The Trump DOJ has joined a lawsuit filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance against Facebook. In a so-called statement of interest, the department suggested that Facebook could be held liable if housing providers like real estate developers and landlords used the site's targeting tools to discriminate against prospective renters and buyers in advertising their properties. Such tools limit who can see ads based on factors like sex, religion and nationality, and advertising restricted along those lines violates the Fair Housing Act.
Also at NYT, Market Watch, NPR, Washington Post.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Justice Dept. Backs Suit Accusing Facebook of Violating Fair Housing Act
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 28 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 3, Touché) by anubi on Monday August 20 2018, @07:25AM (18 children)
Wasn't that the whole idea of "targeted advertising"?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @07:48AM (15 children)
Time to restart my modem, I guess.
(Score: 5, Touché) by janrinok on Monday August 20 2018, @08:31AM (14 children)
You share this hash with 3 SN nicks, 2 of which, I believe, belong the the same person and are well known trolls on the site. Time to change your IP address.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday August 20 2018, @04:17PM (9 children)
Not enough information! Did TRDT and John Miller get the axe? SN Shadow banning!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 20 2018, @05:21PM (8 children)
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:03AM (7 children)
But you do seem to be working at it, my dear janrinok! Do you not see that outing of ACs will have a chilling effect on free discussion on SoylentNews? I would hate to think that some person's past careers in military intelligence would carry over into their role as the editor in chief of a news aggregation site! Perish the thought! But this new obsession with IP hashes: bad form, janrinok, bad form. Especially in the context of such an obviously alt-right submission such as this! Oh, you don't see it? Hmmm, maybe that is the problem. And problems such as these are only solved by more and more aristarchus submissions. Just saying.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday August 21 2018, @11:05AM (6 children)
This from the very same person who argued over the weekend that we should publish his submissions, which you admit are anti-alt-right, to counter and suppress comments by other community members who express a different political view from yourself? That is rich, even for you. I cannot think of a more overt way of chilling the conversation.
And why should there be a chilling effect? I merely pointed out that a hash (which identifies nobody) is also associated with 2 nicknames (which identify nobody), particularly as one of them was 'Anonymous Coward'. I did it to show how you and others try to manipulate the discussion here rather than take part in honest debate, which I suspect you know that you would lose. You can say whatever you wish in the comments, but you will not dictate what we publish on the front page.
I am not alt-right. Your twisted ideology is, as others have pointed out, that if we aren't quite as left wing as yourself then we must the supporters of the other extreme and be in league with the devil. The local council in the area in which I have chosen to live is most definitely socialist, and probably to the left of both of the major US parties. I am a supporter of socialised health care, I believe that everyone in the community should be supported - not just those who can afford it - and that communities should be for the benefit of those that live in them, but should welcome those who wish to join them providing that they join the community as it is today and not with the intention of changing it for something that the newcomers would prefer. I do not judge people by their colour, nationality or religion, but by how much they contribute to society and the well-being of those around them.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:42PM (5 children)
@aristarchus says a lot of crazy things. But when did he say that PUBLISHING is SUPPRESSING & CHILLING a conversation? That's one of the craziest things he said, if he really said it. But, I don't think he did. I read a lot of his tweets, I didn't see that. And you agree with it, it sounds like you're agreeing. Are you OK?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:35AM (3 children)
See https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/08/18/0621234 [soylentnews.org]
Aristarchus wrote:
And my response was:
So Aristarchus would like us to publish his biased propaganda which cannot be moderated by the community, to counter the comments (which are moderated by the community) that he doesn't personally agree with?, As you yourself have succinctly put it:
Finally, we don't have Tweets, we have comments.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 23 2018, @12:34AM (2 children)
Thank you for making the link. I saw that, I had seen that. And I wondered, is that what @janrinok is talking about? Maybe he got very mixed up on that one. Like with Atlantic & Adriatic oceans, remember that? And I was right. You're very mixed up. Or you're LYING and being very dishonest.
@aristarchus didn't say tweets. And he didn't say comments. That's something YOU said. You said he said it. He didn't -- you're totally mixed up. You mixed up yourself with @aristarchus. You do this thing of, you make quotes. Very good quotes, 100% what somebody said. But, you say the quote means something totally different from what it says. Like when I said, NATO wars in certain places. You said, WRONG. And you quoted, there were wars in those places. You didn't call them wars, the quote said war. You quoted, NATO was in those wars. As if it's the opposite of what I said. When it's the same.
There's a CRAZY & VERY NOT NICE @aristarchus tweet at your link. He talked about, "many articles." Otherwise known as stories. Maybe you didn't see that one. He was talking about the stories.
In the one you saw, he said, certain people are biased (as everybody knows). And the people he named -- I think this is the important part -- are some of the ones that run the website. He didn't say they run it. But, they do. TMB, people don't know this, it's short for The Mighty Buzzard. He's one of the people that runs the website. And the others, all people that run the website. Part of which is, they decide on the stories that go up. The ones that don't go up. And which side of the story to tell. They don't run it by tweeting. Maybe they should try that. I love the way I can tweet and it's the official thing for our Country. I fire off a tweet and, bye bye Rex, hello Mike. Terrible Secretary of State is out and I have a MUCH BETTER one. Another tweet, all the trannies are out of my military, big savings on the medical for military. Very easy. Lot of likes & retweets on those two. But if they got ZERO likes, ZERO retweets, wouldn't matter. Because what I say goes. And I don't do everything in a tweet. I sign many Documents -- and a lot of them are secret.
SoylentNews, I don't know. The folks that run it can tweet. And maybe their tweets get a lot of likes. Or dislikes. I don't think they run the site by tweeting. And I think the like & dislike on their tweets doesn't matter. What they say goes. Whether it's in a tweet or a secret Document -- of which I'm sure there are many. And I think a lot of times they just do things without saying anything about it.
But the whole thing about tweets or "comments" is 100% you, it's not @aristarchus. Crazy mixed up thing, or lie, coming from you. And @aristarchus didn't say, some of the folks running the site are running it in a very biased way. I said that. But all those people, they're the top top people, very powerful people. He didn't say it because he's being very nice. And very smart, for once he's being smart. Because you're telling everybody which so-called anonymous tweets are his. And you threatened, you have his cyber, you can give out his EMAIL and so much of his information. Like when I gave out Lindsay Graham's phone number. Not nice of me, I wasn't feeling nice. Because he said something CRAZY & VERY NOT NICE about me. Like when @aristarchus said those things about you and the top top people at SoylentNews.
And he's asking you to publish some things -- STORIES, not tweets -- that go opposite to the bias of the people running the website, to balance it out. Not "SUPPRESS," that's your insanity. Balance. So the website will be fair & balanced. Like Fox News. But, you won't. Because you have your agenda. You have your message. And you let him put out his message on your website. So long as it serves your agenda and your message. Or, so long as it's in a tweet. Or in his journal -- much smaller audience.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:30AM (1 child)
You introduced the word tweets, you idiot.
And I explained why some of those were not NATO issues. The Korean war was not NATO, the majority of the war in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (of which Bosnia is only a part - there was fighting in Croatia and Serbia too) was primarily a UN operation. For God's sake man, I was there wearing the UN hat! Eventually the UN asked NATO to take military action on their behalf to prevent the massacre of the civilians in Sarajevo and the enclaves. Immediately following NATO action the war technically ended. At which point NATO did act as NATO and deployed into specific locations in FRY as a peace keeping force, but by now the war was over.
Many European countries were at that time members of NATO. They are all closer to the North Atlantic than many parts of America, however ALL of the USA is in NATO. It isn't only those countries that have a coastline on the North Atlantic sea. Such countries are the ones that were on the front line helping to prevent the aggression posed by the former USSR.
and
There you go again - we don't have retweets because we don't have tweets, you numbskull. I don't mind arguing against your parody, but at least try to hold an intelligent conversation.
He is asking that we print his submissions to combat things that are said in comments. NO, The comments belong to those who say them. They are moderated by the community. TMB frequently gets moderated as a troll and his score can be reduced to the lowest levels. But the stories that we publish are, legally, the output of this site. We do not publish stories that are biased (which all of Ari's stories tend to be), nor do we promote any particular political party or view. We aim to publish stories that are balanced and accurate, the discussion that follows is a different matter. The site doesn't speak for all members of the community - they do that themselves in the comments. And the members of our community hold many different political views. Ari doesn't like this - he wants his political views to have more prominence than the voices of other community members. If that is what he wants, he should submit his material to a site that supports the types of discussion he wants to generate. We are NOT that site.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:11AM
You think you're smart. Because you say, "oh, comments, comments." Instead of saying tweets. @aristarchus didn't say tweets. He didn't say comments. YOU said comments. And you keep saying it, why? Anybody can tell what he meant, he meant that certain people in charge are very biased. That the stories they put up are biased. Not their so-called "comments" (tweets) that anybody can make. The stories that only you and a few other folks -- the ones he named and some others -- can put up.
And, he wanted to say something they don't agree with. That possibly, you don't agree with. And you won't allow it. Very hard to allow that, right? You put up the stories you agree with. I do the same on my website. Your website is here to get your message out. So you don't want something on your website that goes against your message.
You say, you want not biased. But you say, don't do Subs of Fox News. While you & your people run so many stories from the Fake News @nytimes [twitter.com], otherwise known as the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq War. From @BBC [twitter.com], another beauty. Fake News @CNN [twitter.com] -- one of those just went up today. And when I said, look what CNN did to Alex Jones -- rejected. Something that, by the way, Alex says himself. On his own website. But, TOTAL SILENCE on SoylentNews. You did a story about Alex getting banned. But, nothing in that one about CNN. You have your message, your story you want to tell. And so many times, it's very one sided!!!! infowars.com/cnn-pushes-youtube-to-ban-alex-jones-demonetize-video-channel [infowars.com]
By the way, the retweets. I was talking about Twitter, they have those on Twitter and they're tremendous. Obviously I was talking about Twitter. But you say, "oh, we don't do retweets" maybe just because you think it makes me look dumb. Sad.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 30 2018, @02:29AM
(cont) They don't have Passports to SoylentNews. And they don't have Real ID. They have accounts. And in the accounts, when you go to tweet, it says "Post Anonymously." It's not anonymously. Because certain people can look at the cyber of the tweets. And of the accounts. Can look at the "Anonymous Coward" tweets and say, "oh, hi there @janrinok. Oh, hi there @realDonaldTrump. Oh, hi there @aristarchus. Oh, hi there @martyb." You get the idea. Because you're doing it. We call it UNMASKING. And maybe you're saying, "oh, the accounts are anonymous. So when I say whose account the tweets are coming from, it's still anonymous!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @05:36PM (3 children)
that bullshit happens when you're using tor. everyone using an exit node has the same hash maybe? blocking by ip just doesn't cooperate with privacy. maybe work on auto removing the bad posts instead of presuming guilt of the innocent?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 20 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:05AM
Not nearly my experience of what "bad posting" seems to mean to SoylentNews. Rather equivalent to "too much truthiness", so your IP block has been banned. "If you feel this decision is an error, fuck off and die you SJW libtard!"
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:28AM
It's not like your IP address is changing every single second with Tor, and there should be plenty of exit nodes.
Time and time again some of the same accounts/trolls will share the same IPID, post around the same time, etc.
Posts around here aren't so bad that they should constitute removal. Probably the worst are from "violently imposed downmod? I'll post another 15 times" guy. If a comment is a 99% character-for-character copy of another comment, it should be nuked.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @10:11AM (1 child)
"Targetted advertising": the soft-sell cover for discrimination.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday August 20 2018, @11:08AM
Yep... this is like anything else... some people may like it, some people may not.
But frankly, I am far more receptive to an ad from Analog Devices than I am for that face powder ad they relentlessly run on OTA TV.
I have noticed I have gotten quite a few ads Google served up on YouTube, and some are actually more interesting than what I went there for in the first place.
It looks like Google Analytics notes which ones I brush off and not send them again anytime soon, and note which ones I did not, and sends me more like those.
I am not anti-ad. I used to subscribe to trade magazines, mostly FOR the ads! What I am against is having something I have no interest at all in rammed at me. Like that damned face powder ad, which usually causes me to abort the show and find something else to do, or at least go pee, or get something to drink if I don't need to pee.
I am an old man, and ramming any number of feminine hygiene product ads at me is not gonna incline me to buy any... all they do is piss me off. Especially those long naggy ads that go on and on and on. My advice to the advertiser is save those for the informercial, like CrepeErase does. That way people who are really into it will watch, with interest, likely the whole thing. The people who have no interest will leave. I mention that product because I have seen them while channel surfing, and appreciate they kept their advertising targeted in such a manner that those interested could be much better informed about the product, and those who had no interest ( like me ) would become aware of it, but not be pummelled with it. If they are doing research, I mentioned it by name so their research would tell them they did are reaching audience, and their presence and what they are selling is known, even to those who have no interest in it, but know they aren't wasting their advertising dollar annoying the hell out of people.
I have watched the entire 30-minute run of some inductive cooktop ads, kreg tool ads, worx ads, and several tool ads. Some more than once. But those senior care insurance ads will have me climbing the wall in less than 30 seconds with all that businesstalk and undefined variables. And that "bags under your eyes" ad seems to take forever to run through... that one annoys the hell out of me... like a damned ol' gnat that makes it his life's mission to get between my glasses and eye and buzz around.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @07:48AM (5 children)
Why is Facebook being held liable for someone else using their tools illegally?
I know Facebook is the favored whipping boy right now but there is plenty to justify the whippings already. No need to make stuff up.
Also, fuck you National Fair Housing Alliance, for making me defend Facebook.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday August 20 2018, @08:20AM (2 children)
I know, the real answer is because they haven't bent over quite as far as the "progressives" want them to in terms of censoring anything vaguely or possibly right-wing.
But in this case they don't seem to have had to reach very far at all to come up with a law that's being broken.
Personally, I'm looking forward to more consistency on this. As I am a human being, I refuse to agree to Facebook's terms of service, or even to permit them the access to my PC they demand before even displaying terms of service actually. Therefore, I am no allowed to see *any* of the housing ads they are carrying. I think this is deeply discriminatory and I look forward to our wise masters in D.C. forcing them to provide a bloody WEB PAGE.
I am, however, a realist; thus I am not holding my breath while waiting for this.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 20 2018, @09:45AM
Details, please. Facebook is generally blocked from my machine. I have a single browser (out of six) with any permissions for Facebook. It does NOT have access to my microphone, nor to my non-existent camera, and is only able to read/write anything within that browser's settings and cache. Advertising on FB simply doesn't work, no FB games or apps are installed. So, what access to your PC are you talking about?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Thexalon on Monday August 20 2018, @03:08PM
I find it interesting that when these folks think of "progressives", Jeff Sessions is who comes to mind.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @10:19AM (1 child)
Facebook is no longer a neutral platform, exercising editorial control over content makes them a publisher and therefore legally responsible.
(Score: 1) by Chromium_One on Tuesday August 21 2018, @12:38AM
No longer a neutral platform? They never were a neutral platform, they have always claimed right and responsibility to moderate member content.
Consider that they opened for public use in 2006, ToS predating that...
https://web.archive.org/web/20051126052914/http://www.facebook.com:80/terms.php [archive.org]
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @09:27AM (1 child)
I think it is terrible that Facebook would be red-lining certain neighborhoods, and not allowing minorities to rent or buy in the more affluent neighborhoods. I mean, no one really wants to live next to a VLM or and EF, and certainly not next to a jmorris, what with the increased risk of accidental self-ignition of massive improvised explosives, but to not allow black folk to have facebook pages? That's just sixties era racist, man!
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 23 2018, @12:40AM
Hi Ari!
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @05:57PM
there's nothing wrong with discrimination in and of itself. it's called having standards for something. so some parasite in washington can tell you who you are forced to associate/do business with? the fair housing act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act sound unconstitutional to me. i think picking on people because they are smaller or in the minority is shameful and cowardly, but at the same time, i shouldn't be forced to ignore any prejudices i form, no matter how stupid they may be to someone else. they are my own standards/filters and none of the government's business. if i use them to justify violating someone else's rights, then that is already a legitimate crime. i have the right to engage in commerce with who i want and the reverse without some piece of shit trying to steal from me or kidnap me.