Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#71

Post by randyrand » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #33

mastax wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

42 U.S. Code § 3604. ...it shall be unlawful— (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, limitation, or discr…

Yep. > or cause to be made... Key words here. Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too, but selective prosecution or not, Facebook is clearly in violation.

How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made.

Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made.

edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think its a much better argument to go after them for that then the 'cause' to be made' argument.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#72

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

caprese wrote: post #14

Why are they not just subpoening Facebook to go after the people that actually did the ad targeting? It is probably happening but it would make more sense, and Facebook would understand the stance of the enforcement agency. Since HUD or a private citizen already is doing this, Facebook probably offered non-answers or something cocky and then got slapped with this.

They might be. It's got to be easier from an enforcement point of view to go after publishers than all the individuals who place ads. They have limited resources, just like the rest of us.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#73

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

Brain_Thief wrote: post #9

It's important to keep in mind that FaceBook is an enterprise founded by an individual who appears to have many of the traits of sociopathy, and that an overwhelming amount of shady, anti-privacy, socially-destructive, and downright exploitative behavior has been credibly attributed to them over the years. The second sentence of TFA claims that the HUD's opinion of FaceBook is that the company "...enables and encoura…

I find it interesting that you are getting downvotes, but no replies. Come on people, if you disagree, why not say why you disagree? Just downvoting isn't helping the discussion.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#74

Post by jlmorton » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #71

bilbo0s wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. > or cause to be made... Key words here. Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too, but selective prosecution or not, Facebook is clearly in violation.

How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made. Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made. edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think…

The point is that it doesn't matter whether Facebook was involved in the creation of the ads, whether they support the ads, or anything else. They have a duty not to allow their platform to be used in this way, and until recently, they were failing to do that.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#75

Post by highdesertmuse » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

piokoch wrote: post #10

I am not sure I understand the way Fair Housing Act is enforced. Facebook allows ads targeting. This is how it earns money. Apparently some people decided that they want to advertise houses to white Christians population, which is illegal in the USA - shouldn't be HUD after those who configured such criteria, not Facebook? Facebook provided only a tool. Nobody is after hardware store because a hammer bought there was…

Very clever, but alas, Facebook stopped being a hammer when they started censoring and manipulating content to support their political agenda. If the suit is successful, Facebook will be the official owner of all content on their platform under U.S. Law and be required to exercise due diligence in upholding the law or face the consequences. This will open the door legally to monetizing the value of Facebook's algorithm to the political campaigns it supports which is good news for conservatives in 2020 as Facebook is heavily biased toward the Democrat Party. The new attorney general, Bill Barr, served on Verizon's board of directors and said, during his confirmation hearing, that he intended to address the issue of political bias on social media platforms. Asked, would he use antitrust law? His answer, no, probably something else. Over the past few weeks Congressman Devin Nunez filed suit against Twitter for libel, and now HUD is filing against Facebook for discrimination in housing, also content manipulation. Finally US law is beginning to address the oversized impact of social media on politics, culture, finance, et.al.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#76

Post by Sebguer » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #71

bilbo0s wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. > or cause to be made... Key words here. Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too, but selective prosecution or not, Facebook is clearly in violation.

How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made. Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made. edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think…

Facebook likely restricts and prevents other kinds of illegal ads. Why shouldn't they be responsible for restricting and preventing this kind of illegal ad?

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#77

Post by kyrra » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #71

bilbo0s wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. > or cause to be made... Key words here. Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too, but selective prosecution or not, Facebook is clearly in violation.

How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made. Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made. edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think…

It's really an argument of platform vs publisher. Google, Facebook, and others have been treated as platforms (it's really what the DMCA protected). But as they have been grown larger, governments want to treat them more like publishers and hold them accountable for the content that they put on their site (treating them more like publishers).

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#78

Post by randyrand » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

jlmorton wrote: post #74

randyrand wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made. Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made. edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think…

The point is that it doesn't matter whether Facebook was involved in the creation of the ads, whether they support the ads, or anything else. They have a duty not to allow their platform to be used in this way, and until recently, they were failing to do that.

Maybe. Or maybe not. Can you find/cite the law that requires that?

edit: ah. tunnel vision. yes the other parts of the statute would cover FB as partially culpable here. particularly the 'publish' part.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#79

Post by kyrieeschaton » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #49

kyrieeschaton wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of which is actually alleged. The allegation is that FB allowed ad targeting, not that they allowed ads that "indicated a preference... or an intention to make any such preference". It's classic regulatory overreach over the course of 50 years, from disallowing ads that explicitly forbid blacks, to forbidding advertising in venues that haven't paid their diversity tax.

Targeting an ad specifically to avoid certain races indicates your intention to make such a preference. You're just telling Facebook you don't want those races rather than putting it in the actual ad text.

I forgot, legally you're supposed to take the upsell on your ad package so you can target based on a love of kayaking and golden retrievers. (This is what I mean by "diversity tax".)

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#80

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 4:37 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #58

bobydonahue wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory and a 'black box', the company who made/provides it is responsible for what it does. You can't just make millions selling an ethically questionable service and shift the blame to your customers who you kept in the dark.

> if the tool/service is by its very nature both discriminatory Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian. Yes, it can also be used in a discriminatory way, but Facebook already tried to address that in the cases HUD only nominally cares about. Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after…

> Phone numbers and ZIP codes can also be (and often are) used as proxies for race. Should HUD go after the phone companies and the postal service too?

I love the arguments that amount to: "if we can't stop everywhere, we shouldn't bother stopping it here either". I'm not sure how one expects any kind of social progress to happen with that attitude.

> Is it, in this case? Ad targeting has a zillion legitimate use cases, including some that are outright humanitarian.

Let's be real. The kind of ad targeting that happens on the internet is something quite different than demographic targeting by sending flyers to certain zip codes or putting ads in certain magazines. Because the process is largely a black box and the ads are only visible to those being targeted it's nearly impossible to audit by watchdog groups or go after the parties who placed the ads. In the realm of commerce this leads to a lot of borderline scams targeting the ignorant. In politics, this leads to radicalization and weird conspiracy theories like QAnon.

At best, modern targeted ads are a way to convince people they need something they do not. Something that "classic" advertising did as well. At worst, it's a channel for misinformation, scams, and sometimes malware. Completely invisible to you and me because we're not the "target demographic".