6 ms·

Blaming Facebook muddies the water a bit. Ultimately the companies advertising on Facebook broke the law when they checked the wrong boxes. Facebook should; h

Blaming Facebook muddies the water a bit. Ultimately the companies advertising on Facebook broke the law when they checked the wrong boxes. Facebook should; however, make that information public knowledge by allowing the public to see the advertising parameters of any given ad if they are curious but to my knowledge, no law requires it. Maybe it's time to start having a conversation about the need advertising transparency.

mikeash 8y ago
Can this box be checked legally?
- nbar1 8y ago
  Yes, you can advertise to only one sex. The problem is they advertised a job ad.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room. 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?
    - LocalPCGuy 8y ago
      That's a bad example. There are many jobs where men clean female locker rooms/restrooms and visa versa. But I agree with others (and I think you) that it isn't Facebook's responsibility legally to ensure it isn't possible for companies to break the law. Might be able to make a moral argument, but that's a different argument.
    - bsder 8y ago
      > Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room. Um, the cleaner is usually coming in when the locker room is empty so sex doesn't matter.
      - cm2187 8y ago
        Not at my gym.
    - p1necone 8y ago
      A better example might be advertising for a modelling or acting job where the role is Female.
- singlow 8y ago
  Sure, if you are advertising a dress shirt.
- wincy 8y ago
  Sure, if you’re trying to sell something you can target the advertising however you want. I think the issue arises when you’re using an advertisement to look for employees.
jonny_eh 8y ago
Facebook should make it much harder to use their product illegally. They can hide protected demographic filters when ads are of a protected nature, like jobs or housing.
- Meph504 8y ago
  This concept of law enforcement is a really slippery slope, trying to force companies to stop people from breaking the law, is a serious shift in the concept of freedom. 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.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    Facebook is not being asked to enforce the law. It is being asked to stop doing illegal things.
    - kristjansson 8y ago
      The point of the parent is that it’s being asked to prevent/impede its customers from doing illegal things. That’s not a ridiculous thing to ask, but it’s very different from Facebook itself engaging in illegal activity.
      - twblalock 8y ago
        But Facebook itself is engaging in illegal activity by publishing those ads! It is against the law to do that. 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?
        p1necone 8y ago
twblalock 8y ago
Facebook publishes the ads. If someone asks Facebook to publish an illegal ad (or to do anything else that's illegal), Facebook should refuse. 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.
- golemotron 8y ago
  Facebook is a publisher? I thought it still operated user content under the DMCA safe harbors.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    The safe harbor protects sites whose users infringe copyright, if certain conditions are met. I don't think it applies to advertising. 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.
    - xfitm3 8y ago
      I believe you're thinking of OCILLA which is USC Section 512(c) [0]. 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 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html [1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
  - kjeetgill 8y ago
    In AdTech lingo a publisher is the site on which the ad is displayed.
- gradys 8y ago
scarface74 8y ago
Why should FB get an exception for what’s been public law for 4 decades? 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.

mikeash 8y ago

Can this box be checked legally?

nbar1 8y ago
Yes, you can advertise to only one sex. The problem is they advertised a job ad.
- cm2187 8y ago
  Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room. 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?
  - LocalPCGuy 8y ago
    That's a bad example. There are many jobs where men clean female locker rooms/restrooms and visa versa. But I agree with others (and I think you) that it isn't Facebook's responsibility legally to ensure it isn't possible for companies to break the law. Might be able to make a moral argument, but that's a different argument.
  - bsder 8y ago
    > Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room. Um, the cleaner is usually coming in when the locker room is empty so sex doesn't matter.
    - cm2187 8y ago
      Not at my gym.
  - p1necone 8y ago
    A better example might be advertising for a modelling or acting job where the role is Female.
singlow 8y ago
Sure, if you are advertising a dress shirt.
wincy 8y ago
Sure, if you’re trying to sell something you can target the advertising however you want. I think the issue arises when you’re using an advertisement to look for employees.

jonny_eh 8y ago

Facebook should make it much harder to use their product illegally. They can hide protected demographic filters when ads are of a protected nature, like jobs or housing.

Meph504 8y ago
This concept of law enforcement is a really slippery slope, trying to force companies to stop people from breaking the law, is a serious shift in the concept of freedom. 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.
- twblalock 8y ago
  Facebook is not being asked to enforce the law. It is being asked to stop doing illegal things.
  - kristjansson 8y ago
    The point of the parent is that it’s being asked to prevent/impede its customers from doing illegal things. That’s not a ridiculous thing to ask, but it’s very different from Facebook itself engaging in illegal activity.
    - twblalock 8y ago
      But Facebook itself is engaging in illegal activity by publishing those ads! It is against the law to do that. 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?
      - p1necone 8y ago

twblalock 8y ago

Facebook publishes the ads. If someone asks Facebook to publish an illegal ad (or to do anything else that's illegal), Facebook should refuse. 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.

golemotron 8y ago
Facebook is a publisher? I thought it still operated user content under the DMCA safe harbors.
- twblalock 8y ago
  The safe harbor protects sites whose users infringe copyright, if certain conditions are met. I don't think it applies to advertising. 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.
  - xfitm3 8y ago
    I believe you're thinking of OCILLA which is USC Section 512(c) [0]. 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 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html [1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
- kjeetgill 8y ago
  In AdTech lingo a publisher is the site on which the ad is displayed.
gradys 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

Why should FB get an exception for what’s been public law for 4 decades? 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.