undefined | Better HN

0 pointsquadrangle7y ago0 comments

The other person's reply to you was really this simple:

You are asserting a slippery-slope argument, but this is a situation where there are clear places this doesn't lead. It may be fuzzy instead of a clear line, but there's not actually a slippery slope necessarily. And you need to bear burden to show that there is a slippery slope.

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

0 comments

maym867y ago

Exactly. Thank you.

quotemstr7y ago

The slippy slope here is already in operation. It's the entire rationale behind prohibiting targeting based on zip code: demographics change from zip code to zip code, so the HUD concludes that targeting by zip code is de facto targeting by demographic.

What logical basis is there for stopping at zip code targeting and not applying the same logic to other demographic correlates?

MBCook7y ago

> The slippy slope here is already in operation.

Except there are 40 years of court decisions clarifying how the law should be interpreted.

quotemstr7y ago

Most of the case law dates from before internet advertising microtargeting. We're in novel legal territory here.

That said, it's possible that a forward-thinking court has already resolved the question under discussion. Can you point me to case law that discusses the boundary between discriminatory and non-discriminatory ad targeting based on demographic correlates?

MBCook7y ago

The fact it’s an online entity may or may not be novel (I imagine Craig’s List has been sued over this).

I meant my comment to refer to the idea of a slippery slope on what does/does not count as a discriminatory. There is lots of case law on that.

I think it’s safe to say if a court has previous rules you can’t put ‘No X’ or ‘Y only’ in a newspaper ads you can use t as a filter for ad targeting.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

maym867y ago

Exactly. Thank you.

quotemstr7y ago

What logical basis is there for stopping at zip code targeting and not applying the same logic to other demographic correlates?

MBCook7y ago

> The slippy slope here is already in operation.

Except there are 40 years of court decisions clarifying how the law should be interpreted.

quotemstr7y ago

Most of the case law dates from before internet advertising microtargeting. We're in novel legal territory here.

MBCook7y ago

The fact it’s an online entity may or may not be novel (I imagine Craig’s List has been sued over this).

I meant my comment to refer to the idea of a slippery slope on what does/does not count as a discriminatory. There is lots of case law on that.

I think it’s safe to say if a court has previous rules you can’t put ‘No X’ or ‘Y only’ in a newspaper ads you can use t as a filter for ad targeting.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse