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

HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

hud.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 568 posts

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#321

Post by dang »

quotemstr wrote: post #191
MBCook wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your argument is FB doesn’t matter to your point. The law already exists if that will happen as you say, it will happen no matter what FB does. So why should FB get to ignore the law unlike thousands of other businesses? Why do they get an exception?

You are misrepresenting my position. Where did I suggest that FB get an exemption from the law? I never said that FB should get special treatment. For clarity, FB should follow the law and prohibit targeting of housing ads based on this list of criteria. My original point (which has now been downvoted into oblivion, presumably because it raises uncomfortable questions) is that we as an industry need to ask the questi…

By now you've posted like 30 comments in this thread and repeatedly broken the site guidelines in multiple ways. Please stop—intense argumentation with sharp elbows is the stuff of flamewars, not intellectually curious discussion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#322

Post by [deleted] »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #312
reaperducer wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that easy If a small town newspaper with a staff of 30 can do it, Facebook has both the staff and resources to do the same. If it cannot, or will not, it should not take advertisements for sectors that are regulated.

But small town newspapers are endangered by those costs! Facebook only makes about $6 ARPU. Automating the crap out of everything is what enables them to exist.

[deleted]

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#323

Post by fma »

briandear wrote: post #281
loeg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your metaphor is off. It's like advertising a job posting for a doctor only in majority-white medical schools.

What if a job posting is advertised at a majority black medical school? Is that ok?

I'm kinda LOL on the downvotes. From my understanding (and I replied to OP) is that it is fine. IANAL, though.

When I was in college, lots of recruiters advertise and sponsor with the Society of Black Engineers...of Society of Women Engineers. Nothing stopped me from going to those meetings, and I did attend some. Their meetings were advertised to everyone. You weren't prevented from going to the meeting and listening to the recruiters.

Was I offended...yes and no, but more on the no side because I had the same opportunity as everyone else at school. I'll tell when I was offended. I went to a career fair one semester I saw Microsoft booth that advertised scholarships for minorities (or maybe internships? I don't know, I hope not because that woulda been illegal, in hindsight!).

There was a young Indian woman staffing the booth and I asked if I could apply. She said no...looking for blacks and hispanics. I'm Asian...so was she. Microsoft shoulda sent a black/hispanic engineer to send their message across better, too.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#324

Post by EGreg »

trashcan wrote: post #296
trashcan wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it is illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act You can't choose to rent based on familial status.

I can't reply to you cabaalis, but the difference is excluding (discriminating) versus targeting. Targeting is legal, discriminating is not. As in the Alamo Drafthouse is more than welcome to have a women's night event for a particular movie, but if they refuse men at the door solely for their gender, that is illegal. https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/alamo-drafthouse-admi...

Listen, in most cities they turn away men based on gender, or make them pay a cover, while they let well-dressed women in. That is their business model. I guess they can claim that men's attraction to women is a compelling business reason, which I believe may be an exception to the anti-discrimination laws. Similar to women-only gyms saying that women's desire to avoid men while working out is a compelling business reason.

I am not a lawyer but it always struck me as unfair to a whole gender to treat them differently when they want to enter nightclubs. But of course this policy is also very ageist, biased against heavyset people etc. So do we ban that as well, since it's not something people can control?

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#325

Post by azernik »

a13n wrote: post #284

Why is this Facebook's fault? Wouldn't this be the advertiser's fault for choosing those filters? You can also conduct illegal activity via Facebook messenger of groups, does that make it Facebook's fault?

Because the law happens to make the advertising platforms liable. It does so because enforcing this as an individual crime is impractical for the government, so it essentially outsources the work to advertising publishers.

See e.g. a similar case brought against the New York Times in the 80s, and the resulting investment by the Times in a reviewing process where humans went through submitted ads looking for discrimination.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#326

Post by dang »

mindslight wrote: post #232
ABCLAW wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the legal test to determine if someone is afoul of the legal test that Facebook is accused of violating. The wording of the provision they've run afoul of is elsewhere in the thread; it disagrees with you. My point is more along the lines of Legal needed to be asleep at the wheel to let a team put together a solution where you literally draw a red line around zip codes to exclude them .

Sure, it's just kind of a longstanding concept. If I've found the provision you're referencing ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790555 ), then it's a bit disingenuous to assert Faceboot is automatically in its scope, when it's this status as a conduit versus editor that is the very thing we're grappling with. As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, there are legitimate uses for selecting specific area…

Please keep flamewar rhetoric off HN.

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#327

Post by dang »

EB66 wrote: post #46
dev_dull wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure their counsel knows exactly what they’re doing. Sometimes when you’re big and bad enough it’s worth it to take a gamble and see how things will settle in court. And that’s not even necessarily a bad thing. People and cultures change and so should our regulation and laws.

> And that’s not even necessarily a bad thing. ...what? Are you suggesting it's a good thing that we bring back red lining and other discriminatory practices?

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#329

Post by fma »

AdamM12 wrote: post #95
null000 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is similar to if the NYT ran discriminatory ads - which is an actual case from the 1980s and resulted in both notable fines, and the NYT having humans review housing ads for discriminatory practices, such as having an unrepresentably white set of models in housing ads (from one of the propublica links in some of the other comments). Same goes for craigslist, which also has to screen housing ads. I'd argue both a…

No only person that is responsible is the person who placed the ad. Facebook didn't select the target market and write up the copy.

I feel like FB could have covered their ass if they had a pop up menu for every rental ad that says "All ads must abide by the Fair Housing Act...click for more info. Check this box if you acknowledge your advertising practice abides by it"

Re: HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

#330

Post by FireBeyond »

AdamM12 wrote: post #122
jjeaff wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a law on the books prohibiting hardware stores from selling knives. There is a law on the books prohibiting publishers from publishing descriminitory ads, even if they didn't write them. That's the difference.

The difference is that the law shouldn't even be on the books imo. The person discriminating is the private property owner/manager they engaged in the advertising. Facebook did not.

Facebook is aware, by virtue of the filtering in their system that allows such targeting to have, that such advertising is illegal, and chooses to present it (_and make money from it_) anyway.
Post reply on HN