undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMBCook7y ago0 comments

The law explicitly says you can’t discriminate housing ads against certain groups. Courts have held that Things that aren’t illegal on their face can be illegal if they have highly discriminatory effect in practice.

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.

0 comments

quotemstr7y ago

> 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.

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...

MBCookOP7y ago

I didn’t know that. Well, if it meets whatever HUD/the courts’ threshold is for something that’s too discriminatory then maybe that’s off the list.

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.

quotemstr7y ago

Is a "no pets" policy illegal housing discrimination? Why or why not?

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...

1 more reply

quotemstr7y ago

Is the answer to my question "yes" or "no"?

MBCookOP7y ago

Sorry, I assumed you knew my answer was yes.

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsMBCook7y ago0 comments

So I don’t see why any of that should be allowed here.

0 comments

quotemstr7y ago

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...

MBCookOP7y ago

I didn’t know that. Well, if it meets whatever HUD/the courts’ threshold is for something that’s too discriminatory then maybe that’s off the list.

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.

quotemstr7y ago

Is a "no pets" policy illegal housing discrimination? Why or why not?

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]?

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/04/a-series-of-unprinciple...

1 more reply

quotemstr7y ago

Is the answer to my question "yes" or "no"?

MBCookOP7y ago

Sorry, I assumed you knew my answer was yes.

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse