See, I didn't read it that way.

"…that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination…"

If the ad itself does not mention the preference, then it does not seem to be covered by this clause.

Would it not be analogous to advertising the property to a particular racial or religious group, such as a church bulletin board?

The distribution of the ad is being targeted, but the ad itself does not indicate any preference. It seems as if the latter is the only thing that is deemed illegal by the law.

Am I reading it correctly?

I agree it doesn't seem to violate the letter of this particular law.

But it's close to being the digital version of redlining. Before the Fair Housing Act real estate brokers would show certain houses only to white clients and other houses only to clients of color. That was explicitly deemed illegal. If you see real estate brokers as a medium through which sellers would advertise their houses I don't see how this is much different.

There is a huge difference.

1. Real estate was not easily searchable in the past.

2. An ad is at least one degree away from a broker in this process. The broker works directly with the buyer and seller while an ad passes leads to brokers.

Sometimes I think what real estate agents can't say goes too far.

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-your...

The three that stand out are that a real estate agent can't mention crime rates, school ratings, or that a house may not be wheelchair accessible - even if the buyer asks.

That's a bit odd since now all that data is available to the public --why bind the RE agent's hands in this matter? I mean, perhaps in the past they had "insider" knowledge of those particular statistics but not today.

I think you're right, but I'm not sure I'm wrong... yet.

First, I think I misinterpreted paragraph C w.r.t. how it applies to the ads themselves. I think you're right here, that the ads aren't illegal, since they don't do any discriminating in and of themselves.

However, the text of the law seems to say that placing the order for the ads may be illegal. Placing the order would seem to constitute the making of a statement (with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling) that indicates a preference (or intention to make that preference) based on race. I realize that might feel like way too low a bar, but it seems to fit.

IANAL, but that's how it seems to me.

The ads aren't discriminating are they?

This seems identical to posting paper ads in primarily white neighborhoods, which I don't think is illegal.

To me the issue is that Facebook said they fixed this, and they haven't.

This is about the ads themselves I believe, which these ones are fine.

If this applied to targeting wouldn't it mean I can't target only women for my feminine hygiene product? Therefor wasting insane amounts showing ads to men for a product only women need.

Are those women going to live in your feminine hygiene product? If not, I am not sure how housing law is applicable to your advertisement?

Because it's explaining why the ads aren't in violation of the rule and the intuition for why this situation isn't covered.

But the rule is only about housing, so I am not sure what the hygiene products have to do with it. Are there special houses that cater only to women? Or to black people? What is different about the house that makes it only appealing to those groups?

I assume so.

I can only speculate why, but communities tend to coalesce around common culture/race, and perpetuate that selection. Ala "Little China".

This is part of the fair housing act, it applies specifically to housing, not other retail products.