There's actually something called "disparate impact" in Fair Housing that covers this. So if someone does something like that, especially intentionally, and it impacts a protected class, they can be sued and fined.
I can’t imag them fighting this, theyvseem so unlikely to win.
But then again, I’m surprised corporate counsel wasn’t screaming about this. It’s not the first time I’ve read about this and I don’t work there.
That's a consistent position, but it amounts to banning of ad targeting. Is that the world you want?
So I don’t see why any of that should be allowed here.
And it would only apply to things that have a heavy discriminatory effect. I don’t see why it would matter if you chose not to advertise your non-pet friendly apartment complex to people who have pets. Unless someone can show that’s a pretty direct proxy to a protected class it seems fine.
Again, this only applies to kinds of ads covered by this (or similar) laws. Housing and employment are the only two kinds I know of. I see no reason why you should be restricted in who you choose to advertise your new T-shirt to.
As a matter of fact, pet ownership is a strong proxy for a protected class [1].
Is your position that an apartment building owner should have to advertise to pet owners and non pet owners equally even if the apartment complex doesn't allow pets?
Come to think of it, isn't having a no-pets policy itself discriminatory?
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/250858/dog-or-cat-owners...
I know that pet friendly and non-pet friendly housing exists, so there must be some legal basis.
But if the current legal standard meant that it would be illegal to advertise to (or away from) pet owners then yes, I would expect that FB would have to remove those options for housing ads.
Guess that wasn’t the clear example I was hoping for.
A "no pets" policy, on its face, would have a disparate impact on different arms of a protected group, and so, on its face, should be illegal. I know that "no pets" policies tolerated at this point.
What I want to know is how you or anyone else can justify a "no pets" policy considering the protected group issue I raised above. Is the "no pets" policy just an unprincipled exception [1]?
I see no explanation for allowing "no pets" policies other than "yeah, 'no pets' amounts to illegal discrimination, but everyone does it, so it's okay". That's not a good basis on which to organize a society. Why or why not shouldn't people make another unprincipled exception for ad targeting?
[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/04/a-series-of-unprinciple...
Many people are very allergic to pets or scared of them and won’t live in a building/complex if there are animals there. If you’re a landlord and you allow pets you also have to deal with any possible damage they may do to your property, even though you can make the renter reimburse you for that.
It may be that because of those factors courts have determined that it’s perfectly reasonable for landlords to choose not to allow pets no matter what effect that may have on the number of people of different races who apply to their properties.
The law says the answer is yes if the discriminatory effect is strong enough (don’t know what the actual test is), so the answer MUST be yes.
There is a very big difference between no micro-targeting ads ever, and no micro-targeting for housing ads.