Facebook sez, "Don't mind us, we're just whoring out your photos"
Follow up: AllFacebook pointed out that this was a bit off the mark. The ad was created by a third-party advertising network using Facebook's API. Their post cautions "Facebook continues to let third party ad networks use your photos as well, and making the privacy setting changes outlined in this viral message will not remove your photos from third party ad networks."
How do you feel about what Facebook does with your content? Post your thoughts on our Ask DLS post!
[original post below]
But it's OK. Really!
See, according to Facebook it's all part of the acceptable use policy you agreed to. No, I'm not kidding. That red box above contains an ad that was displayed to Peter Smith, who no doubt agrees that the woman in the image is hot -- although he suspected she wasn't single. You guessed it, that's his wife - consultant Cheryl Smith.
Is this not the same Facebook that just went back and retooled a TOS that users found objectionable? Didn't they just finish apologizing and kissing our butts over the crapstorm that ensued?
Here's what the Facebook settings page has to say:
I guess since we can turn this abomination off we shouldn't get too worked up about it. Still, it's pretty damn unsavory to use someone's friend's face to advertise a product and give the appearance that that friend might endorse it.
Yes, if it had been my wife's face staring back at me I would have had a good laugh. And when I stopped, I would have been right pissed that Facebook thinks this qualifies as "acceptable use."
Update: curiously, though my setting was "only my friends" earlier and I was unsuccessful changing it myself it has somehow changed to "no one." Did Facebook just pull a switcheroo to save face?
[via End of Web]
How do you feel about what Facebook does with your content? Post your thoughts on our Ask DLS post!
[original post below]
But it's OK. Really!
See, according to Facebook it's all part of the acceptable use policy you agreed to. No, I'm not kidding. That red box above contains an ad that was displayed to Peter Smith, who no doubt agrees that the woman in the image is hot -- although he suspected she wasn't single. You guessed it, that's his wife - consultant Cheryl Smith.
Is this not the same Facebook that just went back and retooled a TOS that users found objectionable? Didn't they just finish apologizing and kissing our butts over the crapstorm that ensued?
Here's what the Facebook settings page has to say:
All you have to do to prevent this is sign in to Facebook and click through to (get ready) -> Settings -> Privacy -> News Feed and Wall -> Facebook Ads -> Appearance in Facebook Ads and click "no one." Unless, of course, you want to be semifamous and have your picture used to push some garbage product or website without your knowledge. (note: when I tried to make this change just now, the site returned an error. oh, and it might not work in Firefox either due to a 'bug.')Facebook occasionally pairs advertisements with relevant social actions from a user's friends to create Facebook Ads. Facebook Ads make advertisements more interesting and more tailored to you and your friends. These respect all privacy rules.
I guess since we can turn this abomination off we shouldn't get too worked up about it. Still, it's pretty damn unsavory to use someone's friend's face to advertise a product and give the appearance that that friend might endorse it.
Yes, if it had been my wife's face staring back at me I would have had a good laugh. And when I stopped, I would have been right pissed that Facebook thinks this qualifies as "acceptable use."
Update: curiously, though my setting was "only my friends" earlier and I was unsuccessful changing it myself it has somehow changed to "no one." Did Facebook just pull a switcheroo to save face?
[via End of Web]













Comments
39
Subscribe to commentsKellyJayeJul 17th 2009 12:31PM
First it is the phone #s showing up, now this. Of course, this is a lot less clear and people may not realize what the FB fyi is implying. Great. Well, I just posted your blog on my FB page with my own comments. I also tweeted it under two different Twitter accounts I have. Thanks for the info!!
anefallarmeJul 17th 2009 1:27PM
Oh my gosh I had no idea! Thanks for the heads up!
Kali4Jul 17th 2009 1:51PM
Don't people who appear in advertisements get paid? I would be okay with this if a little green was sliding my way.
Mauricio RiveraJul 17th 2009 6:15PM
Mine was set as "no one" by default. Anyway, it's a good advice to keep in mind.
@AeroclesJul 17th 2009 2:55PM
Facebook owns anything and everything you put on the site, forever & ever, even if you delete it or delete your profile...scary huh?
majorJul 17th 2009 5:16PM
the real kicker is going to be how and why they select the photos.
aazippo2Jul 17th 2009 5:15PM
Wow dude that is like WAY cool dude!
RT
www.anonymize.tk
foxydotJul 17th 2009 6:17PM
At least they think she's hot.
113TidbitsJul 17th 2009 8:36PM
Really enjoy all of the timely and informative tips found on your site. Any ideas on what I can do to help my own site? Your advice will go a long way.
Follow me: @tonyknuckles
wildsparkJul 17th 2009 11:29PM
Peter Smith happened to get a photo of his hot "single" wife. Yep, could be kind of awkward, I guess.
But not as awkward as it was when my son got a photo of me, **his mother**, as a hot waiting single. I kid you not... it happened some weeks back.
Cheryl SmithJul 18th 2009 7:56AM
Lee, thanks for picking up this story and thanks to all the folks who've commented. Disappointing to learn the setting change won't be the fix, as the problem is evidently with the quiz apps. For the record, I hate those quizzes.
Now - off to see what I need to do to get my site stable. All these great links and comments have spiked my traffic so much that I can't even comment on my own blog or write new posts. Gotta love webhero.com - but that's another story.
PeterJul 18th 2009 10:36AM
Thank you for this. I just changed my settings. Those b**tards think they can do anything. Frankly I think social networks should never have been invented! They've got us all trapped.
CecilalaJul 18th 2009 7:34PM
I was able to make the changes without a problem; my preferences are set to "no one."
Ismail MohammedJul 19th 2009 1:39AM
You know I don't care till facebook INFORMS ME ABOUT IT. I mean everytime they change something it happens in the dark - let your customers know about the damn change. I have posted this on Letsfixthis.com - I hope people vote on this and facebook listens. http://www.letsfixthis.com/facebookcom/privacy/60
MicheleJul 19th 2009 7:44PM
Thankyou so much for this....had no idea. I use Firefox and the changes worked fine, thankgoodness.
O3Jul 21st 2009 12:14AM
I assume if the picture's privacy is set to "Friends only", it appears only to Friends already permitted to view it. That doesn't seem like a privacy violation. The first few times someone clicks on the App (yes, it looks like an application, not a Facebook Ad) due to the "whoa, what?" factor, but eventually people will wise up to seeing their pics repurposed as attention-grabbers in the ads they see and it'll be ho hum, like having a website identify your location by your IP address and display it to you used to feel invasive and frightening.
If someone can verify that this woman's picture was visible in an ad or app aimed at random strangers, THEN we have a problem. But I seriously doubt it.
Paula BrettJul 22nd 2009 8:14AM
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have pics on my kids on my facebook and only certain people can see them, so I've now followed your instructions to make sure my pics can't be used in ads
srJul 25th 2009 11:44PM
I'm currently looking at http://www.facebook.com/privacy/?view=feeds&tab=ads and I can't see "Appearance in Facebook Ads".
Anyone else have this problem? Is there something I'm missing?
digitalmouseJul 26th 2009 6:07PM
i won't mind Facebook whoring my photo (I'm certainly not *that* photogenic), but if I start seeing it appear in *many* 3rd party advertisements, I would like to get some compensation, since those parties may be making a profit from my likeness. Royalties perhaps, on a per-display basis?