SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks to an audience in 2018. (Photo: Anthony Quintano, Flickr)
'Commendable, If Not Overdue': HUD Files Charges Against Facebook for Virtual Redlining
"Using a computer to limit a person's housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face."
Mar 28, 2019
Facebook had its own "redlining" program built into the company's software, according to charges filed against the social media giant by the federal government on Thursday.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which brought the charges, alleges the social media giant "unlawfully discriminates based on race, color, national origin, religion, familial status, sex, and disability by restricting who can view housing-related ads on Facebook's platforms and across the internet."
HUD secretary Ben Carson said in a statement that Facebook's advertisement parameters which allowed advertisers to tailor who saw their ads were as effective an act of "redlining"--the practice of keeping people of color out of predominately white neighborhoods--as drawing lines on a physical map was in the past.
"Facebook is discriminating against people based upon who they are and where they live," said Carson. "Using a computer to limit a person's housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face."
Facebook, in a statement to The New York Times, said it was surprised by the charges.
"We're surprised by HUD's decision, as we've been working with them to address their concerns," the company said.
The department's decision came after years of reporting from ProPublica on Facebook's use of the advertising tactic and after a year of litigation against the practice by civil rights groups.
In reporting on Thursday's decision, ProPublica reporter Ariana Tobin pointed out that HUD's decision might be based in something other than concern for people victimized by Facebook's practices.
HUD's suit against Facebook is an unusual decision for the Trump administration. It has frequently moved to curtail civil rights investigations. At the same time, Facebook and other social platforms have faced criticism by conservatives who allege their posts expressing political views are being suppressed.
Given that political environment and a healthy distrust of the priorities of the Trump administration, rights groups were cautious in their praise for the decision to go after Facebook for the company's behavior.
"HUD's action today is commendable, if not overdue," said Free Press's Gaurav Larioa.
"HUD's action today is commendable, if not overdue," said Gaurav Laroia, policy counsel for the advocacy group Free Press, in a statement.
"Companies shouldn't get rich by denying people their civil rights," added Laroia. "The case against Facebook is an invitation to fundamentally reassess the business model that facilitates and encourages these practices across way too many online platforms."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Facebook had its own "redlining" program built into the company's software, according to charges filed against the social media giant by the federal government on Thursday.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which brought the charges, alleges the social media giant "unlawfully discriminates based on race, color, national origin, religion, familial status, sex, and disability by restricting who can view housing-related ads on Facebook's platforms and across the internet."
HUD secretary Ben Carson said in a statement that Facebook's advertisement parameters which allowed advertisers to tailor who saw their ads were as effective an act of "redlining"--the practice of keeping people of color out of predominately white neighborhoods--as drawing lines on a physical map was in the past.
"Facebook is discriminating against people based upon who they are and where they live," said Carson. "Using a computer to limit a person's housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face."
Facebook, in a statement to The New York Times, said it was surprised by the charges.
"We're surprised by HUD's decision, as we've been working with them to address their concerns," the company said.
The department's decision came after years of reporting from ProPublica on Facebook's use of the advertising tactic and after a year of litigation against the practice by civil rights groups.
In reporting on Thursday's decision, ProPublica reporter Ariana Tobin pointed out that HUD's decision might be based in something other than concern for people victimized by Facebook's practices.
HUD's suit against Facebook is an unusual decision for the Trump administration. It has frequently moved to curtail civil rights investigations. At the same time, Facebook and other social platforms have faced criticism by conservatives who allege their posts expressing political views are being suppressed.
Given that political environment and a healthy distrust of the priorities of the Trump administration, rights groups were cautious in their praise for the decision to go after Facebook for the company's behavior.
"HUD's action today is commendable, if not overdue," said Free Press's Gaurav Larioa.
"HUD's action today is commendable, if not overdue," said Gaurav Laroia, policy counsel for the advocacy group Free Press, in a statement.
"Companies shouldn't get rich by denying people their civil rights," added Laroia. "The case against Facebook is an invitation to fundamentally reassess the business model that facilitates and encourages these practices across way too many online platforms."
Facebook had its own "redlining" program built into the company's software, according to charges filed against the social media giant by the federal government on Thursday.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which brought the charges, alleges the social media giant "unlawfully discriminates based on race, color, national origin, religion, familial status, sex, and disability by restricting who can view housing-related ads on Facebook's platforms and across the internet."
HUD secretary Ben Carson said in a statement that Facebook's advertisement parameters which allowed advertisers to tailor who saw their ads were as effective an act of "redlining"--the practice of keeping people of color out of predominately white neighborhoods--as drawing lines on a physical map was in the past.
"Facebook is discriminating against people based upon who they are and where they live," said Carson. "Using a computer to limit a person's housing choices can be just as discriminatory as slamming a door in someone's face."
Facebook, in a statement to The New York Times, said it was surprised by the charges.
"We're surprised by HUD's decision, as we've been working with them to address their concerns," the company said.
The department's decision came after years of reporting from ProPublica on Facebook's use of the advertising tactic and after a year of litigation against the practice by civil rights groups.
In reporting on Thursday's decision, ProPublica reporter Ariana Tobin pointed out that HUD's decision might be based in something other than concern for people victimized by Facebook's practices.
HUD's suit against Facebook is an unusual decision for the Trump administration. It has frequently moved to curtail civil rights investigations. At the same time, Facebook and other social platforms have faced criticism by conservatives who allege their posts expressing political views are being suppressed.
Given that political environment and a healthy distrust of the priorities of the Trump administration, rights groups were cautious in their praise for the decision to go after Facebook for the company's behavior.
"HUD's action today is commendable, if not overdue," said Free Press's Gaurav Larioa.
"HUD's action today is commendable, if not overdue," said Gaurav Laroia, policy counsel for the advocacy group Free Press, in a statement.
"Companies shouldn't get rich by denying people their civil rights," added Laroia. "The case against Facebook is an invitation to fundamentally reassess the business model that facilitates and encourages these practices across way too many online platforms."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.