> 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, reall

> 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.