Slashdot Mirror
HUD Files Complaint Alleging Facebook Ad Tools Allow Housing Discrimination (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has filed an official discrimination complaint against Facebook, saying the site's dizzying array of advertising tools makes it simple for advertisers to illegally exclude wide swathes of the population from seeing housing ads, Politico wrote on Friday. In a press release, HUD wrote that Facebook's "targeted advertising" model more or less constitutes a way for said advertisers to skirt the federal Fair Housing Act, specifically by excluding members of protected categories: "HUD claims Facebook enables advertisers to control which users receive housing-related ads based upon the recipient's race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, disability, and/or zip code. Facebook then invites advertisers to express unlawful preferences by offering discriminatory options, allowing them to effectively limit housing options for these protected classes under the guise of 'targeted advertising.'"
Specific examples cited by HUD included showing display ads "either only to men or women," as well as preventing users flagged as interested in disabilities-related topics like "assistance dog" or "accessibility" from seeing display ads. HUD also said that the targeted advertising tool can be used to prevent people interested in specific religions or regions from seeing ads, as well as "draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes." The complaint is just a complaint, but it does start an official process that will either end in Facebook reaching a resolution with federal officials or a lawsuit. CNN Tech notes that the National Fair Housing Alliance is simultaneously suing Facebook for the same reason. "Facebook is trying to dismiss the suit by claiming it has limited liability for user-generated content, though HUD and federal prosecutors claim the site operates as an internet content provider with respect to housing ads and therefore is subject to civil rights law," reports Gizmodo.
Specific examples cited by HUD included showing display ads "either only to men or women," as well as preventing users flagged as interested in disabilities-related topics like "assistance dog" or "accessibility" from seeing display ads. HUD also said that the targeted advertising tool can be used to prevent people interested in specific religions or regions from seeing ads, as well as "draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes." The complaint is just a complaint, but it does start an official process that will either end in Facebook reaching a resolution with federal officials or a lawsuit. CNN Tech notes that the National Fair Housing Alliance is simultaneously suing Facebook for the same reason. "Facebook is trying to dismiss the suit by claiming it has limited liability for user-generated content, though HUD and federal prosecutors claim the site operates as an internet content provider with respect to housing ads and therefore is subject to civil rights law," reports Gizmodo.
Traditional advertising for housing has the same restrictions. You cannot exclude based on race, etc. For example you cannot distribute advertising pamphlets for housing only to white people. That is basically what hyper targeted advertising is: handing out advertising to individuals.
If you can't see the Facebook ad, how do you know the house is for sale? A discriminator can advertise only on Facebook, and then set the blocks against whoever, and assure the sale isn't an equal opportunity.
Um, HUD *IS* part of the Trump Administration.
False equivalence: you can buy a high end magazine if you're a lower class person. On fpthe internet, once you've been profiled, you can't get out ofthe bubble crafted for you by others.
You can set a private profile and browse from somewhere besides your home I.P.
It gives you a very different view of the world.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
First of all, this housing thing has been going on for quite a while now:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/...
Secondly, there are quite a few examples, such as:
https://consequenceofsound.net...
All this is just the stuff on the surface, where advertisers are abusing Facebook's targeting system. One abstraction layer further you get the Cambridge Analytica stuff. Databrokers taking your Facebook data, and then selling all kinds of derived scores to employers, insurers politicians.
Women don't see high paying job adds:
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Getting red-lighted at job interviews:
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
Easier to get a loan if you have 'good' friends:
https://trustingsocial.com/
IRS looking at social media posts to determine who gets an audit:
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
Health insurers figuring out who they want to insure:
https://www.propublica.org/art...
As Cathy o Neill pointed out in her book "Weapons of Math Destruction", all this tech doesn't remove discrimination, it just hides it behind the facade of 'neutral math'.
Yes, this tool could be used to discriminate. But that's the point of the tool. If you are selling women's jeans it's perfectly legal to target a particular audience, i.e. women. Do they have any example of using this tool to illegally discriminate against a protected class? If so, file a lawsuit. Otherwise, stop speculating about what it could be used for.
The housing market must abide by the Fair Housing Act, a federal law which HUD is tasked with making and enforcing regulations. There is no equivalent in the woman jeans market.
You probably aren't aware of much either. The Act includes marketing and advertisements, not just the advertisement itself. Hence the lawsuit. Did you think HUD didn't think this through? I am always amazed at how dumb the commenters are here.
It's not that "people" got it in for FB. FB stepped into it with Alex Jones. The moment social media companies start making editorial decisions (or at least look like it), they stop being open platforms. And now they carry partial responsibility for what's posted on them. The whole "violation of TOS" won't fly in court because Alex Jones didn't do anything that millions of other posters didn't do. FB wants to be a town square, but it wants the right to remove any barker it wants from the town square. But barkers have 1st Amendment rights. Except that FB is a private property, right? Sure. But then it's not a town square and has liability for its content. And if it has liability for its content, get ready for the law suits.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
When your TDS goes so far that even when they(Trump various offices where he's appointed people) do the right thing, your mind conjures up something in order to reinforce that social and political viewpoint so you can feel smug.
What a fucking shitty way to live.
Om, nomnomnom...
Well, at least Trump did not (yet?) start any of the many wars Hillary had promised. That's a big plus in my book.
Thank you, that is the best, most succinct explanation of the problem currently facing social media companies: they want to be free from liability for what people post, but they want to limit what people post to what they consider acceptable.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Personally I think this "discrimination" stuff has gone too far. People should be able to advertise to people who are not disabled (think sport related stuff) and people should be able to advertise to a specific race or language (think the latest season of a spanish soap opera) or they should be able to advertise to an age range (think about a barbara streisand movie) or to a specific sex (what about tampons and eye pencils). I think advertisers as whole need to address this with government so the platforms stop getting crap. But if you cant advertise a place where dogs are not allowed to people who dont have dogs, or where a lady cant look for a female room mate, or a spanish speaking only person cant look for a spanish person... seriously, your just costing those people money, the spanish person will just deny those who dont speak spanish, and the anti dog guy will tell the dog owner the place is taken. wasting both the advertisers time and money, and the respondees time and probably money. The more money advertisers have to spend (due to lack of targeting) the more the consumer has to pay.
You can put in any demographic information you like, but does FB follow it.
For example, your IP address is from a 'poor' neighborhood.
Or, you don't have friends with any other high class FB users.