[vinceguidry]

> "I don't like X unenforceable thing" is the mark of our generation.

A ban of this sort of thing could easily be enforced. They already prohibit discrimination, and there's already a body of precedent to help adjudicate grey areas. Make it a civil rights violation for landlords to ask for social media handles in applications. Then anyone who wants this kind of anonymity can simply avoid tying their real name to the service.

As social media posts could be used to glean protected information, I don't think it's even be that hard politically to get such a law passed in many states.

[mc32]

What civil right would the lessor be violating, I'm curious. I would be taken aback by being asked for social media identities, but I can't imagine what civil right asking for that would violate.

I imagine it'd be similar to banning asking for phone number or social media handles of someone you're trying to chat up for fear it could lead to harassment.

Badness can only happen with what they do with the information, not the information itself.

[vinceguidry]

> What civil right would the lessor be violating, I'm curious.

Privacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

[mc32]

Can it be claimed information published on the www for everyone to see as "private"?

It's like saying my name is private. Moreover, when they do background checks they get private information on me which I would actually have to pay for even when the information is about me. I don't think its as clear cut as you make it out to be.

[vinceguidry]

There's a difference between searching for someone's name online and figuring out what's public, and asking for identifying information so that you can do a targeted search, failure to furnish means you will be refused a place to live.

Though I don't think in this case not having a Twitter account would cause you to be unable to rent in NYC. She could have simply said she didn't have one. Not sure if that would make you legally culpable or not.

> I don't think its as clear cut as you make it out to be.

I don't mean to be rude, but these kinds of questions are exactly what the judicial system and the body of civil rights law and precedent are aimed at answering. We pass the law, then it's the judicial system's job to work out the particulars by adjudicating individual cases. It's the whole reason they exist.

[mc32]

It's not rude and that's a good point. We may yet have to decide what's allowable and what's not.

On the other hand, when they do a background check, any competent service is going to find that information for the lessor anyway. I don't see a difference in result.

Of course I dont like the idea of using people's online personae as helping decide whether they are tenant worthy or not.

[pluma]

Aw, spoilsport. How is the Valley meant to disrupt markets if they have to respect basic rights like these?

[vinceguidry]

It's not the Valley that has to respect rights, it's landlords.