4 ms·
> Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea. It's worked pretty well for discriminatory housing ads.
by azernik 8y ago
> Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea.
It's worked pretty well for discriminatory housing ads.
- true_religion 8y agoBecause you can tell from the ad choice that it is discrinatory, and you cannot abet a crime knowingly. With political ads? What is the crime being committed? If it is fraud, then we make it illegal to place an ad without rendering your ID, like with a bank account.
- tracker1 8y agoHow so? Is craigslist required to pre-screen housing ads? I don't think so. The ads themselves are illegal, but there's no legal requirement to pre-screen that I'm aware of.
- azernik 8y agoOnline outlets have a specific exemption for user-created content (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legal); https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legal); print outlets do, indeed, have to pre-screen ads and that's worked very well. Even for tech companies, that exemption is limited; Craigslist got an exemption, but Roommates.com didn't because of the level to which its platform actively encouraged discriminating on prohibited categories. Facebook is even now being pursued by HUD over its own tools allowing housing ads to be targeted by race, gender, ZIP code, or disability. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/19/640002304/hud-hits-facebook-for-allowing-housing-discrimination https://www.npr.org/2018/08/19/640002304/hud-hits-facebook-f...