4 ms·

Maybe 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

by fedor91 13y ago

Maybe 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.
- fedor91 13y ago
  You've got a point there!
- philwelch 13y ago
  Because obviously Zuckerberg is personally choosing which profile picture to use in advertisements.
Atroxide 13y ago
What ads actually have facebook user's pictures in them? I have yet to see any.
bertil 13y ago
They obviously avoid that actively, just like they ban Facebook from 13 year-olds for legal reasons. But, because 12 y-o. aren't exactly impressed by the challenge of hacking a fill-your-own-birthday form, they generally declare themselves as old-enough to be on Facebook (and also, adult). That's how Facebook ends up using under-age pictures: they say they are above 18.
- pekk 13y ago
  For other legal purposes it is not enough to say "but the 13-year-old said she was 18" so it is interesting that this is enough for Facebook. Usage of users' photos in ads should be opt-in to begin with. Prior to this "new normal" people were normally compensated for appearing in ads, according to a contract. The surface area of all the ways that Facebook decides to use you and your data is beyond most people's ability to correctly understand, let alone the ability of minors. And then they take and use the right to unilaterally change the terms any time they wish, opt you back in to things you repeatedly opted out of, etc. The sooner we stop making special excuses for Facebook's pervasive, intentional, greedy misconduct, the better. It's not like it's impossible to do profitable business without making it a policy to act like a total scumbag.
  - solistice 13y ago
    It's enough because if you're doing it for facebook, you have to do it for every site. Which would require some kind of government provided authentication for everyone logging in. Korea does it, which requires an Residents Registration Number for many of their sites, which is frought with its own problems. The amount of work required to put in such a system would also be prohibitive, since most countries would have seperate systems, and each one of these would need to be accounted for. It'd raise barrier of entry for sites, since along with other infrastructure, they'd need to set up complex identification rules (granted, after some time there will be libraries for that. still, it's another step they have to take). It'd be a soggy mess to set up something like that.
  - bertil 13y ago
    > Usage of users' photos in ads should be opt-in to begin with. Prior to this "new normal" people were normally compensated for appearing in ads, according to a contract. This is not the case, nor is it normal. Facebook tested naming friends (not making anyone appear) in recommendations: there was no new information revealed (you can see your friend's Likes at all time on their page); Facebook tested displaying relevant information in different ways. They similarly name common friends when someone you don't know comments on a thread you have taken part of. Some of the content on Facebook is paid for: some by me, as an individual, to promote important information about myself; some by corporate entities. In one, unsuccessful, test Facebook tried to associate friends that where also fans with paid-for targeted recommendation. If you want to be compensated for your image appearing on Facebook ads, I know agencies that enroll model: I’d be happy to refer you. I'm sure they'll pay you as usual. > For other legal purposes it is not enough to say "but the 13-year-old said she was 18" so it is interesting that this is enough for Facebook. Facebook is very clear in their enrollment process that they need their users to be trustworthy in their statement; it has to do with the cost of the service. I have seen so much grief over Facebook actually checking your identity after an ID theft, that I can't imagine the amount butt-hurt over them checking the age of underage teenagers, from parents like OP, teenagers who lied and are most likely going to rationalise that out of the park, and more importantly you.

by fedor91 13y ago

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.

fedor91 13y ago
You've got a point there!
philwelch 13y ago
Because obviously Zuckerberg is personally choosing which profile picture to use in advertisements.

Atroxide 13y ago

What ads actually have facebook user's pictures in them? I have yet to see any.

bertil 13y ago

They obviously avoid that actively, just like they ban Facebook from 13 year-olds for legal reasons. But, because 12 y-o. aren't exactly impressed by the challenge of hacking a fill-your-own-birthday form, they generally declare themselves as old-enough to be on Facebook (and also, adult). That's how Facebook ends up using under-age pictures: they say they are above 18.

pekk 13y ago
For other legal purposes it is not enough to say "but the 13-year-old said she was 18" so it is interesting that this is enough for Facebook. Usage of users' photos in ads should be opt-in to begin with. Prior to this "new normal" people were normally compensated for appearing in ads, according to a contract. The surface area of all the ways that Facebook decides to use you and your data is beyond most people's ability to correctly understand, let alone the ability of minors. And then they take and use the right to unilaterally change the terms any time they wish, opt you back in to things you repeatedly opted out of, etc. The sooner we stop making special excuses for Facebook's pervasive, intentional, greedy misconduct, the better. It's not like it's impossible to do profitable business without making it a policy to act like a total scumbag.
- solistice 13y ago
  It's enough because if you're doing it for facebook, you have to do it for every site. Which would require some kind of government provided authentication for everyone logging in. Korea does it, which requires an Residents Registration Number for many of their sites, which is frought with its own problems. The amount of work required to put in such a system would also be prohibitive, since most countries would have seperate systems, and each one of these would need to be accounted for. It'd raise barrier of entry for sites, since along with other infrastructure, they'd need to set up complex identification rules (granted, after some time there will be libraries for that. still, it's another step they have to take). It'd be a soggy mess to set up something like that.
- bertil 13y ago
  > Usage of users' photos in ads should be opt-in to begin with. Prior to this "new normal" people were normally compensated for appearing in ads, according to a contract. This is not the case, nor is it normal. Facebook tested naming friends (not making anyone appear) in recommendations: there was no new information revealed (you can see your friend's Likes at all time on their page); Facebook tested displaying relevant information in different ways. They similarly name common friends when someone you don't know comments on a thread you have taken part of. Some of the content on Facebook is paid for: some by me, as an individual, to promote important information about myself; some by corporate entities. In one, unsuccessful, test Facebook tried to associate friends that where also fans with paid-for targeted recommendation. If you want to be compensated for your image appearing on Facebook ads, I know agencies that enroll model: I’d be happy to refer you. I'm sure they'll pay you as usual. > For other legal purposes it is not enough to say "but the 13-year-old said she was 18" so it is interesting that this is enough for Facebook. Facebook is very clear in their enrollment process that they need their users to be trustworthy in their statement; it has to do with the cost of the service. I have seen so much grief over Facebook actually checking your identity after an ID theft, that I can't imagine the amount butt-hurt over them checking the age of underage teenagers, from parents like OP, teenagers who lied and are most likely going to rationalise that out of the park, and more importantly you.