 8y ago
        I would think HUD would be very concerned about the fact you can run a housing ad and choose “don’t show the black people“. Yes it’s blatant discrimination, and that’s exactly the problem. The ability to say “don’t show to fans of Soulja Boy“ could certainly be a big problem, and I’m sure they might look into that too, but the first one is still there.
FireBeyond 8y ago
Facebook can tell that something is problematic / illegal. So, Facebook should be free to profit from taking and selling, displaying those ads, without restriction? After all, they're not the ones doing anything illegal, right?

MBCook 8y ago

Because the text of the law literally says it is. This isn’t a question of an agency interpretating a law to mean X, it’s right there in the text. It was written with newspaper classifieds in mind (and probably other things). But it clearly applies.

UncleEntity 8y ago
If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination then the section which applies to this case is the "intention to discriminate" clause which requires Facebook to determine intent behind the targeting of the advertisements. And, as we all know, nobody wants Facebook to be the Thought Police. Umm, well...most people don't want Facebook to be the Thought Police but that's besides the point. Now (if HUD's arguments are valid) Facebook needs to determine if a landlord trying to run an efficient ad campaign or is making sure the "wrong kind of people" don't apply to be tenants. Either way the burden of proof is on Facebook since they are directly accountable for the thought processes of a third party simply by giving them the ability to discriminate against prospective tenants while (one would hope) not intending to discriminate against anyone themselves. So, yes, I'm sticking by my original opinion that it isn't Facebook's responsibility to do HUD's job of rooting out the bad actors.
- MBCook 8y ago
  > If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination Why should we ignore it? It sounds like Facebook allows you to use those exact things to target your ad. Thus the problem.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Because it applies to cases like "only WASP's need apply" and is clearly not what HUD is concerned with here. Absolutely nobody is arguing that Facebook isn't liable in such a case because it's clearly spelled out in the letter of the law.
    - MBCook 8y ago
      I would think HUD would be very concerned about the fact you can run a housing ad and choose “don’t show the black people“. Yes it’s blatant discrimination, and that’s exactly the problem. The ability to say “don’t show to fans of Soulja Boy“ could certainly be a big problem, and I’m sure they might look into that too, but the first one is still there.

FireBeyond 8y ago

Facebook can tell that something is problematic / illegal. So, Facebook should be free to profit from taking and selling, displaying those ads, without restriction? After all, they're not the ones doing anything illegal, right?