6 ms·

Why is Facebook in trouble for this and not the persons who actually placed the ads? They aren't the ones renting the real estate. They don't own it. Government

Why is Facebook in trouble for this and not the persons who actually placed the ads? They aren't the ones renting the real estate. They don't own it. Government overreach imo. Edit: grammatical mistakes

null000 8y ago
This is similar to if the NYT ran discriminatory ads - which is an actual case from the 1980s and resulted in both notable fines, and the NYT having humans review housing ads for discriminatory practices, such as having an unrepresentably white set of models in housing ads (from one of the propublica links in some of the other comments). Same goes for craigslist, which also has to screen housing ads. I'd argue both are responsible - the platform hosting the ad and the people making the ad.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  No only person that is responsible is the person who placed the ad. Facebook didn't select the target market and write up the copy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - phkahler 8y ago
    We need to go by the law here, which indicates an ad publisher is guilty in addition to the one who placed the ad. You may argue an opinion about the law, but it looks like Facebook is in violation of it.
  - dibstern 8y ago
    You just want to change the law to benefit Facebook. Seems odd. Your other comments state that you value the ideal entirely over the practical, with the practical having no value to you at all. Fortunately, the practical is considered important by lawmakers.
  - fma 8y ago
    I feel like FB could have covered their ass if they had a pop up menu for every rental ad that says "All ads must abide by the Fair Housing Act...click for more info. Check this box if you acknowledge your advertising practice abides by it"
astura 8y ago
They are enforcing this part of the FHA (emphasis mine): >(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. If people actually did place housing discrimination ads they'd also be in violation of the law. (In general, laws are usually written in a way to prevent profiting off of illegal behavior)
- AdamM12 8y ago
  Can't believe you bothered to track down and post this on both my comments lol. Wasn't aware of that part of it. Also just because they can do that doesn't mean they should. Edit: Not sure why this got flagged. I acknowledged that I was unaware of that provision. Simply stated that I thought it was mildly humorous they commented the same thing on both of my comments.
  - Maybestring 8y ago
    They should. Allowing large commercial entities to facilitilate discrimination and only going after individual landlords would be an extremely inefficient use of limited resources.
    - AdamM12 8y ago
      The inefficiency of the process shouldn't be a deciding factor. Should be the justness of it. Facebook isn't discriminating. We don't punish shipping companies when their resources are used for drug smuggling. We punish the individuals involved in the illicit act. edit: Not entirely sure how arguing that our system should be a just one more so than one that goes after what is easiest is getting down voted so much but ok.
      - AdamM12 8y ago
        Facebook isn't a party to a potential rental contract or contract to sale. They aren't in a position to deny someone housing.
mynegation 8y ago
Rhetorical or not, this question deserves to be upvoted more. How is it different from hardware store that sell knives that can be used to cut vegetables or people, at the discretion of the buyer? Maybe a better way to deal with that is a different regulation. Mandate the industry designation in the ad and if it is something protected by existing laws, like housing or job ads, remove filters that allow for adding or removing by protected category from the interface.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  There isn't a law on the books prohibiting hardware stores from selling knives. There is a law on the books prohibiting publishers from publishing descriminitory ads, even if they didn't write them. That's the difference.
  - AdamM12 8y ago
    The difference is that the law shouldn't even be on the books imo. The person discriminating is the private property owner/manager they engaged in the advertising. Facebook did not.
    - mikec3010 8y ago
      We live in the Ninny Age where our government protectors have to protect the Sacred Minority. Right dang? It's illegal to think otherwise.
    - MBCook 8y ago
      Knives have legal uses. In the context of housing ads (or employment) these tools DO NOT have legal uses. Thus they are illegal.
      - mynegation 8y ago
        I don’t argue that ads in the context of housing is illegal. Targeting specific demographic using protected categories in other areas can be legal too. As a pharmaceutical company you can target women, men, seniors for targeted medications. As a LGBTQ dating site you can target based on sexual orientation and cis/trans. It is not illegal. Housing and jobs (maybe something else) are covered by specific legislation.
reaperducer 8y ago
Why is Facebook in trouble for this and not the persons who actually placed the ads? Wait for it.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  What are we waiting for?
joejerryronnie 8y ago
Technically, the people who placed the ads are also liable. Practically speaking, which one sounds better: "HUD files discrimination complaint against Facebook" or "HUD files discrimination complaint against Jimmy's Duplex-Mania in rural Alabama"?
- AdamM12 8y ago
  But is HUD going after them?
  - mastax 8y ago
    Raise the relevant budgets, hire a few thousand more US Attorneys and maybe they'll get around to it.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    HUD wouldn't be the ones to go after them. Per how the US Government works, the Department of Justice[1] would be the ones to go after the individuals involved. If you go to the DoJ website they have some very recent press releases on redlining prosecution, but I get the feeling it would take a while to figure out if any are related to Facebook ads (there search sucks). 1) https://www.justice.gov/usao/about-offices-united-states-attorneys https://www.justice.gov/usao/about-offices-united-states-att...
TomMckenny 8y ago
If I'm paid to publish ads for hitmen, am I innocent because I didn't write them?
scarface74 8y ago
Because it’s the law. Newspapers also take steps to make sure they are compliant with the Fair Housing Act.

null000 8y ago

This is similar to if the NYT ran discriminatory ads - which is an actual case from the 1980s and resulted in both notable fines, and the NYT having humans review housing ads for discriminatory practices, such as having an unrepresentably white set of models in housing ads (from one of the propublica links in some of the other comments). Same goes for craigslist, which also has to screen housing ads. I'd argue both are responsible - the platform hosting the ad and the people making the ad.

AdamM12 8y ago
No only person that is responsible is the person who placed the ad. Facebook didn't select the target market and write up the copy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- phkahler 8y ago
  We need to go by the law here, which indicates an ad publisher is guilty in addition to the one who placed the ad. You may argue an opinion about the law, but it looks like Facebook is in violation of it.
- dibstern 8y ago
  You just want to change the law to benefit Facebook. Seems odd. Your other comments state that you value the ideal entirely over the practical, with the practical having no value to you at all. Fortunately, the practical is considered important by lawmakers.
- fma 8y ago
  I feel like FB could have covered their ass if they had a pop up menu for every rental ad that says "All ads must abide by the Fair Housing Act...click for more info. Check this box if you acknowledge your advertising practice abides by it"

astura 8y ago

They are enforcing this part of the FHA (emphasis mine): >(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. If people actually did place housing discrimination ads they'd also be in violation of the law. (In general, laws are usually written in a way to prevent profiting off of illegal behavior)

AdamM12 8y ago
Can't believe you bothered to track down and post this on both my comments lol. Wasn't aware of that part of it. Also just because they can do that doesn't mean they should. Edit: Not sure why this got flagged. I acknowledged that I was unaware of that provision. Simply stated that I thought it was mildly humorous they commented the same thing on both of my comments.
- Maybestring 8y ago
  They should. Allowing large commercial entities to facilitilate discrimination and only going after individual landlords would be an extremely inefficient use of limited resources.
  - AdamM12 8y ago
    The inefficiency of the process shouldn't be a deciding factor. Should be the justness of it. Facebook isn't discriminating. We don't punish shipping companies when their resources are used for drug smuggling. We punish the individuals involved in the illicit act. edit: Not entirely sure how arguing that our system should be a just one more so than one that goes after what is easiest is getting down voted so much but ok.
    - AdamM12 8y ago
      Facebook isn't a party to a potential rental contract or contract to sale. They aren't in a position to deny someone housing.

mynegation 8y ago

Rhetorical or not, this question deserves to be upvoted more. How is it different from hardware store that sell knives that can be used to cut vegetables or people, at the discretion of the buyer? Maybe a better way to deal with that is a different regulation. Mandate the industry designation in the ad and if it is something protected by existing laws, like housing or job ads, remove filters that allow for adding or removing by protected category from the interface.

jjeaff 8y ago
There isn't a law on the books prohibiting hardware stores from selling knives. There is a law on the books prohibiting publishers from publishing descriminitory ads, even if they didn't write them. That's the difference.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  The difference is that the law shouldn't even be on the books imo. The person discriminating is the private property owner/manager they engaged in the advertising. Facebook did not.
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    We live in the Ninny Age where our government protectors have to protect the Sacred Minority. Right dang? It's illegal to think otherwise.
  - MBCook 8y ago
    Knives have legal uses. In the context of housing ads (or employment) these tools DO NOT have legal uses. Thus they are illegal.
    - mynegation 8y ago
      I don’t argue that ads in the context of housing is illegal. Targeting specific demographic using protected categories in other areas can be legal too. As a pharmaceutical company you can target women, men, seniors for targeted medications. As a LGBTQ dating site you can target based on sexual orientation and cis/trans. It is not illegal. Housing and jobs (maybe something else) are covered by specific legislation.

reaperducer 8y ago

Why is Facebook in trouble for this and not the persons who actually placed the ads? Wait for it.

AdamM12 8y ago
What are we waiting for?

joejerryronnie 8y ago

Technically, the people who placed the ads are also liable. Practically speaking, which one sounds better: "HUD files discrimination complaint against Facebook" or "HUD files discrimination complaint against Jimmy's Duplex-Mania in rural Alabama"?

AdamM12 8y ago
But is HUD going after them?
- mastax 8y ago
  Raise the relevant budgets, hire a few thousand more US Attorneys and maybe they'll get around to it.
- protomyth 8y ago
  HUD wouldn't be the ones to go after them. Per how the US Government works, the Department of Justice[1] would be the ones to go after the individuals involved. If you go to the DoJ website they have some very recent press releases on redlining prosecution, but I get the feeling it would take a while to figure out if any are related to Facebook ads (there search sucks). 1) https://www.justice.gov/usao/about-offices-united-states-attorneys https://www.justice.gov/usao/about-offices-united-states-att...

TomMckenny 8y ago

If I'm paid to publish ads for hitmen, am I innocent because I didn't write them?

scarface74 8y ago

Because it’s the law. Newspapers also take steps to make sure they are compliant with the Fair Housing Act.