6 ms·

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

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.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      I am sure there are plenty of people with money to burn if they could win such a case and make a point in the national news. In fact, they did and LOST. I don’t think such a case is winnable. Even by a seasoned lawyer. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-nightclub-entry-not-human-article-1.1415304 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-nightclub-en... http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/dude-sues-melbourne-nightclub-for-gender-discrimination-after-not-being-allowed-in/ http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/dude-sues-melbourne-nightclub-... Even a place which excludes men openly is allowed to operate, though this is borderlin. Lucille Roberts was a successful chain of female-only gyms advertising itself nationwide as just for women. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/women-only-social-club-the-wing-is-violating-human-rights-law.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/women-only-social-c...
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > the difference is excluding (discriminating) versus targeting. Targeting is legal, discriminating is not. Can you articulate a difference between "targeting" and "discriminating", other than one being legal and one being illegal?
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    Targeting means saying it's a Foo themed event, discriminating means banning non-Foo from entry.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      I wonder about the distinctions legally given machine based tools and context insensitivity and what separates identical results. If one had a list of proxies for every ethnicity and individually assigned all but one would it qualify as legal targeting or illegal discrimination? Would this format derived from US ethnicity census be legal: [x] White [] Black or African American [x] American Indian or Alaska Native [x] Asian or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander but a query of 'exclude "Black or African American"' be considered illegal even if they both map to an abbreviated form of hexadecimal B? Although it could be argued that by making the discriminators have to work harder to figure out how to exercise bigotry in advertising is a reasonable baseline. The spirit of the law is clear but I wonder about the mechanics of it for avoiding all of the gross loopholes and technicalities and enforceability. Just advertising home listings in 'Farmer's Weekly' (for sake of example assuming it has an overwhelmingly white subscriber base) for selling an exurban house wouldn't prove discriminatory intent and short of memos giving racist directives to the marketing department being released.
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

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.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    I am sure there are plenty of people with money to burn if they could win such a case and make a point in the national news. In fact, they did and LOST. I don’t think such a case is winnable. Even by a seasoned lawyer. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-nightclub-entry-not-human-article-1.1415304 http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-nightclub-en... http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/dude-sues-melbourne-nightclub-for-gender-discrimination-after-not-being-allowed-in/ http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/dude-sues-melbourne-nightclub-... Even a place which excludes men openly is allowed to operate, though this is borderlin. Lucille Roberts was a successful chain of female-only gyms advertising itself nationwide as just for women. https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/women-only-social-club-the-wing-is-violating-human-rights-law.html https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/04/women-only-social-c...
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> the difference is excluding (discriminating) versus targeting. Targeting is legal, discriminating is not. Can you articulate a difference between "targeting" and "discriminating", other than one being legal and one being illegal?
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Targeting means saying it's a Foo themed event, discriminating means banning non-Foo from entry.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I wonder about the distinctions legally given machine based tools and context insensitivity and what separates identical results. If one had a list of proxies for every ethnicity and individually assigned all but one would it qualify as legal targeting or illegal discrimination? Would this format derived from US ethnicity census be legal: [x] White [] Black or African American [x] American Indian or Alaska Native [x] Asian or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander but a query of 'exclude "Black or African American"' be considered illegal even if they both map to an abbreviated form of hexadecimal B? Although it could be argued that by making the discriminators have to work harder to figure out how to exercise bigotry in advertising is a reasonable baseline. The spirit of the law is clear but I wonder about the mechanics of it for avoiding all of the gross loopholes and technicalities and enforceability. Just advertising home listings in 'Farmer's Weekly' (for sake of example assuming it has an overwhelmingly white subscriber base) for selling an exurban house wouldn't prove discriminatory intent and short of memos giving racist directives to the marketing department being released.

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