News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook approved all of them. Parent comment

Re:We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook... by azernik on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @07:47PM (#18342213)
> Forcing independent organizations to pre-police is generally a bad idea.

It's worked pretty well for discriminatory housing ads.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook... by true_religion on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @08:14PM (#18342359)
Because you can tell from the ad choice that it is discrinatory, and you cannot abet a crime knowingly.

With political ads? What is the crime being committed? If it is fraud, then we make it illegal to place an ad without rendering your ID, like with a bank account.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook... by tracker1 on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @08:26PM (#18342428)
How so? Is craigslist required to pre-screen housing ads? I don't think so. The ads themselves are illegal, but there's no legal requirement to pre-screen that I'm aware of.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:We posed as 100 Senators to run ads on Facebook. Facebook... by azernik on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @11:40PM (#18343164)
Online outlets have a specific exemption for user-created content (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legal); print outlets do, indeed, have to pre-screen ads and that's worked very well.

Even for tech companies, that exemption is limited; Craigslist got an exemption, but Roommates.com didn't because of the level to which its platform actively encouraged discriminating on prohibited categories.

Facebook is even now being pursued by HUD over its own tools allowing housing ads to be targeted by race, gender, ZIP code, or disability. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/19/640002304/hud-hits-facebook-f...

[ Parent | on HN ]