[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.