HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

I'm not in the business of defending Facebook, I neither like their business model nor their product...but this is an unreasonable accusation levied against them.

Their business is "I know ABCDEF about people, who would you like me to distribute your content to?"

Distributing content to people along ABCDE and F demographics happens to be legal in almost every case. The exception is specific housing discrimination laws that prevent filtering on ABC, etc.

It is outrageously unreasonable to expect Facebook to be responsible for the specific laws surrounding advertising for their customers. They provide targeted advertising. If their client targets demographics using an advertising strategy that happens to be illegal within their own industry, the responsibility is on the client/landlord, not Facebook. This is very much akin to blaming Microsoft for someone hacking from a Windows PC, or blaming the phonebook for a Chinese person emphasizing cold calls to the "Lee" portion of the book. If their actions are illegal, so be it, but the automatic assumption that the platform is responsible for the content that their users produce is fundamentally flawed.

They're not responsible... until they're told about it.

Traditionally platforms benefit from safe harbour by being neutral, but the whole point here is that the decision about who to show the ads to can only be made by Facebook.

It would seem the education system has failed significantly if the serious issues with segregation, racism and discrimination that have plagued the country remain unknown to the extent that half the commentators here don't seem to understand why laws were passed, why Facebook is wrong and why things are the way they are.

It's as if they don't understand how widespread racism, discrimination and segregation was, how it was systematically enforced, how it occurred and continues to occur and why these measures remain important.

Given this affected parties must continue the fight because that's the only way to confront selective memories, denial and ignorance.

I cannot conceive of a "stronger" explanation for what the GP stated. What kind of good faith argument could possibly be assumed in that guy asking that maybe reexamining Redline laws isn't the worst thing. It's a vile thing to say, and a statement made, I can only assume, in utter and wanton disregard of racial history of the United States.

It's a bit shameful that you flagged the parent and not the grandparent, who seems to be playing devil's advocate purely for the sake of an argument.

But there is selective use of advertising to target specific markets, which is an issue about which the Code of Federal Regulations, section 109.25 (https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7781.PDF) is completely clear:

> § 109.25 Selective use of advertising media or content.

> The selective use of advertising media or content when particular combinations thereof are used exclusively with respect to various housing developments or sites can lead to discriminatory results and may indicate a violation of the Fair Housing Act. For example, the use of English language media alone or the exclusive use of media catering to the majority population in an area, when, in such area, there are also available non-English language or other minority media, may have discriminatory impact. Similarly, the selective use of human models in advertisements may have discriminatory impact. The following are examples of the selective use of advertisements which may be discriminatory:

> (a) Selective geographic advertisements. Such selective use may involve the strategic placement of billboards; brochure advertisements distributed within a limited geographic area by hand or in the mail; advertising in particular geographic coverage editions of major metropolitan newspapers or in newspapers of limited circulation which are mainly advertising vehicles for reaching a particular segment of the community; or displays or announcements available only in selected sales offices.

> (b) Selective use of equal opportunity slogan or logo. When placing advertisements, such selective use may involve placing the equal housing opportunity slogan or logo in advertising reaching some geographic areas, but not others, or with respect to some properties but not others.

> (c) Selective use of human models when conducting an advertising campaign. Selective advertising may involve an advertising campaign using human models primarily in media that cater to one racial or national origin segment of the population without a complementary advertising campaign that is directed at other groups. Another example may involve use of racially mixed models by a developer to advertise one development and not others. Similar care must be exercised in advertising in publications or other media directed at one particular sex, or at persons without children. Such selective advertising may involve the use of human models of members of only one sex, or of adults only, in displays, photographs or drawings to indicate preferences for one sex or the other, or for adults to the exclusion of children.

Targeted advertising was already a thing when these regulations were written decades ago; internet advertising is just a difference in scale and cost.