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

#121

Post by throwaway5752 » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

“We’re surprised by HUD’s decision, as we’ve been working with them to address their concerns and have taken significant steps to prevent” ad discrimination, the company said in a statement. It added that it had been negotiating with the housing agency over the issue, but that the talks had broken down because federal officials were seeking access to too much user information “without adequate safeguards.”

Interesting. I also wonder if they are going after the landlords who knowingly discriminated using Facebook as a platform.

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

#122

Post by MeltySmelty » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

rock_hard wrote: post #90

Sebguer wrote: post #76

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

Lol, take a lap.

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

#123

Post by fixermark » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

CompelTechnic wrote: post #111

I agree that facebook's advertising practices allowed for illegal discrimination. A good case of "move fast and break things." Some journalists go farther though, and suggest that even the concept of a credit score is racist. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/your-c... Consider the 2 possible worlds: 1. One in which disadvantaged minorities have poor credit because of their poor socioeconomic stat…

ALL else being equal? I'd flip a coin. Because if all else is equal, the credit score (that indicates past interactions) isn't predictive of future outcomes.

If we're assuming conscientiousness and intelligence aren't equal across these workers, that's a different story. In which case, it depends on particulars; I might take the one with the lower credit score because they've demonstrated willingness to take risks.

But really, the issue is that credit score is a lousy predictor of work performance. I have no reason to believe it's actually correlated.

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

#124

Post by notacoward » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #113

notacoward wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The Gov can and maybe even will go after the individual advertisers. >That's not how one fights for equality or justice, so there must be some other goal. It happens all the time, for example, low level drug dealers or even arms dealers are given immunity just for cooperation and just the chance to go after the suppliers. It’s easy to say well, there is some other goal, but generally the goal is to combat the illegal…

> If law enforcement went after uber

If they only went after Uber, giving Lyft and traditional cab companies and the drivers for all of them a pass, then yeah, I'd suspect there was something besides fair enforcement of the law going on. That would go double if they were stretching the definition of the law to include Uber's actions when its drafters had no such intent, or if they were simultaneously going after Uber for doing and not doing the same thing (parallel to the flak Facebook gets both for censoring and not censoring content).

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

#125

Post by SamReidHughes » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

bearcobra wrote: post #112

CompelTechnic wrote: post #111

I agree that facebook's advertising practices allowed for illegal discrimination. A good case of "move fast and break things." Some journalists go farther though, and suggest that even the concept of a credit score is racist. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/your-c... Consider the 2 possible worlds: 1. One in which disadvantaged minorities have poor credit because of their poor socioeconomic stat…

As an owner, I don't know why the finances of my employee should be any of my business. Even in assessing credit worthiness, there are plenty of flaws with the current system.

National security reasons if you're a government or contractor, and likewise financial security reasons if you're a corporation.

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

#126

Post by redwall_hp » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

rock_hard wrote: post #90

Sebguer wrote: post #76

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

Facebook isn't manufacturing hammers. They're offering their hammering services. If you say "sure, we'll hammer some people for the right price," you're offering illegal hitman services.

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

#127

Post by Celarnor » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #114

CompelTechnic wrote: post #111

I agree that facebook's advertising practices allowed for illegal discrimination. A good case of "move fast and break things." Some journalists go farther though, and suggest that even the concept of a credit score is racist. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/your-c... Consider the 2 possible worlds: 1. One in which disadvantaged minorities have poor credit because of their poor socioeconomic stat…

I've really never understood the point of using credit scores when hiring. I completely understand it when making decisions on actually loaning money, leasing agreement, etc...

Me neither. I've never understood why it isn't illegal.

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

#128

Post by Kalium » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

aaomidi wrote: post #120

kingbirdy wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're hiring someone who would have access to valuable information that could be sold, who would have information before the market, or who could potentially be paid to sabotage the company, it's important to ensure the candidate has good credit so they're less likely to do those things, since they at least wouldn't feel a financial pressure to do so and would only do it out of greed.

Is there direct evidence this is true or is it just a "common sense" thing that makes sense but might very well be false?

Before I or others go looking for such, what would you consider an acceptable standard of direct evidence?

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

#129

Post by 40acres » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

CompelTechnic wrote: post #111

I agree that facebook's advertising practices allowed for illegal discrimination. A good case of "move fast and break things." Some journalists go farther though, and suggest that even the concept of a credit score is racist. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/13/your-c... Consider the 2 possible worlds: 1. One in which disadvantaged minorities have poor credit because of their poor socioeconomic stat…

A credit score is not racist because racism implies intent, however credit scores do disproportionately discriminate based on race and thus should not be used for hiring.

Consider the fact that to access any form of credit, and thus a credit score requires a bank account. When you consider the racial disparities between those who are un-banked or under banked it's clear that a credit score disproportionately affects certain communities.

Not only that, but credit ratings in general can be incredibly flawed. Many institutions had their bonds downgraded by the large credit rating agencies after the financial crisis simply due to the fact that balanced sheets were scrutinized more closely due to all the public outrage.

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

#130

Post by munk-a » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #125

bearcobra wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an owner, I don't know why the finances of my employee should be any of my business. Even in assessing credit worthiness, there are plenty of flaws with the current system.

National security reasons if you're a government or contractor, and likewise financial security reasons if you're a corporation.

The former is valid, the latter I disagree with strongly. Specifically...

  Too bad.

There are costs and risks in employment and employees are exposed to lots of risks that can result in health issues, sudden termination (layoff) and a myriad of other problems, the slight risk an employer accepts when hiring new employees and investing in training absolutely can be offset by insurance (employers can get targeted insurance against key personnel departures and against sudden wave departures). So... too bad. Violating this layer of privacy yields nearly no business benefit and costs sanity.