Hacker News Reader

The issue is not focusing on demographics, it’s excluding demographics. The law states you cannot exclude certain demographics. Facebook is allowing that.

Nothing is preventing an atheist from reading a Christian magazine, or some non-expected audience member from reading an ad targeted at a general audience. The problem is when you control the viewers on an individual level, as Facebook does.

Actually, targeting of ads to certain publications is illegal in the field of housing; search for "selective use of advertising media or content" at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7781.PDF

Compare to jobs. It’s ok to require candidates to speak a minority language iff that has something to do with the job. But it is not ok to require a specific age, gender or marital status.

Landlord ads are more or less like job ads, in that sense.

These aren't requirements though; it's not like saying you must speak Italian to live here. It's more like advertising a job posting for a doctor in a medical journal instead of a car magazine.

Your metaphor is off. It's like advertising a job posting for a doctor only in majority-white medical schools.

I don't think your metaphor is on point, either. I'm going to guess an ad in a majority-white med school is allowed (can I go on a limb and say most med schools are majority, white, anyways?).

But nothing is stopping a black person from seeing the ad.

In FB's case, it's like posting an ad at a med school (any, med school, regardless of demographics) and say...you can only view this add if you're white.

What if a job posting is advertised at a majority black medical school? Is that ok?

I'm kinda LOL on the downvotes. From my understanding (and I replied to OP) is that it is fine. IANAL, though.

When I was in college, lots of recruiters advertise and sponsor with the Society of Black Engineers...of Society of Women Engineers. Nothing stopped me from going to those meetings, and I did attend some. Their meetings were advertised to everyone. You weren't prevented from going to the meeting and listening to the recruiters.

Was I offended...yes and no, but more on the no side because I had the same opportunity as everyone else at school. I'll tell when I was offended. I went to a career fair one semester I saw Microsoft booth that advertised scholarships for minorities (or maybe internships? I don't know, I hope not because that woulda been illegal, in hindsight!).

There was a young Indian woman staffing the booth and I asked if I could apply. She said no...looking for blacks and hispanics. I'm Asian...so was she. Microsoft shoulda sent a black/hispanic engineer to send their message across better, too.

Yes. Because it’s not stopping a white person who happens to be going to an HBCU from seeing the ad. I get flyers all of the time from politicians that target those evil liberals who are trying to change “the culture” of America because they are targeting based on zip code.

Let’s just say when they walk the neighborhood and I open the door, they are flummoxed when they don’t feel comfortable using their usually spiel...

Are you seriously comparing advertising job openings to doctors with advertising apartments to only people of a certain race? You can’t just parameterize “x” and call it an argument.

A better comparison is advertising in a catholic newspaper. Is that a discrimination toward non catholics? It’s a bit of a stretch.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, there is no analogue in traditional (read: newspaper) advertising.

If you take out an advertisement in a Catholic newspaper, you're focusing on Catholics. But non-Catholics may still read your advertisement if they come upon your newspaper. There is no method in traditional physical media to specifically exclude any demographic; there are only ways to emphasize one demographic over another. This makes digital advertising with demographic-based exclusion (rather than demographic-based inclusion) incomparable to a newspaper.

That difference may seem hollow but it is a difference of category, rather than degree. More important than this point is the observation that these kinds of debates quickly devolve into litigating the appropriateness of imperfect analogies rather than the original issue itself.

No, for a simple reason: A muslim (say) is free to read a catholic newspaper. A muslim is not free to look at catholic-targeted advertising on facebook. In the particular case: If a muslim can't find a house fitting their requirements in their muslim newspaper, they could just buy a catholic newspaper and have a look whether there are any offers in there that are of interest to them. They have no such choice on facebook.

Is it not discrimination if there are 2 people reading the same catholic newspaper and one does not see the ad because she is female?

> 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?

If I understand correctly, your argument is that optimizing cost goes against making fairness for all its citizens. So, it is a matter of priority. What is more important "fairness and justice" or "cost reduction"?

You can target whoever you want to in traditional media. With traditional media for instance, you can target off campus housing to a majority White college,but there is no way that you can stop a minority from seeing the ads.

With FB, you could target an ad to people who go to that school who are of certain race. (https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/609543/faceboo...)

This is specifically not allowed by the Fair Housing Act.

Devils advocate here, but what if facebook had an Opt-In, where users can allow the features they've entered to limit the ads shown to them? What if I only want ads (from food to housing) in Spanish or Chinese? Can my preference as an individual override having to see ads that I don't want to see?

It doesn’t matter and the law only applies to housing. All of the other analogies are moot.

If you asked a real estate agent could they find you a house in a mostly Jewish community for instance, they are not allowed to help you...

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-your...

Real estate agents can easily find themselves having to explain why they can’t narrow down homes on the market based on the client’s preferences because the requests touch on the protected classes. Babs De Lay, broker and owner of Urban Utah Homes and Estates real estate agency in Salt Lake City, says she worked with friends a few years ago who said they were looking for the “most Jewish, democratic neighborhood” in the area.

You could ask your real estate agent, “Is this a good neighborhood?”

Your agent isn't purposely giving you the run-around. Certain details about a neighborhood or community can violate the Fair Housing Act, which was enacted in 1968 to eliminate housing discrimination. The law protects against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or family status. In particular, it prohibits any real estate professional from steering prospective homebuyers or renters toward or away from a community based on any of the classes under federal protection.

You’re missing the point entirely. The complaint is about what Facebook has designed their platform to allow, which is very clearly illegal and for very clear reasons. What’s not not clear is how you’ve come to the conclusion that landlords are “where the fault lies”; you’re begging the question by assuming that the fault can entirely be placed on one group or the other. One thing at a time.