4 ms·

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

by 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.
cstuder 13y ago
A lot of "theses companies"? Two weeks ago, Randomuser.me was advertised on Hacker News. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313952). They claim all images are hand-picked, but of course there's no guarantee that a thing like this could happen to us Hacker News-hackers too.
belorn 13y ago
I doubt it happend by chance, even if coincidences do happen. More likely, the dating site had somehow acquired knowledge of how many times the original hosted image was viewed and saw a visitor spike. Could be a direct or indirect partnership with facebook or some image hosting site, or could be their own hosted profiles. The sexual assault and the resulting death likely caused the increase. I am a bit surprised that no one seems to blame Facebook in all this. Not only did they host the ad, they earned profit by doing so. It very likely that the ill-gotten profit from this event still persist in Facebooks bank account.
- eksith 13y ago
  "Never attribute to malice..." I can totally see the traffic spike = profit angle and that seems to be the most likely reason. If they're looking at raw data, then who the person is may not have even been a consideration. Facebook does, of course, share blame in this since they allowed the ad to show up on their platform. If they did earn profit, they should do something like donate it to a fund that engages in bullying prevention.

by eksith 13y ago

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.

cstuder 13y ago

A lot of "theses companies"? Two weeks ago, Randomuser.me was advertised on Hacker News. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313952 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313952). They claim all images are hand-picked, but of course there's no guarantee that a thing like this could happen to us Hacker News-hackers too.

belorn 13y ago

I doubt it happend by chance, even if coincidences do happen. More likely, the dating site had somehow acquired knowledge of how many times the original hosted image was viewed and saw a visitor spike. Could be a direct or indirect partnership with facebook or some image hosting site, or could be their own hosted profiles. The sexual assault and the resulting death likely caused the increase. I am a bit surprised that no one seems to blame Facebook in all this. Not only did they host the ad, they earned profit by doing so. It very likely that the ill-gotten profit from this event still persist in Facebooks bank account.

eksith 13y ago
"Never attribute to malice..." I can totally see the traffic spike = profit angle and that seems to be the most likely reason. If they're looking at raw data, then who the person is may not have even been a consideration. Facebook does, of course, share blame in this since they allowed the ad to show up on their platform. If they did earn profit, they should do something like donate it to a fund that engages in bullying prevention.