6 ms·

We have regulations on the books that are there as a result of 100 years of painful human experience. Wave a computer screen in someone's face and all of a sud

We have regulations on the books that are there as a result of 100 years of painful human experience. Wave a computer screen in someone's face and all of a sudden it's a different plane of existence and some people feel like these laws don't apply. I'm glad to see there is finally being some push back.

notacoward 8y ago
> some people feel like these laws don't apply That's catchy, but doesn't address the crucial question of which people should be held accountable for using a tool in a discriminatory way. You could argue that the publisher bears some or all of that responsibility, and I'd be fine with that, but shouldn't the advertisers bear some too? Why is HUD only going after Facebook and not them? Hint: the advertisers don't have all of that juicy user data.
- LarryDarrell 8y ago
  FB is a great big platform. Of course they are going to be targeted first. Especially since they have the ability to stop the problem, just as the classified editor at a newspaper can decide, "No, I won't run this ad that says "No Blacks". As that would be a bad idea for both myself and the newspaper given the laws on the books that everyone knows about." Given a finite amount of law enforcement manpower, it makes sense to target the pimp first. Especially if they are national in scale and flaunting it.
- zwkrt 8y ago
  Why do people have this notion that Facebook is some unbiased public space, like an undisturbed forest or a beach where passersby can pedal their wares or something? Facebook is like a dystopian shopping mall combined with Clockwerk Orange reeducation techniques. Due to it's algorithmic nature, Facebook ultimately decides every single post, ad, like, and person you see, and in what order. Creating a housing ad and targeting white people is not like putting an ad on the smooth jazz station, it is like having a storefront in the rich-whites-only section of the Facebook mall. In fact it's even worse because other people don't even know the rich-whites-only section exists, since they can never see it, even if they are your friend! I actually have a hard time imagining how an online system could reinforce existing class and race structures any more than Facebook currently does, short of disallowing users to become friends if it detects that this would be financially disadvantageous to allow.
- bobydonahue 8y ago
  I disagree, if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory and a 'black box', the company who made/provides it is responsible for what it does. You can't just make millions selling an ethically questionable service and shift the blame to your customers who you kept in the dark.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian. Yes, it can also be used in a discriminatory way, but Facebook already tried to address that in the cases HUD only nominally cares about. Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after the phone companies and the postal service too? You could probably apply the same argument to Uber, Airbnb, and every other "gig economy" service as well. What you're suggesting is tantamount to making all targeted advertising illegal. If that's the argument you want to make, make it.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      I Agree certain ads can legitimately target on the basis of age, sex, race and religions. However, as a multi billion dollar ad company FB knows these options are illegal in other instances. I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies or give advertisers the option to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race and religion like Facebook. Last I used FB ads, the process included a submission of my ad to FB for review. Therefore, FB knows if an ad targets based on age, sex, race, and religion and I do think the onus shifts to them to throughly review these types of potentially illegal ads before publishing the same. Certainly FB prohibits advertisers from publishing other types of illegal ads to avoid potential liability (try publishing a cigarette or alcohol ad targeting children) so it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand on these matters and say they don’t bear any liability for the acts of their users.
      - notacoward 8y ago
        > I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation. > the onus shifts to them All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves? > it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand They haven't. They've already taken action on this exact matter, meeting the approval of ACLU and the Fair Housing Alliance. Since when does HUD really have a higher standard than those?
- kartan 8y ago
  copy/past from another comment: 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. The law is clear. The only difference is that the publisher of the advertisement is Facebook instead of the New York Times web or newspaper.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > The law is clear. As usual with law, not so much. Can you say with any certainty that "indicates any preference" doesn't refer to the content of the ad? Allowing an ad to be targeted in a discriminatory way might be wrong morally, but it's not at all clear that the law as written and (so far) interpreted by courts supports your conclusion.
whatok 8y ago
I can totally see how this wasn't anything malicious and just done out of pure ignorance of the law. That said, I would expect this out of a small startup; not a massive corporation. This is actually where I can see the argument for increases in diversity as I can see how a homogeneous group of people being completely ignorant of the ramifications of this.
- michaelchisari 8y ago
  > I can totally see how this wasn't anything malicious and just done out of pure ignorance of the law. I agree that's possible, but that seems to be Facebook's goto excuse, and you're right, that's not something a megacorp should be allowed to reach to.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  A large corporation should be able to afford lawyers that specialize in the legality of advertisements...
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    This is the weird thing. They don't have a legal team? Or are they just not listening to their lawyers? That's a bad idea for anybody.
closeparen 8y ago
The historical precedent for Facebook ad targeting is allocating one's print ad budget according to the readership of a given periodical, or one's TV ad budget according to Nielsen's analysis of a show's audience. Or more personally, advertising the room for rent in your house at your white-collar job but not at the welfare office. Does the Fair Housing Act address this? Doesn't look like it.
- floatrock 8y ago
  How comparable is the historical precedent? Are facebook audiences comparable to different periodicals, or does the level of microtargetting available now make it more like putting your ad in copies of Time delivered to one part of town but not the addresses outside the redline?

notacoward 8y ago

> some people feel like these laws don't apply That's catchy, but doesn't address the crucial question of which people should be held accountable for using a tool in a discriminatory way. You could argue that the publisher bears some or all of that responsibility, and I'd be fine with that, but shouldn't the advertisers bear some too? Why is HUD only going after Facebook and not them? Hint: the advertisers don't have all of that juicy user data.

LarryDarrell 8y ago
FB is a great big platform. Of course they are going to be targeted first. Especially since they have the ability to stop the problem, just as the classified editor at a newspaper can decide, "No, I won't run this ad that says "No Blacks". As that would be a bad idea for both myself and the newspaper given the laws on the books that everyone knows about." Given a finite amount of law enforcement manpower, it makes sense to target the pimp first. Especially if they are national in scale and flaunting it.
zwkrt 8y ago
Why do people have this notion that Facebook is some unbiased public space, like an undisturbed forest or a beach where passersby can pedal their wares or something? Facebook is like a dystopian shopping mall combined with Clockwerk Orange reeducation techniques. Due to it's algorithmic nature, Facebook ultimately decides every single post, ad, like, and person you see, and in what order. Creating a housing ad and targeting white people is not like putting an ad on the smooth jazz station, it is like having a storefront in the rich-whites-only section of the Facebook mall. In fact it's even worse because other people don't even know the rich-whites-only section exists, since they can never see it, even if they are your friend! I actually have a hard time imagining how an online system could reinforce existing class and race structures any more than Facebook currently does, short of disallowing users to become friends if it detects that this would be financially disadvantageous to allow.
bobydonahue 8y ago
I disagree, if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory and a 'black box', the company who made/provides it is responsible for what it does. You can't just make millions selling an ethically questionable service and shift the blame to your customers who you kept in the dark.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian. Yes, it can also be used in a discriminatory way, but Facebook already tried to address that in the cases HUD only nominally cares about. Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after the phone companies and the postal service too? You could probably apply the same argument to Uber, Airbnb, and every other "gig economy" service as well. What you're suggesting is tantamount to making all targeted advertising illegal. If that's the argument you want to make, make it.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    I Agree certain ads can legitimately target on the basis of age, sex, race and religions. However, as a multi billion dollar ad company FB knows these options are illegal in other instances. I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies or give advertisers the option to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race and religion like Facebook. Last I used FB ads, the process included a submission of my ad to FB for review. Therefore, FB knows if an ad targets based on age, sex, race, and religion and I do think the onus shifts to them to throughly review these types of potentially illegal ads before publishing the same. Certainly FB prohibits advertisers from publishing other types of illegal ads to avoid potential liability (try publishing a cigarette or alcohol ad targeting children) so it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand on these matters and say they don’t bear any liability for the acts of their users.
    - notacoward 8y ago
      > I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation. > the onus shifts to them All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves? > it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand They haven't. They've already taken action on this exact matter, meeting the approval of ACLU and the Fair Housing Alliance. Since when does HUD really have a higher standard than those?
kartan 8y ago
copy/past from another comment: 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. The law is clear. The only difference is that the publisher of the advertisement is Facebook instead of the New York Times web or newspaper.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > The law is clear. As usual with law, not so much. Can you say with any certainty that "indicates any preference" doesn't refer to the content of the ad? Allowing an ad to be targeted in a discriminatory way might be wrong morally, but it's not at all clear that the law as written and (so far) interpreted by courts supports your conclusion.

whatok 8y ago

I can totally see how this wasn't anything malicious and just done out of pure ignorance of the law. That said, I would expect this out of a small startup; not a massive corporation. This is actually where I can see the argument for increases in diversity as I can see how a homogeneous group of people being completely ignorant of the ramifications of this.

michaelchisari 8y ago
> I can totally see how this wasn't anything malicious and just done out of pure ignorance of the law. I agree that's possible, but that seems to be Facebook's goto excuse, and you're right, that's not something a megacorp should be allowed to reach to.
SolaceQuantum 8y ago
A large corporation should be able to afford lawyers that specialize in the legality of advertisements...
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  This is the weird thing. They don't have a legal team? Or are they just not listening to their lawyers? That's a bad idea for anybody.

closeparen 8y ago

The historical precedent for Facebook ad targeting is allocating one's print ad budget according to the readership of a given periodical, or one's TV ad budget according to Nielsen's analysis of a show's audience. Or more personally, advertising the room for rent in your house at your white-collar job but not at the welfare office. Does the Fair Housing Act address this? Doesn't look like it.

floatrock 8y ago
How comparable is the historical precedent? Are facebook audiences comparable to different periodicals, or does the level of microtargetting available now make it more like putting your ad in copies of Time delivered to one part of town but not the addresses outside the redline?