5 ms·

Possibly the worst Facebook ad ever

37 points by antr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago
Yeah, this must be worst Facebook ad ever: "Resource Limit Is Reached The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. Apache/2.2.24 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.24 OpenSSL/1.0.0-fips mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at glencanning.com Port 80", seems to be completely unrelated and theferore quite a bad ad.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- nhebb 13y ago
  Since you weren't able to read the article, I'll give you a head's up that you should save face while you can and delete your comment. It's not the kind of topic to be flippant about. The article was written by the father of Rahteah Parsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons) after he found out that her image was being used in a dating site's facebook ads.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- blahbap 13y ago
  The subject of the post is not really appropropriate for ridicule, also I don't think this post belongs on HN at all. This is the kind of story people like to read to be able to feel and express indignation and righteousness.
stickydink 13y ago
Cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hEowO-SA4boJ:glencanning.com/2013/09/possibly-the-worst-facebook-ad-ever/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hEowO-S...
damianknz 13y ago
I got through and read the article as well as an earlier one. They are worth reading if you have daughters, they're compulsory if you have sons.
- lobotryas 13y ago
  What makes you say that?
eksith 13y ago
At the risk of being indelicate, what are the chances the company that used the images actually knew anything about her? A lot of these companies grab whatever image they "find" online; their reasoning (not justifiable, but it's still used) because it was posted online without credit, it must be in the public domain - or whatever the equivalent term is where PD isn't recognized. Since the parent company of the dating site is based in Vietnam, this seems more likely than just maliciousness. FB likely does no serious vetting of these images besides looking for obvious offensiveness and a face among a sea of faces isn't likely going to trigger any red flags. Besides that, they probably outsource their image vetting as well, so it's not unlikely the cultural disconnect played a part in this.
- denzquix 13y ago
  Callous indifference can be just as bad as malice. I'm reminded of these t-shirts with "Keep Calm And..." slogans that were allegedly generated automatically (presumably culled from web searches) and sold on Amazon without human intervention: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21640347 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21640347 I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it.
  - eksith 13y ago
    This situation is slightly different IMO. I'm not saying ignorance is an excuse, but the "Keep Calm..." ads are manufacturing the offensive product. That company was actively engaged plagiarism and product is the trite rehash. The FB company wasn't selling the image per-se, but merely appropriating it for their service. If they were selling copies of Rehtaeh Parsons' image as a product itself rather than an uncredited and, as far as they're concerned, anonymous image of a girl to help them push the service, then they would be comparable.
  - mbel 13y ago
    > I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it. I totally agree. If your actions result in something tasteless or harmful, then it is your fault that you haven't foreseen those consequences.
vldx 13y ago
Why the site which released the ads is not opening? Showing a parked domain page from GoDaddy?
- eksith 13y ago
  According to one of the comments on the page : "Facebook did permanently disable the advertiser’s account and it looks like the site they were advertising is closed as well." - Mike Reed So there you have it. Looks like the site is pretty much done operating since its reputation is utterly destroyed.
elleferrer 13y ago
"Once an image is out there it’s out there forever." ...this advice should have been taught to the kids who recently broke-in, partied hard, and trashed a former NFL player's home in New York - http://www.helpmesave300.com/ http://www.helpmesave300.com/
bryanlarsen 13y ago
What an excellent article. As a father I would never have been able to write something so reasoned. The final paragraph is great advice: "Remember, just because those images on Facebook are free it doesn’t mean they won’t be costly, especially if you lift images of minors. That’s probably a good corporate rule to live by."

37 points by antr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Yeah, this must be worst Facebook ad ever: "Resource Limit Is Reached The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. Apache/2.2.24 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.24 OpenSSL/1.0.0-fips mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at glencanning.com Port 80", seems to be completely unrelated and theferore quite a bad ad.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nhebb 13y ago
Since you weren't able to read the article, I'll give you a head's up that you should save face while you can and delete your comment. It's not the kind of topic to be flippant about. The article was written by the father of Rahteah Parsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons) after he found out that her image was being used in a dating site's facebook ads.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
blahbap 13y ago
The subject of the post is not really appropropriate for ridicule, also I don't think this post belongs on HN at all. This is the kind of story people like to read to be able to feel and express indignation and righteousness.

stickydink 13y ago

Cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hEowO-SA4boJ:glencanning.com/2013/09/possibly-the-worst-facebook-ad-ever/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hEowO-S...

damianknz 13y ago

I got through and read the article as well as an earlier one. They are worth reading if you have daughters, they're compulsory if you have sons.

lobotryas 13y ago
What makes you say that?

eksith 13y ago

At the risk of being indelicate, what are the chances the company that used the images actually knew anything about her? A lot of these companies grab whatever image they "find" online; their reasoning (not justifiable, but it's still used) because it was posted online without credit, it must be in the public domain - or whatever the equivalent term is where PD isn't recognized. Since the parent company of the dating site is based in Vietnam, this seems more likely than just maliciousness. FB likely does no serious vetting of these images besides looking for obvious offensiveness and a face among a sea of faces isn't likely going to trigger any red flags. Besides that, they probably outsource their image vetting as well, so it's not unlikely the cultural disconnect played a part in this.

denzquix 13y ago
Callous indifference can be just as bad as malice. I'm reminded of these t-shirts with "Keep Calm And..." slogans that were allegedly generated automatically (presumably culled from web searches) and sold on Amazon without human intervention: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21640347 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21640347 I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it.
- eksith 13y ago
  This situation is slightly different IMO. I'm not saying ignorance is an excuse, but the "Keep Calm..." ads are manufacturing the offensive product. That company was actively engaged plagiarism and product is the trite rehash. The FB company wasn't selling the image per-se, but merely appropriating it for their service. If they were selling copies of Rehtaeh Parsons' image as a product itself rather than an uncredited and, as far as they're concerned, anonymous image of a girl to help them push the service, then they would be comparable.
- mbel 13y ago
  > I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it. I totally agree. If your actions result in something tasteless or harmful, then it is your fault that you haven't foreseen those consequences.

vldx 13y ago

Why the site which released the ads is not opening? Showing a parked domain page from GoDaddy?

eksith 13y ago
According to one of the comments on the page : "Facebook did permanently disable the advertiser’s account and it looks like the site they were advertising is closed as well." - Mike Reed So there you have it. Looks like the site is pretty much done operating since its reputation is utterly destroyed.

elleferrer 13y ago

"Once an image is out there it’s out there forever." ...this advice should have been taught to the kids who recently broke-in, partied hard, and trashed a former NFL player's home in New York - http://www.helpmesave300.com/ http://www.helpmesave300.com/

bryanlarsen 13y ago

What an excellent article. As a father I would never have been able to write something so reasoned. The final paragraph is great advice: "Remember, just because those images on Facebook are free it doesn’t mean they won’t be costly, especially if you lift images of minors. That’s probably a good corporate rule to live by."