341–350 of 568 posts
Why is this Facebook's fault? Wouldn't this be the advertiser's fault for choosing those filters? You can also conduct illegal activity via Facebook messenger of groups, does that make it Facebook's fault?
Why is everyone trying so hard to turn facebook (and google, twitter, etc...) into a filter on everything we say?
When facebook gets held responsible for all content in all jurisdiction it will err on the side of proscription. It was only about 10 years ago that many now acceptable (mandatory even) progressive positions were not in favor.
It won't be another day or two before there is another article bemoaning google acquiescing to China. Pick one. I'll take the one that is open, the crazies broadcast their fake news and we have the occasional illegal ad.
By the way, if these ads are illegal and conducted through facebook, how easy is it for the FHA to look up who is responsible and go after them. Their whole job is done for them. Going after Facebook is sensational and feels good I guess.
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…
But these ads do NOT indicate any preference. These ads simply do not run for the people outside of target audience. 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.
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...
Can you articulate a difference between "targeting" and "discriminating", other than one being legal and one being illegal?
So if I get a radio license and then broadcast an illegal ad, it's the FCC's fault. Why is everyone trying so hard to turn facebook (and google, twitter, etc...) into a filter on everything we say? When facebook gets held responsible for all content in all jurisdiction it will err on the side of proscription. It was only about 10 years ago that many now acceptable (mandatory even) progressive positions were not in fa…
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.
1) Create an ad targeting straight couples, and hide it from gay couples. 2) Create an ad targeting gay couples, and hide it from straight couples.
If you query for "is anyone running an ad hidden from gay couples", this would return "yes".
However, my hunch (hope?) is that the prosecution was clever enough to account for this, and are specifically finding ad campaigns which are "unbalanced" (eg; there is no ad targeting group X).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, specifying individual zip codes sounds like the worst way to do that. The obvious way is to have a max distance slider.
Except that that doesn't work when you're advertising housing in Florida and you want to advertise to people in the Northeast who want to retire somewhere warm but not people in the South who already live somewhere warm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course Facebook should allow racial filtering. Not understanding this is a fundamental failure to understand minority businesses. This isn't about makeup, or placing ads in a targeted magazine like Ebony. It's about real estate and housing, and the laws governing that kind of advertising are well-established and very clear. I worked briefly in large multi-unit housing, and got some of the training related to this…
Parent post asked the question in general, not specific to housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a difference?
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that inclusionary targeting is legal whereas exclusionary targeting is not, and exclusionary targeting is what's happening. Inclusionary targeting uses logic of the form, "This user corresponds to subgroup A; load content specialized for subgroup A." Exclusionary targeting is of the form, "This user corresponds to subgroup A; do not load any content for this user." If you'd l…
https://www.ajc.com/visitor_agreement_mobile_old/
Equal Housing Opportunity. Any real estate advertising on this website is subject to the Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to advertise "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." Georgia state law also forbids discrimination based on these factors, except that it forbids discrimination based on "disability" rather than "handicap." Familial status includes children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians; pregnant women and people securing custody of children under 18. To complain of discrimination call the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 800-669-9777.