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."
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 are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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."