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.........
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.
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?
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.
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.........
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.
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
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.
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.
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".