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

381–390 of 568 posts

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#381

Post by CydeWeys »

AdamM12 wrote: post #122
jjeaff wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The difference is that the law shouldn't even be on the books imo. The person discriminating is the private property owner/manager they engaged in the advertising. Facebook did not.

The laws are on the books because of rampant discrimination against minorities in prior eras. It took the entire civil rights movement to start to make progress on addressing these issues, which included laws making some of the worst practices illegal.

I'm trying not to say anything too mean, so I'll just say this: learn some history.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#382

Post by fjsolwmv »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #344
trashcan wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> the difference is excluding (discriminating) versus targeting. Targeting is legal, discriminating is not. Can you articulate a difference between "targeting" and "discriminating", other than one being legal and one being illegal?

Targeting means saying it's a Foo themed event, discriminating means banning non-Foo from entry.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#383

Post by CydeWeys »

scarface74 wrote: post #370
CydeWeys wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who's ever even looked for a roommate on Craigslist has seen all this information, too. I'm actually kind of flabbergasted that Craigslist handles it correctly and Facebook does not, just given how much more competent Facebook seems based on contrasting the look of the two sites.

It’s slightly different with roommates. You can’t discriminate in advertising when it comes to roommate but you can discriminate when it comes to housing according to one ruling. https://www.sharinghousing.com/what-the-fair-housing-act-mea... Craigslist says something different. https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates Under federal Fair Housing law, the prohibition on discriminatory advertisements applies to a…

OK, true, but I've also rented out entire units on Craigslist before too, so I've seen the full disclaimer regardless.

Speaking of which, the Roomi app might potentially be doing illegal things in turning housing search into a social network.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#384

Post by fjsolwmv »

scarface74 wrote: post #370
CydeWeys wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who's ever even looked for a roommate on Craigslist has seen all this information, too. I'm actually kind of flabbergasted that Craigslist handles it correctly and Facebook does not, just given how much more competent Facebook seems based on contrasting the look of the two sites.

It’s slightly different with roommates. You can’t discriminate in advertising when it comes to roommate but you can discriminate when it comes to housing according to one ruling. https://www.sharinghousing.com/what-the-fair-housing-act-mea... Craigslist says something different. https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates Under federal Fair Housing law, the prohibition on discriminatory advertisements applies to a…

You wrote it backwards. Discriminating on roommates is legal.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#385

Post by jahewson »

matchagaucho wrote: post #307
samfisher83 wrote: post #49

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," "accessibility" or "deaf culture"; -not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in "child care" or "parenting," or show ads only to users with children above a specified age; -to display/not display ads to users w…

How much of the responsibility falls on the Landlord, given they created the targeted ad segments? It's not like the Facebook Ad Manager has a guided wizard for the real estate industry to target prospective tenants.

Facebook knows exactly what kind of advertisers they have on their platform.

https://www.facebook.com/business/success/quadrant-homes

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#386

Post by iamleppert »

LanceH wrote: post #342

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…

If you get a radio license and setup a web site that allows people to broadcast their own death threats over your radio station, that’s your fault.

In Facebook’s case they not only did that but marketed their death threat service and touted it as highly effective.

That’s a much better metaphor.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#387

Post by thisiszilff »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #379
twblalock wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really make a difference, because when housing companies use Facebook's targeting options it is still Facebook who accepts the ad and publishes it on facebook.com. If you do something illegal because someone asked you to do it, it's still illegal.

It's not obvious to me. If I photocopy an ilegal ad at Kinko's, is it Kinko's fault? If I send an illegal ad via first class mail, is it USPS's fault?

I don't think it's the ad, per say, but the agreement for delivery. It's be like you sending housing ads and asking USPS to only deliver them to men. USPS would probably be on the hook then as well.

Back to your point though, it is a new domain because with your paper examples there is no one who can "undo" the illegal ad. You copy it at Kinko's and it's not like Kinko's is out there delivering it with you. With online platforms, they both Target and deliver these ads and are responsible for continually delivering them.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#388

Post by austincheney »

asveikau wrote: post #348
dnautics wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent post asked the question in general, not specific to housing.

Incorrect. The parent cited housing law quite specifically. The first link at the top of the comment has the word "housing" right in the title.

No, dnautics is correct. I phrased the racial profiling subject irrespective of the housing subject even though I did post links related to real estate anti-discrimination.

When I wrote the comment I wasn't thinking of retail consumer goods. Strictly in the context of geographic markets my comment was more valid, but in the context of beauty products (as the provided example) it doesn't make any sense.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#389

Post by jahewson »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #379
twblalock wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really make a difference, because when housing companies use Facebook's targeting options it is still Facebook who accepts the ad and publishes it on facebook.com. If you do something illegal because someone asked you to do it, it's still illegal.

It's not obvious to me. If I photocopy an ilegal ad at Kinko's, is it Kinko's fault? If I send an illegal ad via first class mail, is it USPS's fault?

What a dumb question. No, of course it’s not.

If you ask USPS to display your illegal ad in their window then it certainly is their fault. That would be an actually comparable situation here.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#390

Post by mirimir »

throwawayqwx2 wrote: post #360
LanceH wrote: post #342

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…

there needs to be a dmca for ads.

What does that mean? Who's copying ads?
Post reply on HN