3 ms·

> These are not ads, rather something that is generated natively by the platform, not leading anywhere else but the platform that the user is already on. Is th

> These are not ads, rather something that is generated natively by the platform, not leading anywhere else but the platform that the user is already on. Is this post Advertising a product? Yes, it is advertising a MetaAI product. Just because it's not an external ad, doesn't mean it's not an ad. Hulu shows me adds for other Hulu shows. This is an ad despite me not leaving that streaming site. What is an advertisement to you?

lbhdc 2y ago
You are right, that is still and ad. Platform ads are really common for anyone running their own ad exchange. Sometimes its just to use up supply, other times its to meet in house goals.
npteljes 2y ago
This is technically true, these are advertisements. But not what first come to mind when reading the title "Instagram is using my face on ads targeted at me", which would be third-party ads, so this is my point. The title is sensational, a play on this misunderstanding, rather than being substantial.
- sweeter 2y ago
  No one said third-party ads, the description is perfectly accurate to what is happening. The knee jerk reaction to call it sensationalist is odd to me.
- bitmasher9 2y ago
  My ick levels are about the same whether it’s used by third parties or just Meta. It’s a mega corporation using my likeness to manipulate my behavior for their own ends.
  - leptons 2y ago
    When someone signs up for facebook they are agreeing that any image they upload is something they are explicitly granting them permission to use. Where's the "ick"? They already gave them permission, whether they read the fine print or not.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- miltonlost 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - npteljes 2y ago
    To help with understanding my point, I edited the original comment, and noted the edit.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      You edited to claim that "ad" is commonly understood to mean "3rd party ad", when in fact that is not true, and it's irrelevant either way. The idea of using my likeness in ads is disgusting, and likely illegal, even if they are first party ads.
      - to11mtm 2y ago
        Agreed that '3rd party ad' is a weird qualifier. For starters, what's '3rd party'? I remember when Google-Fi or whatever it was had the poorly animated, jingle sung-by-a 'totally not trying to cop Randy Newman vibe' ads. Would that be a 3rd party in that case?
        npteljes 2y ago
        Third party in this case could be two things at least. One, an advertisement that is about something that provided by someone who is not Meta - like a Nike shoe, or a law firm. Two, third party could imply that the data left the Meta ecosystem - like how if you visit a blog, and there is a Google Adsense banner, then your visitation data left the blog, the first party, to end up at Google, a third party, and possibly others, again, third parties. I am making this "third party" distinction, because I think that this is a significant step in what it takes to make advertisements "dystopian", which is the premise of the original post. I think that the situation that OP encountered, that he used a service, and then service itself did something unexpected, is not at all dystopian. However, what the title posited, that his face is now used for targeted advertisements, has much more far-reaching implications - like, for example, it could be the next Cambridge Analytica scandal.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  well, a properly sensationalized title for your case would be 'Instagram and facebook are giving my pictures away to advertisers for use'. Still semi-sensational but more direct to your posit.

lbhdc 2y ago

You are right, that is still and ad. Platform ads are really common for anyone running their own ad exchange. Sometimes its just to use up supply, other times its to meet in house goals.

npteljes 2y ago

This is technically true, these are advertisements. But not what first come to mind when reading the title "Instagram is using my face on ads targeted at me", which would be third-party ads, so this is my point. The title is sensational, a play on this misunderstanding, rather than being substantial.

sweeter 2y ago
No one said third-party ads, the description is perfectly accurate to what is happening. The knee jerk reaction to call it sensationalist is odd to me.
bitmasher9 2y ago
My ick levels are about the same whether it’s used by third parties or just Meta. It’s a mega corporation using my likeness to manipulate my behavior for their own ends.
- leptons 2y ago
  When someone signs up for facebook they are agreeing that any image they upload is something they are explicitly granting them permission to use. Where's the "ick"? They already gave them permission, whether they read the fine print or not.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
miltonlost 2y ago
[flagged]
- npteljes 2y ago
  To help with understanding my point, I edited the original comment, and noted the edit.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    You edited to claim that "ad" is commonly understood to mean "3rd party ad", when in fact that is not true, and it's irrelevant either way. The idea of using my likeness in ads is disgusting, and likely illegal, even if they are first party ads.
    - to11mtm 2y ago
      Agreed that '3rd party ad' is a weird qualifier. For starters, what's '3rd party'? I remember when Google-Fi or whatever it was had the poorly animated, jingle sung-by-a 'totally not trying to cop Randy Newman vibe' ads. Would that be a 3rd party in that case?
      - npteljes 2y ago
        Third party in this case could be two things at least. One, an advertisement that is about something that provided by someone who is not Meta - like a Nike shoe, or a law firm. Two, third party could imply that the data left the Meta ecosystem - like how if you visit a blog, and there is a Google Adsense banner, then your visitation data left the blog, the first party, to end up at Google, a third party, and possibly others, again, third parties. I am making this "third party" distinction, because I think that this is a significant step in what it takes to make advertisements "dystopian", which is the premise of the original post. I think that the situation that OP encountered, that he used a service, and then service itself did something unexpected, is not at all dystopian. However, what the title posited, that his face is now used for targeted advertisements, has much more far-reaching implications - like, for example, it could be the next Cambridge Analytica scandal.
to11mtm 2y ago
well, a properly sensationalized title for your case would be 'Instagram and facebook are giving my pictures away to advertisers for use'. Still semi-sensational but more direct to your posit.