Slashdot Mirror
Facebook is Being Sued Over Housing Discrimination (fastcompany.com)
The National Fair Housing Alliance, along with three other nonprofit housing advocacy organizations around the country, has filed a lawsuit against Facebook over its alleged discriminatory advertisements. From a report: The nonprofits, over the last few months, created a fake real estate company and used the Facebook ad platform to place housing ads. According to the lawsuit, the NFHA was able to place advertisements that "[excluded] families with children and women from receiving advertisements, as well as users with interests based on disability and national origin." In the NFHA's press release, the organization writes that "Facebook's advertising platform enables landlords and real estate brokers to exclude families with children, women, and other protected classes of people from receiving housing ads."
The lawsuit follows extensive reporting from ProPublica that investigated these potentially discriminatory practices. For over a year, the journalism outlet tested various ways that landlords could place ads for housing, and found that the targeting allowed for many people to be kept out of the loop. Given Facebook's massive user base of over 2 billion users, the group believes that the social network is in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The lawsuit follows extensive reporting from ProPublica that investigated these potentially discriminatory practices. For over a year, the journalism outlet tested various ways that landlords could place ads for housing, and found that the targeting allowed for many people to be kept out of the loop. Given Facebook's massive user base of over 2 billion users, the group believes that the social network is in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
They're being sued because people are not getting spam? O_o
In other news, I bought a fork, and attempted to stab minorities in the eye with it. Nothing the fork manufacturer did prevented me from stabbing minorities in the eye with the fork they made. Therefore, the fork manufacturer needs to give me millions of dollars.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
It sounds like all they can prove is that it's possible to do that with FB, not that anyone has, other than themselves. They should probably go to jail for creating a fake housing company and creating targeted ads.
By the way, just before anyone takes this scant article too far and starts yelling at their companies' bulletin boards, classified ads, etc:
Finding roommates for a shared housing situation does not fall under the Fair Housing Act's provisions. It has been ruled a sufficiently personal and private matter by the courts that people are allowed to discriminate when they list to find a roommate.
However, I believe it only extends to male/female, not other protected characteristics. ( https://www.craigslist.org/abo... )
If your building doesn't have ground floor apartments and has nothing but stairs (assuming that's legal where you are, it is where I am) perhaps it wouldn't not be worth your while advertising to someone in a wheelchair?
And if you are advertising microcondos that hardly hold one person (and probably have housing limitations making it illegal to house more than one) advertising to families would be a waste, too.
Years ago, when people still used newspapers, if I put a housing ad in the newspaper that said "Single Mothers Need Not Apply". Would it be the newspaper or me that has violated fair housing laws?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Better question: is taking out an ad for housing in Maxim discriminatory against potential female or homosexual male applicants?
Facebook is the advertising *venue*, not the advertiser in this case. Facebook doesn't own the property for sale/rent. The people violating the Fair Housing Act in this case would be the (fake) real estate company...
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
the National Fair Housing Alliance et al (NFHA) need to step back and breath. I don't see Facebook as having done anything wrong if NFHA managed to give Facebook a neutrally worded ad with filters restricting whom the ads were being shown to. Yes, that would be a sneaky underhanded technique, but claiming that "Facebook broke the law! Give me money!" for falling for that technique would be equivalent to a landlord putting up advertisements in local papers in neighborhoods that omit protected groups. Or for that matter, having a landlord put up any advertisement in any media, and omitting selected medias for the purpose of making it so that protected groups are unlikely to see the advertisement in the first place. I just browsed the Fair Housing Act and I don't see any where in it that claims that you have to target your ads to the entire population, I do see that you can't have an ad that states that protected groups are not wanted, but there's nothing there that says that you have to make certain that the ad is available to everyone.
Solution: don't post illegal ads
Thank you for contacting Facebook(tm) Support. Have a nice day!
Facebook can gladly provide the names of the authors of those illegal ads. The parties that create those ads should be held liable.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am not a fan of Facebook but I'm on their side here. These fair housing laws are something that all real estate agents need to know before placing ads, and it's the real estate agents and landlords who are held liable by the state and/or federal real estate regulation agencies.
Facebook should not be held liable for this just because they have unprecedented amount of demographics targeting in their ads. The landlords who are doing this need to be reprimanded for violating the fair housing law.
If anything Facebook needs to be educated in these laws so that their ad review team can reject real estate ads that violate fair housing regulation.
I didn't even know the implication of these laws until I became a Real Estate agent. I thought fair housing meant if I'm black, Asian, gay, etc. I can buy a house and not be discriminated against. I did not think that it meant landlords couldn't choose not to rent to families with kids etc.
It seems reasonable to me that a landlord would not want to rent their house to families with a lot of young children who would be more likely to destroy the property, but this is actually an illegal practice.
To me it makes common sense that as the owner of the property - you can choose WHO you want to rent your house/apartment to, and while you can.. You cannot advertise that kids aren't allowed, etc. I personally think that isn't fair to the property owner but at the same time it's not fair to families with children who should be able to be able to easily find someplace to live.
But the point is not whether or not I agree with it, it's that I had no idea that was illegal until after I studied to be an agent, so how can you expect this to be anywhere near remotely in the thought process of the geeks behind Facebook?
Housing probably shouldn't be commercially advertised anyways.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This has to be a stupid lawsuit by lawyers with nothing better to do and need to get their name out there.
No, it's an opportunity at getting a healthy percentage of a large pile of FB's cash, right when FB will be doing its best to dole out money in every direction possible to beat back recent bad PR. The people suing them are in it strictly for personal enrichment.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Of coarse there is no legal obligation for facebook to decide if someone is creating illegal adds. This is a case of trying to get private corporations to datamine their customers for legal violations that the feds should be required to get court orders for.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
A toilet rigged to "on" will be useless. The fill rate is not high enough to remove waste effectively. That's why we fill the bowl to near the tipping point, then add a bit more to reach it and flush it clean.
Housing probably shouldn't be commercially advertised anyways.
Why do you want to deflate our bubble? We're only several times the size we were when we last popped!!
Facebook's role is quite different in this case.
How so? (Hint: It isn't.)
While I can understand what they're thinking, this will be interesting to see how it shakes out. Where does targeting advertising equal discrimination?
If you posted a 3x5 (A7) card on bulletin boards for a house for rent, would putting them only in white neighborhoods be discrimination? Is not showing an ad to someone the same as discriminating against them when they show up?
How does this apply to TV or radio ads? If you don't do one on a Spanish-only station but only on an English station, is that discriminating against a segment of the population?
Facebook's targeting is much more specific, but it's likely where TV and radio are going with streaming services. It's not a stretch to imagine the same super classification that occurs with Google or Facebook ads coming to ad-supported video. If so, will the advertisers be prohibited from choosing some combinations of the recipient's attributes?
My non legally-trained mind imagines this to be prior restraint. They haven't actually discriminated in housing by placing the ad, but they *might* discriminate I'm not sure that's the same.
I hope there isn't a quick settlement, I want to see how this is viewed by the courts.
They are actively facilitating. A phone system does not actively facilitate. Sexconker...I award your alt back its mod points.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Both.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
To clarify:
"Part 109, Sec 109.16:
"(1) Advertising media. This part provides criteria for use by advertising media in determining
whether to accept and publish advertising regarding sales or rental transactions.
42USC 3600-3620, sec 7(d), 42USC 3535 (d), 54FR 3308 Jan 23,1989.
Web sites are covered by the Fair Housing Act also, but some did claim they are exempted by Section 804(c), and the CDA 47USC sec 230. This has not been held. No safe harbor there.
Yeah, it's like that.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Solution: don't post illegal ads
Thank you for contacting Facebook(tm) Support. Have a nice day!
Facebook can gladly provide the names of the authors of those illegal ads. The parties that create those ads should be held liable.
Except for the small detail that the Fair Housing Act makes printing, making, or publishing such ads illegal. Not just making.
Of course there are some "safe-harbors" that publishers can attempt to use use.
All advertisements should have prominent display of equal housing opportunity logotype, statement, or slogan as a means of educating the homeseeking public that the property is available to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
Or perhaps include a statement with all advertising that states something like: All real estate advertised herein is subject to the Federal Fair Housing Act, which makes it illegal to advertise "any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination." We will not knowingly accept any advertising for real estate which is in violation of the law. All persons are hereby informed that all dwellings advertised are available on an equal opportunity basis.
On the other hand, potential evidence used against publishers are: selective availability of advertisements (this is what Facebook is doing); selective inclusion of equal housing opportunity statements or logos in different advertising campaigns; advertising with human models that cater to one segment of the population without complementary advertising in other segments.
Facebook's problem is that the tools they give to advertiser allow them to explicitly include/exclude certain groups of people when defining a target for their housing ads is basically the same as for any other ad. So by excluding people that have interests in certain areas (ethnic affinities, like Interest in Telemundo, or gender affinities, like women in technology) they can effectively hide the advertisements from people advertisers want to discriminate against. By providing these tools, they are basically accomplices in the violation of the Fair Housing Act, not a neutral party just providing an ad platform...
Solution: don't post illegal ads
Thank you for contacting Facebook(tm) Support. Have a nice day!
Facebook can gladly provide the names of the authors of those illegal ads. The parties that create those ads should be held liable.
Except for the small detail that the Fair Housing Act makes printing, making, or publishing such ads illegal. Not just making.
Of course there are some "safe-harbors" that publishers can attempt to use use.
Fair point. And those safe harbors 'should' be sufficient if FB shows they've taken reasonable measures, which they seemingly have. If I publish a paper, and someone sneaks in and changes something, or intentionally words something that might not catch the eye of an editor, it is hard to see culpability on my part. There appears to be intent to slip something past FB here. There is clearly no intent on FB's part to publish such ads.
But hey, sometimes it just depends on the judge.
This has been going on for as long as there have been anti discrimination laws. Credit companies are probably the worst. They buy lists of demographic details by zip or postal code and then only send out offers to those groups they want as customers. Facebook makes it easier do chose your audience and they also make it much more obvious when a company does discriminate. There should have been stronger laws about this kind of discrimination long ago.
What matters is if anyone is disadvantaged by their actions.
Make up for specific skin tones is fine. No one loses out. Target away. But trying to exclude certain people from housing, a basic resource that everyone needs and is the core of a person's life, is rather different.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Facebook did little more than do the equivalent of providing a platform like classified ads. It's the people the improperly use it that are in violation.
Furthermore I think FB should not be required to police their customers.
P.S. And I don't even like FB but they did nothing wrong.
Simply discriminating against certain groups does not mean you are necessarily breaking the law.
" the NFHA was able to place advertisements that "[excluded] families with children"
You are advertising single bedroom efficiencies that families with children do not rent. I don't think that those big houses on college campuses that rent rooms out to college kids would get in trouble if they didn't advertise in the local parenting weekly.
" and women"
That's a problem.
"from receiving advertisements, as well as users with interests based on disability"
Not sure what disability based interests are. You could be renting a house that does not meet with modern disability standards.
" and national origin"
That could be a problem, but I think drawing a line between national origin "interests" and actual national origin could be tenuous.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
They're not actively participating anymore than the post office is actively participating when I buy a stamp or pay to ship a box, or AT&T is actively participating when you pay the bill.
I don't have any alt accounts here.
Looking at the wording in Fair Housing Act, it doesn't seem to prohibit targeted advertisement. It's illegal to refuse renting or selling based on a protected class when someone makes an offer, or mention such preference in the advertisement, or falsely claim that the housing is unavailable. However, targeted advertisement does not fall under any of those illegal acts because the advertisement itself does not mention the preference. One can argue that if someone finds housing through another way, then as long as the landlord does not refuse the offer on the basis of protected class, and the real estate agent or mortgage broker does not refuse the transaction on the basis of protected class, there would have been no violation.
But IANAL.
I once had a signature.
This is the same as a landlord advertising in GQ or Penthouse, just because facebook is able to offer more accurate reporting does not criminalize an effort to appeal to the people you want to attract. Personally I think facebook is crap and cancelled my account the day trump got elected but if advertisers want their ads to go to only men that is the advertisers goal and should not be a crime in general.
Say what you want about FB but they are not legally responsible for the abuse of their software any more than Jack Daniels is responsible for people driving drunk.
Let's be honest here. Imagine I hate $minority. For no reason whatsoever, I just don't like $minority, I don't want to sell anything to $minority and I don't want to deal with $minority.
What do you think would change if I could not avoid advertising to $minority? That I suddenly start selling to them? Especially in a market like real estate where I pretty much HAVE TO know who I sell or let to. The ONLY thing that changes is that I don't go on $minority's nerves with my damn ads and that I don't waste their time.
In other words, if I happen to be part of a minority you don't want to deal with, I do not WANT your damn ads. First, because they're ads, but more importantly, because I in turn don't want to deal with an asshole.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This isn't abuse of their software by others. This is Facebook fulfilling an illegal request (or looks like it; IANAL, and I'm going to wait for a judicial ruling).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes