HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

Post by quadrangle » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #75

Followed to its logical conclusion, this sort of complaint prohibits all ad targeting, and that's a very bad thing. Practically any criterion X you might use to restrict an ad's audience will have non-uniform correlations with group demographics. You can't wish away these correlations: they're true facts about the world. These non-uniform correlations allow activists to argue that allowing advertisers to target based…

Post by maym86 » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #89

maym86 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always go on to the abstract cases when we are discussing a specific example? > Where exactly does it stop? It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Housing and job adverts cannot be explicitly descriminatory. It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. You have to do your best and take precautions to avoid descrimination. When a platform doesn't do that then there's a p…

> It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Since we're discussing the scenarios that the law might cover, your claim seems rather circular. > It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. The entire point of my post is that the line isn't neat and clear at all. Very similar concerns come up in various other contexts, and we as a society are going to have to deal with the internal contra…

Post by AdamM12 » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 8:59 PM UTC

null000 wrote: post #74

AdamM12 wrote: post #64

Why is Facebook in trouble for this and not the persons who actually placed the ads? They aren't the ones renting the real estate. They don't own it. Government overreach imo. Edit: grammatical mistakes

This is similar to if the NYT ran discriminatory ads - which is an actual case from the 1980s and resulted in both notable fines, and the NYT having humans review housing ads for discriminatory practices, such as having an unrepresentably white set of models in housing ads (from one of the propublica links in some of the other comments). Same goes for craigslist, which also has to screen housing ads. I'd argue both a…

Post by quadrangle » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:01 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #89

maym86 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people always go on to the abstract cases when we are discussing a specific example? > Where exactly does it stop? It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Housing and job adverts cannot be explicitly descriminatory. It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. You have to do your best and take precautions to avoid descrimination. When a platform doesn't do that then there's a p…

> It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Since we're discussing the scenarios that the law might cover, your claim seems rather circular. > It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. The entire point of my post is that the line isn't neat and clear at all. Very similar concerns come up in various other contexts, and we as a society are going to have to deal with the internal contra…

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

maym86 wrote: post #93

quotemstr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It stops in cases when it's not protected and not breaking the law. Since we're discussing the scenarios that the law might cover, your claim seems rather circular. > It's a clear existing law. There is a clear line. The entire point of my post is that the line isn't neat and clear at all. Very similar concerns come up in various other contexts, and we as a society are going to have to deal with the internal contra…

Sure, but the point is Facebook should be taking minimum steps to actively avoid descrimination. It currently is not. Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good and they can do better.