8 ms·

I am not sure I understand the way Fair Housing Act is enforced. Facebook allows ads targeting. This is how it earns money. Apparently some people decided that

I am not sure I understand the way Fair Housing Act is enforced. Facebook allows ads targeting. This is how it earns money. Apparently some people decided that they want to advertise houses to white Christians population, which is illegal in the USA - shouldn't be HUD after those who configured such criteria, not Facebook? Facebook provided only a tool. Nobody is after hardware store because a hammer bought there was used to kill someone.

dave5104 8y ago
Using your analogy, this is probably more akin to somebody going after a hardware store specializing in hammers to kill people. Sure, the government could spend the time trying to track down each individual patron and bring individual charges against each of them, but it's probably easier to go after the supplier and cut everyone off.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  For that, the shop must be in violation of a law. I am not a lawyer, but there are plenty of cases where the crime is punishable, but goods and services involved are not, even though these are clearly designed to facilitate.
techntoke 8y ago
I guess you don't remember Backpage getting taken down? Facebook creates the market for these types of targeted advertising to exist, and they should have at least a basic understanding of the laws and not permit companies to advertise to certain demographics when it would be in clear violation of the law. That's like saying, oh we were too oblivious to understand how the platform we created could be used while we still profited significantly from our mistakes in the meantime.
- thinkingkong 8y ago
  Yeah and Ill argue that in todays current environment thats the “correct” business decision because thats how all the forces line up to push you.
jdavis703 8y ago
These platforms can be overrun by a majority of discriminatory ads. I remember using Craigslist about a decade ago to rent housing in Virginia. Over half the ads easily contained some kind of gender, age, family or religious discrimination (interestingly enough I never saw an ad that explicitly listed race, I suspect that is because explicit racial discrimination is so taboo people used more implicit means of discrimination).
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >interestingly enough I never saw an ad that explicitly listed race... ??? That must've just been Virginia? Where I lived in Houston, they listed unacceptable races all the time. (I suppose they didn't have to though, it was always the same two races listed.)
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Sorry, but I'm curious. I'm guessing white and ???.
    - scrumbledober 8y ago
      I'm guessing white was not one of the UNacceptable races. Being that it was in Texas I think it's fairly obvious which two races they were referring to, but it's not something I'd like to type out.
  - briandear 8y ago
    > Where I lived in Houston, they listed unacceptable races all the time. Definitely going to need a citation for this. I grew up in Houston and never saw an add specifying "unacceptable races" -- perhaps 50+ years ago maybe. My parents were in the rental business and we spent a lot of time looking at (and placing) ads -- never was race listed on an ad that I've ever seen for as long as I can remember (since the mid 1980s.) That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but there'll need to be some proof that the practice was widespread or common if you're to come on a forum and essentially libel a city as racist.
legohead 8y ago
Facebook doesn't have to allow you to target demographics. If you create an ad, mark it as type "housing", then things like race and wealth shouldn't be an option to target. It's illegal. Using your analogy, when you buy a hammer you don't tell the cashier it's for murder.
- bluedino 8y ago
  You're targeting a demographic with every type of ad. Sure, the radio station doesn't have checkboxes of who hears your ad, you just pick the radio station you want your target to be listening too. Same goes for billboards. Suburbs? Subway? The highway 2 towns over? Print media, TV time...the list goes on.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Well, they're free to litigate that question if they think it will help them. That's the beauty of our legal system.
  - whatok 8y ago
    The sticking point is that those advertisements are made to the public and everyone has relatively the same equal access to them. Targeted advertisements through social media completely remove any semblance of equal access.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Laws don't have to be perfect. But they have to be enforceable.
- tzs 8y ago
  As far as I can see neither Federal fair housing rules nor any state fair housing rules would cover wealth. Federal covers race, color, religion, national origin, sex, family status, and disability. Many states add more categories to those protected classes. 13 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and DC consider "source of income" a basis for a protected class, and so you probably couldn't target ads in those states based on that, but I don't see anything that would cover wealth level rather than wealth source. (Neat site with a nice way to look up which state protects what [1]) Since you can have a wealth requirement for renting (e.g., you can require that the person be able to afford the rent), there wouldn't be much point in prohibiting targeting based on that. [1] http://lawatlas.org/datasets/state-fair-housing-protections-1498143743 http://lawatlas.org/datasets/state-fair-housing-protections-...
robdachshund 8y ago
Facebook did not screen the content. They are the one hosting it and are liable. This isn't a case of "innocent item used nefariously." More like the hardware was selling something inherently illegal. FB should be liable for the ads they serve on their site.
reaperducer 8y ago
Facebook provided only a tool. Nobody is after hardware store because a hammer bought there was used to kill someone. Your analogy is faulty. People, governments, and law enforcement agencies go after gun stores that sell guns that are used to kill people.
- empath75 8y ago
  They're actually not allowed to do that unless the sale was illegal.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    It depends on how you define "allowed." Gun stores are pressured out of business and zoned into extinction all the time. There's a reason people from Chicago go to Indiana to buy guns. Also, note the "kill people" phrase in the message you're responding to, and the context of this conversation: committing crimes.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    They're specifically not allowed to do that because the gun manufacturing and sales industry's lobby realized it would essentially kill gun sales.
    - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
      Yes, that would be the consequence of allowing frivolous lawsuits to be brought against companies simply because you don't like the product.
mastax 8y ago
42 U.S. Code § 3604. ...it shall be unlawful— (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.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Yep. >or cause to be made... Key words here. Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too, but selective prosecution or not, Facebook is clearly in violation.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too They probably will. But in this instance it’s much more appropriate the end FBs illegal business practices, rather than continuing to go after ad creators in perpetuity. Turn off the water and fix the leak instead of catching the drops, similar theory to local police flipping low level drug dealers to go after the suppliers.
  - syntheticcdo 8y ago
    Exactly, and the net effect of a single action against Facebook is greater than hundreds of actions against individual discriminatory landlords.Facebook can clean up it's act and prevent (to the best of its ability) legally discriminatory ads, which would deal a huge blow to those individuals who would have committed future discrimination.
  - randyrand 8y ago
    How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made. Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made. edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think its a much better argument to go after them for that then the 'cause' to be made' argument.
notacoward 8y ago
> shouldn't be HUD after those who configured such criteria, not Facebook? Indeed they should. This is basically like going after the phone company because somebody else was using number prefixes as a proxy for race. Even though this is a fundamental property of any system that doesn't explicitly preclude such targeting, Facebook already took steps to limit this type of discrimination in ads for housing or credit. That was good enough for the ACLU, Fair Housing Alliance, and others who have a sincere interest in the matter. It should have been good enough for HUD too, which brings us to the real crux of the matter. Sufficiency of the new limits on targeting was not the sticking point between Facebook and HUD. The sticking point was HUD's demand for all user data, without any safeguards. It's a fishing expedition. What would HUD do with that data? It's not a stretch to believe they'd use it to further this administration's own discriminatory agenda. HUD is not fighting against discrimination at all. They're on the other side of that battle. Rejecting their demand was IMO the right thing to do.
- briandear 8y ago
  > this administration's own discriminatory agenda What discriminatory agenda? By all economic measures, Americans of all races/ethnicities are doing better than they have been in a long time. See Robert Johnson's comments on the topic: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/10/bet_founder_is_right_in_crediting_trump_for_minority_gains_136766.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/10/bet_fo...
  - notacoward 8y ago
    Are you seriously trying to argue that an administration focused on border walls, ICE raids and entrapment, de-funding minority focused programs[1], and providing inspiration for racist killers around the world doesn't have a discriminatory agenda? Because that's just sea-lioning and I don't have any patience for it. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/finance/334768-here-are-the-66-programs-eliminated-in-trumps-budget https://thehill.com/policy/finance/334768-here-are-the-66-pr...
SkyBelow 8y ago
>Nobody is after hardware store because a hammer bought there was used to kill someone. s/hammer/gun/ and you'll find some who are. Not agreeing or disagreeing, only raising the point that some people do seem to judge different tools by different standards based on some criteria that is not immediately visible/available to me.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
highdesertmuse 8y ago
Very clever, but alas, Facebook stopped being a hammer when they started censoring and manipulating content to support their political agenda. If the suit is successful, Facebook will be the official owner of all content on their platform under U.S. Law and be required to exercise due diligence in upholding the law or face the consequences. This will open the door legally to monetizing the value of Facebook's algorithm to the political campaigns it supports which is good news for conservatives in 2020 as Facebook is heavily biased toward the Democrat Party. The new attorney general, Bill Barr, served on Verizon's board of directors and said, during his confirmation hearing, that he intended to address the issue of political bias on social media platforms. Asked, would he use antitrust law? His answer, no, probably something else. Over the past few weeks Congressman Devin Nunez filed suit against Twitter for libel, and now HUD is filing against Facebook for discrimination in housing, also content manipulation. Finally US law is beginning to address the oversized impact of social media on politics, culture, finance, et.al.

dave5104 8y ago

Using your analogy, this is probably more akin to somebody going after a hardware store specializing in hammers to kill people. Sure, the government could spend the time trying to track down each individual patron and bring individual charges against each of them, but it's probably easier to go after the supplier and cut everyone off.

gmueckl 8y ago
For that, the shop must be in violation of a law. I am not a lawyer, but there are plenty of cases where the crime is punishable, but goods and services involved are not, even though these are clearly designed to facilitate.

techntoke 8y ago

I guess you don't remember Backpage getting taken down? Facebook creates the market for these types of targeted advertising to exist, and they should have at least a basic understanding of the laws and not permit companies to advertise to certain demographics when it would be in clear violation of the law. That's like saying, oh we were too oblivious to understand how the platform we created could be used while we still profited significantly from our mistakes in the meantime.

thinkingkong 8y ago
Yeah and Ill argue that in todays current environment thats the “correct” business decision because thats how all the forces line up to push you.

jdavis703 8y ago

These platforms can be overrun by a majority of discriminatory ads. I remember using Craigslist about a decade ago to rent housing in Virginia. Over half the ads easily contained some kind of gender, age, family or religious discrimination (interestingly enough I never saw an ad that explicitly listed race, I suspect that is because explicit racial discrimination is so taboo people used more implicit means of discrimination).

bilbo0s 8y ago
>interestingly enough I never saw an ad that explicitly listed race... ??? That must've just been Virginia? Where I lived in Houston, they listed unacceptable races all the time. (I suppose they didn't have to though, it was always the same two races listed.)
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  Sorry, but I'm curious. I'm guessing white and ???.
  - scrumbledober 8y ago
    I'm guessing white was not one of the UNacceptable races. Being that it was in Texas I think it's fairly obvious which two races they were referring to, but it's not something I'd like to type out.
- briandear 8y ago
  > Where I lived in Houston, they listed unacceptable races all the time. Definitely going to need a citation for this. I grew up in Houston and never saw an add specifying "unacceptable races" -- perhaps 50+ years ago maybe. My parents were in the rental business and we spent a lot of time looking at (and placing) ads -- never was race listed on an ad that I've ever seen for as long as I can remember (since the mid 1980s.) That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but there'll need to be some proof that the practice was widespread or common if you're to come on a forum and essentially libel a city as racist.

legohead 8y ago

Facebook doesn't have to allow you to target demographics. If you create an ad, mark it as type "housing", then things like race and wealth shouldn't be an option to target. It's illegal. Using your analogy, when you buy a hammer you don't tell the cashier it's for murder.

bluedino 8y ago
You're targeting a demographic with every type of ad. Sure, the radio station doesn't have checkboxes of who hears your ad, you just pick the radio station you want your target to be listening too. Same goes for billboards. Suburbs? Subway? The highway 2 towns over? Print media, TV time...the list goes on.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Well, they're free to litigate that question if they think it will help them. That's the beauty of our legal system.
- whatok 8y ago
  The sticking point is that those advertisements are made to the public and everyone has relatively the same equal access to them. Targeted advertisements through social media completely remove any semblance of equal access.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. Laws don't have to be perfect. But they have to be enforceable.
tzs 8y ago
As far as I can see neither Federal fair housing rules nor any state fair housing rules would cover wealth. Federal covers race, color, religion, national origin, sex, family status, and disability. Many states add more categories to those protected classes. 13 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and DC consider "source of income" a basis for a protected class, and so you probably couldn't target ads in those states based on that, but I don't see anything that would cover wealth level rather than wealth source. (Neat site with a nice way to look up which state protects what [1]) Since you can have a wealth requirement for renting (e.g., you can require that the person be able to afford the rent), there wouldn't be much point in prohibiting targeting based on that. [1] http://lawatlas.org/datasets/state-fair-housing-protections-1498143743 http://lawatlas.org/datasets/state-fair-housing-protections-...

robdachshund 8y ago

Facebook did not screen the content. They are the one hosting it and are liable. This isn't a case of "innocent item used nefariously." More like the hardware was selling something inherently illegal. FB should be liable for the ads they serve on their site.

reaperducer 8y ago

Facebook provided only a tool. Nobody is after hardware store because a hammer bought there was used to kill someone. Your analogy is faulty. People, governments, and law enforcement agencies go after gun stores that sell guns that are used to kill people.

empath75 8y ago
They're actually not allowed to do that unless the sale was illegal.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  It depends on how you define "allowed." Gun stores are pressured out of business and zoned into extinction all the time. There's a reason people from Chicago go to Indiana to buy guns. Also, note the "kill people" phrase in the message you're responding to, and the context of this conversation: committing crimes.
- mcguire 8y ago
  They're specifically not allowed to do that because the gun manufacturing and sales industry's lobby realized it would essentially kill gun sales.
  - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
    Yes, that would be the consequence of allowing frivolous lawsuits to be brought against companies simply because you don't like the product.

mastax 8y ago

42 U.S. Code § 3604. ...it shall be unlawful— (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.

bilbo0s 8y ago
Yep. >or cause to be made... Key words here. Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too, but selective prosecution or not, Facebook is clearly in violation.
- will_brown 8y ago
  >Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too They probably will. But in this instance it’s much more appropriate the end FBs illegal business practices, rather than continuing to go after ad creators in perpetuity. Turn off the water and fix the leak instead of catching the drops, similar theory to local police flipping low level drug dealers to go after the suppliers.
- syntheticcdo 8y ago
  Exactly, and the net effect of a single action against Facebook is greater than hundreds of actions against individual discriminatory landlords.Facebook can clean up it's act and prevent (to the best of its ability) legally discriminatory ads, which would deal a huge blow to those individuals who would have committed future discrimination.
- randyrand 8y ago
  How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made. Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made. edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think its a much better argument to go after them for that then the 'cause' to be made' argument.

notacoward 8y ago

> shouldn't be HUD after those who configured such criteria, not Facebook? Indeed they should. This is basically like going after the phone company because somebody else was using number prefixes as a proxy for race. Even though this is a fundamental property of any system that doesn't explicitly preclude such targeting, Facebook already took steps to limit this type of discrimination in ads for housing or credit. That was good enough for the ACLU, Fair Housing Alliance, and others who have a sincere interest in the matter. It should have been good enough for HUD too, which brings us to the real crux of the matter. Sufficiency of the new limits on targeting was not the sticking point between Facebook and HUD. The sticking point was HUD's demand for all user data, without any safeguards. It's a fishing expedition. What would HUD do with that data? It's not a stretch to believe they'd use it to further this administration's own discriminatory agenda. HUD is not fighting against discrimination at all. They're on the other side of that battle. Rejecting their demand was IMO the right thing to do.

briandear 8y ago
> this administration's own discriminatory agenda What discriminatory agenda? By all economic measures, Americans of all races/ethnicities are doing better than they have been in a long time. See Robert Johnson's comments on the topic: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/10/bet_founder_is_right_in_crediting_trump_for_minority_gains_136766.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/10/bet_fo...
- notacoward 8y ago
  Are you seriously trying to argue that an administration focused on border walls, ICE raids and entrapment, de-funding minority focused programs[1], and providing inspiration for racist killers around the world doesn't have a discriminatory agenda? Because that's just sea-lioning and I don't have any patience for it. [1] https://thehill.com/policy/finance/334768-here-are-the-66-programs-eliminated-in-trumps-budget https://thehill.com/policy/finance/334768-here-are-the-66-pr...

SkyBelow 8y ago

>Nobody is after hardware store because a hammer bought there was used to kill someone. s/hammer/gun/ and you'll find some who are. Not agreeing or disagreeing, only raising the point that some people do seem to judge different tools by different standards based on some criteria that is not immediately visible/available to me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

highdesertmuse 8y ago

Very clever, but alas, Facebook stopped being a hammer when they started censoring and manipulating content to support their political agenda. If the suit is successful, Facebook will be the official owner of all content on their platform under U.S. Law and be required to exercise due diligence in upholding the law or face the consequences. This will open the door legally to monetizing the value of Facebook's algorithm to the political campaigns it supports which is good news for conservatives in 2020 as Facebook is heavily biased toward the Democrat Party. The new attorney general, Bill Barr, served on Verizon's board of directors and said, during his confirmation hearing, that he intended to address the issue of political bias on social media platforms. Asked, would he use antitrust law? His answer, no, probably something else. Over the past few weeks Congressman Devin Nunez filed suit against Twitter for libel, and now HUD is filing against Facebook for discrimination in housing, also content manipulation. Finally US law is beginning to address the oversized impact of social media on politics, culture, finance, et.al.