If you do something illegal because your users asked you to, it's still illegal.
The article is pretty clear that publishing the ads is illegal.
An example of safe harbor protection would be something like a user uploading a copyrighted song without a site's knowledge. If the site did not know about it, did not benefit from it financially, and takes it down when they are told about it, safe harbor protections would probably apply.
In contrast, Facebook knows the content and targeting options of every ad that they publish, and makes money from the ads.
You might want to look at USC Section 230 [1] which says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
[0] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html [1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
prohibit acts are allowed, and they are dealt with by punishing the wrong doers.
Turning a company's automated system into a judge of legal and illegal action just seems like a bad idea in the long run.
Though, it is seemingly a growing trend, I don't feel it will result in a improved world in the end.
If you commit a crime because somebody else asked you to do it, does that mean you didn’t break the law?
If Facebook commits a crime because someone asked them to do it, does that mean they didn’t break the law?
How could the answers to those two questions be different?
As another example - should Facebook be legally responsible if I use their service to send death threats to someone? If not, why is that case different?
Government will have to step in.
"But having humans review ads doesn't scale!" says someone with a financial position in online advertising.
Meanwhile, the massive profits of the online advertising companies have forced them to 'pivot' into real estate holding companies, during a period of persistent underemployment and stagnant wage growth.
Yep. Nothing can be done. We have to wait for artificial intelligence to save the day. It would simply cut into profits too much to follow the law.
In many cases, the answer is no, you did not break the law.
The best example I have of this is DMCA, and copywrite law. It is perfectly legal for youtube to allow users to upload content that they don't have the rights to, as long as they follow the DMCA takedown process if requested.
Or to give another example, think about your phone lines. I am sure that many users engage in illegal behavior over the phone. But it is not the job of the phone company to listen in on your phone calls, to ensure that you are, I don't know, engaging in harassment or some other illegal phone activity.
It's up to Facebook to take whatever internal steps they deem necessary to prevent that from happening. The government doesn't need to decide what steps need to be taken -- it only needs to care about the outcome.
But Facebook is somehow how different? Why?
Oh right their business model doesn't work if they have to pay the costs associated with following government regulations.
I'm not feeling sympathetic.
I'm asking, are we wanting facebook to do it because it's ethical? Or are we wanting to legally require them to?
The local newspaper has a self service portal for classifieds. I don’t know about thier job ads, but they review their ads for rentals for violations of the Fair Housing Act.
Also some recruiter are explicitely trying to correct a gender imbalance and are therefore actively seeking female candidates. Does that become unethical to advertise to women?
Um, the cleaner is usually coming in when the locker room is empty so sex doesn't matter.
I think the issue arises when you’re using an advertisement to look for employees.