[sturgill]

But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people? I honestly don’t know where I come down on this issue: it feels different to say, “we have a better ROI if we exclude certain demographics from seeing our ads” than to say “black people can’t eat at this diner.”

Let’s take a company like REI: is it wrong for them to put their stores in places that are most profitable? Should luxury good companies be required to have store fronts in inner cities?

I’m legitimately not sure I’m comfortable with either answer. “Women / older people are unlikely to respond to this ad; so we’ll have a better ROI by excluding those groups” feels awkward but like a legitimate business interest. If I sell male hygiene products can I exclude women from seeing the ads, not because I don’t like women but because the ad is less likely to be relevant?

“I don’t want to work with women or older people so I’ll not show them the ad” feels unquestionably wrong.

[nkrisc]

The short answer is: it depends. I don't think you'll run into much trouble in excluding women from your ads for beard care products, but you might of you're excluding them from your ads for housing.

I think you have to consider intent as well as outcome.

[scarface74]

There is no might there are specific laws governing advertising when it comes to jobs and housing that don’t apply to other areas.

[nl]

Magazine buyer's aren't a protected class.

[avani]

Um.. I think most luxury goods stores are in inner cities.

[yawaramin]

> But should Ebony be allowed to market ads on Facebook and exclude white people?

That's not what this thread is about. The question here is what is the difference between advertising on Facebook and excluding some demographics, and advertising in a paper magazine where you don't have the power to exclude anyone from viewing the ad.