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.........
Because it's advertising, not commerce. You can advertise your commercials only during the whitest TV show, why would the Internet be different?
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.
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?
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.
I suspect the financial sense thing is the reason for this policy at Facebook. They can force people to spend more advertising dollars that will be less effective all in the name of equality.
'white male' does not exclude handicapped, nor Jew, nor Muslim. Close, though.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
How is this even legal?
Is Zuckerborg from Mississippi or something?
I'm guessing the religion one might be legal - I'm pretty certain you can discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
The Fair Housing act begs to differ: https://www.hud.gov/sites/docu...
Folks can debate whether it should or should not be a law all they want, but the issue of legality is pretty clear.
The Act very clearly covers advertising as well in section 109.5
109.5 Policy.
It is the policy of the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing
throughout the United States. The provisions of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3600, et seq.)
make it unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, and in the provision
of brokerage and appraisal services, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status,
or national origin. Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes
it unlawful 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 because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
However, the prohibitions of the act regarding familial status do not apply with respect to housing
for older persons, as defined in section 807(b) of the act.
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 very clearly covers the contents of that advertising. The contents should not indicate the preference - but if the targeting is information that is not available to the consumer it is not a violation.
I really hope you're kidding or being sarcastic.
The federally protected classes in the U.S. are, race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veteran status, genetic information, and citizenship.
States may ADD to that list, but they cannot remove anything from that list.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.........
You are perfectly free, as long as you claim to be liberal.
Conservative not selling cake to gay wedding -> Sued into oblivion.
Liberal Twitter censoring accounts based on non-liberal view -> Cheered in the streets by liberals
Harvard admitting blacks and denying Asians based on race -> Cheered in the streets by liberals
Not sure why you think racism is fine from most people, but horrible from others. I guess its the same as accused sexual predators from Alabama are not fit to be in Congress, but ACTUAL sexual predators already in Congress are fine if they have a D next to their name.
You keep this up and someone like Trump will get elected to be president one day.
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.
Read the whole thing:
makes it unlawful 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,
'Cause to be made' and 'indicates any preference' are pretty clear. It's settled law.
You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't voice intent, ie you just quietly don't rent to somebody or advertise on 'Duck Dynasty' but if you tell the advertiser: don't show my commercial where black people might see it you have signaled intent and are not in compliance.
"Because it's advertising, not commerce."
Did money exchange hands? It's commerce no matter how you try to camouflage it.
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, 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
Reading comprehension:
that indicates any preference
Sure, maybe a TV ad might not be compliant. But a Facebook ad where the targeting is completely opaque does not give anyone a way to determine an indication of preference.
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.
It *is* pretty clear, and advertising demographics is not included in said notice, statement, or advertisement, so it's not a violation.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
Except that ProPublica told Facebook not to advertise to certain groups of people, as a test of Facebook's advertisement placement, and Facebook said "NO PROBLEM!"
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
And if those certain groups can't see the indication of preference when they see the placement of the ad, the letter of the law still holds.
But not between you and the end consumer. Way to pedantically nitpick the leaves and miss the trees and forest entirely.
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'
If Facebook complies with the targeted advertisement request, they don't see the advertisement at all.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
FB's SJW ways go out the window when money matters.
Or maybe they just created a social media platform and advertising system and they expect law enforcement to enforce the laws... you know, since enforcing laws is not their business. Should Wal-Mart now also make sure criminals aren't purchasing crowbars?
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
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.
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...
I guess you ran out of actual arguments, then. They don't see the advertisement and they don't see it being advertised publicly to other groups of people (targeted advertising is relatively private). And you can only guess if race was the demographic that made the ad show or not show.
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.
It very clearly covers the contents of that advertising.
... and even then, it is the person placing the ad that is breaking the law, not the newspaper or website publishing it.
Did they say when?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
First of all, it's important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned." What's more, while the president doesn't have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of "parole"), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best. From 8 USC section 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added).
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Care to inform us what the Asian wanted to talk about?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm pretty certain you can discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs.
No. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 specifically prohibits discrimination in housing based on religion.
There is an exemption for housing administered by religious organizations.
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
provide a source
Good-bye
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"
Under the Fair Housing Act, it's illegal to restrict who you advertise too on the basis of race, religion,etc., so if you define your high ROI cohorts according to those factors you'll be in trouble. If instead you define your target audience according to income, I think that would pass muster unless it was de facto racial discrimination. Like if in the local market no person of color earned over $40k/year and you only advertise to people making $41k and up. Though intent may be hard to prove, especially if the fair market value of the property is more than someone making $40k could afford.
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
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".
I'm not missing shit, son. I READ THE FUCKING RELEVANT LAW. You apparently did not.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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
I don't think he would need to prove it, just report it. Unless he's a prosecutor for HUD, in which case it could be his job. That's a good credit score, and "but we want 780" smells fishy as hell.
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.
I guess they wanted to make sure all the FB doors were locked and alarmed before approving that one?
He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
[...]
The National Review is great at cheerleading Trump, but it is not a qualified or reliable source for legal questions.
Stephan
Actually the National Review is pretty much the in house journal of Never Trump Republicans.
https://www.politico.com/story...
Still that doesn't make the law they cite any less real.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The Anonymous Idiot asked why, not how.
He's an idiot because this article is about the "why" -- to better target advertisements.
Reading may imply comprehension, but you prove that it does not mean comprehension.
As others have pointed out, this deals with the content of the ad, not the placement of the ad.
Further, this is all "within constitutional limitations". You can't compel speech by forcing someone to place an ad in specific publications, locations, etc.
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.
Apparently you failed, too.
"Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes
it unlawful 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 because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination."
To wit: Here's the whole fucking text.
Try again when you actually have a brain, shill-bitch. This statute makes discriminatory advertising with regards to housing illegal as well.
You apparently didn't even bother finding and reading the relevant law, you fuckwit.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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
The law says you cannot advertise like "White's only here." With the exception that you can advertise for senior living. They are not saying where you can PUT the ads, or how you distribute them, just the content therein.
Both actually. It even explicitly uses the word "publish." But it's a moot point because the content of the ad does not violate discrimination laws.
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...
No, the "how" is extremely important: we're told some bullshit about "microprocessors" and"algorithms" but clearly alien technology has to be involved...
Just because the ad itself doesn't say "no blacks" is not enough. The advertisers said "no blacks" to Facebook and that's a "statement" that they "made" and so *is* a violation.
The advertisers made a statement that they wanted to discriminate. That's clearly a violation of the regulation. There's no requirement for the statement to be made to potential customers; making a statement to your advertiser is clearly covered. You could say to your wife "I don't want to rent our place out to any blacks" and that would be a violation too.
The law only covers the contents of advertising that "indicates preference." If a customer can readily determine that there was a preference, that's the same as it being in the contents of the ad.
making a statement to your advertiser is clearly covered
Nothing about the words in the law says this.
The law says "To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement". It doesn't just say "publish", it also says "make". It doesn't just say "advertisement" it also says "statement". So if I "make" a "statement" then that is covered by this law.
And if Facebook is offended by those statements, then they can sue. They would be the only valid claimant, since that is who they are making the statement to.
And if Facebook is offended by those statements, then they can sue. They would be the only valid claimant, since that is who they are making the statement to.
Just like, if you murder me, I'm the only one who can sue you for murder.
Or, maybe, the government has some kind of enforcement apparatus which will go after you. Maybe there's even a difference between civil and criminal law.
Maybe there's even a difference between civil and criminal law.
You're right. And this one is civil law.
Which doesn't affect the ability of state and federal agencies, e.g., HUD, to penalise landlords in cases like this one. Even advocacy organisations like ProPublica can have standing to do this.
I really hope you're kidding or being sarcastic.
Neither. I honestly did not know which is why I said "I'm guessing" and "I'm pretty certain", instead of "I know" or "I'm certain". Poster elsethread posted a reference for the religion/housing thing.
The federally protected classes in the U.S. are, race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veteran status, genetic information, and citizenship.
States may ADD to that list, but they cannot remove anything from that list.
I'd like to see a reference for this. I don't see how "national origin" or "genetic information" can be protected classes.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
Read the whole thing:
makes it unlawful 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,
'Cause to be made' and 'indicates any preference' are pretty clear. It's settled law.
You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't voice intent, ie you just quietly don't rent to somebody or advertise on 'Duck Dynasty' but if you tell the advertiser: don't show my commercial where black people might see it you have signaled intent and are not in compliance.
Well what do you propose? That we force facebook to remove targeted ads?
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.........
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.