TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

HUD Files Housing Discrimination Complaint Against Facebook

469 pointsby google_censorsalmost 7 years ago

41 comments

samfisher83almost 7 years ago
These are the specific points they are going after:<p><pre><code> -display housing ads either only to men or women; -not show ads to Facebook users interested in an &quot;assistance dog,&quot; &quot;mobility scooter,&quot; &quot;accessibility&quot; or &quot;deaf culture&quot;; -not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in &quot;child care&quot; or &quot;parenting,&quot; or show ads only to users with children above a specified age; -to display&#x2F;not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the &quot;Christian Church,&quot; &quot;Sikhism,&quot; &quot;Hinduism,&quot; or the &quot;Bible.&quot; -not show ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in &quot;Latin America,&quot; &quot;Canada,&quot; &quot;Southeast Asia,&quot; &quot;China,&quot; &quot;Honduras,&quot; or &quot;Somalia.&quot; -draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes. </code></pre> The 1st 4 should have never been allowed. This is a 50 year old law. Its not like its something new.
评论 #17791806 未加载
评论 #17795276 未加载
评论 #17791874 未加载
评论 #17792139 未加载
评论 #17790849 未加载
nostromoalmost 7 years ago
In most verticals marketers will have a set of ads for different demographics: say gay, suburban, latino, black, Spanish-speaking, etc. Each of those campaigns will have different creative: for example, a real estate ad targeted to latinos will have an image showing a smiling latino couple. I can understand why the marketer would not want to show this creative to white, black, or asians -- given that they&#x27;re targeting creative for a different group of people. This sort of practice seems fairly benign -- it&#x27;s not about denying housing, but about targeting creative for different subgroups.<p>As a gay person, I see this all over the web. Smiling happy gay people buying cars or real estate or whatever. I imagine that behind each of these ads straight people have been de-selected for seeing this ad. But that doesn&#x27;t mean these advertisers hate straight people or would deny a straight customer. It just means that for that specific ad and creative they were targeting gay people.
评论 #17791556 未加载
评论 #17791872 未加载
评论 #17793044 未加载
评论 #17791412 未加载
评论 #17791442 未加载
评论 #17791679 未加载
评论 #17791496 未加载
评论 #17791542 未加载
IBMalmost 7 years ago
Here&#x27;s the ProPublica stories that led to this<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.propublica.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-users-by-race" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.propublica.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;facebook-lets-advertisers...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.propublica.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;facebook-advertising-discrimination-housing-race-sex-national-origin" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.propublica.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;facebook-advertising-disc...</a>
评论 #17790237 未加载
yardiealmost 7 years ago
How did they not see this coming. Are they not familiar with another dotcom called Craigslist who had to deal with this very same regulation years ago. Their counsel either wasn&#x27;t aware of what FB marketplace was doing or didn&#x27;t know about FHA laws.<p>&gt; draw a red line around zip codes and then not display ads to Facebook users who live in specific zip codes.<p>This alone is really damn damning. I&#x27;m going to go out on a limb and say their counsel is really young and didn&#x27;t know this was a problem. There is a lot of history in that sentence alone.
评论 #17790321 未加载
评论 #17790430 未加载
评论 #17790307 未加载
评论 #17790973 未加载
评论 #17791068 未加载
评论 #17793640 未加载
评论 #17791793 未加载
austincheneyalmost 7 years ago
Here are the likely relevant laws in question:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fair_Housing_Act" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fair_Housing_Act</a><p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964</a><p>By law you cannot discriminate by any designation of protected class, which includes not only parties to a business transaction but also messaging and opportunities there upon.<p>I do understand why Facebook would allow ad display filtering by race and other demographic categorizations since they are a media organization who sells advertising. Whether or not that practice is morally qualified or agreeable it makes sense from a business perspective (oh how I do detest advertising).<p>What I don&#x27;t get is why Facebook would allow ad suppliers the option to set values to these filters. Facebook has the data to make optimal demographic determinations for a geographically centered business market. Perhaps this indicates that either Facebook isn&#x27;t very good at that or that ad supplies prefer to perform their own independent research out of distrust or lack of availability from Facebook.<p>Anyway, this does look like a valid complaint. I wouldn&#x27;t just sue Facebook though. I would also seek for discovery of the ad suppliers and sue them as well. Facebook is just the proxy here. Somebody is making a deliberate determination to racial profile in violation of the spirit of the law.<p>---<p>EDIT. See the third bullet point here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Types_of_banned_discrimination" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Types...</a>
评论 #17790871 未加载
评论 #17790353 未加载
koenigdavidmjalmost 7 years ago
Seems to me that the courts and the public are becoming much less tolerant of companies operating on Google scale, where most things are decided by algorithms and a human never sees it at all. This might serve as an upper bound on the size of future companies: if you might have liability for every single ad or comment you let someone post, you’re going to want human review of all that content.
评论 #17790258 未加载
评论 #17790349 未加载
评论 #17790441 未加载
评论 #17790290 未加载
评论 #17790236 未加载
评论 #17796211 未加载
评论 #17790241 未加载
评论 #17790432 未加载
LanceHalmost 7 years ago
So if I get a radio license and then broadcast an illegal ad, it&#x27;s the FCC&#x27;s fault.<p>Why is everyone trying so hard to turn facebook (and google, twitter, etc...) into a filter on everything we say?<p>When facebook gets held responsible for all content in all jurisdiction it will err on the side of proscription. It was only about 10 years ago that many now acceptable (mandatory even) progressive positions were not in favor.<p>It won&#x27;t be another day or two before there is another article bemoaning google acquiescing to China. Pick one. I&#x27;ll take the one that is open, the crazies broadcast their fake news and we have the occasional illegal ad.<p>By the way, if these ads are illegal and conducted through facebook, how <i>easy</i> is it for the FHA to look up who is responsible and go after them. Their whole job is done for them. Going after Facebook is sensational and feels good I guess.
评论 #17792132 未加载
评论 #17792082 未加载
评论 #17792430 未加载
评论 #17792275 未加载
评论 #17792127 未加载
评论 #17792704 未加载
评论 #17792910 未加载
评论 #17792898 未加载
评论 #17792120 未加载
评论 #17792598 未加载
评论 #17794218 未加载
评论 #17793027 未加载
评论 #17793035 未加载
评论 #17792030 未加载
评论 #17792423 未加载
评论 #17792121 未加载
danthemanalmost 7 years ago
A question if you run ads and tune your ad buy to focus on those people with the highest conversion rate. To reduce the amount you&#x27;re spending by targeting the ads, does this mean that&#x27;s not allowed?<p>It looks like this is to ensure advertisement reaches all protected categories. Can this mean that one would be forced to advertise in magazines that cater to different audiences? To guarantee a certain subset of the population is covered?<p>Thinking of facebook like traditional media doesn&#x27;t really work. If we allow people to choose where they&#x27;re advertising, by definition they&#x27;re targeting. It&#x27;d be like randomly buying ads in magazines and papers.<p>At the end of the day, it seems more like landlords intent for targeting is more important than anything and that is where the fault lies.<p>If you had a building in an area that catered to people speaking a minority language (5%) of the population; can you target speakers of that language or do you have to spend 20x?
评论 #17791369 未加载
评论 #17791098 未加载
评论 #17791514 未加载
评论 #17791223 未加载
AdamM12almost 7 years ago
Why is Facebook in trouble for this and not the persons who actually placed the ads? They aren&#x27;t the ones renting the real estate. They don&#x27;t own it. Government overreach imo.<p>Edit: grammatical mistakes
评论 #17790555 未加载
评论 #17790543 未加载
评论 #17790626 未加载
评论 #17791117 未加载
评论 #17792084 未加载
评论 #17791687 未加载
评论 #17791036 未加载
kryogen1calmost 7 years ago
This complaint seems like its shooting itself in the foot - discrimination isn&#x27;t inherently bad. When you hire, you discriminate based on ability. When you date, you discriminate in a number of ways like beauty, personality, etc. If you&#x27;re selling ads for wheelchairs you want to discriminate for people with disabilities. If your houses aren&#x27;t wheelchair accessible, you want your ads to discriminate against people with disabilities. If there are &quot;majority-minority zip codes&quot; then maybe advertising against the demographic is a waste of your time and money.<p>The idea that we should operate without discrimination is a toothless platitude with little bearing on reality. It is not Facebooks responsibility to change reality because they are able to accurately quantify and qualify it&#x27;s existence, and sell ads based on their findings.
评论 #17790645 未加载
评论 #17791456 未加载
评论 #17791035 未加载
评论 #17791481 未加载
评论 #17790538 未加载
评论 #17792237 未加载
RightMillennialalmost 7 years ago
&gt; The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing transactions <i>including print and online advertisement</i> on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status.<p><i>Emphasis mine.</i><p>If the FHA does indeed prohibit online advertisement discriminating on those criteria, this sounds pretty damning to Facebook. Those are some of the key features of Facebook ads.
评论 #17790226 未加载
评论 #17790364 未加载
iamleppertalmost 7 years ago
Wow, this page is pretty damning evidence:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;success&#x2F;quadrant-homes" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;success&#x2F;quadrant-homes</a><p>It basically is showing that Facebook knowingly implemented a system to discriminate against people. Even the stock photos are full of white people.<p>Here&#x27;s hoping HUD makes a big example out of them and fines them to the fullest extent of the law.
评论 #17792420 未加载
评论 #17792149 未加载
beageralmost 7 years ago
It would seem fairly straightforward for Facebook to collect information about whether an advertisement pertains to something that has anti-discriminatory regulations tied to it (housing, employment).<p>I generally agree that FB should not be allowed to permit users to segment these types of advertisements by the dimensions claimed. However, what piques my curiosity here is whether “indirect” discrimination in choice of advertising medium constitutes discriminatory practice.<p>For instance, what if some of these advertisers, instead of segmenting directly by race to target whites only, targeted fans of pages that were obviously but not specifically comprised of whites (e.g., “Irish American Heritage” or “Blonde Hair Tips”). Would there be a case to be made for discrimination? And against whom?
评论 #17790654 未加载
评论 #17790345 未加载
评论 #17790274 未加载
评论 #17790277 未加载
0x00000000almost 7 years ago
&gt;and&#x2F;or zip code.<p>&gt;effectively limit housing options for these protected classes<p>I have head of zip code being protected or personally identifiable information but never a protected class<p>Also fun fact, &quot;age&quot; as a protected class in the US only refers to discrimination against people over the age of 40.
评论 #17790414 未加载
评论 #17790232 未加载
评论 #17790285 未加载
评论 #17790205 未加载
AndyMcConachiealmost 7 years ago
There is interesting precedent in the form of Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fair_Housing_Council_of_San_Fernando_Valley_v._Roommates.com,_LLC" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fair_Housing_Council_of_San_Fe...</a><p>Worth reading the case to understand what FB is up against here.
sklivvz1971almost 7 years ago
What many commenters do not understand here is that Facebook is making a killing by allowing this kind of illegal targeting. They know what&#x27;s going on but they clearly don&#x27;t care unless they get sued. In the meanwhile they made millions&#x2F;forced the competition out&#x2F;made it &quot;standard&quot;...
linsomniacalmost 7 years ago
I do technology at an MLS and we police our listings and have agents change terminology that may violate fair housing laws, including things like &quot;man cave&quot; (a frequent violation). For a while we were also contacting agents if they used drone photos of the property, because of restrictions on the commercial use of drones.
jimnotgymalmost 7 years ago
Can anyone tell me what kind of penalty Facebook could face for this? Are we talking<p>a) A token fine<p>b) A fine large enough that it sees investors taking action against the management<p>c) A fine that is an existential threat to Facebook<p>d) Jail time for executives<p>e) Forced closure<p>I just wonder if anyone can suggest how serious this could be if they are found to be I the wrong?
评论 #17791438 未加载
评论 #17791202 未加载
a13nalmost 7 years ago
Why is this Facebook&#x27;s fault? Wouldn&#x27;t this be the advertiser&#x27;s fault for choosing those filters?<p>You can also conduct illegal activity via Facebook messenger of groups, does that make it Facebook&#x27;s fault?
评论 #17791907 未加载
评论 #17791982 未加载
rachelbythebayalmost 7 years ago
This is why you need a wide range of experiences represented in your company. Monocultures tend to miss things that are obvious to others.
coolaliasbroalmost 7 years ago
I&#x27;m no fan of Facebook or discrimination, and am happy to see this pursued by the federal government, but I personally would gladly be excluded from all ads, ranging from billboards to search results to food packaging.<p>I guess what I&#x27;m thinking is, if Facebook had a feature (maybe it does, I&#x27;m not a user) allowing members to search housing classifieds, and if that feature allowed listing agents to discriminate against who saw their listings in results, that would be straight up bullshit. But, AFAIK, anyone can anonymously search different housing listing platforms for available housing wherever they want to live, so I guess I&#x27;m just struggling to see how housing advertising is worth this sort of scrutiny at all.<p>Again, I stress that discrimination is fucked and I&#x27;m happy to see something being done about it on any level, at all. I just feel like there are surely bigger fish to fry and spending resources on pursuing to whom&#x2F;how ads are delivered doesn&#x27;t seem like the best investment.
评论 #17791483 未加载
throw2016almost 7 years ago
It would seem the education system has failed significantly if the serious issues with segregation, racism and discrimination that have plagued the country remain unknown to the extent that half the commentators here don&#x27;t seem to understand why laws were passed, why Facebook is wrong and why things are the way they are.<p>It&#x27;s as if they don&#x27;t understand how widespread racism, discrimination and segregation was, how it was systematically enforced, how it occurred and continues to occur and why these measures remain important.<p>Given this affected parties must continue the fight because that&#x27;s the only way to confront selective memories, denial and ignorance.
jjmalmost 7 years ago
We simply have laws for these.<p>If the laws still do not deter then increase the penalty until they’re adhered to. Such that it will leave no such question as to whose responsibility it is.<p>If we do not want such laws then repeal them.<p>Only the rule of law will prevail here.<p>Simply know the rules, or pay the penalty.
sillysaurus3almost 7 years ago
From an ethics point of view, why is this illegal?
评论 #17790319 未加载
评论 #17791917 未加载
评论 #17791947 未加载
ralusekalmost 7 years ago
I&#x27;m not in the business of defending Facebook, I neither like their business model nor their product...but this is an unreasonable accusation levied against them.<p>Their business is &quot;I know ABCDEF about people, who would you like me to distribute your content to?&quot;<p>Distributing content to people along ABCDE and F demographics happens to be legal in almost every case. The exception is specific housing discrimination laws that prevent filtering on ABC, etc.<p>It is outrageously unreasonable to expect Facebook to be responsible for the specific laws surrounding advertising for their customers. They provide targeted advertising. If their client targets demographics using an advertising strategy that happens to be illegal within their own industry, the responsibility is on the client&#x2F;landlord, not Facebook. This is very much akin to blaming Microsoft for someone hacking from a Windows PC, or blaming the phonebook for a Chinese person emphasizing cold calls to the &quot;Lee&quot; portion of the book. If their actions are illegal, so be it, but the automatic assumption that the platform is responsible for the content that their users produce is fundamentally flawed.
评论 #17793460 未加载
评论 #17793263 未加载
scarface74almost 7 years ago
The law is quite clear about an advertiser’s liability.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fairhousing.com&#x2F;legal-research&#x2F;hud-resources&#x2F;advertisements-under-804c-fair-housing-act-jan-9-1995" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fairhousing.com&#x2F;legal-research&#x2F;hud-resources&#x2F;adverti...</a><p><i>Section 804(c) of the Act prohibits the making, printing and publishing of advertisements which state a preference, limitation or discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. The prohibition applies to publishers, such as newspapers and directories, as well as to persons and entities who place real estate advertisements. It also applies to advertisements where the underlying property may be exempt from the provisions of the Act, but where the advertisement itself violates the Act. See 42 U.S.C. 3603 (b).<p>Publishers and advertisers are responsible under the Act for making, printing, or publishing an advertisement that violates the Act on its face. Thus, they should not publish or cause to be published an advertisement that on its face expresses a preference, limitation or discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. To the extent that either the Advertising Guidelines or the case law do not state that particular terms or phrases (or closely comparable terms) may violate the Act, a publisher is not liable under the Act for advertisements which, in the context of the usage in a particular advertisement, might indicate a preference, limitation or discrimination, but where such a preference is not readily apparent to an ordinary reader. Therefore, complaints will not be accepted against publishers concerning advertisements where the language might or might not be viewed as being used in a discriminatory context.</i><p>As far as roommates....<p><i>For example, Intake staff should not accept a complaint against a newspaper for running an advertisement which includes the phrase female roommate wanted because the advertisement does not indicate whether the requirements for the shared living exception have been met. Publishers can rely on the representations of the individual placing the ad that shared living arrangements apply to the property in question. Persons placing such advertisements, however, are responsible for satisfying the conditions for the exemption. Thus, an ad for a female roommate could result in liability for the person placing the ad if the housing being advertised is actually a separate dwelling unit without shared living spaces. See 24 CFR 109.20.</i>
00__00almost 7 years ago
This is simply WEBLINING, an online version of the 1960s Redlining.<p>See <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.netopia.eu&#x2F;weblining-why-eating-at-nandos-could-cost-you-your-mortgage&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.netopia.eu&#x2F;weblining-why-eating-at-nandos-could-c...</a>
mancerayderalmost 7 years ago
The adtech industry is probably having emergency meetings with its legal staff. What&#x27;s this imply for targeted advertising, and how are we going to police the legality of which ads can target what given laws against discrimination?
mindslightalmost 7 years ago
We all knew that creating&#x2F;adopting centralized communication platforms (&quot;Web 2.0&quot;) was going to end badly, but that was where the money (temporarily) was. Now that they&#x27;ve taken over our culture, it&#x27;s not surprising that every small time censor is showing up with their demands.<p>(Also, as we&#x27;re going through an $ideology-scare, a disclaimer: I&#x27;m not criticizing the ultimate goal of anti-discrimination housing laws, nor even HUD for going after Faceboot here - but really pointing out the utterly predictable no-win situation these centralizing companies have created for themselves)
评论 #17790187 未加载
hippichalmost 7 years ago
So if I pretend in front of facebook I am poor, I can see less ads? Sounds good :)
JDWolfalmost 7 years ago
I would prefer to have no ads.
peter_retiefalmost 7 years ago
curl: (6) Could not resolve host: www.hud.gov
gokalmost 7 years ago
Facebook goes after Trump’s attack dog (Alex Jones); Trump’s department goes after Facebook.
h4b4n3r0almost 7 years ago
I was skeptical, but upon reading TFA, they do have a point.
评论 #17790164 未加载
Karishma1234almost 7 years ago
Essentially an archaic organisation using an archaic law against a modern ad delivery platform. What a travesty.
评论 #17791169 未加载
评论 #17790478 未加载
HugoDanielalmost 7 years ago
Is complaining against Facebook the new black ?
cm2012almost 7 years ago
So they want FB to make &quot;housing&quot; ads a separate, algorithmically tracked entity like political ads are. Not a fan - where would it end?
评论 #17791946 未加载
emilfihlmanalmost 7 years ago
I don&#x27;t really see how this should be against the law. It is only advertising.
评论 #17791063 未加载
UncleEntityalmost 7 years ago
I&#x27;m not really seeing how it&#x27;s Facebook&#x27;s job to enforce this particular law as opposed to the HUD whose job it is to go after landlords&#x2F;sellers doing the <i>actual</i> discriminating.<p>Just because the advertiser can use these tools to discriminate doesn&#x27;t mean they actually do or mean they aren&#x27;t 100% personally responsible to comply with the law.<p>I was kind of under the impression there were checks and balances to prevent these sorts of governmental fishing expeditions...
评论 #17791053 未加载
评论 #17792226 未加载
modellsalmost 7 years ago
0) Not to justify but to give a similar example: CL rarely takes (or took in the past) down zillions of postings that are&#x2F;were blatantly illegal, i.e., “Seeking roommate: female ONLY.”<p>1) People are going to discriminate, even if it’s illegal. Heck, I was at a restaurant and an Israeli couple were smugly grinning about how they were discriminating against a candidate whom was “male and too old” by wasting his time and not calling them back. It sucks, but you can’t legislate not being an asshat, even with ostensibly anti-asshat laws.
评论 #17790456 未加载
quotemstralmost 7 years ago
Followed to its logical conclusion, this sort of complaint prohibits all ad targeting, and that&#x27;s a very bad thing.<p>Practically any criterion X you might use to restrict an ad&#x27;s audience will have non-uniform correlations with group demographics. You can&#x27;t wish away these correlations: they&#x27;re true facts about the world. These non-uniform correlations allow activists to argue that allowing advertisers to target based on X is therefore prohibited discrimination. They can repeat this process for all X.<p>Now, you might argue that ad targeting is bad. That&#x27;s a common position on HN. But it&#x27;s not true: ad targeting is good for advertisers, since it enables more efficient advertising, and it&#x27;s good for users, since it subjects them to less noise and exposes them to ads more likely to be relevant to them. Ad targeting also undergirds practically the entire tech economy. That probably means you, reader of this comment.<p>Where exactly should restrictions on ad targeting stop?<p>EDIT: For clarity:<p>Step 1: HUD files a complaint against Facebook for allowing ad targeting based on certain criteria.<p>Step 2: Facebook bans advertising targeting based on the criteria in the HUD complaint.<p>Step 3: Advertisers react by targeting based on demographic correlates of the categories from step #1.<p>Step 4: HUD notices that ads are still getting delivered more to one group than another.<p>GOTO STEP #1.<p>There&#x27;s no clear point at which this process stops. Demographic correlates are numerous and strong. Are you going to ban all of them? That&#x27;s tantamount to banning ad targeting generally!
评论 #17790615 未加载
评论 #17790592 未加载
评论 #17790632 未加载
评论 #17790551 未加载
评论 #17790644 未加载
评论 #17790562 未加载