Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

hud.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 568 posts

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#291

Post by craigzucchini »

nostromo wrote: post #234

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…

I think the bigger problem, that you haven't addressed here, is the ongoing prevalence of the word "creative" used as a noun.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#292

Post by cabaalis »

trashcan wrote: post #287
dennisgorelik wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem is that it is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act You can't choose to rent based on familial status.

I understand and agree that it's wrong. On a purely theoretical level, I think the question is philosophical. They're not turning these people away, just not trying to draw them in. This happens elsewhere in society, right or wrong. Examples: gay bars, "black" churches, biker establishments.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#293

Post by MBCook »

UncleEntity wrote: post #286
MBCook wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination then the section which applies to this case is the "intention to discriminate" clause which requires Facebook to determine intent behind the targeting of the advertisements. 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 th…

> If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination

Why should we ignore it? It sounds like Facebook allows you to use those exact things to target your ad. Thus the problem.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#294

Post by TomMckenny »

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

If I'm paid to publish ads for hitmen, am I innocent because I didn't write them?

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#295

Post by dennisgorelik »

james-mcelwain wrote: post #92
kryogen1c wrote: post #41

This complaint seems like its shooting itself in the foot - discrimination isn't inherently bad. When you hire, you discriminate based on ability. When you date, you discriminate in a number of ways like beauty, personality, etc. If you're selling ads for wheelchairs you want to discriminate for people with disabilities. If your houses aren't wheelchair accessible, you want your ads to discriminate against people wit…

It is, however, Facebook's obligation to abide by the law, particularly 50 year old laws with decades of settled case law.

The law is against publishing discriminatory ads (discriminatory wordings that encouraged racial hate).

Facebook ad audience filtering -- is a very different tool.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#296

Post by trashcan »

trashcan wrote: post #287
dennisgorelik wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem is that it is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act You can't choose to rent based on familial status.

I can't reply to you cabaalis, but the difference is excluding (discriminating) versus targeting. Targeting is legal, discriminating is not.

As in the Alamo Drafthouse is more than welcome to have a women's night event for a particular movie, but if they refuse men at the door solely for their gender, that is illegal.

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/alamo-drafthouse-admi...

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#297

Post by UncleEntity »

MBCook wrote: post #293
UncleEntity wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination then the section which applies to this case is the "intention to discriminate" clause which requires Facebook to determine intent behind the targeting of the advertisements. 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 th…

> If you ignore the section which prohibits overt (and blatantly illegal) discrimination Why should we ignore it? It sounds like Facebook allows you to use those exact things to target your ad. Thus the problem.

Because it applies to cases like "only WASP's need apply" and is clearly not what HUD is concerned with here.

Absolutely nobody is arguing that Facebook isn't liable in such a case because it's clearly spelled out in the letter of the law.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#298

Post by MBCook »

quotemstr wrote: post #227
MBCook wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t know that. Well, if it meets whatever HUD/the courts’ threshold is for something that’s too discriminatory then maybe that’s off the list. I know that pet friendly and non-pet friendly housing exists, so there must be some legal basis. But if the current legal standard meant that it would be illegal to advertise to (or away from) pet owners then yes, I would expect that FB would have to remove those options…

Is a "no pets" policy illegal housing discrimination? Why or why not? A "no pets" policy, on its face, would have a disparate impact on different arms of a protected group, and so, on its face, should be illegal. I know that "no pets" policies tolerated at this point. What I want to know is how you or anyone else can justify a "no pets" policy considering the protected group issue I raised above. Is the "no pets" pol…

Again, I don’t know the actual reason, just that it’s clearly legal.

Many people are very allergic to pets or scared of them and won’t live in a building/complex if there are animals there. If you’re a landlord and you allow pets you also have to deal with any possible damage they may do to your property, even though you can make the renter reimburse you for that.

It may be that because of those factors courts have determined that it’s perfectly reasonable for landlords to choose not to allow pets no matter what effect that may have on the number of people of different races who apply to their properties.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#299

Post by MBCook »

quotemstr wrote: post #220
ryandrake wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just (presumably) his position, it’s the law. And there is a good reason for it. Look up red lining.

So, is it your opinion that ad targeting is illegal?

That’s not what anyone here saying and you know it.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#300

Post by dennisgorelik »

trashcan wrote: post #287
dennisgorelik wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem is that it is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act You can't choose to rent based on familial status.

Could you please explain how exactly Fair Housing Act makes Facebook filtering illegal?

Lack of advertising is not the same as "refuse to sell".

Post reply on HN