8 ms·
Facebook made my teenager into an ad
- ItendToDisagree 13y agoQuestion: IANAL but isn't it illegal (grounds for a lawsuit at least) to use the image of someone, who is too young to provide legal consent, in an advertisement without their legal guardian's express written consent? I could have swore that was a thing on a higher than state level but maybe I'm wrong? Like I didn't think you could make a 'settlement' and then legally avoid this sort of thing in the future. Isn't this quote all sorts of legally indefensible? When did non-adults ever have the ability to 'represent' anything in the absence of their guardian? any user under 18 “represents” that her parent agrees to let Facebook use her image in ads.
- kevingadd 13y agoFacebook has enough money and lawyers to ignore the law, judging by the outcome of the court case mentioned in the article.
- crazypyro 13y agoCould facebook argue that creation of an account requires parental consent? Just curious.
- ItendToDisagree 13y agoI'm not sure if they do ask that. Would be a good work around for them I guess.
- crazypyro 13y agoYeah, I am not familiar enough with account creation to know, either.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dec0dedab0de 13y agoIANAL but isn't it illegal (grounds for a lawsuit at least) to use the image of someone, who is too young to provide legal consent, in an advertisement without their legal guardian's express written consent? In the article they list the states that it is illegal in. This is presumably a federal case that doesn't take that into account.
- thinkcomp 13y agoHere's the In Re: Facebook Privacy Litigation docket: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=1782789 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=1782789
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bertil 13y agoThis article reaks of helicopter parenting, with all the usual over-blown statements that make talking about targeted advertising so hard to explain: > Facebook can’t buy our children, and it can’t sell them either. Yes, slavery, because that’s exactly what’s at stake… > But 10-year-olds still need supervision. Not sure I need to point out that they have nothing to do on Facebook in the first place, or that humanising young corporation in a way to disparage the ability of their (very mature) executives to make decisions is lame. You are not Mark Zuckerberg’s, or Sheryl Sandberg’s mother — stop thinking that because you are someone’s mother, you are always right on all matters; otherwise, I'll have to point you to how the authors’ of Freakonomics have truckloads (litterally) of hatemail proving that being a parent… doesn’t exactly make you reasonable in general. I'll pass the “my child is so smart” because… well, with a mother like you, I can only hope that she is, and focus on a simple thing: someone as opinionated as a hippie teenager can be probably never ‘Liked’ big corporate brand on Facebook, yet, they are apparently listed as such. That is a purely technical problem, that has nothing to do with parental consent and kids’ agency, about how much control Facebook users have over their listed ‘Likes’. I wouldn’t sue Facebook, because, well, they have good lawyers and your narrow-minded hysterionics and over-helicoptering seems to have ruined the patience of every judge available. I’d go with the announcers, telling them that they are advertising to the wrong crowds because of technical glitches. But that's just me.
- ItendToDisagree 13y agoWhy all the name calling? The issue may not be all about corp hating hippy helicopter moms but something more important to everyone. The issue (to me) really seems to be that a company is using images they do not own, that depict people's children (who cannot legally consent to their pictures being used or any other contract), for their own profit. Regardless of if this is Facebook or anyone else it seems like there is an issue with the company claiming the right to use other peoples images for advertisements. I seem to remember a big flap about Instagram claiming they own the rights to peoples photos in the recent past. In this case it seems like there is the additional issue of the photos picturing people's children. Edit: I understand putting the text "so and so Likes this company" next to something if they actually 'liked' it. But the article implies that they are using the person's image in a custom advertisement in the feed.
- fedor91 13y agoMaybe the law isn't the most important thing here. I think that Facebook has to act like a grown up and think in an ethical way about this. It's just immoral to use children their images in adds. And I don't think that this fits Zuckerbergs original intentions when he started Facebook.
- selmnoo 13y ago> It's just immoral to use children their images in adds. And I don't think that this fits Zuckerbergs original intentions when he started Facebook. Heh, really? Are we talking about the same Zuckerberg who got his start making webapps by having people rate illegitimately-gained pictures of his peers? ("The Kirkland dormitory facebook is open on my desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendiedous facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of some farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive."). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facemash#Facemash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facemash#Facemash Or the guy who called people who submitted information to his site "dumb fucks"? (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg). This latest move is exactly the quintessential spirit of the Zuck. But honestly, I'm expecting a lot more to come as the secret comes out that they can't make a lot of money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag) -- I think they'll sell private information of users to insurance companies.
- Atroxide 13y agoWhat ads actually have facebook user's pictures in them? I have yet to see any.
- 13y ago
- jsmith0295 13y ago"the global supply chain that exploits workers" can we please stop perpetuating that ridiculous myth, in the countries in which sweat shops exist, they are generally far better options for laborers than the alternatives.
- SixSigma 13y agoExploit has become a dirty word. For an American claim that a global supply chain is a negative thing while writing for a British media company for money is a glaring hypocrisy. Everything we have, every tool we use, every byte we distribute over the internet relies on that global supply chain. Abstract concepts do not abuse workers.
- krisdol 13y agoExactly! The few rich people who bought up all the land and placed foreign-owned sweatshops on it are doing the workers a favor. Sure, many goods produced there are priced way out of the range of what the workers could ever dream of affording, but what the locals have lost in terms of self-sustainable living has been more than made up for by the pleasantries of factory towns, jobs for every man, woman, and child, and living quarters with meals for purchase on site, making it easy for children to fulfill the labor requirements they were contracted for as adolescents. And since capitalism has priced every other option but starvation and crime out of reach, sweatshops certainly appear to be good options for wage slaves.
- grannyg00se 13y agoWhen you "like" something you are telling Facebook that you want your social network to know that you like that thing. Doesn't it make sense that Facebook would then go about telling people that you said you liked it? That's the whole point of clicking the like button.
- kevinchen 13y agoThey're not showing "Kevin likes Acme Inc," they are showing "Kevin likes Acme Inc and Acme has a discount on widgets this week."
- grannyg00se 13y agoPerfect. Kevin gets to publicly announce that he likes something, and for anybody who is listening, they're also notified that the product happens to be on sale. I don't see how Kevin has been slighted just because his willful endorsement of a product went hand in hand with a notification that the product is on sale.
- cl8ton 13y ago‘Like’ing something on FB is entirely different that endorsing a product for your friends, which is what the AD makes it appear. Too many times I have searched something on Google and then later on in FB low and behold I see an ad whiz by on my timeline pertaining to what I searched earlier on Google. Taking this to the extreme, if my teenage son searched for Condems on Google and then later see’s the AD on FB and clicks like, do I want the AD to appear with my sons pic endorsing this product?
- spindritf 13y agoI can offer an instantly effective alternative to "someone needs to supervise the social network," stop using it. The terrible tyranny of facebook has to be the epitome of first world problems. Why are your kids there? In your own words, it's a professional risk, den of commercialism, not to mention the inevitable psychological damage from refreshing a webpage instead of having actual social interactions. And it's not even hip any more.
- sheetjs 13y agoIn light of http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-02-13/news/the-facebook-comment-that-ruined-a-life/full/ http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-02-13/news/the-facebook-c... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7230256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7230256 and the credence the legal system apparently gave to Facebook, I suspect it's very important for your children to have Facebook accounts, lest someone create one in their name and destroy their lives
- spindritf 13y agoHaving an account doesn't protect you from someone setting up another account with the same name. There are legitimately people with identical names, especially at facebook scale. And the case you're linking to does not involve impersonation. Finally, you can set up an account and never use it so they have nothing to snoop on or use.
- omegaworks 13y ago>stop using it You are ignoring the reality of network effects. My friends will post photos that include me on Facebook whether I have an account with them or not. My friends will coordinate activities with one another via the group chat and event invitation facilities, including location metadata and description context whether I participate in the discussion or not. Whether you have the choice to give Facebook data about you is increasingly out of your hands.
- selmnoo 13y agoSpeaking as someone whose pictures ended up on Facebook (without me even having a Facebook account), I can't even begin to describe how frustrated I feel about this. I basically have no option of recourse, because there's a revised culture thanks to Facebook which tells me it's outside of my hands now. I can't request my peers to take down group photos that include me (or even photos with only me) because I'd sound like a dick if I did. For this reason I really hope that some black hats, upon finding some 0days or something, just do something to bring this behemoth down. So please, when you find something, don't disclose vulnerabilities to FB, disclose them to dark corners of the blackhats' residences.
- DanBC 13y ago> A generation of ‘opt-in’ kids is being exploited, and someone needs to supervise the social network I'll happily bash facebook all day. But before you allow your children onto the Internet you really really need to decide about what you think is acceptable, and talk to them about it. Do not arrange to meet in real life anyone you do not know in real life without talking to me first; do not take photographs of your unclothed body and for god's sake do not send those photographs to people.
- pekk 13y agoWhy not both? It is both true that Facebook does many very unethical things, and that you should talk to your kids.
- mavhc 13y agoWhy do you care? So what if your face is on an ad? Only idiots would believe you had anything to do with that happening, and why would you care what idiots think?
- dinkumthinkum 13y agoI'm not sure if you understood the complaint ... I'm not sure anyone is weird that someone will think that someone else will think their child endorsed a product ... The issue is about their child's image being used at all.
- mavhc 13y agoBut why does that matter, if it's not actually affecting anything? It's not like they printed 10 metre high adverts with their face on and put them up around town. All that happens is people you know on facebook see your photo next to an ad and think "ha, stupid facebook, that doesn't fool me"
- dinkumthinkum 13y agoSure, but you not want your child's image used for those purposes. Seems reasonable to me. I think you're focusing on whether Facebook can fool anyone, which is besides the point.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]