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

391–400 of 568 posts

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#391

Post by scarface74 »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #384
scarface74 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first cite said you couldn’t discriminate in advertising but you could discriminate in selection. Craigslist said something different.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#392

Post by MBCook »

mynegation wrote: post #226
MBCook wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knives have legal uses. In the context of housing ads (or employment) these tools DO NOT have legal uses. Thus they are illegal.

I don’t argue that ads in the context of housing is illegal. Targeting specific demographic using protected categories in other areas can be legal too. As a pharmaceutical company you can target women, men, seniors for targeted medications. As a LGBTQ dating site you can target based on sexual orientation and cis/trans. It is not illegal. Housing and jobs (maybe something else) are covered by specific legislation.

Agreed. These restrictions only apply in a few legally defined areas.

The fact an LGBT dating site can choose ‘don’t show to heterosexual people (a waste of my ad spend)’ is one of the reasons their platform is so effective, especially compared to mass media like TV/magazines.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#393

Post by AnthonyMouse »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #347
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is almost as if we have geographic areas larger than zip codes such as cities, states, regions, that can be targeted without running afoul of laws about targeted advertising of real estate.

If you exclude all of Oakland specifically because it's full of minorities, you're discriminating based on race. If you exclude one tiny neighborhood because it's on the other side of a mountain and is physically a part of a different area than it's administratively a part of, you aren't. Granularity isn't the problem.

And state or regional real estate advertising doesn't work because basically nobody in San Francisco is looking for housing in Los Angeles or vice versa, much less San Francisco and Phoenix.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#394

Post by mirimir »

jahewson wrote: post #389
fjsolwmv wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, there was a criminal case against FedEx for delivering illegal prescriptions from Internet drug stores. But it got tossed.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#395

Post by Dylan16807 »

quotemstr wrote: post #303
MBCook wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17791675

That's only a counter if you ignore the second half of the sentence.

There is a very big difference between no micro-targeting ads ever, and no micro-targeting for housing ads.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#396

Post by jrockway »

dsr_ wrote: post #362
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…

No, if you get a radio license and so something illegal with it, that's your fault, and the FCC is the authority that can punish you for it. In this case, just like Facebook. Your responsibility, handed to you with the license, is to not do illegal things, even if people want to pay you money to do it. It's especially bad if you build an automated system that has options for people to do illegal things, since you are…

I'm not sure I agree. If someone buys a radio to transmit illegally, the advertising platform they viewed the ad for the radio on isn't liable, nor is the place they bought it from, nor is the manufacturer or importer. (There is quite the controversy around people buying Baofeng radios to transmit illegally. Amazon is happy to sell you one, no questions asked.)

This extends to many areas. Gun manufacturers aren't liable when someone goes on a shooting spree with a gun, for example.

I feel like this is a slippery slope. Facebook lets anyone advertise anything, and gives everyone the same targeting tools. If you use them illegally, that should be on you, not on Facebook. Just like how you can use a screwdriver to screw in screws, or to go around stabbing people with it. The difference is that screwdrivers are a well-understood tool, whereas ad targeting tools are new and scary.

If you want to make advertising illegal, I'm fine with that, but good luck.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#397

Post by j16sdiz »

twblalock wrote: post #351
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…

Facebook is the publisher of the ads and is responsible for obeying the law. If someone asks Facebook to publish an illegal ad, Facebook should not do it. This is not a free speech issue, or a political speech issue. Nobody is censoring progressive or conservative positions in this case. It's an issue of legality in real estate advertising under a framework of laws that were written decades ago.

The problem is: These kind of censorship of use generated content can't scale up to all jurisdiction.

Maybe we should acknowledge it is impossible to make a global, legal, Facebook-like website.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#398

Post by Karishma1234 »

astura wrote: post #72
AdamM12 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulator land grab imo. FHA is intended to regulate the owners of real estate. HUD shouldn't be in the advertising regulation business.

... except the FHA literally has text that specifically applies to housing advertisements. They are enforcing the letter of the law. >(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 stat…

Well, that is the point. Why is HUD regulating ad business ? Why has no one challenged this on 1st amendment basis ? Or is this too political a thing here ?

> or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

And HUD is also regulating "intentions" ?

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#399

Post by doctorless »

iamdave wrote: post #254
doctorless wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been in a mixed-race relationship where one partner is brown, I can tell you firsthandedly that if you think racism is rare, then you’re probably white or Asian or you have consistently lived in areas where racism is actually rare. I lived in places where when I was young, I never saw anyone engage in racist behaviors. This changed the moment I entered that relationship. It may have ended long ago, but it’s de…

if you think racism is rare, then you’re probably white or Asian I sincerely hope this isn't an intimation that Asians are somehow immune from forms of racism or racially charged behavior? Would you be able to clarify this a bit? Maybe I've misunderstood you.

Definitely not the implication. Everyone can receive racially charged behavior, however the outright hostility towards lighter-skinned Asians in the United States is significantly lower than towards other minority groups as well as darker-skinned Asians.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#400

Post by Karishma1234 »

While many people are arguing how Facebook could have missed the regulation I think it is pretty sad that such large corporations have lost their moral compass and in their greed they have forgotten basic human values.

Irrespective of law I think Facebook should have been sensitive and should have discouraged people from discriminatory ad spend unless the product truly requires it. For example it makes sense to target African Americans for hair braiding services but I do not see why Facebook should have allowed housing ads to target based on Race and handicap.

I also think HUD is not the correct government arm here. HUD is dealing with only rental issues but under the surface there might be more horrible discriminations being enabled by Facebook.

What we need is a new regulatory federal body that will ensure equitable ad targeting policies and ensure minorities like handicapped people, muslims, blacks etc. are not harmed.

Post reply on HN