Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

Well, i dunno. I think it's still on the advertiser to follow the law.

Kind of like when some insurance co advertises some insurance product and that advert has to go through copy editors and legal to make sure it does not break any laws (representing product faithfully, not making false or dubious claims) before it gets okayed to be published.

In this case HR should consult with legal before putting up job announcements. Or, here specifically these cos should consult with legal before making that job req buy.

View on HN

Facebook is selling advertising.

In this specific case, the product they are selling is illegal.

Facebook should be held liable for selling illegal advertising.

Do people find this challenging? Is there something wrong with this?

What would happen in the physical world with, say, a classified ad in a newspaper? It's on the poster of the ad to follow the law, not the paper, is it not?

Newspapers do review advertising both for illegal content and things that would negatively affect their brand.

If you created an ad with "over 40 need not apply" most newspapers would reject the ad.

However this case goes over and above. Facebook is actively adding a feature to screen users by age which increases their culpability.

In your example, what do you think would happen if someone posted an ad selling drugs?

No newspaper would run such a thing (key words: editorial control), but if the poster was using coded language, perhaps? I think that's the closest analog here.

With that example in mind, that puts someone running the ad in a weird place, since literally every ad network in 2017 does demographic targeting.

I don't think it's feasible to vet every ad that runs to ensure that the poster is complying with the law.

All that being said, this smells like Facebook, much like any other popular virtual public square, hiding behind the "We're an open platform!" defense when convenient to avoid legal action, and hiding behind the "We're a private company!" defense when convenient to disclaim accusations of poor or inconsistent moderation. They should not get to have it both ways. Either they exercise editorial control and can be liable for what their users post, or they can keep their hands off and push that liability back to the poster.

Rant aside, I'm more interested in the general case of demographic targeting when it comes to certain ads.

Right, so why do you think they have editorial control? For that same reason, shouldn't Facebook?

If the newspaper was somehow able to be physically manifested by or perceived only by white people, or people under 30, or in some way that excluded people of a protected class from ever seeing it if they knew about it and wanted to, then the newspaper should definitely be liable, as should the advertiser.

The material difference between newspapers and facebook is that anyone is allowed to buy a newspaper, but someone of a protected class cannot view ads on facebook that are not targeted to them even if they want to, thus they are excluded.

You can set your age to whatever you want on Facebook.

Seems no different than advertising a job in young skewing magazines vs targeting older demos.

Facebook is real, these are advertisements for jobs. It's not a game. Laws still apply. Discrimination still isn't legal. Just because you read it on a computer screen instead of on a dead tree carcass does not change the rules.

Who said it was a game or laws don't apply? Please reply to what I actually wrote in its entirety, not what you want me to have written.

If you were seizing on "real world", I think it's pretty clear I meant "physical" rather than "virtual" since we're comparing newspapers to online ads, but I updated the post to clarify.

You edited your post, I replied to what you said.

Craigslist routinely takes down discriminatory housing and job ads and have been doing that at least since I started using it around 2005.

On the other hand they tend to allow "illegal" prostitution ads... so it's not like they pursue illegal postings in general -or postings which allow the violation of the law.

And I generally agree. The authorities should be going after the perpetrators, not the neutral platform.

Is the platform neutral if this is illegal discrimination and they include the ability to do that illegal discrimination in their value proposition?

Both (Craigslist prostitution ads and age specific jobs ads on Facebook) are publishing something which is illegal.

The party which should be pursued is the one posting the post which goes contrary to law.

I'm ok if FB or CL proactively root out those posts, but I'm not so sure I see it as their responsibility to do. It's good oversight but still I feel the people who should be punished are the agents of the wrongdoing.

So, no, I don't see them as an accessory to the crime.

That said, the companies/individuals doing the actual discrimination and or illegal solicitation should face the consequences of their actions. In this case, I'm not condoning companies discriminating on the basis of age.

Facebook has a setting where you can enter the age of a person for a job posting and they even have a special site for job ads. It's not comparable. Craigslist does not market a platform that explicitly says "target prostitution ads at people who are looking for prostitutes". What Facebook is doing is far more explicit and they are clearly aware of what is happening because they built functionality to do it specifically.

Craigslist has a setting where you can explicitly say you're seeking a man/men, woman/women both, other etc.

Not calling out Craigslist --simply illustrating that regular tools meant to be used responsibly can be abused to accomplish nefarious ends.

Yes but in that example what Craigslist is doing is still legal. It is totally fine to be a person seeking a person including all specific permutations of gender. It's not ok to discriminate based on age for jobs. Facebook has a page for the specific purpose of advertising jobs to people on the basis of their age.

If what you're saying is that they have a purpose built tool to target jobs ads specifically to discreet ages, then it could be problematic --if it's not a dual-use tool.

No, they don't "tend to allow it". Craigslist takes down explicitly illegal content. Yes, prostitutes offer "massages" on Craigslist and get away with it, but winking and nodding isn't illegal.

For the record, we are talking about the right to be served ads.

Not saying I disagree with you, many commenters in here are making good points.

We're not talking about the right to be served ads. We are talking about the right to not be discriminated against.

There are many legal reasons to want to limit ads to the elderly. If you're selling a product that disproportionately is bought by elderly people, such as adult diapers, would you prefer to show everyone the ad, or save money and only target the ad to the elderly?

Edit: I'm referring to the Facebook ads platform in general, and not specifically job ads. I agree that job ads shouldn't have the option to target age groups.

I think you can do that. What is not allowed is discriminating against employment seekers over the age of 40. I believe this means it is actually ok to discriminate against employment seekers under the age of 40 and also to discriminate against people over the age of 40 for purposes other than employment, including selling diapers.

In this case "ok" means "not made illegal by this law".

What's important here though is that Facebook isn't selling diaper ads, they're selling job ads and so they are discriminating against a protected class.

So would it also be illegal to advertise your job positions in teen Vogue but NOT in AARP magazine?

It doesn't seem much different in this case. Bit methods target young people.

No of course not. Anyone can buy either magazine. Those two examples are completely different.

In the magazine case you are taking out an advertisement with no ability to discriminate. In the Facebook case there is a specific setting based on age to show job ads. Job seekers over the age of 40 are protected so this is discrimination against a protected class. The problem is not that young people were targeted, the problem is that those over 40 were not.

You say it like it is that simple to fix; they could ask for photo in the curriculum and just discard the few that looks old, -after targeting job ads on pages that are disproportionaly "liked" by the age range they want-

The only true way to solve this is to force by law to hire older people (e.g. 30% of your workforce must be over 40); otherwise all this proxies like trying to regulate third-party ads and else its just an endless cat-and-mouse game.

It is an easy fix.

Job ads have no age options allowed.

Fixed.

And the next day, those age-based ads will be replaced by other user attributes closely correlated with age.

A US Supreme Court case comes to mind, Batson v Kentucky:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

In which it became illegal to dismiss a juror based on race. A simple, sensible fix, which most agree did very little to stop race based discrimination from juries. Doing so just became a bit more complicated.

Nope; you can target pages that are liked only by young people (e.g. Snapchat) and then just discard the few old people manually.

An ad space that will be shown to people in a specific age range isn't and shouldn't be illegal. A few specific classes of ads (e.g. for jobs or housing) are illegal to run in such an ad space, but I would expect the vast majority of ads are legal to run in such an ad space. As such I'd take the view that what Facebook is selling is legal, and if someone is running an ad that is regulated to a higher standard than normal ads then it's on that person to ensure their ad complies with those higher standards.

Imagine a drug advert that didn't properly list the drug's side effects. To my mind that would be the advertising company's responsibility, not the TV station or billboard owner's.

These ads were explicitly submitted as job ads, per the article.

Newspapers have been prohibited from running discriminatory ads, Facebook should also be.

Yeah this is worse than anything a newspaper has imagined doing in the last several decades.

It’s in Facebook’s interest to do the policing here. You’re right, the responsibility is on the advertiser, and the law needs enforcement mechanisms. Facebook doesn’t want to be regulated, but if they through malice or ignorance perpetuate civil rights violations, then they will be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com