Facebook is Being Sued Over Housing Discrimination (fastcompany.com) 125
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.
So let me get this right... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, what if we bring this into the analog world a bit....if I have a house for rent, and I print up flyers, and I only put them in in the neighborhood close to the property, or perhaps I choose to only nail them to poles in affluential neighborhoods....rather than also post them in "the hood"....I am now guilty of discrimination?
I now have to advertise to everyone?
I know it is illegal WITHIN an ad to say "you needn't a
Re: So let me get this right... (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate Facebook probably more than most...but this is over the top ridiculous, even for idiot SJWs. I didn't think those types could get any more pathetically brainless. Apparently I was very wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you have to make it possible for the poor to access the same information that the rich have access to. Posting flyers in affluent, non-gated communities is allowed; restricting ads to wealthy people on Facebook is not.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like when someone walks into the local real estate broker's office the staff there look at their skin colour or the fact they have children and avoid showing them certain properties based on the landlord's preference not to have black people or kids in their building.
Re: (Score:2)
So, is it now that NOT targeting everyone with advertising is now discrimination???
I mean, what if we bring this into the analog world a bit....if I have a house for rent, and I print up flyers, and I only put them in in the neighborhood close to the property, or perhaps I choose to only nail them to poles in affluential neighborhoods....rather than also post them in "the hood"....I am now guilty of discrimination?
I'm not sure. Are there laws in your municipality that make it illegal to not advertise in "the hood" under certain conditions? But really, this isn't about you in this allegory, it's about the flyering company you hired to do the work. Did they offer you options that you thought were against local laws? Are you somebody who cares about the law and would report illegal behavior?
Re:So let me get this right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well looks like these non-profits are just looking for a pay day. FB didn't do the advertising, the only provided a platform. Perhaps FB should sue them for deceit in creating fake companies and creating an ad campaign that purposely discriminates against people or review real estate companies who advertise on FB to see if they are discriminating against people. It's not FB who is in violation, it is those who are doing the advertising. It is not the gun manufacturer who kills people is is the people who are allowed to get their hands on guns they shouldn't have access to who kills people.
I believe it is NFHA who is in violation of the Fair Housing Act, not FB.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Create a public bulletin board that lets people post fliers for their Harry Potter fan club and see how long it takes for J. K. Rowling to sue you for erecting a public bulletin board?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wouldn't.
It would be copyright, and it would still fall under fair use unless the fan club is charging dues or trying to profit or something.
And no, it's not off base. I'd like to see you explain how instead of just claiming that it is.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be copyright
Not unless you're including text from one of the books. It would also be a copyright issue if you used the art from the cover, but I doubt that Rowling owns the copyright for it.
Re: (Score:2)
/.old.
There is no hiding old...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Provide a platform that lets people commit tax evasion and see how long you avoid prison.
Craigslist. Ebay, Amazon. All allow you to avoid paying sales taxes.
Re: (Score:1)
The entire state of Oregon. 100,000s of out of state residents have been shopping in Oregon for many decades without paying sales tax. Washington and possibly other neighboring states have lost out on untold millions of dollars on sales tax revenue. With the insane amount of tax applied to liquor in WA, it's no wonder some of the very first stores you see in OR are liquor stores when you cross the border in most of the places where you can cross...
From your post below, I can see you're a conservative. B
Re: (Score:2)
Probably longer than if you create one that allows you to share music.
I couldn't agree more (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook did little more than do the equivalent of providing a platform like classified ads.
The "little more" is exactly the problem. The complainants are arguing that by providing the explicit options to illegally discriminate in housing, Facebook is actively encouraging and contributing to illegal discrimination.
Furthermore I think FB should not be required to police their customers.
You just said Facebook is simply providing classified ads. Newspapers can and do police their customers.
Re: I couldn't agree more (Score:1)
Without those targeted options thier platform becomes nearly useless. The positive for advertisers way out ways the bad ways a supposed consumer protection organization might use it.
Roll it back to gun control. Gun manufacturers provide a way for people to kill other people. Regulate them as well.
Facebook, as much as I think they provide little value to humanity, did nothing wrong here. It was the consumer "protection" watchdog groups who are in need of funding so they came up with a scam to attempt to do
Weird! This might be a loophole! (Score:4, Interesting)
Looking at the wording in Fair Housing Act [justice.gov], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
However, targeted advertisement does not fall under any of those illegal acts because the advertisement itself does not mention the preference
When taking out the targeted advert, you are explicitly stating the preference. Another poster made an analogy of listing the property via an agent and giving them verbal instructions not to show the details to anyone in a particular class. I would expect a court to have to decide whether these two are equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the full text of the preference clause in question:
Ignore the "to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Violation of the Fork Fairness Act (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Violation of the Fork Fairness Act (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the FFA would read if you are going to stab 100 people in the eye with your fork, you must stab them in proportion to each group's representation in the general population. Good luck finding 0.2 Pacific Islanders
Dude, that's what the knife is for.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the FFA would read if you are going to stab 100 people in the eye with your fork, you must stab them in proportion to each group's representation in the general population. Good luck finding 0.2 Pacific Islanders
If you find a 5-tined fork you could break four of the tines off.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really , this is more like 'I have a legal obligation to indiscriminately stab people in the eye' Facebook makes it easy for me to do that , but also makes it easy for me to pick choose which people I slap in the face , but because i can also decide who I stab in that eye Facebook is at fault because they didn't figure out what I was using the information for and make me act legally. Or at least that is what the lawsuit claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that housing is something people actually want, unlike being stabbed in the face.
Imagine you were handing out flyers for an apartment in a mall. As you walk around you carefully avoid all the black people, only giving out flyers to white people. "Oh but I'm just targeting the demographic most likely to be able to afford my rent, to maximize the return on my investment in flyers" probably isn't going to win many people over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd sue the company that offers to distribute the flyers only to white people. That company should have refused that request.
The lawsuit would probably name the person who made the request too, of course. But in this case it makes sense to target Facebook, since stopping Facebook from doing it would have a much bigger effect than stopping one of the individual landlords.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just means we need to pass bi-partisan "Sensible Fork Laws"....
Re: (Score:1)
No, it just means we need to pass bi-partisan "Sensible Fork Laws"....
c'mon, man...the phrase they use in their narrative is "common sense fork laws"...
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook created tools to target protected attributes like gender and race. It therefore has an obligation to ensure they are not misused.
It's like a car rental place that loans out trucks with bull bars, and then does nothing to stop the guys who keep using them for ram-raiding. People keep pointing out that their trucks are being misused, but they just carry on ignoring the bags of swag they see being unloaded.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not being misused, keep in mind what in reality is happening. A person paying for the ads, in a contract with a marketing agency, wants those ads targeted at a particular group, the one which will generate the highest profits for that person paying for the ad, with the least costs, high reliability tenets. That is fair and reasonable, why the fuck would I pay for an ad to be delivered to some one who is unlikely to be able to afford the rent or be the most desirable tenant. They are kind of forgett
Can, not did (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
When did that pass...?
not all is off limits (Score:5, Informative)
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... [craigslist.org] )
Re:not all is off limits (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You're better off trying match.com. At least then you can create that millionaire persona and fill it with those stock photos of yachts - and not have it ruined by your friends posting your "irish yoga" poses by their backyard firepit.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are looking for an overweight blond guy with man-boobs who just ran up the stairs? Oddly specific.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it would extend to anything. I get to choose who lives with me, full stop.
Try me in court if I'm ever stupid/destitute enough to regress into "roommate needed" status.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
Yeah, any characteristic would be fine. roommates are not protected.
However, your landlord changing terms or evicting you for a permitted roommate might be in trouble if they are found to have discriminated against a protected class. I'm pretty sure intent isn't required.
Sometimes this only makes sense (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's one thing to flatly deny someone based on these criteria but not showing people ads can't be illegal, right?
Re: (Score:1)
No they don't - that's only if you're building a new apartment complex - old structures are grandfathered.
Re: (Score:1)
shh shh shh-- Don't post facts; you're ruining his the-rich-are-oppressed fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Old structures are not grandfathered if they're part of a business (such as an apartment building) open to the public. Your only saving grace will be the fact that your building is too old/shitty/cramped to physically put a ramp/elevator in. it's not so much that you're exempted by the law, it's that you're exempted by circumstance and each time a judge looks at it you're rolling the dice.
Re: (Score:2)
"it's not so much that you're exempted by the law, it's that you're exempted by circumstance"
Nope. You can only be exempted by law, and the exemptions permitted there. A judge cannot easily deny obvious claims, though of course there is plenty of grey area... But it's the law...
Re: (Score:2)
A judge cannot easily deny obvious claims, though of course there is plenty of grey area
A judge can easily do just that, with or without grey area.
Yes, this building is in violation and needs an elevator. But putting one in would take 2 years and require eliminating 18 units which are currently occupied by rent-paying families. Also in case of a fire, you'd be fucked anyway, so I'm not going to order them to do anything, but I am going to note that the building is a piece of shit and maybe in 80 years we can get it condemned and torn down.
The east coast is full of that shit.
Re: Sometimes this only makes sense (Score:2)
I don't think of Detroit, or Chicago, or Kansas City, as East Coast.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an ADA violation. The only exception might be if it were prohibitively difficult to comply. For instance, your duplex on an island without ferry service. You could be excused for not providing transportation on and off the island. It may not be unreasonable for you to ignore a tenant's demand for transportation. Installing elevators in the building without ground-floor units might be prohibitive, depends.
And under the ADA, if you are entitled to government benefits and lack accessible transportation,
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
Better question: is taking out an ad for housing in Maxim discriminatory against potential female or homosexual male applicants?
Re: (Score:2)
Housing probably shouldn't be commercially advertised anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
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!!
Re: (Score:2)
Both.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 inclu
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook's role is quite different in this case.
How so? (Hint: It isn't.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Wrong target (Score:4, Informative)
If I'm interpreting the summary correctly, (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Actually, limiting where you put up the advertisements in order to omit protected groups would clearly be a violation under 109.25 Selective use of advertising media or content. https://www.hud.gov/sites/docu... [hud.gov]
Perhaps (Score:2)
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 use
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not Facebook's fault (Score:1)
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 F
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"HUD rules do not require that arrangement.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Anecdote: My dad sold our family home a few years back. The house is large (6 bedroom) and sits on a huge lot in a nice neighborhood. The first listing agent said, "Sorry. We can't say 'large yard' or we'd be seen targeting families _with_ children. What if a single person or childless couple might want it?" I didn't know that not having kids is a protected class. My dad got no offers. After that listing expired, another agent was willing to describe the lot as a 'park-like setting'. It sold rapidly. To a c
Re: (Score:2)
There is a whole slew of new code words for people. "Large Yard" becoming "Park Like" is a great example. There are others out there, because the rules (and interpretations) are silly at some point. I saw one that said "Dynamic" was anti black (huh??). Words have meaning, and when you can't convey what you want with certain words, you'll find alternative ones.
Eventually, I suspect that language will be extinguished by the Political Correctness Police.
Same Ad, but where it's seen. (Score:2)
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 dis
Wider Problem made more obvious (Score:2)
Targeted Advertising is unavoidable (Score:1)
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.
Sorry. Legal precedent. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
So? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You've never dealt with an asshole in your life? Sometimes assholes have something you need or really want, so you go through with it and complain to your friends afterward.
If you're selling something in public, there are reasons you can't legally deny a sale. You have to sell to blacks and whites and men and women and other protected classes. You don't have to sell to a specific person, although if it comes out that you never deal with blacks you're going to be in trouble.