Slashdot Mirror
Housing Department Slaps Facebook With Discrimination Charge (npr.org)
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is suing social media giant Facebook for allegedly violating the Fair Housing Act. From a report: HUD says Facebook does so by "encouraging, enabling and causing housing discrimination" when it allows companies that use their platform to improperly shield who can see certain housing ads. In the charging document, HUD accuses Facebook of unlawfully discriminating against people based on race, religion, familial status, disability and other characteristics that closely align with the 1968 Fair House Act's protected classes.
HUD also alleges Facebook allowed advertisers certain tools on their advertising platform that could exclude people who were classified as "non-American-born," "non-Christian" or "interested in Hispanic culture," among other things. It also said advertisers could exclude people based on ZIP code, essentially "drawing a red line around those neighborhoods on a map." "Facebook is discriminating against people based upon who they are and where they live," HUD Secretary Ben Carson said in a statement. "Using a computer to limit a person's housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face."
HUD also alleges Facebook allowed advertisers certain tools on their advertising platform that could exclude people who were classified as "non-American-born," "non-Christian" or "interested in Hispanic culture," among other things. It also said advertisers could exclude people based on ZIP code, essentially "drawing a red line around those neighborhoods on a map." "Facebook is discriminating against people based upon who they are and where they live," HUD Secretary Ben Carson said in a statement. "Using a computer to limit a person's housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face."
I thought his job was to open doors to schnooks and hide regulations. geez, Bizarro Thursday.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I'm the last guy to defend facebork, but... If someone misuses the advertising tools on a platform to break the law, wouldn't that person/company be responsible for breaking the law? Why would facebook be liable for having a wide range of advertising options available to people selling an enormous range of things, in which housing is a tiny percentage. This is akin to going after google because someone sent a hate email from gmail. -T
While setting up the advertisements, require the poster to agree that "The advertising of my product or service is not restricted by any fair access law such as... blah blah blah. I understand that adherence to any applicable laws regarding... is my responsibility and not that of Facebook."
And that's all that should happen. Facebook shouldn't be fined or have to go to court unless the City of Los Angeles can be sued for "allowing" someone to post a room rental advertisement on a lamp post despite it clearly reading "Mexicans need not apply."
If someone misuses the advertising tools on a platform to break the law, wouldn't that person/company be responsible for breaking the law?
Yes, the advertiser is responsible. But the publisher is ALSO responsible, and this is not an "on the internet" thing. Newspapers have been held responsible for publishing illegal ads.
Why would facebook be liable for having a wide range of advertising options available to people selling an enormous range of things, in which housing is a tiny percentage.
There are specific laws about discrimination in housing, employment, and lending. The targeting that Facebook allows for other ads should not be allowed for these.
This is akin to going after google because someone sent a hate email from gmail.
No it isn't. First, sending hate mail is not illegal, while housing discrimination is. Second, Google is not providing a mechanism to specifically target hate mail at designated groups. Yet that is what Facebook is doing.
Google is not providing a mechanism to specifically target hate mail at designated groups. Yet that is what Facebook is doing.
Google is providing a mechanism to target media to designated groups. That media could be in their interest and nobody else's, or it could be in everybody's interests but the entity producing the ad doesn't want to deal with those groups.
One of these is legal and the other isn't. Facebook's platform can't inherently discriminate between these two things at the moment: unlike with a newspaper, Facebook ads can go out without Facebook's human-driven review.
What if someone e-mailed child pornography through gmail?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
What if someone e-mailed child pornography through gmail?
If Google assisted the kiddie porn distributors by providing a mechanism to target people likely to have a preference for pre-pubescents, then I think it would be reasonable to hold Google partially responsible.
The people who place the discriminating ads are the ones who should be sued, not the advertising platform.
Actually, they should both be sued. From the charges themselves:
1. It is unlawful to make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(a), (f)(1); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(1), (3); 24 C.F.R. 100.60(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(a).
2. It is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(b), (f)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.50(b)(2); 24 C.F.R. 100.65(a); 24 C.F.R. 100.70(b); 24 C.F.R. 100.202(b).
So, as expected, it's illegal to place the ads. But then it goes on with...
3. It is 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 based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin or disability, or that indicates an intention to make such a distinction. 42 U.S.C. 3604(c); 24 C.F.R. 100.75(a), (b), (c)(1).
All of which is to say (and going back to your knife analogy), Facebook is no more allowed to publish illegal housing ads than a switchblade manufacturer is allowed to sell switchblades in my state. If someone with a switchblade goes on a murder spree, the manufacturer likely won't be on the hook for the murder, but they will be pursued for the crime of having sold an illegal weapon. Likewise, while Facebook isn't on the hook for the poster's crime, they are on the hook for their own crime of unlawfully printing a discriminatory ad.
The kind of discrimination talked about being Fair Housing Act-related discrimination?
I believe that you do it by not advertising housing... which latin-dancing party ads would not be doing.
It's less fun when you don't get to make-up overly broad forms of unlawful discrimination, I know...
Housing discrimination based on location (ZIP Code) is prohibited, commonly called 'redlining'. It has been used to both promote neighborhood racial discrimination and economic discrimination, and has been used by lenders, thereby including fair credit laws as violations.
It's not at all new. In fact, limiting MLS searches to specific area or ZIP codes is reasonable if buyers are looking for a specific location, but a salesperson should never discourage a potential buyer from an interest in a particular location. Most permitted communications would be focus on disclosable information, such as nearby airports, hazardous waste sites, planned road construction, but never on demographics such as average age, income levels, nationality, or even the proximity of churches or similar identifiable indicators of protected classes. It's even somewhat risky to point out proximity to services such as bus stops and government offices.
Fair housing laws are not as simple as many think.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
No. We rationally acknowledge that they exist in multiple jurisdictions at the same time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.