Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 152 posts

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

#101

Post by bilbo0s »

kyrra wrote: post #77
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…

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).

Probably some truth to that.

Also likely the reason you'll start to see a shift over time in Facebook and Google's business models. They won't just allow any old thing on their servers any more.

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

#102

Post by scrumbledober »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #56
bilbo0s wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> interestingly enough I never saw an ad that explicitly listed race... ??? That must've just been Virginia? Where I lived in Houston, they listed unacceptable races all the time. (I suppose they didn't have to though, it was always the same two races listed.)

Sorry, but I'm curious. I'm guessing white and ???.

I'm guessing white was not one of the UNacceptable races. Being that it was in Texas I think it's fairly obvious which two races they were referring to, but it's not something I'd like to type out.

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

#103

Post by notacoward »

will_brown wrote: post #100
notacoward wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. 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…

> it’s obvious tax payer dollars are more efficiently spent going after FB

I'd love to see you try that reasoning with gun companies. I'm pro-gun-control myself, but the reaction you'd get would help to illuminate the difference between being efficient and being right. There are all sorts of things we could make illegal. There are all sorts of companies we could forbid from operating. It would be efficient as hell, but that's always the lure dangled by police-state proponents.

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

#104

Post by kartan »

notacoward wrote: post #46
LarryDarrell wrote: post #32

We have regulations on the books that are there as a result of 100 years of painful human experience. Wave a computer screen in someone's face and all of a sudden it's a different plane of existence and some people feel like these laws don't apply. I'm glad to see there is finally being some push back.

> some people feel like these laws don't apply That's catchy, but doesn't address the crucial question of which people should be held accountable for using a tool in a discriminatory way. You could argue that the publisher bears some or all of that responsibility, and I'd be fine with that, but shouldn't the advertisers bear some too? Why is HUD only going after Facebook and not them? Hint: the advertisers don't have…

copy/past from another comment:

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 discrimination.

The law is clear. The only difference is that the publisher of the advertisement is Facebook instead of the New York Times web or newspaper.

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

#105

Post by bilbo0s »

briandear wrote: post #63
bilbo0s wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> interestingly enough I never saw an ad that explicitly listed race... ??? That must've just been Virginia? Where I lived in Houston, they listed unacceptable races all the time. (I suppose they didn't have to though, it was always the same two races listed.)

> Where I lived in Houston, they listed unacceptable races all the time. Definitely going to need a citation for this. I grew up in Houston and never saw an add specifying "unacceptable races" -- perhaps 50+ years ago maybe. My parents were in the rental business and we spent a lot of time looking at (and placing) ads -- never was race listed on an ad that I've ever seen for as long as I can remember (since the mid 1…

Woah.

Calm down guy.

The original comment was saying that, in Virginia, ...CRAIGSLIST... would not openly mention the desired or unacceptable races for rentals. My only point was that, again, CRAIGSLIST ads certainly did have desired or unacceptable races listed in Houston.

The fact is it's happened in Houston Craigslist, just as it's happened in Craigslist in lots of other places in the nation. There was a class action, as well as several individual lawsuits, filed. My memory is hazy, but I believe Craigslist prevailed in all of this on the fact that they were acting only as a provider of publishing services and not a publisher themselves??? (Not really sure about Craigslist winning, but I seem to remember that they did. In any case, it's easily Google-able if you're really that curious as to whether or not all of this really happened.)

In other words, the comment is about Craigslist. Houston and Virginia are incidental to the story of what was happening, all across the nation, on Craigslist at the time.

Also, come on man, I lived in Houston. For a long time. A time period that, coincidentally, saw me doing a lot of renting. (And using Craigslist to do so, because that's what you did in those days.) Houston Craigslist was certainly not magically immune to this issue. I was there. I saw it. Further, the fact that there were lawsuits all around the nation makes me feel confident in saying that this was very likely not a problem limited to Houston.

I'll take at face value your assertion that YOUR parents didn't post discriminatory ads. That said, the point of fact that discriminatory ads were placed on Craigslist on a systemic and nationwide scale was not in question in any of these lawsuits. The only question was, "Was Craigslist responsible?" Put another way, even the government, courts, and lawyers all across the US agree that racist ads were placed in Craigslist all across the nation. All parties accepted that as fact based on the evidence. They simply disagree on who was responsible.

So I'm not really sure why you're trying to say that racist ads never appeared in Houston like they did everyplace else? My sense is that you believe what you're saying, so my head is telling me that you must not have lived in the social strata of people who had to check Craigslist for cheap apartments or new roommates.

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

#106

Post by notacoward »

kartan wrote: post #104
notacoward wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people feel like these laws don't apply That's catchy, but doesn't address the crucial question of which people should be held accountable for using a tool in a discriminatory way. You could argue that the publisher bears some or all of that responsibility, and I'd be fine with that, but shouldn't the advertisers bear some too? Why is HUD only going after Facebook and not them? Hint: the advertisers don't have…

copy/past from another comment: 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…

> The law is clear.

As usual with law, not so much. Can you say with any certainty that "indicates any preference" doesn't refer to the content of the ad? Allowing an ad to be targeted in a discriminatory way might be wrong morally, but it's not at all clear that the law as written and (so far) interpreted by courts supports your conclusion.

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

#107

Post by reaperducer »

School-Cotton wrote: post #94
reaperducer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That's what a liberal arts degree is about: Exposing you to a lot of possibilities so you can choose. Why can't this be what high school is about, like it is in 99% of developed societies?

High school is about giving you basic education and social skills.

like it is in 99% of developed societies

This is a fatuous argument. Neither you nor I are education experts, and throwing out a fake statistic just makes you look foolish. You have not done a study of 100% of developed societies to draw your conclusion. You're just making assumptions to justify your pre-conceived notions.

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

#108

Post by will_brown »

notacoward wrote: post #103
will_brown wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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…

> it’s obvious tax payer dollars are more efficiently spent going after FB I'd love to see you try that reasoning with gun companies. I'm pro-gun-control myself, but the reaction you'd get would help to illuminate the difference between being efficient and being right. There are all sorts of things we could make illegal. There are all sorts of companies we could forbid from operating. It would be efficient as hell, b…

The Federal Government does go after illegal arms dealers, so I’m not sure your point.

Otherwise arms dealers have a federal law that protects them in gun/ammo sales from the acts of their buyers.

That said notwithstanding federal protections arms dealers can be liable for the acts of their buyers if the seller knew or should have known the buyer was making the purchase to commit a crime.

Here FB knew or should have known they were being paid to publish an unlawful ad (at least factually FB knew the filters were applied, reviewed these ads and approved them for publication in violation of the law).

I’m not sure why you think preventing FB from knowingly publishing illegal ads is on par with anything else you are suggesting (ie “going after gun sellers”). Gun sales and ads are both legal...until they are not.

Why do you think it’s right to go after the ad creator only and allow FB to continue to profit on and facilitate the illegal acts themselves?

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

#109

Post by School-Cotton »

reaperducer wrote: post #107
School-Cotton wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what a liberal arts degree is about: Exposing you to a lot of possibilities so you can choose. Why can't this be what high school is about, like it is in 99% of developed societies?

High school is about giving you basic education and social skills. like it is in 99% of developed societies This is a fatuous argument. Neither you nor I are education experts, and throwing out a fake statistic just makes you look foolish. You have not done a study of 100% of developed societies to draw your conclusion. You're just making assumptions to justify your pre-conceived notions.

I seriously doubt you can find examples of countries outside the US where studying a non-specific subject with a lot of broad distribution requirements is normal. I know for a fact that it is not common in the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Serbia, or Russia. I will concede that I'm not too sure what the situation is like outside of Europe.

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

#110

Post by notacoward »

will_brown wrote: post #108
notacoward wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s obvious tax payer dollars are more efficiently spent going after FB I'd love to see you try that reasoning with gun companies. I'm pro-gun-control myself, but the reaction you'd get would help to illuminate the difference between being efficient and being right. There are all sorts of things we could make illegal. There are all sorts of companies we could forbid from operating. It would be efficient as hell, b…

The Federal Government does go after illegal arms dealers, so I’m not sure your point. Otherwise arms dealers have a federal law that protects them in gun/ammo sales from the acts of their buyers. That said notwithstanding federal protections arms dealers can be liable for the acts of their buyers if the seller knew or should have known the buyer was making the purchase to commit a crime. Here FB knew or should have…

> Why do you think it’s right to go after the ad creator only

Never said or suggested any such thing. In fact I've explicitly said that assigning some responsibility to the publisher seems reasonable. What I find questionable is the singular targeting of one publisher but neither the advertisers nor other publishers. That's not how one fights for equality or justice, so there must be some other goal.

Post reply on HN