3 ms·

No, if you get a radio license and so something illegal with it, that's your fault, and the FCC is the authority that can punish you for it. In this case, just

by dsr_ 8y ago

No, if you get a radio license and so something illegal with it, that's your fault, and the FCC is the authority that can punish you for it. In this case, just like Facebook. Your responsibility, handed to you with the license, is to not do illegal things, even if people want to pay you money to do it. It's especially bad if you build an automated system that has options for people to do illegal things, since you are in charge of that. The FCC may or may not go after the people who bought the illegal-thing-service from you, but they will definitely go after you. And the correct solution is to not have the options open in the first place. "Would you like to place an ad? Is it for real estate or housing in any way? OK, the following advertising options are open to you, but others have been turned off in order to comply with the law."

jrockway 8y ago
I'm not sure I agree. If someone buys a radio to transmit illegally, the advertising platform they viewed the ad for the radio on isn't liable, nor is the place they bought it from, nor is the manufacturer or importer. (There is quite the controversy around people buying Baofeng radios to transmit illegally. Amazon is happy to sell you one, no questions asked.) This extends to many areas. Gun manufacturers aren't liable when someone goes on a shooting spree with a gun, for example. I feel like this is a slippery slope. Facebook lets anyone advertise anything, and gives everyone the same targeting tools. If you use them illegally, that should be on you, not on Facebook. Just like how you can use a screwdriver to screw in screws, or to go around stabbing people with it. The difference is that screwdrivers are a well-understood tool, whereas ad targeting tools are new and scary. If you want to make advertising illegal, I'm fine with that, but good luck.
- mcny 8y ago
  I can agree with you if the ad network publishes a transparency report that is publicly available and includes all ad activity on its network. I doubt anyone will agree to this. They'll cite privacy and security and blah blah. Just to be clear, we're talking about targeted advertising. I don't know how we can fix this issue. Maybe Facebook can ask tell type of an ad something is?
  - Pyxl101 8y ago
    How about: it’s the responsibility of people posting ads on Facebook to follow the laws that apply to them. I don’t see why it’s Facebook’s responsibility to police advertising for housing and control how it’s targeted. If advertisers use illegal targeting then that should be on them.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      The people publishing these ads are literally paying Facebook to do so. IANAL but as far as I know it's not legal to profit off illegal activity. Facebook are, themselves, breaking the law here.
      - BurningFrog 8y ago
        What law specifically makes it illegal "to profit off illegal activity"? That sounds incredibly broad and impossible to to avoid.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        I imagine you'd be considered an accessory to the act in question. There are also laws like this [1], although they don't apply to this situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law
    - Faark 8y ago
      Why does it always have to be either-or. Can't we all agree that Facebook also has some responsibility to prevent abuse? I'm not saying they have to make sure no one can ever break a law using their platform. But once they become aware people are abusing it to do so, how can you say it's fine for them to ignore it. This seems to be the case, as far as i understand that filing. That's how you end with government having to impose regulation. I'd prefer Facebook willingly work with law enforcement or/and their clients to make sure forced intervention won't be necessary.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  Are there any lawyers in this thread, or is everyone speaking out of their asses? Jesus, this is giving me flashbacks to /.
- jypepin 8y ago
  but it's not really what's happening here. If a gun manufacturer sells you a gun where it is legal to sell gun, then they are neither doing something illegal, nor directly giving you tools to do something illegal. They can't control what you will do with the gun, but they also don't tell you where it's safe to go kill people with it, and mostly give you safety instructions. Here it is the same thing with Facebook. If they sell you a platform for advertising, they might not be able to control 100% of the content of the ads, some bad stuff might slip. But they should NOT offer you tools to publish illegal ads. In that case, being able to filter ads by race is illegal, and it's on them to offer this option. It would be a different story if there was no option and a publisher just wrote "no people of <race>".
- azernik 8y ago
  The law in question specifically makes the publisher liable. (It has been applied to newspapers in the past.)

by dsr_ 8y ago

jrockway 8y ago

I'm not sure I agree. If someone buys a radio to transmit illegally, the advertising platform they viewed the ad for the radio on isn't liable, nor is the place they bought it from, nor is the manufacturer or importer. (There is quite the controversy around people buying Baofeng radios to transmit illegally. Amazon is happy to sell you one, no questions asked.) This extends to many areas. Gun manufacturers aren't liable when someone goes on a shooting spree with a gun, for example. I feel like this is a slippery slope. Facebook lets anyone advertise anything, and gives everyone the same targeting tools. If you use them illegally, that should be on you, not on Facebook. Just like how you can use a screwdriver to screw in screws, or to go around stabbing people with it. The difference is that screwdrivers are a well-understood tool, whereas ad targeting tools are new and scary. If you want to make advertising illegal, I'm fine with that, but good luck.

mcny 8y ago
I can agree with you if the ad network publishes a transparency report that is publicly available and includes all ad activity on its network. I doubt anyone will agree to this. They'll cite privacy and security and blah blah. Just to be clear, we're talking about targeted advertising. I don't know how we can fix this issue. Maybe Facebook can ask tell type of an ad something is?
- Pyxl101 8y ago
  How about: it’s the responsibility of people posting ads on Facebook to follow the laws that apply to them. I don’t see why it’s Facebook’s responsibility to police advertising for housing and control how it’s targeted. If advertisers use illegal targeting then that should be on them.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    The people publishing these ads are literally paying Facebook to do so. IANAL but as far as I know it's not legal to profit off illegal activity. Facebook are, themselves, breaking the law here.
    - BurningFrog 8y ago
      What law specifically makes it illegal "to profit off illegal activity"? That sounds incredibly broad and impossible to to avoid.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        I imagine you'd be considered an accessory to the act in question. There are also laws like this [1], although they don't apply to this situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law
  - Faark 8y ago
    Why does it always have to be either-or. Can't we all agree that Facebook also has some responsibility to prevent abuse? I'm not saying they have to make sure no one can ever break a law using their platform. But once they become aware people are abusing it to do so, how can you say it's fine for them to ignore it. This seems to be the case, as far as i understand that filing. That's how you end with government having to impose regulation. I'd prefer Facebook willingly work with law enforcement or/and their clients to make sure forced intervention won't be necessary.
lallysingh 8y ago
Are there any lawyers in this thread, or is everyone speaking out of their asses? Jesus, this is giving me flashbacks to /.
jypepin 8y ago
but it's not really what's happening here. If a gun manufacturer sells you a gun where it is legal to sell gun, then they are neither doing something illegal, nor directly giving you tools to do something illegal. They can't control what you will do with the gun, but they also don't tell you where it's safe to go kill people with it, and mostly give you safety instructions. Here it is the same thing with Facebook. If they sell you a platform for advertising, they might not be able to control 100% of the content of the ads, some bad stuff might slip. But they should NOT offer you tools to publish illegal ads. In that case, being able to filter ads by race is illegal, and it's on them to offer this option. It would be a different story if there was no option and a publisher just wrote "no people of <race>".
azernik 8y ago
The law in question specifically makes the publisher liable. (It has been applied to newspapers in the past.)