281–290 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These aren't requirements though; it's not like saying you must speak Italian to live here. It's more like advertising a job posting for a doctor in a medical journal instead of a car magazine.
Your metaphor is off. It's like advertising a job posting for a doctor only in majority-white medical schools.
In most verticals marketers will have a set of ads for different demographics: say gay, suburban, latino, black, Spanish-speaking, etc. Each of those campaigns will have different creative: for example, a real estate ad targeted to latinos will have an image showing a smiling latino couple. I can understand why the marketer would not want to show this creative to white, black, or asians -- given that they're targetin…
You're missing the point, though, which is not that the advertisers can target the models in the ads, but so they can choose _not_ to show ads to "undesireable" people, like people with kids, or of a certain ethnicity or religion. This sort of practice is an extremely pervasive problem that has led to enormous amounts of systemic inequality.
If landlord does not want to rent out to people with kids - I (as a parent with kids) do NOT want to see that ad.
How forcing landlord to advertise to categories they do not want to serve -- would help to anybody?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might be phrased stridently but it's not 'putting words into someone's mouth'. It's a question.
I think OP could have found a better way to word it which wouldn’t seem so hostile and accusatory, if they spent another few seconds before clicking ‘reply’.
You can also conduct illegal activity via Facebook messenger of groups, does that make it Facebook's fault?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point, though, which is not that the advertisers can target the models in the ads, but so they can choose _not_ to show ads to "undesireable" people, like people with kids, or of a certain ethnicity or religion. This sort of practice is an extremely pervasive problem that has led to enormous amounts of systemic inequality.
What is the problem with not showing rental ads to people with kids? If landlord does not want to rent out to people with kids - I (as a parent with kids) do NOT want to see that ad. How forcing landlord to advertise to categories they do not want to serve -- would help to anybody?
I'm not really seeing how it's Facebook's job to enforce this particular law as opposed to the HUD whose job it is to go after landlords/sellers doing the actual discriminating. Just because the advertiser can use these tools to discriminate doesn't mean they actually do or mean they aren't 100% personally responsible to comply with the law. I was kind of under the impression there were checks and balances to prevent…
Because the text of the law literally says it is. This isn’t a question of an agency interpretating a law to mean X, it’s right there in the text. It was written with newspaper classifieds in mind (and probably other things). But it clearly applies.
And, as we all know, nobody wants Facebook to be the Thought Police. Umm, well...most people don't want Facebook to be the Thought Police but that's besides the point.
Now (if HUD's arguments are valid) Facebook needs to determine if a landlord trying to run an efficient ad campaign or is making sure the "wrong kind of people" don't apply to be tenants. Either way the burden of proof is on Facebook since they are directly accountable for the thought processes of a third party simply by giving them the ability to discriminate against prospective tenants while (one would hope) not intending to discriminate against anyone themselves.
So, yes, I'm sticking by my original opinion that it isn't Facebook's responsibility to do HUD's job of rooting out the bad actors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point, though, which is not that the advertisers can target the models in the ads, but so they can choose _not_ to show ads to "undesireable" people, like people with kids, or of a certain ethnicity or religion. This sort of practice is an extremely pervasive problem that has led to enormous amounts of systemic inequality.
What is the problem with not showing rental ads to people with kids? If landlord does not want to rent out to people with kids - I (as a parent with kids) do NOT want to see that ad. How forcing landlord to advertise to categories they do not want to serve -- would help to anybody?
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
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…
The main reason why racial preferences are not allowed to get published -- is because it reinforces public bias toward specific race. But if ads are simply not shown to some group -- what is the problem with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a hypothetical question. Does it really correlate with protected group memberships?
> Does it really correlate with protected group memberships? Yes: "the vast majority of families (73%) who buy organic describe themselves as white" [1] Now, you might say, "Okay then. Let's prohibit ad targeting by food preference." But the trouble is that there are hundreds of factors that correlate with protected group membership. Are you going to ban them all? [1] https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2015/04…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We know that these regulations will not in fact stop housing discrimination We don’t know that. I imagine if that was true it would have been proved clearly in the last 40 years. But the law still exists. I’ve not aware of attempts to repeal it. > and that more will follow. Again, we’ve had 40 years for this. So many people in this thread arguing against HUD seem to be trying to argue like this law is something new…
> We don’t know that. I imagine if that was true it would have been proved clearly in the last 40 years. I don't think it was possible before today's microtarget-based internet advertising to use demographic correlates to substitute for banned targeting of protected groups. That it's now much more feasible than it's ever been in the past to target protected groups without facially making protected group membership pa…
Legal history would prove you wrong. Racist seem to be willing to spend a very large amount of time trying to come up with ways to not have to live next to/rent to certain groups of people. You didn’t need a Pentium 4 to figure out that far fewer black people went to college in the 70s and requiring a college degree would be a pretty good way of filtering them out of your application process.