Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Still Lets Housing Advertisers Exclude Users By Race (arstechnica.com)
AmiMoJo writes: In February, Facebook said it would step up enforcement of its prohibition against discrimination in advertising for housing, employment, or credit. Last week, ProPublica bought dozens of rental housing ads on Facebook but asked that they not be shown to certain categories of users, such as African-Americans,mothers of high school kids, people interested in wheelchair ramps, Jews, expats from Argentina, and Spanish speakers. All of these groups are protected under the federal Fair Housing Act. Violators can face tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Every single ad was approved within minutes. The only ad that took longer than three minutes to be approved by Facebook sought to exclude potential renters 'interested in Islam, Sunni Islam, and Shia Islam.' It was approved after 22 minutes.
I mean, if you were to put up physical fliers on telephone poles ONLY in predominately white areas of town, you are not required to put as many (or ANY) of same fliers in areas that are more black/hispanic/minority...right?
It is against the law to discriminate against who you let sign on the dotted line, but you are not compelled to advertise that there is a dotted line available in an equal manner.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's not illegal to choose not to tell certain people that you have property you would like to rent. It's illegal not to rent to them because of their membership in a protected class, but you can't force somebody to advertise to them.
Is Zuckerborg from Mississippi or something?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Better to have white male gun nuts and white male pedophiles.
If you are renting a 3rd floor apartment in a building without an elevator, then people interested in wheelchair ramps probably also aren't interested in your apartment.
...and if you make any distinction surrounding race at all, you sir or madam are a racist. I think it is high time we start classifying people as human and move the fuck on. Race is a poor data point; it assumes much and provides little knowledge. It is intrinsically unfair. Just stop using it. Strike it from all forms, all databases, and all modalities of information sharing and hopefully within a generation or two, it will only exist in history books.
I am NOT a FaceBook used..
But when you sign up, do you have to tell them your race, or religion?
most rental apartments have a covenant: "no slashdot subscribers" and facebook can enforce that easily.
When you really get down to it, stereotyping is the big problem that leads to divisive hate.
Facebook "advertisers" trolling has only increased since the last election IMO. A friend of mine shared recently an ad that was injected into his newsfeed (from some site called Wish) that was essentially a picture of a small ziploc back filled with white powder, and a large straw. WTF? I've also seen "ads" that appear to be simply there to disturb people playing to their paranoias and delusions. Facebook has no mechanism for reporting abuse of the advertisements. I suppose the line between "fucking someone up in the head so they buy your product" and "fucking someone up in the head because you can" isn't distinct enough for them to care. After all, we're the "dumb fucks" who trust them, right zuckface?
I should be free to decide to whom I want to rent it to on any criteria I damn well please.
Housing law has a more expansive definition of discrimination than that for other types of commerce.
Selective advertising can definitely be considered illegal discrimination. It can be hard to prove, but in this case it's pretty easy to demonstrate.
However, if you're looking to upgrade your rent, and know that flyers are a good way to find those gems, you can mostly drive through the neighborhoods you aspire to live in and find them.
On Facebook, if the ad is not distributed to you for whatever reason, you'll never know.
And that is the difference. A better RL analogy would be to find store owners or others hosting physical bulletin boards shooing away those they deem 'undesirable', rather than letting them see ads for anything they or their posters wish not seen by the 'undesirable'.
And that's plainly illegal. So should it be on Facebook. It's obvious discrimination.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
'white male' does not exclude handicapped, nor Jew, nor Muslim. Close, though.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
cause iz donzt wants to rentz to any whities.
Those guys are their CUSTOMERS!
And they PAY for being r-a-a-cist!
FB's SJW ways go out the window when money matters.
Freedom of association is a Human Right!
Something that "Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley" makes clear when Facebook set up their advertising system.
The only ad that took longer than three minutes to be approved by Facebook sought to exclude potential renters 'interested in Islam, Sunni Islam, and Shia Islam.' It was approved after 22 minutes.
The reviewer was on break for lunch?
At no point did the ads say they wouldn't rent to the people they weren't targeting. If the rental process came to the final decision and people were excluded based on race, religion, gender, etc then there would be a case. At this point, it's an advertiser looking to target a specific type of people their marketing has identified as being the best audience for their product. Do you see adds for Pokemon during the evening news, ads for high blood pressure medication during Saturday morning cartoons? No, because it would be a waste of advertising money as your target audience is not in those groups. While I understand Pro Publica wrote the initial article, ArsTechnica shouldn't have run it. They need to not be in the identity politics game. Once you chose a side with an article like this, you're in it for life, and that's not their business model. Unfortunately, it appears Ars is being converged and it's a sure sign to find a new source of tech news and information. With crap like this, Taylor Swift is looking smarter and smarter each day.
According to this link http://civilrights.findlaw.com... A landlord must treat every tenant equally. Illegal discrimination occurs when the landlord: -Includes preferences or limitations in a rental advertisement - Denies the availability of a available rental dwelling or steers renters to a certain area based on race The Fair Housing Act covers both tenants and prospective tenants. I would think those two points are pretty clear that Facebook is doing something illegal.
Sent from my TARDIS
It is more like only putting it on bulletin boards in stores that serve potential customers/renters of the demographic you believe to be more suitable for your property (salary, dependability, potential social problems, etc).
In this case of FB...I believe they charge by ad, and how many folks it goes out to...right?
If that's the case, then the customer is wanting to only spend as little advertising $$ and possible, and therefore spend the limited advertising targeted towards those that he feels would be his best potential market.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This whole issue reads quite differently when phrased differently. I'm not sure what is really going on here, and don't condone any type of racism, but consider an alternate interpretation. Something like "ProPublica uses machine learning algorithm to focus advertising dollars on high ROI cohorts". After all, one might be able to make the same claim about any company who advertises during the Grey's Anatomy time slot compared to those who advertise during SWAT. If we juxtapose those demographics and uncover sharper differences, who are we to condemn? The point being that there is no accusation about actually rejecting housing applications from certain demographics.
But if you're renting out a lot of properties, and you're deliberately excluding handicapped people because they're handicapped, you're violating the FHA.
There is a difference between "this apartment is not handicapped accessible" and "we do not rent to handicapped people".
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
In Great Society 2.0, governrment rewards law firms that find violations in small businesses. This is why you may have seen two railings on stairs, because the original one was a few inches too high or low, and a law firm found it and made the business pay them $11,947 as a violation finders' reward.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
So you can't publish housing ads in a magazine almost exclusively read by older men, because young women would be excluded? Or you'd have to *also* advertise in a magazine read by young women as well? I don't see how advertising could work at all under such conditions.
Ezekiel 23:20
The fine they would get would be small in comparison to the advertising revenue they're getting, so there's no reason to stop breaking the law.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Those great discount credit card offers you get in the mail aren't sent to everyone. The credit card company bought a profile of your neighbourhood from a credit bureau before mailing them out.
Honestly, if someone doesn't want blacks, whites, or muslims in their house I don't see the big deal.
I don't want to rent to students because they always fuck up your house, and you basically have to rip it all out and rebuild when they leave.
Is that somehow wrong too?
In February, Facebook said it would step up enforcement of its prohibition against discrimination in advertising
but hasn't
By having a sidewalk on both sides of a street, it is possible for one resident to potentially determine the race of another and cross the street. This design facilitates overt otherism and needs to be outlawed.
No, you can, because while the magazine may be read almost exclusively by older men, nothing is preventing anyone else from reading the magazine.
In this case, however, ProPublica wanted to see how Facebook would respond to an advertisement placement wherein it was requested that the advertisement would not be shown to (for example), Jews.
Facebook admitted last year that they had a problem with this sort of thing, and they were correcting it.
And yet most of these advertisements were approved in 3 minutes.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Back in the 90s, Colorado had our infamous amendment 2. It basically said that state and local gov could not forbid this kinds of actions and that ppl would have no legal recourse. However, that version was after the far right got a hold of it. The ORIGINAL version said that for roommates, landlords owning 4 or less properties, or businesses smaller than 12 employees, COULD discriminate in this fashion, BUT, that all others COULD not. IOW, if you worked for a company where it was possible to move you away from idiots, then you should not be discriminated against.
Likewise, for a roommate situation, the last thing I would want to do is move into a place in which the roomie HATES me from the gitgo. That will make for a nightmare situation
The ability to place that Ad should be similar. If it is roomate or small ownership, then by all means, allow somebody to avoid getting into bad situations.
BUT, with medium to large businesses, absolutely NOT.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's possible to get Facebook to give someone LESS ads if they can convince Facebook that they are a minority that should be excluded from certain types of ads?
If anything, I'd say that's discriminatory against people who don't fall into a minority category.
So.... how does one get Facebook to think that you are a minority?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Selective advertising can definitely be considered illegal discrimination. It can be hard to prove, but in this case it's pretty easy to demonstrate.
Discrimination in housing was banned by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibits discriminatory language in ads, but does not specifically prohibit targeted advertising. There may be case law that makes it effectively illegal. It certainly goes on all the time: The Chinese and Vietnamese newspapers in my city (San Jose) have plenty of housing ads written in those languages. But there is nothing in the act that puts the onus on publishers to enforce the law. Facebook may be violating their own stated policies, but they are not doing anything illegal.
White dudes with guns are far more dangerous, but suggest banning them from moving into a nice area and suddenly the shrieks of discrimination would be overwhelming.
I swear, if the real estate industry spent half as much effort doing their job as they did making sure races stay apart, we'd have a whole new housing bubble meltdown on our hands...
How do you figure?
Citations?
If you look it up, I think you'll actually find that most non-suicide gun deaths are handgun deaths, and these are largely gang related which is generally non-caucasian on non-caucasian crime.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What this does is save the potential renter time. Because if some bigot doesn't want to rent his apartment to someone who is (insert person group here) he WILL find an excuse not to. And there is no law that could even possible force anyone to rent a certain apartment to someone specific. This isn't a bar where more than one person at the same time gets in where you can easily point at discrimination when he's turned away while some other person not belonging to the same group get in.
In other words, even if they are prejudiced, you'll have a hard time proving it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If I donâ(TM)t want to rent out to lesser races then I shouldnâ(TM)t be forced to. Why would I want blacks committing crime and not paying rent? Why would I want Muslims blowing the place up? Why would I want Mexicans stinking the place up and being lazy bums?
Rent only to hard working whites!
No, you fucking moron.. It's not like that at all. You just made shit up.
Nobody has been "shooed" away, which is the crux of your retarded argument. They were never there to begin with.
The closest analogy to what you want is for an advertiser to be forced to put a flyer on every single telephone pole, instead of telephone poles of their choosing.
This is clearly fucking stupid, and only fools like AmiMojo or yourself can't comprehend it.
Uhh what?
White males are 17 times less likely to commit a violent crime compared to black males.
You are a fucking imbecile.
Why do facebook even know who is jewish, and who is black and who is from Argentina?
I have one word for you: bigot.
Housing is a special case. It's so integral to people's lives, it represents such an important opportunity for them in terms of affecting their quality of life, it gets some special protection. It's also a commonly used tool for creating segregation and deliberate discrimination.
Housing is an area where the market fails. The most profit is made by causing social problems, i.e. to the detriment of the rest of society. As such, most places have extra levels of regulation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Advertisement laws should *protect* consumers, like children, but can we really tell people who they can advertise to? It's not hurting anyone.
I just got my real estate license this year. The 90 hours worth of pre-classes are about 20% useful information to know as a realtor and 80% "here are the many different ways you can be sued." The Fair Housing stuff was pretty intense as well. They cover all of the major stuff that makes the news, but I was shocked at the level of detail.
If a customer walks into your office and you offer them a cup of coffee and then another customer of a protected class walks in and you forget to offer them a cup...that's a violation. Because of that, all of these offices just put up "help yourself" style stations for coffee/water, etc.
I remember having past dealing with real estate agents and just feeling like they weren't all that helpful...most of the reason for that is paranoia about how many things can get you sued. You're basically signing up to hold confidential information indefinitely, go through with lots of due diligence, pay annually for training and try not to say anything that can get you sued. It's crazy.
Social Justice!
Topics read by the user regularly
I.P. location
#DeleteFacebook
The medium makes it different. Anybody can read that magazine and see those ads. In Facebook's case, the technology is such that just anybody CANNOT see those ads. You might have a decent argument if the publisher of that magazine had a reliable way of ensuring that young women who wanted to read that magazine were physically obstructed from doing so.
Facebook anonymizes the targeting parameters for advertising, but on the serving end, they're not showing ads when older men are *likely* to be reading, they're serving ads to people they actually know are only older men (to a reliable enough degree that it's true for all intents and purposes.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
Cool, so all I have to do to get rid of all ads on Facebook is to transform into a hispanic black muslim white jewish low-income transvestite parent of juveniles?
Consider it done!
This challenges the very business model of all social networking sites. Their revenue comes from targeted advertising. Are some types of targeting illegal then? Who decides which types? This could be a disaster for Zuckerberg.
COE
Furthermore...if I wanted to sell 'fro pics or some other stereotypically black-oriented product, why would I want to waste my advertising dollars on bald middle-aged white men? If I wanted to sell skis or roller skates, why would I waste my advertising dollars on wheelchair users? And I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get any bites trying to sell crucifixes to Jews and Muslims, or Star of David necklaces or menorah candles to Catholics and Muslims.
Housing discrimination is bad, I suppose, but affirmative action in advertising is stupid and evil.
I don't really believe there are that many (if any at all meaningful) external forces that impose segregation in housing communities.
It seems more tribe mentality, that people like and prefer to live with people that look and act and believe similarly to themselves.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No, you fucking moron.. It's not like that at all. You just made shit up.
Nobody has been "shooed" away, which is the crux of your retarded argument. They were never there to begin with.
The closest analogy to what you want is for an advertiser to be forced to put a flyer on every single telephone pole, instead of telephone poles of their choosing.
This is clearly fucking stupid, and only fools like AmiMojo or yourself can't comprehend it.
Anyone who spends their time worrying about their standing in the protected class Olympics is a fool and probably can't comprehend it. They live their lives with chips on their shoulders and can even look at the absolute poverty in Appalachia and still see "white privilege".
Let's say I have a property for rent and I discriminate against protected class tenants on Slashdot in a posting, is Slashdot responsible and accountable for advocating this behavior in court? I think not. If someone knows different, provide specific evidence for your claim.
We'll make great pets
the easy answer is accept able applicants and filter privately. duh.
HR has been doing that for 50 years + and male/female dating via Darwinian methods has been doing that for 30,000 years plus.
a neighbor of mine was leasing a building, and the trolls for a local ADA advocacy legal group came buy with a service dog and came in.. little did he know he was being tricked and trapped into their game to see if they could sue him for discrimination because of a service dog... it was close but he said thank you and did not accept their application or return their call... there.. oh.. i must have lost your number...
Every other category of exclusion and add targeting is ethically problematic as well except for the one that means interested in my product. Racism is on only the tip of the spear for what facebook has to offer.
Advertisers would sell to their own worst enemies if they could make a buck off of it.
... those are different stories.
If a company doesn't want to promote itself to a specific ethnicity it is most likely because they don't think the target wants to buy anything.
If that is true, both sides are better off.
Hiring, marriage, cliches
Ads are like weeds. Keep em out civilized areas. If we want to see them we know where to look.
What, no discrimination against Dentists? Next they'll be saying they should have their own schools!
Perhaps ProPublica shouldn't be discriminating in asking to place the ads in the first place! It's bad enough the government can act as 'thought police', we don't need FB to do their job for them. If ProPublica wants to be outed as discriminatory bastards that's up to them, we can stay away from anything & everything they are part of (parent companies etc.). Thanks for outing yourself ProPublica.
It doesnt even exclude african.
I guess they wanted to make sure all the FB doors were locked and alarmed before approving that one?
This is why i try to tip the scales and only rent to large breasted women with the ghetto booty.
No need to call me a hero, I'm just trying to do what's right.
Check his posting history. You'll see plejty of trolling. Them mod him down to -1 to help stop his trolling.
When my parents grew up there were signs in their apartment leasing office about "No Coloreds Allowed". They might be gone now, but do you think that everyone who lived there, everyone who thought and enforced that, disappeared the same day as the sign? Do you think none of them passed those values on to their children?
Those residual effects will take a few generations to really disappear. To this day there are still things being done - hiding housing ads from certain races, for example - that are making sure the issue drags out as long as possible.
I doubt you have ever faced discrimination in housing, but my life experience is a little broader than most on Slashdot, so let me explain something to you. When I, as a white man, needed government assisted housing, there was a complex near by where I worked, the residents and management all being black. I didn't want to be there, but I had to. Now, Even though the law says I will have the same help available to me, and the paperwork I signed had all kinds of feel-good equal opportunity housing notices on it... I did not leave that office with the same benefits the black people did. The law might decree equal opportunity, but there is so much flex room in the *administration* of it, that in practice, the opportunities are anything but equal.
The Anonymous Idiot asked why, not how.
He's an idiot because this article is about the "why" -- to better target advertisements.
So...pretty much, everything is racism nowadays, right?
Stupid times we live on.
This whole inclusion thing + bad use of information media is simple driving me nuts.
I can't think of any examples of "gangs" shooting hundreds of people at random like in Vegas. And by "gangs" we can only assume you mean black people, you racist fuck.
It's very convenient of you to exclude "non-sucide gun deaths", so I'll go for the unintentional deaths which account for 80% of the deaths caused by white owned guns. These are primary accidental handgun deaths, but if your baby was shot intentionally or accidental through the apartment wall it hardly matters to you.
citation1 citation2
Not to mention ADA. If you operate at a big enough scale, you have a legal obligation to make your properties handicapped accessible, when feasible.
Housing is an area where the market fails. The most profit is made by causing social problems, i.e. to the detriment of the rest of society. As such, most places have extra levels of regulation.
This explains why housing projects are such great places to live.
The housing market works fine, it's government intervention that screws everything up or makes it way more complicated. You're not going to find many well regarded economists that think rent control is a good idea or doesn't cause all manner of problems in turn. It also turns out that guaranteeing home loans to people who can't possibly afford them wasn't a good idea other. The market did exactly what the people wanted it to, but if you have a lot of racist people, the market isn't going to magically create racial harmony for you. Of course neither is government intervention, so it hardly matters.
I'd even be fine with the proposals from people who want to completely remove the government from the market, even when it includes no protection for minority groups and businesses could actively discriminate based on race. It just lets all the peckerheads that care about crap like that segregate their own selves away from everyone else. And if someone wants to create their own little ethnic enclave where only black Jews from the Maldives can live then they're just as welcome to that. The people and businesses that like money more than prejudices are going to be the ones to survive and thrive.
If the ad said, "No gamers or Republicans", you'd shit on the floor in fury and call for a boycott.
Did U Know? that poverty was going down in Appalachia until they started buying into racist dogwhistles and voting for Republican governance? You can look it up.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Some editor is on a roll today! Check out the "Apple hates opening stores where minorities live" article too.
Facebook lets any ad target people on a racial basis. Any advertising agency lets an ad target people on a racial basis. This is standard practice in advertising.
Here's something crazy and hard to believe for a lot of people:
Different racial groups are different. There are trends in behavior that correlate tightly with race. In other words, race isn't just made up. It's real! Whoa!
The foundation of the objection this article exists to voice is that 'all races are the same' so treating them differently in any way is wrong. That is the message that an unaware reader has crammed into their head.
All of these groups are protected under the federal Fair Housing Act.
Are white people not? That is the implication from the sentence. Cherrypicking the aspect of the truth that serves its narrative best. It's supporting the mindset that it's minorities against whites in this world. In reality, ALL PEOPLE are protected.
If we keep accepting narratives like this in our media, it really will be minorities against whites, with misled minorities as the aggressors.
Submitter: AmiMoJo
our resident social justice shill
It was nice to see that fool getting ravaged with downmods in the Damore article. However it is much, much too often that this pernicious bastard gets modded up for completely illogical and politically motivated messages.
How much do you want to bet that there are paid posters here that farm mod points to mod people like this up and mod down any dissent? With any gameified system with anything at stake there are always going to be "gold farmers".
How hard would it be to hook up a chat bot to fish for mod points on a dummy account?
In Facebook's case, the technology is such that just anybody CANNOT see those ads.
It seems fairly far-fetched that a seller announces housing available in Facebook Ads only. This is not a conventional way of finding housing..... usually there are listing services that contain such things, and many websites such as Zillow provide a search feature.
Perhaps Facebook could easily address the concern by making ALL ads that are active on their platform searchable, and if you expose an ad by specifically searching Type of ad, then no targeting rules can apply.
But to your analogy, it isn't putting it up on a big public bulletin board and shoo'ing away.
It's like having a bunch of bulletin boards hidden behind curtains, and when somebody walks by you lift a curtain that corresponds to
the bulletin board with ads targeted to that guest's demographics.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Subsection D says you're dead wrong and in fact you must equally present that dotted line.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"So you can't publish housing ads in a magazine almost exclusively read by older men"
Actually, no mention of age is in the advertising-specific sections of the Fair Housing Act, though it is mentioned elsewhere in non-advertising contexts. That would probably be the sticking point in a court room.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
After all, were that the case, you wouldn't be legally seeing advertisements for age-based retirement communities.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There are places where segregation wouldn't become a problem if regulation were removed. And then there's the entire southeastern United States, which remains highly segregated and highly bigoted. About 40% of people in Mississippi and Alabama still believe interracial marriage should be illegal -- one of many harmful effects of segregation. Their anti-gay, anti-muslim, etc views are of course even more extreme. The bigots (of any type) can only develop into better people by encountering people who are different than them, which is why the powerful among them seek to prevent their communities from being exposed to others who would educate them.
This space intentionally left blank
Did U Know? that poverty was going down in Appalachia until they started buying into racist dogwhistles and voting for Republican governance? You can look it up.
To be honest I'm not a big D nor R fan, though I dislike them for different reasons. The Democrats favor social engineering and have decided that white people and men are both bad (citation below). As I'm both that isn't appealing to me. Their non-stop race baiting is off-putting. If they decided that they were willing to drop the race baiting and go back to trying to focus on the working poor - upper middle class then I'd be happy to vote for them. The Republicans are a mix of rich for the rich but they at least don't call me names for the crime of being born white and male. To my mind they are both run by mega donors, you just have a choice of Soros vs Koch brothers. I dislike both.
Citations:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/... https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...
This. FB scales through automation. An ad like this would have been rejected by most humans at newspapers in the past.
Now that the humans are no longer looking at ads, you have this result.
Why is this surprising?
No, the "how" is extremely important: we're told some bullshit about "microprocessors" and"algorithms" but clearly alien technology has to be involved...
I'm pretty sure that bomb throwing is not one of the criteria you can filter your ads by in Facebook. If FB could actually tell that a user was a bomb-thrower, wouldn't they contact the authorities?
If the ad said, "No gamers or Republicans", you'd shit on the floor in fury and call for a boycott.
It's funny, really: the ad doesn't say "No Demorats" or "No non-whites" and there is a storm of controversy, and yet you want to turn this around and tell us what the outcome will be if the ad was indeed discriminatory.
You're an idiot.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I"m guessing that while it is illegal to discriminate with regard to housing to [insert minority here], it is likely NOT illegal to tune your advertising disbursement however you wish.
Where I am, this would be borderline illegal.
But that doesn't matter, its a big PR shitstorm and thatâ(TM)s the damaging part. It doesn't need to be illegal to be immoral or distasteful to your clientele. Many businesses have lost supporters over perfectly legal racist policies because those supporters or advertisers do not want to be tarnished by an affiliated or associated company who has conducted themselves in such a distasteful manner.
Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it right.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It does regulate content, but it does not regulate the distribution and targeting of the ads or ad campaign.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's not to the detriment of all society. That's your inner democrat talking. If Bill Gates lived in my neighborhood what benefit would I get? How is it harming me that he's not here? Should I be suing over this? It's bullshit. I'm glad there aren't a bunch of rich snobs living here and looking down their noses at me because I don't have automatic sprinklers or asking me to play golf with them or carry their clubs.
The truth is that in the case of housing the only way to hurt someone is to break into their place. Even denying housing isn't really a harm... there are plenty of places i can't afford and they would turn me down if they saw my pay stubs. Not harming me. And if I go somewhere I can afford and they say "we don't want your kind here" I would be offended but also I wouldn't want to live there anymore because it would just be all problems. I'll go where I'm welcome, and it's their loss for denying me based on their prejudice.
You're allowed to discriminate based on age when you're discriminating against younger (under-55) people. There's tons of communities in the US where you either can't rent or can't buy a house if you're too young, and it's completely legal.
Not if contacting the authorities makes them a target, which may explain the 17 minute on average difference in the original article.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
1/17th as likely (not "17x less", you buffoon) to be convicted of a crime, which is a far far different thing from what you are portraying.
The analogy is putting it up on a big public bulletin board whenever a [person not of minority] walks in and taking it down when [person of minority] walks in.