I 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.
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.
Speaking 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.
>> " 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."
So rather than speak to your friends about photos that you are in you would prefer hackers to takedown Facebook and for your friends to lose all their photos and other content...
If you're concerned don't let people take pictures of you. If you are as concerned as you sound don't leave the house. People can take your picture in public and do what they like with it. This is only going to happen more and more as cameras get smaller and put in more places.
>> ""Don't leave the house haw haw" is not a valid response to objections to Facebook's unethical operations."
My point was that this is nothing to do with Facebook. If you go out in public people can take your picture and they can put it on any website they wish. They can publish it in print media too. Facebook preventing you from taking down any photo you appear in isn't unusual - it seems like the best option they have. If group photos started disappearing from my account because one of my friends who voluntarily appeared in them was paranoid I'd be pissed off. For a lot of people that's the only copy of the photo they have. To Facebook it's a choice between pissing off users and satisfying the paranoid who don't even use Facebook. Seems like a simple choice to me.
Facebook made that behaviour normal, and it provides tagging and facial recognition to make it easier.
Privacy controls were changing.
Posting to groups is slightly trickier than it needs to be. (I only ever post photos to public or to a single group, but selecting that group takes a couple of clicks).
While I can agree that these problems are not exclusive to Facebook I am far more likely to have the problem on Facebook than other networks because of the sheer size of the FB userbase.
No, that behavior has existed since newspapers started printing pictures. You touch on your real problem with Facebook, and that is its size. That's it.
You touch on your real problem with Facebook, and that is its size. That's it.
There's the saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own." Turning a thing from an "occasionally" into an "always" can effectively change the nature of the thing entirely.
Yes, because of the internet, your friends can take pictures of you and share them online. You won't tell them to not take pictures of you, nor will you ask them not to share them online.
What, before Facebook you never showed up in your friends' photo album? Or your friends just never let anyone see their photo album? Because I know neither of those were true for me.
The language people use (general statement rather than directed at you specifically) is almost like talking to an addict. If people just stopped giving them data it would almost totally stop the flow to Facebook specific to them. Yes people post images with me in them occasionally, but that is about it. I haven't even had one of the requests to join in years.
Having 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.
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.
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?
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.
This 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.
Why 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.
Why the name calling? Because, given Facebook size, it should be addressed with calm and enough technical skillset — and because nothing gets on my nerves more than the “I'm a mum, therefore I'm right” argument. Having a vagina does not make anyone a specialist on gender issues (unlike what far too many people think), education and obviously not social networking policies.
I think the whole article is sensational. I don't see any ads with actual friends. I do see what they like, but not actual ads. The author is just wording everything to make facebook seem worse.
Earlier articles [1] have said that one could click "Like" on a company's page and then have one's name and picture show up in a sidebar ad apparently endorsing a later post that one had never seen and perhaps found distasteful. I don't know whether this practice has changed or changed-so-some-peripheral-point-is-untrue-but-the-core-objection-is-still-present since.
When 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.
The fact that you indicated you like it and want to share that with your social network has not changed. If you "like" a brand, it has everything to do with brands and advertising. You just indicated that you like that brand. And by doing so you've told Facebook that you want that endorsement to be public. Just the same as if you were to "like" a blog post. You want everyone to know that you like it. Otherwise why would you be publicly announcing it on Facebook?
Wanting your friends and potential friends to know what movies you like is not remotely the same as wanting the world to see your face plastered on other companies' advertisements.
‘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?
"‘Like’ing something on FB is entirely different that endorsing a product for your friends, "
How? What is it to publicly announce that you like something? That's an endorsement. Why else would you be "liking" something on FB? To privately remind yourself that you like it?
It was an extreme example hopefully it wouldn’t happen, BUT if it did at least his G’ma, G’pa, aunts, uncles and cousins who are friends with him would at least know his choice of condoms.
Which would inevitably lead to the call from them to me letting me know what my son is up to which then leads me to explain a bunch of non transparent FB rules to non technical people.
Perhaps because it had a funny video or animation, or because he could win an iPad by 'liking' it.
These techniques are in widespread use in Facebook advertising, and frequently targets younger people.
Perfect.
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.
> 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.
"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.
Exactly! 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.
Yes, this is exactly what every country which ever had sweatshops looks like. It's not like England, or the United States, or South Korea ever developed a middle class capable of buying the kinds of products being manufactured in their sweatshops. Capitalism only reinforced existing class divides, which is why the preindustrial nobility are still the only rich people in the world.
That's like saying... "I know I chopped off 2 of your fingers, but the employer across the street will take a whole arm... so ya know ...this is better than the alternative."
Yes, it could be worse but that doesn't meant they're not being exploited and the issue shouldn't be brought up and examined for improvement.
>>Workers are continuing to die and sustain injuries in horrific accidents as they are forced to work from morning to night for slave wages in sweatshop conditions.
Exploit 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.
Well, she's not saying that, she states :"that represent something she [the authors daugther] opposes – the global supply chain that exploits workers."
So her 14 year old daughter has a fully qualified, informed opinion of the global suppy chain, how it came into being, and what it affects, and she wants you to respect that.
Why 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?
I'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.
But 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"
Sure, 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.
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.
> 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
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) -- I think they'll sell private information of users to insurance companies.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.