Facebook Accused of Facilitation Violations of U. S. Fair Housing Laws

frankbell · 08-18-2018, 11:57 AM

The San Jose Mercury-News has a lengthy article about this. The capsule version is that persons who advertise housing on Facebook (I didn't even know that was a thing, but I avoid the Zuckerborg as much as possible) can use Facebook's ad targeting functionality to reduce the numbers of members of "protected classes" (from discrimination) who may see an ad.

Here is a key excerpt:

Quote:

Advertisers have the option to prevent Facebook users from seeing housing ads if they have expressed interest in accessibility issues, including assistance dogs, mobility scooters and deaf culture; have young children or have expressed interest in family issues including child care or parenting; expressed interest in geographic regions including Latin America, Southeast Asia, Honduras or Somalia; or have expressed interest in religions such as Sikhism, Hinduism or the Bible, according to the HUD complaint. Facebook also allows advertisers to draw a “red line” around zip codes, and hide housing ads from users who live within the line, according to the complaint.

In their typical rote response, Facebook says they are working on it.

jsbjsb001 · 08-18-2018, 12:26 PM

That's probably what Russia used (one of the ways/means anyway - targeted ad's) in getting Trump elected.

frankbell · 08-19-2018, 04:39 PM

I believe that the analysis offered in this article is germane: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/o...216930040.html

Quote:

The platform founders (note: the author is referring to social media platforms in general) thought they could set up their systems, then step back, and a better world would emerge. Instead, some things improved — and others got worse. All the rules since then have been reactions to deal with those downsides. What the companies haven’t done is take a break from trying to troubleshoot and question whether the system itself has a fundamental flaw. Site creators thought they could remain neutral overseers in perpetuity because they believed their products by their nature provided an unequivocal good: more people in more places seeing more things.

They were wrong. These platforms were supposed to democratize societies and empower dissidents, and they have. But their commitment to unfettered expression can also sometimes let some people shout so loud it’s impossible to hear anyone else, in countries where authoritarian regimes have discovered how to harness the same power that once threatened to topple them, or here at home where the harassers can scare the harassed into silence. And connecting everyone, though it opens doors to plenty that’s enriching or enlightening, can also expose people to content that corrupts, from Russian trolls to conspiracy theorists.

ondoho · 08-20-2018, 01:38 AM

Quote:

But their commitment to unfettered expression can also sometimes let some people shout so loud it’s impossible to hear anyone else

this is a problem, and it's much older than social media or even the internet.

jsbjsb001 · 08-20-2018, 04:57 AM

FWIW, I agree with the analysis cited in post #3. There's always a flip side...