If they automatically identify photos where someone happens to have left out a condom somewhere in the frame, and then use their likeness to advertise that brand of condoms (at the brand’s request), they will destroy any remaining trust in their platform among teens and inspire hostile legislation after the progeny of a public figure have their face used in such an ad without their opt-in consent.
This is one of the worst ideas they could possibly have come up with. It’s insane to think what kind of filter bubble they’re working within that permit this to proceed to the patent stage.
"Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going to be mistakes."
It reminded me of this classic tweet:
Then you put out a non-apology press release with the key phrase "We can do better."
Really! I am astonished that people seem comfortable that their products have prominent and sometimes dominant logos of a manufacturer, so that they have paid to be walking/driving billboards for somebody else.
Plenty of iphone and ipad cases have holes to show the mirrored Apple logo -- originally intended as a selfie mirror but obsolete for that purpose once the selfie camera was introduced. (I use both devices myself but don't worry about blocking the logo).
I also grew up hanging out with a bunch skaters. A few of my friends got good enough companies actually sponsored them and paid them to wear their clothes or use their boards. It sort of opened my eyes to the idea of fashion itself just being marketing.
If I do wear or use something with some kind of logo, I like to make sure it's from a company or product, whose business practices I support and don't mind advertising for rather than just because I like something they make.
My typical 'uniform' is jeans and some long-sleeve shirt, the ones you buy from Primark for £5 or £10. I have searched for similar items without logo and I can't find anyting decent. Even Patagonia sticks a logo.
They can keep their brand to themselves. If Burberry makes a long-sleeve the way I want it, without any isnignia, and the quality matches the price, I will gladly cough up the £100 to buy it, because I know it will last me 10 years. Until then, I am keeping my money - my money. :)
My photo has been uploaded countless times to facebook without my permission, and my data has been sold countless times through brokers that acquired this information illegally. There is nothing I can do, and Facebook will continue to behave irresponsibly with my information.
It is because of the unethical behavior of Facebook as an organization that we're in this mess - not the naive users.
I - sincerely - wish that this were plausible but nothing indicates any preceptable hint at a change from the current modus operandi. That ship has sailed and the rest of us are caught in the undertow.
Funny thing, I was watching (again - as a refresher) the videos of Financial Peace University from a few years back that I still have on my backups, and at some point Dave Ramsey says "Evian spelled backwards is Naive". He mentioned that in a 'water comparison vs cost' example on why we need to be more considerate on the management of our £€$.
Back to our discussion..
Those evil actors (Facebook, trackers, advertisers) survive from the constant flow of our data. If we ever/once we cut off this flow permanently, then eventually they will 'starve to death'. These evil actors can't go around advertising with 10-year old data.
Until government steps in - this behavior will continue.
The question and blames should be directed to lawmakers - why they are hesitant to pass strong privacy laws to stop that.
Clearly FB is not going to do anything. It's way cheaper to send Mark Z. to be grilled once a year then abandon privacy violation based business models.
Because companies like FB/Google/Amazon spend ridiculous amounts of money "lobbying" and trading favors with the government to prevent them from doing anything to get in the way of surveillance capitalism.
When the Smiths of Missouri – an all-American family with the regulation two blond children – posed for their Christmas photo, little did they know they would end up on a billboard thousands of miles away in the Czech Republic.
Just under a fortnight ago, a family friend of Jeff and Danielle Smith was travelling in Prague when he spotted some familiar faces beaming out of a poster advertising a grocery store's home delivery service.
That I was thinking about.
I think from what i can tell, the difference is now they're being sold to third parties instead of being used internally. If i'm not wrong.
Thanks for clarifying what is new here.
- If you see Steve's close friends all drink grey goose but he doesn't start advertising goose to him
- If you have advertised Polo shirts to John and then he uploads a picture of him in a new Polo shirt, fb can take credit for that sale
- Allow advertisers to exclude users who already own/use their product
This approach is much less visible to consumers and so would be more widely accepted (or just have less articles saying bad things about it).
Technically you are giving facebook all rights to reproduce and monetize any content you put on the platform... thus has it always been.
And the T&Cs suggest they would only share things in a way that was "consistent with your privacy and application settings", and they terminate their license when you remove something from there (surprisingly noble).
But yes, you're the product, etc. Don't be surprised that they want to monetise your content.
Vs what FB is doing, sure they mostly likely own any photo uploaded to them via their TOS, but people never expected for those photos to be used in commercial purposes, even if they say they can in the TOS.
The poster doesn't own the rights to the photo, and thus doesn't have the right to implicitly (via some EULA rewrite) grant Facebook the right to use it.
I will admit, though, that I do try to avoid having my picture taken by anybody for any reason if I can possibly do so.
Social media has made it too dangerous to engage in blind trust about these things anymore.
I can just imagine this being the new Instagram challenge for young people. Get good looking enough to get in an ad, make no money but be famous in your group of friends. Personally, I don't want to see anyone I know being "used" for an ad. Just imagine, grandma being featured in an adult diaper ad or your son's friend being used in an ad for some toy. Keeping up with the Jones' by seeing them in target ads.
"By leaving this picture accessible, Facebook agrees that I retain full copyrights, and Facebook can not use this picture for advertising purposes, all clauses of Facebooks EULA in contrary being void"
Would something like this work and be accepted in a court of law ?
Leonine contracts are enforceable only in one direction, after all.
Plus implicit agreements to a contract is a rabbit hole, and you'd never be able to show that a human working at Facebook ever witnessed this supposed contractual verbiage.
This reminds me a lot of those "share this image to stop Facebook selling your information to advertisers" meme that was going around a few years ago.
However, bear in mind that this is from The Telegraph, which is a not a high quality news source. There is likely to be a significant element of misreporting, so I'd like to see a verifying story from a credible source before damning FB.
It would definately skew or alter brand perception, so here we go with a filter being required.
If they choose not to and they are expecting a bunch of governments to address their problems, that is a pointless exercise also.
The network effect cannot be so powerful that the 5-10 people you frequently engage with online can't all move with you to other platforms.
What a mess.
if even shows an example of a user's innocuous review showing up in an Ad.