HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#111

Post by austincheney » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:23 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #85

austincheney wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find those to be distinctly different qualities even if the end result is similar. The distinguishing factor is: Who is performing the discrimination? In one example the discrimination is deliberately performed by an ad supplier. In the other example the discrimination is performed by the audience of the offline publication. I come to this conclusion because it is the audience that is choosing which demographically…

In the example, the building owner/manager isn't randomly choosing a publication to put their ad in. They are acting to discriminate against people that don't (or are merely highly unlikely to) read the magazine.

So? Are the ads in the selected publication forcefully shown to a person otherwise not choosing to read the publication or forcefully denied from a person choosing to read the publication?

Discrimination, in this regard, only occurs if somebody is made to consume or is denied content on the basis of a protected class status.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#112

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:23 PM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #97

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…

The other person's reply to you was really this simple: You are asserting a slippery-slope argument, but this is a situation where there are clear places this doesn't lead. It may be fuzzy instead of a clear line, but there's not actually a slippery slope necessarily. And you need to bear burden to show that there is a slippery slope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

The slippy slope here is already in operation. It's the entire rationale behind prohibiting targeting based on zip code: demographics change from zip code to zip code, so the HUD concludes that targeting by zip code is de facto targeting by demographic.

What logical basis is there for stopping at zip code targeting and not applying the same logic to other demographic correlates?

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#113

Post by nv-vn » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:23 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #108

nv-vn wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think it is reasonable to say that everyone should agree that if there are rules they should be universally applied What happens if the rules are bad rules? E.g. if it's illegal for Facebook to allow advertisements for marijuana dispensaries on a federal level? Clearly that's not something we'd want to see universally applied.

What exactly is your argument? That if there's a bad law on the books, we shouldn't have laws?

My argument is just that not all laws are good, and following the law does not equate to doing the right thing.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#114

Post by Maybestring » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

AdamM12 wrote: post #90

astura wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are enforcing this part of the FHA (emphasis mine): >(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, limitat…

Can't believe you bothered to track down and post this on both my comments lol. Wasn't aware of that part of it. Also just because they can do that doesn't mean they should. Edit: Not sure why this got flagged. I acknowledged that I was unaware of that provision. Simply stated that I thought it was mildly humorous they commented the same thing on both of my comments.

They should. Allowing large commercial entities to facilitilate discrimination and only going after individual landlords would be an extremely inefficient use of limited resources.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#115

Post by jjeaff » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

mynegation wrote: post #86

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

Rhetorical or not, this question deserves to be upvoted more. How is it different from hardware store that sell knives that can be used to cut vegetables or people, at the discretion of the buyer? Maybe a better way to deal with that is a different regulation. Mandate the industry designation in the ad and if it is something protected by existing laws, like housing or job ads, remove filters that allow for adding or…

There isn't a law on the books prohibiting hardware stores from selling knives.

There is a law on the books prohibiting publishers from publishing descriminitory ads, even if they didn't write them.

That's the difference.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#116

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

maym86 wrote: post #101

quotemstr wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure people understand the inevitable progression here. Step 1: HUD files a complaint against Facebook for allowing ad targeting based on certain criteria. Step 2: Facebook bans advertising targeting based on the criteria in the HUD complaint. Step 3: Advertisers react by targeting based on demographic correlates of the categories from step #1. Step 4: HUD notices that ads are still getting delivered more to…

So what about your argument means they shouldn't handle the explicit descrimination cases on their platform better? Just because there might be a fuzzy case in they future why shouldn't they handle the clear cases now? FYI these are the specific points they are going after: -display housing ads either only to men or women; -not show ads to Facebook users interested in an "assistance dog," "mobility scooter," "accessi…

A lot of really bad policy gets enacted because advocates don't honestly ask themselves, "What are the foreseeable consequences of the policy I'm advocating?" That is, a failure to ask the question "And then what?" results in a lot of unnecessary misery.

Your comment essentially restates the HUD's complaint. It doesn't engage with my discussion of the fundamental incompatibility of the HUD's regulatory regime and ad targeting in general. Nobody was ever convinced of anything by someone typing "FYI: [restatement of original premise]".

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#117

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

sincerely wrote: post #106

quotemstr wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it inherently wrong to publish an ad in the Wall Street Journal and not then publish the same ad in Teen Vogue?

No, which suggests to me that something changes when you cross from print advertising to digital advertising, but I'm not sure what.

Is it wrong to publish an ad on the Wall Street Journal website and not run the same ad on the Teen Vogue website?

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#118

Post by jjm » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:26 PM UTC

We simply have laws for these.

If the laws still do not deter then increase the penalty until they’re adhered to. Such that it will leave no such question as to whose responsibility it is.

If we do not want such laws then repeal them.

Only the rule of law will prevail here.

Simply know the rules, or pay the penalty.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#119

Post by phkahler » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:27 PM UTC

AdamM12 wrote: post #95

null000 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No only person that is responsible is the person who placed the ad. Facebook didn't select the target market and write up the copy.

We need to go by the law here, which indicates an ad publisher is guilty in addition to the one who placed the ad. You may argue an opinion about the law, but it looks like Facebook is in violation of it.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#120

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 9:27 PM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #105

quotemstr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Facebook be liable for allowing an advertiser to target a housing ad at people with preferences for organic food?

Our legal system will not hold Facebook liable for a case like that. Should?? Like how things ought to be with the world? Facebook shouldn't even know who prefers organic food. There should be nothing tying that preference to any other aspect of people's lives. Facebook should be more like Reddit where people can have whatever accounts they want and can interact on organic food topics without identifying themselves o…

> Our legal system will not hold Facebook liable for a case like that.

I have to disagree with you on that. I'd put money on targeting a housing advertisement toward someone with a preference for organic food to be ruled discriminatory within five years. It's an unavoidable logical consequence of the logic driving today's complaint.