[patcheudor]

Blaming Facebook muddies the water a bit. Ultimately the companies advertising on Facebook broke the law when they checked the wrong boxes. Facebook should; however, make that information public knowledge by allowing the public to see the advertising parameters of any given ad if they are curious but to my knowledge, no law requires it. Maybe it's time to start having a conversation about the need advertising transparency.

[twblalock]

Facebook publishes the ads. If someone asks Facebook to publish an illegal ad (or to do anything else that's illegal), Facebook should refuse.

If you do something illegal because your users asked you to, it's still illegal.

The article is pretty clear that publishing the ads is illegal.

[gradys]

Is the ad illegal or is the practice of hiring only men or only women illegal? What if there were separate men-oriented and women-oriented ad creatives that they wanted target to each group?

[twblalock]

The ads are illegal, and publishing them is illegal, and the hiring practice you described is also illegal outside of very specific contexts.

[p1necone]

Male only employment ads are illegal, but does that mean Facebook should have to change their UI for each case where the rules around advertising are different, or should people posting advertising be required to follow the law?

[twblalock]

Facebook needs to stop posting illegal ads, even if users request illegal ads. It's not my problem to decide how Facebook ensures that they obey the law -- it's their problem. Even if its really, really hard, it's still their problem. If it's impossible to achieve with technology, Facebook should leave the advertising business.

[ggggtez]

Exactly. Facebook can solve this problem, but they don't. Same as political ads. "If we don't know about it, you can't sue". Unfortunately I think governments are getting tired of that excuse.

[zwkrt]

That first one. As mentioned above Facebook is also breaking the law

[scarface74]

Yes. Why should FB be exempt from laws that every other ad publisher has to follow. The local newspaper has self service ads but they have to review them to make sure they are legal.

[pbhjpbhj]

Facebook is the medium through which the ads are published. The actus rea and mens rea are the advertisers.

[golemotron]

Facebook is a publisher? I thought it still operated user content under the DMCA safe harbors.

[twblalock]

The safe harbor protects sites whose users infringe copyright, if certain conditions are met. I don't think it applies to advertising.

An example of safe harbor protection would be something like a user uploading a copyrighted song without a site's knowledge. If the site did not know about it, did not benefit from it financially, and takes it down when they are told about it, safe harbor protections would probably apply.

In contrast, Facebook knows the content and targeting options of every ad that they publish, and makes money from the ads.

[xfitm3]

I believe you're thinking of OCILLA which is USC Section 512(c) [0].

You might want to look at USC Section 230 [1] which says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

[0] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html [1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html

[kjeetgill]

In AdTech lingo a publisher is the site on which the ad is displayed.

[jonny_eh]

Facebook should make it much harder to use their product illegally. They can hide protected demographic filters when ads are of a protected nature, like jobs or housing.

[Meph504]

This concept of law enforcement is a really slippery slope, trying to force companies to stop people from breaking the law, is a serious shift in the concept of freedom.

prohibit acts are allowed, and they are dealt with by punishing the wrong doers.

Turning a company's automated system into a judge of legal and illegal action just seems like a bad idea in the long run.

Though, it is seemingly a growing trend, I don't feel it will result in a improved world in the end.

[twblalock]

Facebook is not being asked to enforce the law. It is being asked to stop doing illegal things.

[kristjansson]

The point of the parent is that it’s being asked to prevent/impede its customers from doing illegal things. That’s not a ridiculous thing to ask, but it’s very different from Facebook itself engaging in illegal activity.

[twblalock]

But Facebook itself is engaging in illegal activity by publishing those ads! It is against the law to do that.

If you commit a crime because somebody else asked you to do it, does that mean you didn’t break the law?

If Facebook commits a crime because someone asked them to do it, does that mean they didn’t break the law?

How could the answers to those two questions be different?

[pbhjpbhj]

Your position is akin to "the highways agency broke the law because they assisted the bank robber by making a road". I don't find it compelling.

[p1necone]

Does Facebook know that these are employment ads? Should they add a checkbox to their ad posting system so that the user can tell them that they are advertising for a product or a job posting?

As another example - should Facebook be legally responsible if I use their service to send death threats to someone? If not, why is that case different?

[stale2002]

> If you commit a crime because somebody else asked you to do it, does that mean you didn’t break the law?

In many cases, the answer is no, you did not break the law.

The best example I have of this is DMCA, and copywrite law. It is perfectly legal for youtube to allow users to upload content that they don't have the rights to, as long as they follow the DMCA takedown process if requested.

Or to give another example, think about your phone lines. I am sure that many users engage in illegal behavior over the phone. But it is not the job of the phone company to listen in on your phone calls, to ensure that you are, I don't know, engaging in harassment or some other illegal phone activity.

[gascan]

Are you suggesting Facebook do that helpfully to aide their customers in avoiding mishaps? Or are you prescribing this be government ordained & required?

[Gibbon1]

Old school newspapers would refuse to run ads that broke employment laws. And I've never heard of them bellyaching about policing that.

But Facebook is somehow how different? Why?

Oh right their business model doesn't work if they have to pay the costs associated with following government regulations.

I'm not feeling sympathetic.

[gascan]

I'm not saying facebook shouldn't police their listings. But were old school newspapers legally required to do that?

I'm asking, are we wanting facebook to do it because it's ethical? Or are we wanting to legally require them to?

[twblalock]

It can be simpler than that. The government has already ordained and required the laws. If Facebook publishes an illegal ad, the government should enforce those laws and punish Facebook.

It's up to Facebook to take whatever internal steps they deem necessary to prevent that from happening. The government doesn't need to decide what steps need to be taken -- it only needs to care about the outcome.

[scarface74]

Why should FB get an exception for what’s been public law for 4 decades?

The local newspaper has a self service portal for classifieds. I don’t know about thier job ads, but they review their ads for rentals for violations of the Fair Housing Act.

[mikeash]

Can this box be checked legally?

[wincy]

Sure, if you’re trying to sell something you can target the advertising however you want.

I think the issue arises when you’re using an advertisement to look for employees.

[singlow]

Sure, if you are advertising a dress shirt.

[nbar1]

Yes, you can advertise to only one sex. The problem is they advertised a job ad.

[cm2187]

Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room.

Also some recruiter are explicitely trying to correct a gender imbalance and are therefore actively seeking female candidates. Does that become unethical to advertise to women?

[LocalPCGuy]

That's a bad example. There are many jobs where men clean female locker rooms/restrooms and visa versa. But I agree with others (and I think you) that it isn't Facebook's responsibility legally to ensure it isn't possible for companies to break the law. Might be able to make a moral argument, but that's a different argument.

[p1necone]

A better example might be advertising for a modelling or acting job where the role is Female.

[bsder]

> Depends on the job. You won’t send a female cleaner in a male locker room.

Um, the cleaner is usually coming in when the locker room is empty so sex doesn't matter.

[cm2187]

Not at my gym.