91–100 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing its not a new law. Its been around for 50 something years. I remember they stressed this in American history and it was on the AP test too.
Still gets violated all the time too. When my parents bought a house outside New Orleans the realtor flat out told them which neighborhoods would be acceptable for them to look in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It's unreasonable to require a private company to do the governments job of policing and enforcing laws. Nobody would consider forcing hammer manufactures to police their customers not to hurt people with said hammers either
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 caused the advertisements to not show for protected groups. The "tools" ran on their servers, not yours, so they are responsible for the outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Full disclosure: I have a liberal arts degree. When I was looking at colleges, I had absolutely no idea what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. In high school, I really hated science and math classes. Years later I realized that I actually didn't but the single math teacher I had for four years of high school (it was a small school, I just had bad luck with what teachers were assigned to the classes I took). If…
When I was looking at colleges, I had absolutely no idea what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. You're not supposed to. That's what a liberal arts degree is about: Exposing you to a lot of possibilities so you can choose. I went to college for Computer Science, but half way through changed my major because I found other fields more interesting. A friend of mine went in for psychology and came out journalism. I…
Why can't this be what high school is about, like it is in 99% of developed societies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook doesn't have to allow you to target demographics. If you create an ad, mark it as type "housing", then things like race and wealth shouldn't be an option to target. It's illegal. Using your analogy, when you buy a hammer you don't tell the cashier it's for murder.
You're targeting a demographic with every type of ad. Sure, the radio station doesn't have checkboxes of who hears your ad, you just pick the radio station you want your target to be listening too. Same goes for billboards. Suburbs? Subway? The highway 2 towns over? Print media, TV time...the list goes on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Full disclosure: I have a liberal arts degree. When I was looking at colleges, I had absolutely no idea what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. In high school, I really hated science and math classes. Years later I realized that I actually didn't but the single math teacher I had for four years of high school (it was a small school, I just had bad luck with what teachers were assigned to the classes I took). If…
You’re drawing a false dichotomy between career training and liberal arts. I studied pure math which is as nerdy STEM as it gets, and absolutely zero of it was job training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It's unreasonable to require a private company to do the governments job of policing and enforcing laws. Nobody would consider forcing hammer manufactures to police their customers not to hurt people with said hammers either
If the ad selection tools are unfit for purpose -- say because it allows a user to target/untarget recipients in a blatantly illegal manner -- that's the company's fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It's unreasonable to require a private company to do the governments job of policing and enforcing laws. Nobody would consider forcing hammer manufactures to police their customers not to hurt people with said hammers either
Can we agree to this compromise?
I've been seeing this go on for a while and I'm not surprised at all. I'm more surprised it took this long. As soon as they added rentals and properties to their marketplace they should have immediately tweaked their algorithms to not fall outside the law
[1] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=554032...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I Agree certain ads can legitimately target on the basis of age, sex, race and religions. However, as a multi billion dollar ad company FB knows these options are illegal in other instances. I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies or give advertisers the option to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race and religion like Facebook. Last I used FB ads, the process included a submission…
> I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation. > the onus shifts to them All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company…
I think you are misattributing someone’s else’s quote to me, in my comment you replied to I specifically state these filters can be used in some instance lawfully, but Again FB is a multi billion dollar ad company and is aware of the unlawful potential of these tools.
Discrimination certainly isn’t limited to ad companies, but again I dont think those other companies you reference in the gig economy offer options to only accept riders/guests of a certain age, sex, race or religion. Those types of filters are limited to online ads as far as I am aware. But please shed some light is those gig platforms allow drivers/hosts to filter who they do business with and discriminate against protected classes.
> All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves?
Certainly both the advertiser and FB could be liable for discrimination. But yes I think FB dragged themselves in by #1 giving these options to users (knowing these filters are also protected classes of people and in certain industries will violate the law); and #2 Reviewing/approving these illegal ads before publication.
I certainly never claimed the individual advertisers could not be liable, “onus shifting” here essentially means FB was aware not only the filters used for these ads but they approved the ads themselves.
Answering further, it’s obvious tax payer dollars are more efficiently spent going after FB and ending the unlawful practices on the platform entirely than an indefinite game of cat and mouse with individual advertisers.