Live data from Hacker News

HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

hud.gov

401–410 of 568 posts

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would we do that? We haven't been able to stop merchants swindling customers since the invention of trade, but we don't throw up our hands and shut down all markets. We just do the best we can to keep things as upright as possible.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#402

Wow, this page is pretty damning evidence: https://www.facebook.com/business/success/quadrant-homes It basically is showing that Facebook knowingly implemented a system to discriminate against people. Even the stock photos are full of white people. Here's hoping HUD makes a big example out of them and fines them to the fullest extent of the law.

Huh. The stock photo at the top of that link for me has a picture of a white man, an Asian woman, and an Asian-looking little girl. There are no other stock photos on the page.

https://imgur.com/gHzzBXU

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#403
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 fact that I want to tell others that I want to rent out my property to people that meet criteria chosen by me is both a free speech and private property issue. This is 50 year old law that deserves a repeal in my opinion.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#404
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…

[deleted]

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#405
post #258
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How do they determine what's a housing ad?" You ask the user to say what type of ad it is, under penalty of violation of contract, and contractually obligate them to carry the legal risk if they lie. There's no requirement that it be done via some fancy ML algorithm. I would expect that unless FB actively attempts to piss off the government, that would pass legal muster. Goodness knows I've signed enough agreements…

I’m afraid that the law being used to accuse Facebook would apply in that case too.

Are you saying that as a lawyer who is aware of this area of law, or are you saying that as a random internet person? I'd be more than a little surprised if your guess is correct. Normally, in my understanding, if one makes a good faith attempt to follow the law, one is normally in the clear. One does not become culpable when one's efforts to comply are stymied by fraud on the part of a third party.

Then again, I'm just a random internet person. If you're a lawyer, or if you can provide chapter and verse, I'll shut up.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#406
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…

> 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.

No. Going after Facebook is the only effective way to combat these kinds of illegal ads that occur on its platform. If you get it to comply, then the problem's solved at the source. If you follow your recommendation, HUD wastes its resources continually chasing after small fish, and the problem is never truly solved.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Society doesn't have to accommodate Facebook's need to scale their businesses. If Facebook is unable to comply with a jurisdiction's laws then it shouldn't do business in that jurisdiction.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#408
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lia…

I can agree with you if the ad network publishes a transparency report that is publicly available and includes all ad activity on its network. I doubt anyone will agree to this. They'll cite privacy and security and blah blah.

Just to be clear, we're talking about targeted advertising. I don't know how we can fix this issue. Maybe Facebook can ask tell type of an ad something is?

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#409
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…

Your metaphor is broken: It's more like if you own a radio station, and play user-contributed ads, you are liable for the illegal ads. It's not a very good metaphor, because no radio station simply publishes user-contributed content.

It's a strictly incorrect metaphor. Radio stations aren't liable in this scenario. Neither are newspapers with illegal personal ads for discriminatory housing.

There's no way they can be liable because they can't know if the ads are illegal or not. The legality of a given ad depends on many factors not always present in the ad itself -- such as whether the landlord lives in one of the units. All of the above selection criteria are perfectly OK to filter by if a landlord occupies a unit in a building with less than 4 units.

This is why it's legal to advertise for particular genders in a shared apartment scenario. It's also legal to advertise for other criteria like race in these cases -- though it's not socially acceptable.

It's impossible for Facebook to know whether a given ad is legal because of these hidden criteria.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#410
The law is quite clear about an advertiser’s liability.

https://fairhousing.com/legal-research/hud-resources/adverti...

Section 804(c) of the Act prohibits the making, printing and publishing of advertisements which state a preference, limitation or discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. The prohibition applies to publishers, such as newspapers and directories, as well as to persons and entities who place real estate advertisements. It also applies to advertisements where the underlying property may be exempt from the provisions of the Act, but where the advertisement itself violates the Act. See 42 U.S.C. 3603 (b).

Publishers and advertisers are responsible under the Act for making, printing, or publishing an advertisement that violates the Act on its face. Thus, they should not publish or cause to be published an advertisement that on its face expresses a preference, limitation or discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. To the extent that either the Advertising Guidelines or the case law do not state that particular terms or phrases (or closely comparable terms) may violate the Act, a publisher is not liable under the Act for advertisements which, in the context of the usage in a particular advertisement, might indicate a preference, limitation or discrimination, but where such a preference is not readily apparent to an ordinary reader. Therefore, complaints will not be accepted against publishers concerning advertisements where the language might or might not be viewed as being used in a discriminatory context.

As far as roommates....

For example, Intake staff should not accept a complaint against a newspaper for running an advertisement which includes the phrase female roommate wanted because the advertisement does not indicate whether the requirements for the shared living exception have been met. Publishers can rely on the representations of the individual placing the ad that shared living arrangements apply to the property in question. Persons placing such advertisements, however, are responsible for satisfying the conditions for the exemption. Thus, an ad for a female roommate could result in liability for the person placing the ad if the housing being advertised is actually a separate dwelling unit without shared living spaces. See 24 CFR 109.20.

Post reply on HN