7 ms·

You're missing the point, though, which is not that the advertisers can target the models in the ads, but so they can choose _not_ to show ads to "undesireable"

You're missing the point, though, which is not that the advertisers can target the models in the ads, but so they can choose _not_ to show ads to "undesireable" people, like people with kids, or of a certain ethnicity or religion. This sort of practice is an extremely pervasive problem that has led to enormous amounts of systemic inequality.

dennisgorelik 8y ago
What is the problem with not showing rental ads to people with kids? If landlord does not want to rent out to people with kids - I (as a parent with kids) do NOT want to see that ad. How forcing landlord to advertise to categories they do not want to serve -- would help to anybody?
- cup 8y ago
  Is this a serious question? Are you really that insulated?
- trashcan 8y ago
  The problem is that it is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act You can't choose to rent based on familial status.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    I understand and agree that it's wrong. On a purely theoretical level, I think the question is philosophical. They're not turning these people away, just not trying to draw them in. This happens elsewhere in society, right or wrong. Examples: gay bars, "black" churches, biker establishments.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      It’s is specifically illegal to advertise real estate based on such criteria. https://nationalfairhousing.org/responsibleadvertising/ https://nationalfairhousing.org/responsibleadvertising/
  - trashcan 8y ago
    I can't reply to you cabaalis, but the difference is excluding (discriminating) versus targeting. Targeting is legal, discriminating is not. As in the Alamo Drafthouse is more than welcome to have a women's night event for a particular movie, but if they refuse men at the door solely for their gender, that is illegal. https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/alamo-drafthouse-admits-violation-for-women-only-wonder-woman-screening/994661866 https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/alamo-drafthouse-admi...
    - wavefunction 8y ago
      That's just a municipal ordinance and not a Constitutional result. It's not much of a result. I live in Austin and support the Drafthouse's lighthearted attempt to offer women an opportunity to enjoy themselves by themselves.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Targeting is not legal when it comes to real estate advertising.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      Listen, in most cities they turn away men based on gender, or make them pay a cover, while they let well-dressed women in. That is their business model. I guess they can claim that men's attraction to women is a compelling business reason, which I believe may be an exception to the anti-discrimination laws. Similar to women-only gyms saying that women's desire to avoid men while working out is a compelling business reason. I am not a lawyer but it always struck me as unfair to a whole gender to treat them differently when they want to enter nightclubs. But of course this policy is also very ageist, biased against heavyset people etc. So do we ban that as well, since it's not something people can control?
      - bsder 8y ago
        Both situations you have cited are actually probably in violation of the law. The issue is that nobody is really going to be bothered to spend the money to haul those things into court. If I'm willing to spend that much money, I can apply that same amount of money and wind up using it far more effectively than getting into a specific club or gym.
  - dennisgorelik 8y ago
    Could you please explain how exactly Fair Housing Act makes Facebook filtering illegal? Lack of advertising is not the same as "refuse to sell".
    - samfisher83 8y ago
      It says right on the wiki page: Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, disability or national origin. Tech has changed so you can do the targeting. You are violating the spirit of the law. The point is if you make sure blacks, Mexicans, or women can't see your ad you are trying to exclude them.
      - dennisgorelik 8y ago
        But privately filtering who this ad will show to -- is NOT the same as publicly "advertising ... indicating preference". > You are violating the spirit of the law. No. The spirit of the law is to prohibit public racial propaganda. The spirit of the law is NOT about hunting down private biases.
        zapita 8y ago
        > The spirit of the law is to prohibit public racial propaganda. The spirit of the law is NOT about hunting down private biases. I have no idea what you’re talking about with the “propaganda”, but everything you need to know is right there in the announcement: “The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing transactions including print and online advertisement on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. HUD's Secretary-initiated complaint follows the Department's investigation into Facebook's advertising platform which includes targeting tools that enable advertisers to filter prospective tenants or homebuyers based on these protected classes.” So both the spirit and letter of the law forbid discrimination, and they are arguing that Facebook enables illegal discrimination on their platform.
        8y ago
- vageli 8y ago
  Because it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of having kids? https://www.thebalance.com/fair-housing-act-violation-1798892 https://www.thebalance.com/fair-housing-act-violation-179889...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
rattray 8y ago
I think they're saying that the tool may have been used like this: 1) Create an ad targeting straight couples, and hide it from gay couples. 2) Create an ad targeting gay couples, and hide it from straight couples. If you query for "is anyone running an ad hidden from gay couples", this would return "yes". However, my hunch (hope?) is that the prosecution was clever enough to account for this, and are specifically finding ad campaigns which are "unbalanced" (eg; there is no ad targeting group X).
- alx_hghs 8y ago
  Sounds reminiscent of the separate but equal argument
  - rocqua 8y ago
    It seems rather easy to solve to me. Are the adds structured to exclude certain groups from certain properties: Problem Are the adds structured to engage each group as much as possible: No problem. There might be some grey area where you decide not to market certain properties to certain groups, because you think they aren't interested rather then because you don't want them.
patrickaljord 8y ago
I have kids and am of Muslim origin and I have absolutely no problem with this: > _not_ to show ads to "undesireable" people, like people with kids, or of a certain religion What if I have a bar in Vegas almost exclusively frequented by young people in their twenties who go their to get drunk and meet singles. Why would I want to waste money showing an ad to people with kids who will not be interested and bring way less conversions than people with no kids in their twenties? What if I open a delicatessen shop that makes most of its business on porc meat and liquor, would I get a lot of conversions by paying to show such an ad to Muslims or would I be wasting money? What you want is advertisers to show their ads to people who are not interested and lose their money. That doesn't seem fair to me. People of different family situation (kids or no kids) or religions don't always share the same interests and that's ok.
- azernik 8y ago
  That's totally fine; the law only cares about specific markets of life-altering importance like housing, employment, and probably a couple of others that I can't think of off the top of my head.
- skinnymuch 8y ago
  This isn’t a blanket law against everything. Your bar ad for twenty-somethings for example is perfectly fine and exactly what everyone would do.

dennisgorelik 8y ago

What is the problem with not showing rental ads to people with kids? If landlord does not want to rent out to people with kids - I (as a parent with kids) do NOT want to see that ad. How forcing landlord to advertise to categories they do not want to serve -- would help to anybody?

cup 8y ago
Is this a serious question? Are you really that insulated?
trashcan 8y ago
The problem is that it is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act You can't choose to rent based on familial status.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  I understand and agree that it's wrong. On a purely theoretical level, I think the question is philosophical. They're not turning these people away, just not trying to draw them in. This happens elsewhere in society, right or wrong. Examples: gay bars, "black" churches, biker establishments.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It’s is specifically illegal to advertise real estate based on such criteria. https://nationalfairhousing.org/responsibleadvertising/ https://nationalfairhousing.org/responsibleadvertising/
- trashcan 8y ago
  I can't reply to you cabaalis, but the difference is excluding (discriminating) versus targeting. Targeting is legal, discriminating is not. As in the Alamo Drafthouse is more than welcome to have a women's night event for a particular movie, but if they refuse men at the door solely for their gender, that is illegal. https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/alamo-drafthouse-admits-violation-for-women-only-wonder-woman-screening/994661866 https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/alamo-drafthouse-admi...
  - wavefunction 8y ago
    That's just a municipal ordinance and not a Constitutional result. It's not much of a result. I live in Austin and support the Drafthouse's lighthearted attempt to offer women an opportunity to enjoy themselves by themselves.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Targeting is not legal when it comes to real estate advertising.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    Listen, in most cities they turn away men based on gender, or make them pay a cover, while they let well-dressed women in. That is their business model. I guess they can claim that men's attraction to women is a compelling business reason, which I believe may be an exception to the anti-discrimination laws. Similar to women-only gyms saying that women's desire to avoid men while working out is a compelling business reason. I am not a lawyer but it always struck me as unfair to a whole gender to treat them differently when they want to enter nightclubs. But of course this policy is also very ageist, biased against heavyset people etc. So do we ban that as well, since it's not something people can control?
    - bsder 8y ago
      Both situations you have cited are actually probably in violation of the law. The issue is that nobody is really going to be bothered to spend the money to haul those things into court. If I'm willing to spend that much money, I can apply that same amount of money and wind up using it far more effectively than getting into a specific club or gym.
- dennisgorelik 8y ago
  Could you please explain how exactly Fair Housing Act makes Facebook filtering illegal? Lack of advertising is not the same as "refuse to sell".
  - samfisher83 8y ago
    It says right on the wiki page: Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, disability or national origin. Tech has changed so you can do the targeting. You are violating the spirit of the law. The point is if you make sure blacks, Mexicans, or women can't see your ad you are trying to exclude them.
    - dennisgorelik 8y ago
      But privately filtering who this ad will show to -- is NOT the same as publicly "advertising ... indicating preference". > You are violating the spirit of the law. No. The spirit of the law is to prohibit public racial propaganda. The spirit of the law is NOT about hunting down private biases.
      - zapita 8y ago
        > The spirit of the law is to prohibit public racial propaganda. The spirit of the law is NOT about hunting down private biases. I have no idea what you’re talking about with the “propaganda”, but everything you need to know is right there in the announcement: “The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing transactions including print and online advertisement on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. HUD's Secretary-initiated complaint follows the Department's investigation into Facebook's advertising platform which includes targeting tools that enable advertisers to filter prospective tenants or homebuyers based on these protected classes.” So both the spirit and letter of the law forbid discrimination, and they are arguing that Facebook enables illegal discrimination on their platform.
        8y ago
vageli 8y ago
Because it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of having kids? https://www.thebalance.com/fair-housing-act-violation-1798892 https://www.thebalance.com/fair-housing-act-violation-179889...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rattray 8y ago

I think they're saying that the tool may have been used like this: 1) Create an ad targeting straight couples, and hide it from gay couples. 2) Create an ad targeting gay couples, and hide it from straight couples. If you query for "is anyone running an ad hidden from gay couples", this would return "yes". However, my hunch (hope?) is that the prosecution was clever enough to account for this, and are specifically finding ad campaigns which are "unbalanced" (eg; there is no ad targeting group X).

alx_hghs 8y ago
Sounds reminiscent of the separate but equal argument
- rocqua 8y ago
  It seems rather easy to solve to me. Are the adds structured to exclude certain groups from certain properties: Problem Are the adds structured to engage each group as much as possible: No problem. There might be some grey area where you decide not to market certain properties to certain groups, because you think they aren't interested rather then because you don't want them.

patrickaljord 8y ago

I have kids and am of Muslim origin and I have absolutely no problem with this: > _not_ to show ads to "undesireable" people, like people with kids, or of a certain religion What if I have a bar in Vegas almost exclusively frequented by young people in their twenties who go their to get drunk and meet singles. Why would I want to waste money showing an ad to people with kids who will not be interested and bring way less conversions than people with no kids in their twenties? What if I open a delicatessen shop that makes most of its business on porc meat and liquor, would I get a lot of conversions by paying to show such an ad to Muslims or would I be wasting money? What you want is advertisers to show their ads to people who are not interested and lose their money. That doesn't seem fair to me. People of different family situation (kids or no kids) or religions don't always share the same interests and that's ok.

azernik 8y ago
That's totally fine; the law only cares about specific markets of life-altering importance like housing, employment, and probably a couple of others that I can't think of off the top of my head.
skinnymuch 8y ago
This isn’t a blanket law against everything. Your bar ad for twenty-somethings for example is perfectly fine and exactly what everyone would do.