HUD finally doing something useful
3
The techniques & algorithms of targeted advertising are a great positive for advertisers & users alike. I don't see ads for tampons or disposable diapers, among many other irrelevant (to me) products and I appreciate it a lot. I wish there was something similar for television, so I could never see another insurance or pharmaceutical ad. Facebook's entire business model is taking the information you voluntarily provide and using it to target ads at you. Anything you post on the site become's Facebook's to use to sell advertising to you. Some nefarious actors (Russians, racists) ln rare instances have figured out how to use your data to accomplish their purposes, others have used your data to decide whether or not to send you ads for feminine hygiene products or Medicare plans. Any discriminatory targeted ads appear to be inadvertent and Facebook is willing to make changes. But targeted advertising is here to stay. There is nothing you, I or HUD can do to stop it. It is the wave of the future and only will become more refined as time marches forward. But there's a bigger story here that the MSM is missing. People wake up! Does anyone really believe that HUD is claiming that the poor, elderly, and/or people "of color" aren't being bombarded with enough ads? Anyone else feel like this might be politically motivated? I hate to be a skeptic but this feels more like Trump’s vendetta tour. HUD has begun the attacks against companies DJT doesn't like? Isn't this the real story?
26
@Bill Brown
"ln rare instances have figured out how to use your data to accomplish their purposes, others have used your data to decide whether or not to send you ads for feminine hygiene products or Medicare plans. Any discriminatory targeted ads appear to be inadvertent and Facebook is willing to make changes. But targeted advertising is here to stay. There is nothing you, I or HUD can do to stop it."
Its not that rare, and the ability to do so is being refined.
There are solutions. Like a strong and enforceable Privacy Act. Like the EU, but better.
This is about privacy, plain and simple. Its about FB and their ilk, not owning our online presence simply because they say its theirs.
Its time for the US public, the consumers driving these money making behemoths to demand our privacy, and fairness in the alleged fair-minded, color-blind, even-handed Marketplace!
You know the one the GOP keeps telling us doesn't need to be regulated, but will instead treat us all like little buddies and provide us fair priced health insurance, wont prey on the ignorant, or cash strapped, or elderly...isnt always seeking ways to undermine the very financial products they sell, so to bet against and win higher stakes on their failures...
You know, The Magnanimous Free Market.
Of course this is political. Duh! HUD is finally doing something that Trump can run on. (could if he was smart enough)
7
@Bill Brown Glad you don't see ads for tampons or disposable diapers, but just wait until you're in that huge amorphous group called "over 65" - then it's hearing aids and other constant reminders of what might be your fate during the next thirty or forty years.
Then there are the algorithms that just miss; Netflix doesn't seem to understand that I only want to see good, intelligent, thought-provoking award-winning sci-fi, not just any sci-fi. (Or else they think I like violence, which is a standard element of shows I otherwise find engaging.)
I'd rather see irrelevant ads (it's interesting to see what's popular among young affluent men) then some AI + Marketing Department's silly idea of what I'll buy. At any rate, I'm an ad-blocking maven, especially on Facebook, and rarely see ads there. (Just on the NYT when I log in to comment. Today it's a giant TV: wrong but culturally informative.)
8
I used to work for the mortgage department of a bank. We would write a mortgage for a Wazoo from Betelgeuse if we thought the Wazoo would make the payments. On one hand the government gets mad if we don't make risky loans in neighborhoods where there are historically high default rates or to people who have historically defaulted at very high rates.
On the other hand if we get these same loans off our hands by CDOing them, we are evil. Fannie and Freddie don't want them. The FHA knows no one is going to make the payments but they make the loans, knowing government will bail them out.
Why make the private sector make loans that won't be paid back and force us to raise rates on people who DO pay back and punish those who pay back for those who don't?
The banks have zero interest in passing up a chance to make money to discriminate. If a bank smells a dollar they will make a loan to a purple unicorn with green dots.
10
@NashvilleInvestor
Excuse me, but your CDO's included plenty of non-government backed mortgages as well. As you say, you'd sell a property to anyone with a breath.
10% of those "ninja" loans were government backed. 90% was private greed. Banks were happy to bundle ALL mortgages into CDO's and pass them on. That included plenty of speculators who jumped on the housing bandwagon by flipping houses as a weekend hobby. That included plenty of regular people who didn't qualify for government backed loans. It was a feeding frenzy and placing all the blame on poorer people who were higher risk is DESPICABLE.
I suspect you are promulgating a falsehood if you're telling me you "thought" the applicants could make the payments. I doubt that you ever considered that at all. Know what "ninja" stands for? No job, income or assets. That was the basis for loans you approved.
Back in the olden times, I got my first mortgage by putting down 30% and showing that my total monthly debt including mortgage was no more than 25% of my income, which had better be legitimate income and not some made up number. Why? Because my bank was on the hook if I defaulted, not some obscure owner of a CDO.
The banks stopped owning the risk. Don't blame that mess on poor people.
11
@CF
Once again missing the basic points - CDO's are not evil in themselves any more that Junk bonds are evil in themselves.
As any financial professional knows - junk bonds are one the best inventions of 20th century finance.
It is HOW they are used and HOW they are regulated.
The original comment reflected the insanity of marketing mortgages or large loans to folks that clearly can't afford them and the frustration when people think that is identical with racism.
3
"entailed drawing lines around black neighborhoods and declaring them unsafe"
I am amazed at the fact that brown people stay in America. It proves how terrible the entire world is - that they would stay in such a racist place.
2
Some here say that the issues of offering homes to those that can't afford them is wrong. Others say all should see all ads. Nonsense. Advertising is based on targeting your audience.
Others say that the housing bubble was caused by greedy banks that made loans to people that couldn't afford them. That too is nonsense, or at least an oversimplification of the last 50 years. The bubble was caused by the government, mostly due to liberal mandates that pushed deregulation. Especially when in the 90s, Clinton declared everyone had the right to own a home and pushed Freddie and Fannie to loosen lending.
If HUD continues this line if thinking and the law suit, liberals own the consequences.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble
2
Facebook is about as useful to society as wet toilet paper.
6
I was ten when a cross was burned on our front yard. It was one year after the Fair Housing Act had passed and word had spread that my parent's were actively trying to sell our house, in an upscale Detroit suburb, to a minority.
Redlining is hideous and I applaud HUD, under Trump no less, for working to make Facebook and other internet services accountable. I hope, in the process, the discriminating advertisers also get their comeuppances!
10
I think NYT is missing the point here. The real discrimination happens from the Lenders and Insurers and it is perfectly legal to do so. Capital One is a subprime credit card issuer, they will waste their mailings if they send them out to prime customers because none will respond. Progressive insurance is a auto insurer that targets high risk drivers, they are wasting their ads on people who have good driving records. FHA loans are for people who don't have enough money to make a reasonable down payment, does it matter if FHA attracts its core customer through the mortgage broker, mass mailings or the internet. You want to stop discrimination, you have to stop asking people their race! The biggest discrimination happens by American women who all want to date 6 ft plus males though only 15 % of American males are 6 ft plus. Why doesn't NYT stand behind short guys and go after match.com.
6
Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming. Did an arm of the trump administration actually stand up for the rights of tenants? He must not know about it.
2
Ok. So I want to sue Amazon for recommending products to me after analyzing my previous behavior. Then I want to sue Deezer for recommending songs to me based on previous behaviors. Then I want to sue Apple for limiting my viewing choices by using ISPs and location limitations to “tailor” my experience. Then I want to sue the New York Times for showing me excessively abundant Texas themed stories because I live in the great state if Texas.
3
Why aren't Zuckerberg and Sandberg in jail yet? Facebook is one of the sleaziest companies out there.
5
It is mind boggling that someone at FB did not flag this practice as illegal, or even dumb. But I guess the company is dominated by 20-40 something white kids for whom discrimination, if it ever existed, is a thing of the past.
But what about their legal department? Don't they teach that stuff in law school any more.
I am not even going to bother asking about common sense. Allowing advertisers to draw a red line that excludes ANY neighborhood for ANY type of ad is the dumbest policy ever. Allow them the opposite, even that is shaky but at least it has a percent in snail mail ad targeting.
3
Facebook allowed advertisers to limit information on the race, religion or national origin?! For Housing?! What is this? 1940?
Hit them with every punishment possible.
And then do it again.
5
Facebook is a new gilded age robber baron malefactor of great wealth.
Facebook needs to be busted up. Facebook needs to be regulated for it's deceptive duplicitous profiting from violating the personal information of it's users aka prey sold to corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare kings and queens aka predators. Along with Facebook giving a platform to Russian military intelligence aka GRU, Russian domestic intelligence aka FSB and Russian foreign intelligence aka SVR to hack and meddle in American political campaigns and elections.
Now that we know that Facebook is credibly accused of facilitating and perpetuating housing discrimination. What about Facebook's fair employment and hiring practices?
Fair housing was the last of the 1960'w civil rights legislative achievements. When LBJ proposed it in January, 1966 it went into committee and died a bipartisan national opposition death. On April 4, 1998 Dr. King's murder led to massive urban black rebellion. On April 11,1968 Lyndon Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act into law..
4
Facebook, like the NYT, is a publisher of content and should be treated like one.
1
By measure, Facebook is an awful company, led by an immature smug boy.
Of course he's laughing all the way to the bank. Remind you of anyone?
5
Whom among us looked forward to those recent underwear ads salted throughout online articles in this very newspaper? OMG! Was I, a 70-something-year-old, being targeted?!
1
This is simply second order magical racism.
FB targets ads based on a number of characteristics independently of actually knowing the race of the targets.
The fact that - in toto - those characteristics sum up to an imperfect racial category is where the magical thinking comes in.
Yes - different races identify differently when it comes to interests and activities but excluding targets based on income levels and other basic non-racialized data is common sense when you are trying to reach a particular target group.
It is marketing 101.
This has significant implications for gender targeting as well - women generally drive more prudently that guys so they get lower auto insurance premiums - guess what - no more - it is now 'magically' sexist to differentiate in a number of states.
3
Wonder what would happen if HUD looked at the advertising history of the Trump RE organization. Do we think they advertise to minorities?
2
Seems like HUD wants Fb's "sensitive information" real bad. I wonder why.
3
In order to discriminate against "certain groups" two things are necessary. Facebook must know who those groups are, and advertisers must be able to use that knowledge to target their ads.
This brings up a larger problem with anti-discrimination efforts. You are allowed to discriminate based on some factors, but not others. You would not advertise Bentley autos to people with an annual income of 50k or less, and you would probably not advertise discount clothing to homeowners in Beverley Hills. Targeting ads based on income is legal. Similarly, you might not want to advertise black hair care products to white males.
So if Facebook knows your income level and skin color and allows advertisers to use this information to target their ads, its AIs have to distinguish between those ads for which discrimination is legal, like Bentley cars and black hair care products, from those for which it is not, like housing.
Housing and related financing seem to be the most fraught. Perhaps Facebook should teach its AIs to disallow certain types of sorting for this particular category. I'm sure that there are others too. If the AIs are really that capable, Facebook should be able to teach them to obey the law.
AIs are a machine, and the law is clear that a machine's developers and owners can be held responsible for any damages it does. This discussion reinforces that notion.
1
@mlbex
U.S. federal civil rights law (Title VI, Title IX, Section 504) is key. Not arbitrary once you delve into it (which of course corporate lawyers are nicely paid to do).
@SMG: Where did I say that anything was arbitrary?
1
In a related vein, it is high time federal agencies and states' attorneys general investigated American businesses' increasing reliance on algorithmic programs to select among job applicants.
It's important to know whether the programming that decides which applications to forward to hiring managers has a disparate adverse impact on protected classes.
Another issue is whether members of protected classes have equal access to the technology, and whether they have the know-how to game the system as effectively as applicants from more privileged backgrounds.
After all, we know that high-status college applicants benefit from the advice of well-paid consultants. It would not be at all surprising to find a nascent industry of job-application consultants who are familiar with the ins and outs of computerized job hunting and will share their expertise for a price.
3
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 is important and I'm glad to see some parts of our government still function in spite of the Republican effort to subvert it. The anti-trust laws are important too. We are way over due for some old fashioned trust busting monopoly shattering legislation and enforcement. Elizabeth Warren articulates the problems and solutions very well. Maybe too well. Americans don't like to think too much, hence the success of the advertising business. Which brings us back to Facebook.
Enough already about "gig economy" companies and how they're "disrupting" the economy. As we've seen plenty of already, way too often "disrupting" is code for knowingly crossing ethical and legal lines. Facebook is certainly one of the worst (and one of the largest), but there are a multitude of other similarly bad actors now. I'm not one to default to calling for more government regulations, but, in regard to Facebook and their ilk, we're already well past the point where the government should be stepping in to protect the interests of average Americans.
2
Here’s and idea- subject FB and other social media companies to the same regulatory standards and enforcement regime as our Banks because instead deposits they hold our personal information. In turn, management and the board can be fired and banned from the industry if they violate the laws or public interest. That will change behavior. Otherwise fines are a cost of doing business.
3
For all the legal and other resources at Facebook's disposal, for many years now, they're surprised that there are rules around protected classes in housing, credit, employment? Give me a break. I'm really tired of tech companies who think they're disrupting industry x, y or z with an app or some kind of online presence, but can't be bothered to understand or follow the laws of doing business in that industry. Being a college dropout or whatever the favored characteristics of massive vc funding these days is not an excuse for it either.
4
Mark Zukerberg should put on his big boy pants and act like a responsible citizen instead of a child wonder.
7
Facebook was shocked and surprised that their predatory business practices were caught again.
7
A few brilliant Facebook folks ought to be able to devise a algorithm modification that can reduce potential discrimination, require it — and then take “we are here to do good” credit. Just put an AI in a review/suggest role.
Any problems you have with Facebook can be easily avoided by not visiting the website.
10
I don’t use Facebook, but the photo sharing-friend connecting part looks like a 300 person company, while the remaining 10,000 employees make the money off the photo sharing-friend connecting thing.
1
Probably not a popular opinion in this audience but I guess property owners no longer have any rights?
I've seen, close up, how abusive some tenants can be - shielded by "renter protection" laws.
IMHO, property owners should have the right to use any methods they choose to sort though potential tenants.
"Private property" doesn't mean much in America anymore. The government tells us what we can do with our private property and taxes it year after year. WE don't really "own" our property any more; we just rent it from the government.
2
@dbsmith "IMHO, property owners should have the right to use any methods they choose to sort though potential tenants. " No, property owners do not have the right to deny tenants based on race, gender, etc. For self protection all a property owner has to do is request references and do a walk thru of the property with a new tenant taking video to show the condition of the property. A subsequent recording can show any damage done.
3
FB does not "restrict access" to ads. It allows advertisers to target who sets those ads served to them. To the extent that an advertiser could make explicit choices based on protected categories that should be forbidden -- but to extend that to "in effect" choices destroys the entire rationale behind the advertising model. FB charges by impressions. Showing the ad to people who would not be interested is a waste of money. The lawsuit claims "restricted access" but the argument is about who sees ads without searching. NO ONE I repeat NO ONE goes to FB to begin their search for a home. FB has already agreed to create a search portal for those who wish to use it that way. Instead this is a bureaucratic overreach designed to force FB to go to a PPC model.
3
@Michael Lissack Note the lawsuit states that FB restricts access to dwellings. That assertion rests on a fallacy -- namely that one uses FB ads to find a home to purchase. FB has NO data that suggests such behavior happens. FB ads are instead designed to get a user to "think about" the home shown and then CONTACT THE REALTOR. They are not about houses at all. They are about getting contacts for the Realtor. If one begins with a misunderstanding ....
4
This seems like an overreach by HUD. FB already settled on this issue and has made changes. More importantly, who in the world uses Facebook to find a house? Ads are driven by user interest, which includes demographics like where you live. If I search Zillow, Zillow ads pop up for my city, not the city i searched in a browser. Everyone here, including the board, continue to find non-issues to promote the falsehood that minorities are disenfranchised, but I'm seeing most get along with their neighbors regardless of color or religion. If you have the money, go look at whatever house you want. No one is going to stop you. I personally don't want ads for homes I can't afford.
3
My question is, is this claim of "discrimination" based on acts of commission, or omission?
If a media platform offers advertiser a list of attributes to select in an attempt to target a particular audience, does the fact that the advertiser does not select ALL the attributes offered make the media platform a facilitator of active discrimination?
Does failure to select constitute "exclusion"?
Sorry, but with this administration I can't help but think that this is another attempt by the president to use government entities to settle personal/political scores by misleadingly twisting the facts.
I'd like to see some details.
1
Seems a bit unfair to sue fb again when they've already settled and made changes as a result. Also seems like the government has become highly litigious in resent years.
@Ma
Money talks. Thats what the country is all about. Shaming does not work, going to jail does not work. Hit the pocket book. That works.
2
Housing--more specifically, the neighborhood in which one lives--is important because it affects health outcomes and life expectancy, educational attainment, earnings, and so on. Likening housing to consumer goods not so closely tied to life chances (e.g., hair care products) as some have tried to do, is silly. Making rules that promote fairness and the well-being of all citizens, while allowing for freedom of choice and enterprise, requires a great deal of thought and care.
3
The tech companies are beginning to realize that, just like all other businesses, they will be required to follow the law. The are not exempt merely because their systems are software-managed” rather than human-operated. This applies not just to discrimination issues, but others.
6
@Ralph Begleiter Yes and the software was programmed by humans.
The spirit of laws written in an earlier time MUST BE HONORED....
Zuckerberg, and others, cannot claim that the specifics don't apply.... of course they don't. Much of the tech didn't exist back then.
But their 'end runs' cannot be tolerated, and any enrichment they enjoy should be fair game in any settlements.
They have a responsibility to the nation....
7
@EEE This action taken by HUD doesn't honor the spirit of the law. Read them... links below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble
In other words, HUD is demanding that people ignore known, relevant, factors in making marketing decisions.
Advertisers try to limit the scope of their advertising to target audiences most likely to respond well to the advertising. Anything else is a waste of money and effort. Advertising an expensive house to people who likely can't afford it is exactly that, a waste. There's a reason they advertise beer on football games but not on Project Runway.
But HUD doesn't care about reality. They're just interested in forcing companies to engage in government-mandated social engineering.
By the way, while I'm here, by what Constitutionally granted power does HUD exist?
8
Targeted advertising ( "redlining" ) is perfectly fine unless its design has the effect of discriminating against protected classes. "Has the effect" is the key phrase, which FB apparently failed to properly monitor. I suspect FB's failure was inadvertent but that does not exonerate them from abetting racists.
Both the racist advertisers and FB must redesign their advertising practices, fire employees who knowingly discriminated, and now make substantial restitution by funding equal housing opportunity institutions (government or private non-profits).
Do that and end this simple case. Don't make it out to be something more complex than it is. I like targeted advertising that reduces my chances of seeing a pitch for services and products that cannot possibly interest me, which should be obvious because I'm not secretive in recording on FB what I like and don't like. By the way, I don't mind slightly intrusive ads because that's the only way outlets like FB can remain free.
2
While I agree to deny someone the opportunity to rent or buy based on their membership in a protected class is wrong, I don’t see why an advertiser should be forced to share that opportunity with everyone. Targeted marketing allows businesses to cost effectively deliver their message to those most likely to be interested in it. When you are paying an ad fee based on the number of eyeballs that are seeing your ad, why would you want to pay for eyeballs that have absolutely no interest in the product?
African Americans typically use hair products that bald white men don’t use. Why should an advertiser be forced to pay for bald men to possibly see their ad? Not too many 80 year old me buy $600 basketball sneakers. Why can’t the advertiser exclude them?
That same 80 year old man probably isn’t going to want an apartment on the 5th floor of a walk up building. If I’m advertising that apartment why can’t I save money on advertising (or spend the same amount but have it reach more likely buyers) by excluding 80 year olds?
I’m not surprised to see Facebook is eager to work with the government. This policy will give them the government’s back in charging more for advertising that advertisers don’t want.
32
@Matt Williams
So you see why people should not be excluded, then find an excuse to exclude them? The point is that you don’t make the decision for them, you don’t exclude them. They can make their own choices.
Also, HUD doesn’t include hair products, just housing.
27
@Matt Williams
Sneakers and hair products are very different things to good housing or pleasant and peaceful areas to live, or loans or credit - exactly the kind of things that influence quality of living and social mobility, possibly even education and employment prospects for next generation. Hence the separate portal that Facebook is required to set up.
22
@Covert You missed the part about paying for "the number of eyeballs seeing their ad".
Maybe the entity paying for ads, the advertiser, should be able to "make their own choices" and decide who they're going to advertise to, even if excluding deadbeats happens to also exclude protected minorities (the concept of "protected" groups being discriminatory in itself).
5
It sounds like HUD is doing something right. Hurrah to the career professionals bringing this case.
19
@Ann...
Don't delude yourselves that it was the members of "deep state" that brought this case...
With the political ramifications of taking on such a large target, the decision to prosecute was taken at the highest levels, and the supervision of it case will be made by the top legal counsel in the department.
It is absurd to think otherwise.
1
Zip code is an important factor in any real estate sale or rental. The issue is just how far a seller should have to cast the net. If you're renting an apartment in the Bronx should you have to advertise in all the other boroughs too? Should you have to advertise in Connecticut, New Jersey? Where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide where the line gets drawn?
9
I want less advertisements, not more. They can exclude me from all their algorithms. I happen to be in the market for a house right now, but would never decide where to live or who to get a mortgage with via a FB ad! I'm evaluating all mortgage providers not based on whether they advertise to me or not.
4
@Colleen M- if you’re using the Internet at all, same thing happens. Targeted advertising, marketing, selection. What gets shown in your feed, who is prioritized. Note the article said Google and Twitter are next.
"The government says that advertising designed to exclude certain groups violates the Fair Housing Act."
Here, lies a fallacy that pollutes the whole issue. The FHA would be violated if developers were barring clients from ownership based on their race/sexual preference/etc., or blocking access to listings based on the same criteria. That is simply not the case here.
Advertising on Facebook, as on any other type of medium (TV ads, billboards, magazine ads), is billed according to the probable number of people who will see the ad. In any case, ad targeting is not an exact science, it's just a gamble on a more or less vague set of probabilities. On FB, it's more precise as ads are served to individuals instead of being posted for anyone who happens to be there to see. If you're advertising a new, high priced condominium, it makes sense to advertise to people who can afford it rather than to those who can't. By that logic, it makes perfect economic sense NOT to advertise to low-income zip codes, which may be racially diverse, setting off suspicions of racial discrimination. But remember: the discrimination here isn't on opportunities to access home ownership or listings, it's on the "opportunity" to be targeted by unsolicited ads.
I do all I can to avoid ads whether online or watching TV shows, and it boggles the mind that anyone would insist on equal opportunity to be targeted by ads. It's not a civil right to be advertised to; it certainly shouldn't be an obligation.
7
It’s illegal for real estate agents to steer people to certain neighborhoods based on race.
How is Facebook advertising different?
2
@Chris: "targeted" advertising is stupid, plain and simple. It assumes that we live in our own little silos and don't interact with others not in our own little group. Everyone has or knows an older person or two, knows or has younger adults having children (baby showers, for example), knows or has family/friends of different ethnicities, of different socioeconomic backgrounds, religious affiliations, the list goes on. To limit your advertising to only certain people limits your reach in an audience, and as a self-employed business owner, I can tell you that I only limit my reach based on what I can and cannot provide (I'm a therapist) for services, but do not limit in any other way.
FB made,
“significant steps” to prevent advertising discrimination, such as removing age, gender and ZIP code targeting from housing, credit and employment ads.”, because it had been explicitly targeting ads in illegal ways. Now it is learning that redlining, and subtly advertising in illegal ways is also a problem . . .
Wow, who knew Zuckerberg was so racist?
1
Oh don't mind me, I'm whistling past yet another article about Facebook doing no good with algorithms they somehow still haven't been forced to release the source code of despite being THE least trustworthy marketing-NOT-"tech" megacorp.
3
It is still nearly impossible for African Americans and Latinos to qualify for mortgages that white people get with no questions asked. They also can’t get home equity loans for maintenance and repair if their property, and therefore unable to resist the forces of gentrification. Add that to the rising overt racism of white supremacy and we have a catastrophic crisis brewing.
2
The Fair Housing Act is itself constitutionally questionable.
1
It’s only 3 pages long. The constitution, that is. What part of it do you suppose makes the act “questionable”?
It’s all too common for people to claim something is unconstitutional that in fact is just something they simply dislike. If you know a legal, unprejudiced, basis for your claim, I’d like to hear it.
1
@KBronson
No, it's not...
1
Do people really want Mark Zuckerberg deciding anything.
5
Did Facebook think it was going to get away with it, because the Trump regime gets away with it every day?
3
Those who have made Fakebook into the false idol it is, after the biblical golden calf, deserve the opprobrium they will receive from other, more discerning people. Those who see Fakebook as a tacky device for a clever group to make lots of money without getting their precious hands dirty will also recognise the dangers inherent of angering the right-wing people who already hate on the basis of religion and ethnicity.
8
They do it for employment too.
2
Poor Mark Zuckerberg. How could anyone who attended Harvard think that getting a lot of people together is a good idea?
Did you know that Facebook is not safe? My friend put a picture of her daughter as her profile picture and a man thought that it was the daughter's Facebook account because he saw the profile picture, so he starts calling my friend and asking her for a date and my friend tells her husband that she swears she doesn't know this man. She ends up figuring out why he was texting and calling her but even so if it were her account, would have been scary to have a girl with a random guy calling her and texting her. I don't believe that Facebook is safe for anyone especially children considering this terrible story.
I’d love to see a list of the advertisers in question. Perhaps a well oiled boycott of those named companies, organized by the tenants they want to avoid would help them achieve their mission and let others know what kind of companies they really are.
2
I hope they win. While I cannot go a few hours without google, I never have and dont do Facebook and believe the world would be a much much much better place without them.
5
@scientella
Facebook should go the Netflix road and charge the people a subscription fee for using it. Selling our data should not be their income source.
1
HUD? The agency run by Ben Carson? Let's see how long Dr Carson remains head of HUD when the Great Pumpkin hears of this. Let us never forget that a strategy of the Trump real estate empire for which they were prosecuted was discrimination.
6
Does anyone really think that the Trump administration cares about the Fair Housing Act? I mean really. This is a political attack against a company that it thinks helps Democrats.
21
The straight forward way is to forbid the placement of cookies. This will not be a popular idea for many including the Times who is increasingly digital and supported by advertisers targeting their readers.
It is also a day of reckoning for internet firms who have not had to play by the same set of rules that traditional firms have.
This Editorial should more boldly be demanding a national privacy policy and consumer friendly opt-in to sharing of information. Find your voice here, NYT.
17
The only way to get Facebook to act in a fair manner is to stop using it. Boycott the platform. They will come crawling.
4
This seems ridiculous. In the past I was able to select an edition of a newspaper when placing an ad. Editions were distributed in specific geographical areas. I could send via USPS a direct mail piece to specific areas. Phone companies facilitate junk calls to targeted areas. The list goes on and on. I don't remember any of those information deliverers being sued by the government. Okay other than Ma Bell, but for a different reason.
Facebook is unjustly being targeted by many for the content and directions its customers give it. The Facebook suits are nothing but a money grab.
If government wanted to help citizens they should require cable companies to compete as they once did, prior to those companies dividing the country up into regions they can monopolize. They would prevent airlines from trading routes in order to create monopolies over certain routes. Etc etc. These suits would be valuable to people. Attacking Facebook, who is offering listings for apartments that I chose to place for a bit of information is terrible and not serving citizens.
If ads are being unjustly targeted go after the people drawing the red lines, not the people providing the red pens.
3
@Peter I wish I could recommend your comment X10
This seems ridiculous. In the past I was able to select an edition of a newspaper when placing an ad. Editions were distributed in specific geographical areas. I could send via USPS a direct mail piece to specific areas. Phone companies facilitate junk calls to targeted areas. The list goes on and on. I don't remember any of those information deliverers being sued by the government. Okay other than Ma Bell, but for a different reason.
Facebook is unjustly being targeted by many for the content and directions its customers give it. The Facebook suits are nothing but a money grab.
If government wanted to help citizens they should require cable companies to compete as they once did, prior to those companies dividing the country up into regions they can monopolize. They would prevent airlines from trading routes in order to create monopolies over certain routes. Etc etc. These suits would be valuable to people. Attacking Facebook, who is offering listings for apartments that I chose to place for a bit of information is terrible and not serving citizens.
If ads are being unjustly targeted go after the people drawing the red lines, not the people providing the red pens.
1
@Peter
Do you not understand the Fair Housing Act?
Sure, you as a business owner or whatever are free to target specific audiences for your product....but not if your product is renting or selling housing.
As for: "go after people drawing the red lines," that's not entirely how it works. The entities running the ads, whether they be newspapers or digital presences like facebook, are legally required to obey the Fair Housing Act.
This is a sneaky way for real estate owners to get around the Fair Housing Act, and I'm delighted to see Facebook being called out for allowing it.
5
@CF- Yup. You explained it well.
Just one more reason to not participate in so many of the "miracles" of Silicon Valley. Now that I am on Medicare I get at least three calls a day from various automated sales cons offering hearing aids, pain management support, great new credit card opportunities...if only there were a way to make that garbage go away as easily as it is to ignore Facebook.
11
@greg
Get caller ID. I get 10 robocalls a day and I never pick up one. I've learned not to answer any phone # I don't recognize. Robocallers "rarely" leave messages on my answering machine. If a legitimate caller dials me and I don't answer they invariably leave a message and I can call back (if I want to.)
Caller ID...a true godsend (for me anyway!)
9
@SAH
Problem is: the phone still rings. The other problem is: they always give you a number to press to "opt out" of future messages, but they never stop calling.
Alert to all: never speak into these messages. If you ever utter the word "yes," sophisticated scammers can use your voice as proof of consent to whatever scam they've got going. Best not to speak at all and just hang up.
As for caller ID, they use local exchanges and names of actual residents of your town. There were two times when I looked at my caller ID, and guess what? It was me....my own name and phone number appeared on caller ID.
6
Answer the call, but don’t speak at first. A human on the other end will say, “Hello.” A robot will hang up.
3
Shame on FB and double shame on Realtors who violate the Fair Housing Act. These individuals should be charged too. The National Association of Realtors requires a yearly mandatory class of ethics in order to keep the Realtor denomination and license.
In Florida, we also have a free legal hotline. Not that you need to be a rocket scientist to know by heart the protected categories against discrimination by the Fair Housing Act. The laws require individuals to be licensed to practice real estate because it is the State's duty to protect the public.
The Federal Government not always sees as its duty to protect the public. May laws and deregulatory trends, very visible in this Administration, are designed to protect the service providers. Look at the banking sector. The Federal Government should look into itself. If it does not, there is the Congress and the Courts for checks and balances. Very politized processes. Mostly owned by lobbyists, not the public.
4
I sort of understand the issue with allowing advertisers to micro target through social media technology. My thought is why wasn’t Google also named in this suit? Google advertising invented the technology and FB is a copier. Frankly though, this will not stop advertisers from targeting their marketing.
Each company has a smaller advertising budget than they’d like. Print, radio and television advertising is prohibitively expensive. It’s also the least effective because it casts a much wider net for viewers, whom may or may not be interested.
The best bang for an advertiser’s buck is re-targeting. This is aiming advertising at people who have searched or interacted with a brand or type of product already. It’s the “creepy” kind people mention. But once you understand it, it isn’t any worse than mailers with your name on them. Re-targeting does essentially discriminate, but it’s self-fulfilling.
Advertising schools have been teaching using demographics and psychographics to establish ideal markets since the inception of advertising. And product makers will never stop trying to figure out who their best potential customers are. It’s how you make money.
4
@SDemocrat
But target marketing never excludes a buyer. We target all users of detergents, potato chips, cars, beers, caviar, running shoes. We want to know their purchasing habits and lifestyles, not their colors or beliefs.
On the other hand, no matter who you reach in the housing market, people will buy the house next door to the neighbors they approve of. No sales pitch is going to convince them to do otherwise.
2
This article and some of the comments point to an enormous problem without actually discussing the same. Facebook allowed advertisers to discriminate based on race, national origin and religion. But merely stopping the use of those data fields won’t stop discrimination as advertisers can use other sets of data to get to the same place. Your address, what you buy, your location across time, what you listen to would allow an advertiser to figure out your race, national origin, etc. To prove discrimination you would have to probably prove intent, imagine very hard to do.
3
Not only does this discriminate against certain groups, it also causes markets to fail.
@Carol S.
Actually, the subprime crisis which led to the massive recession of 2008 was caused by the same type of anti-discrimination activism, in that banks were obligated to issue loans to visible minorities who were unable to pay them back. It was only a matter of time and numbers.
5
@Chris Your claim that the housing crisis was caused or made worse due to equal access to mortgage financing has been debunked by numerous sources. Look it up, and look at the facts.
4
@Chris
So Chris no one made banks make bad loans. At the time there was a ton of money available for loans yes, but no one " made " anyone make a bad loan. What you fail to recognize is that mortgage companies had an incentive to loan money. They made approximately five thousand for each loan. All a mortgage company had to do is close the loan they new that, that loan would then be sold to someone else. From there they where bundled and sold as a bundle.
This is how it worked. A loan company would cold call people and offer low interest rate. My friend of 15 years would show up at the door. He told me that he would meet people and help fill out application for the loan. He told me his pitch. If what the person filed out did not have the rite numbers he would say, with that income number you count get loan, now I can't tell you what number to write by law but I can tell you the ,that number count do it. I will come back in a couple of days. Then if the people get nervous about the intros rate going up he would say don't worry you can always re-fi later. And that Chris is what happened. NO ONE MADE BANKS LOAN MONEY!!!!!
9
There can be a range of ways to enable a discriminatory WE-THEY, violating,binary banal, barriering-reality being created- temporary or more permanent- and being sustained. The "excluded" are generally unlikely to have the needed available, and accessible, resources (relevant information, levels, types and qualities of needed understanding and technologies) to effectively make the needed changes; and a monitoring US may not be active or adequately involved.
1
Every day gorgeous homes that are for sale show up in my Facebook feed. They are generally multi-million dollar New York City co-ops or glistening apartments that I can not possibly afford. I wonder what information Facebook has, what algorithm has selected me a possible buyer or renter of these properties. Am I being discriminated against, does this violate my ability to procure these homes? Would the broker even take me to see these properties if they ran my credit check? Is it fair to show something that I cannot afford nor qualify for?
4
@Martha MacC Re: "Is it fair to show something that I cannot afford nor qualify for?"
Of course it's fair (as much as any advertising is fair, that is). Whether you can afford it is your own affair. As for Facebook in general: Don't complain to us about it, just get off it--permanently and categorically.
35
Gee, I’ve never seen a housing ad on my Facebook feed, despite the fact that I spend a considerable amount of time viewing real estate on my phone, iPad, and laptop. I think I live in the wrong zip code and am the wrong race.
5
@Martha MacC
Never having been interested in heat pumps, I started doing a bit a web research about them for a home project I'm involved in. Guess what's showing up now in Google news feeds and Facebook ads? Heat pumps.
Do you ever browse multi-million dollar co-ops or other real estate for fun? You appear to be from Boston or at least the Boston area---pretty pricey zip codes. Do you think the techs don't know where your IP address is located or what interests you on the web? Seriously?
I laugh at these tech behemoths when they show me 'targeted ads.' I find myself mumbling: "so, you think you know me? You don't know me, you billionaire thieves, you aggressors of consumerism, you destroyers of society..."
I can make light of a lot of digital intrusion, but, housing discrimination is not a laughing matter, so I am not laughing about this. You, at least, have the opportunity to be honestly disqualified from home purchases based on your financial situation. The people HUD looks out for don't even get that chance because their computer is not located in the right zip code or, if they put personal information about themselves on their facebook page, the right color. Or, perhaps they're Muslim.
BTW, if you've clicked on any of those ads, they'll be showing you real estate for the rest of your life. Be careful what you click on.
3
It's ridiculous to believe the government, which in theory is a representation of every single one of us, shouldn't have access to tech companies sensitive information on us and what they do with it. If these companies want to be in the business of profiting from the public's most intimate data, we should demand that they answer to the government.
39
@Al It sounds as if you're saying you want your privacy violated by the government as well as by Facebook. (I don't want my privacy violated at all, which is why I've never been on Facebook and never will be.)
22
@Jake Barnes
When the government asks for information on a legal case privacy is an interesting concern. Particularly from FB, who leaked the personal details of 60 million people to hackers. It used teens to install spyware, and violated the privacy of people who didn’t even have FB accounts.
Generally speaking, if the government decides to issue a subpoena instead, FB will have to comply or face criminal repercussions.
7
@Covert Yes but unfortunately our government seems not to have anyone who knows enough re: what to ask Zuck. If you are in government and you do, here is your chance to make a difference!
1
RE Mr. Zuckerberg’s Facebook:
We are in a new era of monopolistic unfair business practices, and the digital results can be sudden, stunning, and far-reaching.
So many are easily accessed and manipulated amidst our digital revolution—sifted, strained, processed by the millions, in a millisecond.
19
@srwdm
One solution may be to go off-grid.
The grid is so unrelievedly boring, after all -- just the same old commercial crap tv's been trying to feed us for decades, only faster. Who'd want that?
When will we americans understand that the proffered life-style does not make for a better planet, or for a more just society?
1
@srwdm That’s just sort of poetic or prophetic!