Today, @HUDGov is charging @Facebook for violating the Fair Housing Act

[Swordsmyth]

https://twitter.com/SecretaryCarson/status/1111218929337290753

1111218929337290753

[Swordsmyth]

Federal officials alerted Twitter and Google in 2018 that they are peering into the tech giants’ business practices for possible housing discrimination, The Washington Post reported Thursday, citing anonymous sources.
Reports about the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s decision to alert (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/28/hud-charges-facebook-with-housing-discrimination/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3bed6c8abdeb) the two Silicon Valley companies comes hours after officials charged Facebook with housing discrimination. Facebook’s targeting tools enable and encourage unlawful discrimination by restricting who can view housing ads, media reports show (https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/28/facebook-sued-hud-discrimination/).
“They want to make sure that other companies aren’t getting away with something that one company is investigated for,” a source with knowledge of HUD’s intention told WaPo.


Facebook was dinged in 2016 for similar reasons. A class action lawsuit filed in California (https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/lawsuit-accuses-facebook-of-violating-1964-civil-rights-act/) of that year alleged that Facebook violated key civil rights laws after it was discovered that the social media company allows advertisers to target users by race and ethnicity.
The company has a self-service advertising page, which offers many different marketing functions. One of the features allows for advertisers to “EXCLUDE people” (https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/28/facebook-may-be-violating-civil-rights-law-through-advertising-feature-that-targets-race/) and “Narrow Audience” for specific demographics, like “Ethnic Affinity.” The lawsuit contends that this is a direct violation of Title VII (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act. (https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2)
HUD Secretary Ben Carson addressed the issue in a statement Thursday morning. “Facebook is discriminating against people based upon who they are and where they live,” Carson said in a press statement. “Using a computer to limit a person’s housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone’s face.”

More at: https://truepundit.com/hud-is-also-probing-twitter-and-google-for-housing-discrimination-practices/

[Grandmastersexsay]

If they can fine Facebook for this targeted advertising, they can fine cable companies for not having the same commercials on BET and BBC.

[acptulsa]

If they can fine Facebook for this targeted advertising, they can fine cable companies for not having the same commercials on BET and BBC.

That's ridiculous. Of course they can't.

When your cable box knows what your demographics are, and gives you the same ads whether you tune in to BET or the BBC, then the cable company would risk a lawsuit.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

i'm ad-neutral, i'm discriminated against every time i see an ad

[TheCount]

When your cable box knows what your demographics are, and gives you the same ads whether you tune in to BET or the BBC, then the cable company would risk a lawsuit.

The television networks are doing this, obviously, as the same companies own multiple channels and don't show the same ads across all of them. The only reason cable companies aren't/can't is because they don't sell television advertising directly.

[acptulsa]

The television networks are doing this, obviously, as the same companies own multiple channels and don't show the same ads across all of them.

No.

The television advertisers assume this group is watching the BBC, and assume that other collective is watching BET. But all anyone has to do to see those other ads is change the channel.

This lawsuit says blacks don't see ads for gentrified properties or whatever no matter where on Fedbook they go--even the BBC page.

[TheCount]

No.

The television advertisers assume this group is watching the BBC, and assume that other collective is watching BET. But all anyone has to do to see those other ads is change the channel.

Facebook assumes that it knows characteristics about its users based on their actions. I don't see the difference. Facebook can't be certain that you have children, but it can guess that you do if you interact with a school's page. It also can't know your religious beliefs, but can guess based on your interactions.

Likewise, your cable company guesses, based on channel + show + location + time and serves you ads based on your that. It's not just the channel; a Fox viewer in Chicago and Fox viewer in Atlanta are not seeing the same ads (via satellite being a likely exception).




This lawsuit says blacks don't see ads for gentrified properties or whatever no matter where on Fedbook they go--even the BBC page.

No, it doesn't.


13. Respondent determines which users will see an ad through a two-phase process. First, in the ad targeting phase, Respondent provides the advertiser with a variety of tools for selecting an ad’s “eligible audience.” In other words, the advertiser can specify attributes that the users who will be shown the ad must have and attributes that users who will be shown the ad must not have.

Second, in the ad delivery phase, Respondent selects the ad’s “actual audience,” meaning
Respondent chooses which users will actually be shown the ad from among the pool of eligible
users.

14. During the ad targeting phase, Respondent provides an advertiser with tools to define
which users, or which types of users, the advertiser would like to see an ad. Respondent has
provided a toggle button that enables advertisers to exclude men or women from seeing an ad, a search-box to exclude people who do not speak a specific language from seeing an ad, and a map tool to exclude people who live in a specified area from seeing an ad by drawing a red line
around that area. Respondent also provides drop-down menus and search boxes to exclude or
include (i.e., limit the audience of an ad exclusively to) people who share specified attributes.
Respondent has offered advertisers hundreds of thousands of attributes from which to choose, for example to exclude “women in the workforce,” “moms of grade school kids,” “foreigners,”
“Puerto Rico Islanders,” or people interested in “parenting,” “accessibility,” “service animal,”
“Hijab Fashion,” or “Hispanic Culture.” Respondent also has offered advertisers the ability to
limit the audience of an ad by selecting to include only those classified as, for example,
“Christian” or “Childfree.”

[Grandmastersexsay]

The television networks are doing this, obviously, as the same companies own multiple channels and don't show the same ads across all of them. The only reason cable companies aren't/can't is because they don't sell television advertising directly.

The cable companies do sell some advertising time directly, but the majority are sold by the networks. Perhaps a better example would be a company like Viacom. They'll have targeted ads that are very different appearing on BET and CMT.