back to article Facebook shoves your face into creepy 'sponsored stories' in 2012

Facebook will begin adding photos of its users to third-party adverts appearing in users' news feeds come early next year, so if you're the sort who's a bit free with your thumbs-up button, there's no way out of being featured alongside a tin of baked beans or a pair of knickers on the social network. The Mark Zuckerberg-run …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. James 51

    Time to start pulling photos from facebook

    Or just replace them with photos who work at facebook.

    1. Graham Marsden

      Or replace them...

      ... with a picture of someone bending over with their trousers around their ankles...!

      1. Mako

        Photos like that will be used to advertise the new "Best of The Rolling Stones" album - track #1 being "Brown-Eyed Girl".

      2. CJ Bill

        Ah, goatsee...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Better yet...

      ...just don't use Farcebook. Very simple solution.

    3. heyrick Silver badge


      I've "Liked" very few things, but I notice I have been Auto-Liked for stuff listed in my profile, like when I stated Carl Sagan is one of my inspirations, Auto-Like. Hmm... If you ask me, "Like" is completely irrelevant without a similar "Dislike" option.

      Having said that, my profile picture is the lovely Haruhi Suzumiya, so I guess I'm not *that* bothered.

      1. ToddRundgren
        Thumb Down

        Hmm Cartoon perv'?

        1. Thomas 4

          Well, won't this be fun...

          For all those people that clicked "Like" on the website for the Pleasuremax "Leviathon" Personal Vibrator.....

  2. jai

    simple opt out?

    surely the easiest way to opt out is to stop clicking "like" or rsvp'ing to anything on facebook?

    actually, there's an easier way, it's to delete your FB account.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Down

      Easier said than done..

      You can't actually delete your FacePuke account. If you leave it completely untouched for a couple of months, it will eventually be removed. But if you visit the site at all during that time, your account will be resurrected again.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You can too delete your account.

        I take it you're speaking from a position of ignorance? There are separate deactivation and full deletion options. You can deactivate it from your account settings or delete it here:

        They retain it deactivated for two weeks in case you change your mind, then it gets really deleted. Why don't you read the FAQs about it?

        1. Anonymous Coward

          No you can't!

          "...They retain it deactivated for two weeks in case you change your mind, then it gets really deleted. Why don't you read the FAQs about it?..."

          Isn't that what I said?

          Most websites will allow you to delete your account instantly, or maybe after clicking on a link in an "Are you sure?" email. FacePuke will only allow you to 'deactivate' your account and then have it deleted automatically after two weeks.

          However, if within that two weeks, you revisit FacePuke, or interact with your account in any way [even indirectly –for example posting to Twitter, Flickr, or Tumblr etc. when these are linked to your FacePuke account], then your FacePuke account is automatically reactivated, whether you wanted it to be, or not.

          Kind of like the Schrödinger's cat of account deletion.

      3. Timothy Slade


    2. Anonymous Coward
      Black Helicopters

      Re: simple opt out?

      I don't have a FB account but as I understand things they can follow me everywhere tracking my every movement even when I'm not on-line. What I'd like to know is: How can I opt out without a Facebook account?

      Note: You might think this is tongue in cheek but just wait a few years...

  3. Gwaptiva

    Facebook has ads?

    Never yet seen any advertising on Facebook. What's that? Ah no, I'm not disabling AdBlocker tyvm

    1. paulc

      not ads... "sponsored" stories

      they'll be put into your feed...

      Hopefully the firefox add-on Better Facebook will soon update to remove them

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      I wonder if it would EVER be possible for a facebook story to not have some sanctimonious tosser posting how facebook is for idiots - you should delete your account blah blah blah.

      Or, if ever, a story relating to ads without some prick blabbering on about adblock...

      Of course, this subject has it both.

      Listen guys, we get it, right? This is a *tech* site. We all know about facebook and adblock. We get it.

      Shut up already and go and get laid.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 22:04

        What instead of "investing" your time, oh so wisely, by expressing some mindless twattery via a tech forum at 10pm on weekday evening?!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC 12:57

          How is that any different from mindless twattery posted thursday @ 12.57?

          At least I had a point to make!

          1. The Fuzzy Wotnot

            As you don't waste time stating the obvious ( ie, banging on about Adblock to fight the FB menace, etc ) you had time to reply to the poster above. We can only assume you had several seconds to spare between your umpteen sexual conquests to come back to grace us, spend time reading your own posts and reply to them!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Indeed I did. Bouncing back and fore all day long!

  4. Danny 5

    if this goes through

    i will replace all images in my profile to seriously disgusting crap, not fit to be shown anywhere.

    I mean, what the hell? news feeds in facebook, with my ugly mug on it, without me consenting to it?

    With alternatives trying to take a slice of the pie, is this really a smart move? push hard enough and people will look for other places to spill ehr.... share their personal info.

    1. Charles Manning

      The say all these brave things but they never follow through

      How has FB got into such an abusive position? Because those that whinge tend to fall into line anyway.

      They say stuff like "i will replace all images in my profile to seriously disgusting crap, not fit to be shown anywhere." but don't worry they won't, tomorrow they'll accept the new way of doing things and assume the bitch position.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The quicker FB goes the way of MySpace, a slow protracted death, the better!

  6. jubtastic1

    They're greedy

    Or they're not covering their costs, either way this isn't going to end well.

  7. Wize

    "But there's a lot to read in News Feed."

    Only if you have friended the world and their dog. I've actually met everyone on my friend list.

    The war between Facebook and Adblock and the likes has begun.

    1. Asgard

      @Adverts in the News Feed. :(

      I absolutely hate adverts but I can see why Facebook are doing this move even though I don't like it.

      In Consumer Psychology a recommendation from a friend is considered far more likely to influence the buying habits of *most* people. So there is some very deep frankly sick manipulative psychology going on with putting friends faces on product info.

      A recommendation from a friend doesn't win over everyone every time, its far more Stochastic than that, but it does bias the rate of favorable reactions to buying these products. Its a continuation of the well known brands idea, where people buy the "well known brands" in preference to unknown brands, at least more on average, due to such beliefs as “if its ok for them its probably ok for me” etc.. (Its a very big subject with many reasons, but in the end, a recommendation from a friend does work to increase sales). (Some people delight in saying, oh no it doesn't influence me, but stochastically, yes it does, we just don't often realize it).

      It also doesn't mean the well known brands are really any better and they are often worse in one respect, as they spend more money on advertising to make themselves appear well known, which the consumer has to (in the end) pay for this extra advertising. But it does help bring in the sales above and beyond simply getting more consumers to see that product.

      So what Facebook look like they are doing is trying to take that to the next level and with 800 million people, that's some serious potential to attract a lot of advertisers.

      Personally I hate all adverts as they are all ultimately in my face obtrusive train of thought distractions, which I can totally do without, until I choose when I want to find a product I need, at that time. So the more someone markets their shit to me, the more I grow to hate it, but I do try to learn to be conscious of their marketing mind games and Facebook look like they are trying to take it to the next level. Oh joy. :(

      1. BrownishMonstr

        Hmmm, adunno

        I can taste the difference between a Kit Kat and an Asda-branded take-a-break, or whatever they're called now, and I prefer the former because it tastes creamier. Yes, there are times when the price doesn't reflect the quality, but I generally believe higher the price, higher the quality. I think well known brands tend to pay more for R&D, thus better products. Although in the case of foods they may not be as healthy--like more salt and sugar in well known cereals than supermarket versions.

        I do agree, on the other hand, that some of the money will be spent on marketing, sometimes to 'fool' people into thinking they're more sustainable or greener than their competitions.

        1. Francis Boyle

          "I think well known brands tend to pay more for R&D"


          1. BrownishMonstr

            Because that's how they can try to make their products better than their competitors, or penetrate new markets with a different type of product. At the moment, I'm thinking of Dyson and their innovations.

  8. Richard Bijster

    Facef**ked by Facecook

    One way to completely misuse facebook users. I'll be quite surprised if this doesn't get people to stop using it in droves. Then again, your average pleb will no doubt think it great to see there face endorising Facebook advertisers tat. Their face next to the sh*t they've clicked 'Like' on. How they can call it 'sponsored' when the user has no opt out strikes me as highly dubuious. It'll be great for employers when checking on candidates. "You've sponsored our competition on FB, we won't be offering you the job."

    Spawn of Satan because that is what Zuckerberg obviously is.

    1. ToddRundgren

      The West is dead long live the East

      Perhaps this frivolous shit, that my kids, wife, dog, (don'y have a dog), and lost of other ex-friends use minute by minute, is useful, but I just don't get it or care. Old farts rant over.

      Methane warning

  9. BristolBachelor Gold badge


    "It's brought the question of what "Like" actually means on the social network into play."

    The fact that you can only "Like" means that it has no value at all.

    If facebook was around in the 2nd world war, Hitler would've been amazing, with so many people liking him, despite the many, many more who didn't!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      BristolBachelor: "If facebook was around in the 2nd world war, Hitler would've been amazing, with so many people liking him, despite the many, many more who didn't!"

      If Facebook had been around during the 1930s and had been used as widely as it is today, it would have made the Nazis' job of identifying and dealing with undesirables so much easier.

      Good luck in hiding any homosexual tendencies when it's bleeding obvious from your updates and relationships what you were doing and which known homosexuals you were doing it with.

      Good luck in covering up your "dangeously subversive" political opinions. Good luck in obscuring your Jewish background or ancestors when even some elementary common-sense-based data mining would have made such relationships clear, even if you hadn't explicitly stated them.

      Of course, those who had been foolish enough to do this before the rise of the Nazi threat- but who saw it coming- could simply request the complete removal of all their data from the system, and rest assured that it was completely gone, *never* to fall into the hands of those that didn't like them.

      Then again, as Facebook are American, not German, they wouldn't get their hands on that data anyway. After all, major corporations like Facebook or Yahoo are well-known for standing up for their principles and would *never* hand over such information to a repressive or partisan foreign government.

  10. Pee Tee Pee

    So the answer is...

    ... don't 'Like' any products on Facebook?

    1. The Flying Dutchman


      ... those who are in the habit of 'liking' consumerist crap like cock-a-cola, nike, apple, and such IMHO deserve everything they get.

      On the other hand, if my profile pic were to appear next to a 'sponsored story' about the local recording studio or my favourite rock'n'roll hangout where I'm a regular to the point some people think I'm staff, I wouldn't be in the least disturbed :-)

  11. Armando 123

    Goodbye account then

    Surely the commercial use of one's image is not allowed without the express written consent of major league baseb-- er, the individual.

    Then again, we now have a legal system of the lawyer, by the lawyer, for the lawyer, so who knows.

    1. ArmanX

      "Legal" is such a fuzzy word...

      According to the terms of service, you gave up all rights on all images, comments, posts, etc., the second it hit the website, thus allowing them to do as they please with it.

      If I could drop Facebook, I would. It used to be annoying and usable, but now it's just annoying.


        Commercial use of a person in a photo/video requires the featured person to have signed a 'model release'. Some tickbox EULA probably doesn't cut it.

        It's different with copyright, which is a seperate issue to a model release.

        "Note that the issue of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy and is separate from copyright. Also, the need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos: i.e., publishing them, commercially or not. The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States."

    2. Sir Cosmo Bonsor

      You've already given your consent

      by registering and posting a photo. It has been in the Ts and Cs for years.

      I'm not sure why people are surprised by this turn of events.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    New Years Resolution

    Update all pictures of my face on facebook to picture of a willy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Don't forget to put a pair of Groucho Marx comedy glasses on it for full effect.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You do read a bit like a cock

    3. captain veg Silver badge


      Surely all the images of twitface users are pictures of willies?


    4. TimeMaster T

      Or ...

      Replace all the pictures in your FB account with ones of Zukerburg.

      Hard to imagine a bigger dickhead than that.

  13. Anonymous Noel Coward

    I'm so glad I left that cesspool of morons.

    1. Rob - Denmark

      So now there are one moron less on Facebook then?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ah well...

    ...good job I was deleting all my posts on Facebook anyway, after they introduced timeline.

    No systems to make it automatic yet, since timelines introduction.... but my channel and photos on facebook will be manually emptied over chrimbo.

  15. dotdavid


    Can't those unhappy with being featured as "liking" a product they Liked just, er, Unlike it?

  16. DLSmith

    Boy, am I glad I don't have a Facebook account and have to deal with crap such as this.

    Anyone who has a page there, get's exactly what they deserve.

    1. Toastan Buttar

      I wish there were more DL Smiths in this world

      It must be great to be you. Or to be someone who knows you. You're so great there should be a compulsary DL Smith 101 class in every high school in the country. Then everyone would be living kick-ass lives.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      oh yes

      Oh, DLSmith, you are such a wonderful insightful person.

      If only the rest of us plebs could have your level of intelligence

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      As a pedestrian in Liberty City or Stilwater might say . . .

      "Coño esé!" ... "Sucks to be you, cabron!"

  17. Jesthar

    Finally, a stupid Failbook change I can live with

    Firefox + AdblockPlus = What Adverts? ;)

    Highlighted stories, on the other hand - *I* want to choose what I deem to be important, thank you. And DON'T think I haven't noticed that no matter how many times I un-Highlight any 'FriendX read these news articles' posts, you still keep highlighting them.

    Then again, I only have the wretched thing to get regular updates on family, or I'd get rid of it in a heartbeat...

    1. PsychicMonkey
      Big Brother

      missing the point I think

      adblocking will just stop you seeing your friends in an advert, it won't stop you being featured in ad that your friends see....

      1. Jesthar

        Re: missing the point I think

        Being as I never respond to anything other than non-public family invites anyway (which come along once in a blue moon), and never public invites, highly unlikely I'll be featured anywhere. No comfort to other users, I know, but I did only say that *I* could live with it ;)

        And if Failbook starts broadcasting private events to the world and his dog, then that's going to meet with some pretty vicious user backlash I should think...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      An article related to online adverts, and yet AGAIN, some pompous twit gloats about adblock.


      1. Gerard Krupa

        @Anonymous 22:08

        Yes, mentioning AdBlock is almost as much of a cliche as personal attacks on people you've never met based on a single paragraph while hiding behind a shield of anonymity. Arguments tend to have a lot more weight if you back them up with something more effective than name-calling and caps lock.

    3. Big-nosed Pengie

      Firefox + Adblock Plus + Social Fixer

      Not quite the whole answer to Faecesbook, but a good start.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Boy, am I glad I don't have a Facebook account and have to deal with crap such as this. Hell, I know; what would be even better is if I obsessively read every story about Facebook and then posted a message stating how much I hate Facebook! I could insult millions of people at the same time! Then finally I might feel better about being bullied at school.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Note to AC

      Don't the repeat the same exact phrase you already used in a non-AC post above. Makes it obvious who you are.

      It's also a bit sad to be posting multiple times saying essentially the same thing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Note to retard

        I deliberately copied his post as I was taking the piss out of it. 5 thumbs down? There are far too many USAians on this site these days.

        1. Dana W

          Be fair, I LIKE being here, do you want us to have to read Slashdot instead? You are cruel!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Note to retard (cont)

        And you've got two thumbs up! How is that possible?

        "posting multiple times saying essentially the same thing" What? Did you even read it? One is a pointless whiner; the other is cutting edge satire!

        Are the schools out already?

  19. Graham Marsden

    "we will gradually begin..."??

    So how come I got a message saying that one of my friends had used an application when I know he'd been without an internet connection for a week?!

  20. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

    They can have any pics of me

    £5000 per impression

    take it or leave it.

  21. Blackwell

    everybody keeps saying change all your pics...

    you do realize that they have the entire life of facebook backed up somewhere. you can delete your account or change all your pics, but they will just go into their archives and pull one from the past.... how do you think they created the timeline even though a lot of people had gotten rid of a lot of the stuff that suddenly showed up on their page???

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Read their Ts&Cs.

      They claim rights to your content while it is live on the site. This isn't for being greedy bastards (they are that too, but...) but rather to allow them to legally republish your crap in other people's news feeds (etc).

      Once the content has been removed, so to disappears their rights on the content. If they were to pull a picture from an archive... that could expose them to some pain.

      Furthermore, as somebody has already said, claiming copyright privilege is not the same as using somebody's name/image to *endorse* a product *without* *their* *direct* *consent*.

  22. Anonymous Coward

    I repeat...

    My previous comment, will it work with pictures of other body parts? if so this could be fun...

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So is it only footballers who have the right to control how their likeness is used?

    This seems like FB and their advertisers are laying themselves open to a charge of passing off false endorsements to me.

  24. arrbee

    Presumably using AdBlock or similar does not stop your visage being used in ads sent to your friends list as a result of you Likeing unwisely - it just stops you knowing about it.

  25. BloodyL

    Q: Adblockers...

    Do they actually interrupt the revenue stream or just stop the user from seeing the end product?


    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      facebook ads...

      The majority of facebook ads (I have made some in the past) are pay-per-click, so yeah, it would affect the revenue stream if there was a chance you'd click on an ad you liked....

      However, most people who use adblock would be the sort of people to never click on an ad anyway...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Who in their right mind clicks on a Farcebook ad?

        Like it sez


        Who in their right mind would expect someone to click on a Farcebook ad?

  26. John Armstrong-Millar

    Probably not the best idea Mark's ever had

    Well surely the point of Facebook is that you can see what your friends are saying and doing. But what if you weren't invited the the restaurant in question. I wonder could you sue. I'm sure there is a lawyer out there that does.

  27. Mondo the Magnificent


    Watermark your photos, that way you can rest assured you're photos are commercially worthless

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Or take a lesson from monkeys

      and Poo-mark them.

  28. yossarianuk

    I have a solution ...

    Simply Tattoo "Facebook rapes kids" all over your body/face.

    Chances are they won't use you now.

    Or just stop being friends with anyone who uses Facebook.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    theyre already doing it, arent they?

    that strip you get on the right hand side often shows :

    <friend> likes <product> (sponsored)

  30. Ellie

    Got rid of my account

    a few months ago. If I still had one I would be tempted to change my profile pic to one of Mr Z I think.

    Bottom line, its free - so you are the product. Vote with your feet people.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So..... just do like you do with all those frictionless sharing stories - flag them as spam.

  32. Battsman

    Watermarks should be insulting

    I like Mondo's watermarks suggestion - and those watermarks should be appropriately insulting. e.g.: "ZUCKERBURG HAS A SMALL UNIT." <--I'd make a comment about Zuckerburg being an ad-whore, but I'm not sure that would actually be deemed an insult for Facebook.

    In fact, I know that Facebook makes money off of advertising, but seriously there is a point where you begin to vote with your feet. I almost never even bother to post to Facebook anymore because they continue to ratchet up the "let's make the experience even more annoyingly manipulated." The only reason I even touch it anymore is because too many of my "friends" (think high school sheeple that I enjoy watching sink further) aren't competent to communicate via alternate medium.

  33. NomNomNom

    The trick with these things is always to go after the advertisers, not facebook.

    The saying that "any publicity is good publicity" is a con invented by marketing types. It isn't actually true. See how so many companies acted so quickly to pull advertisements from News of the World for example.

  34. Putonghua73

    More and more pernicious changes

    I rage-quitted from FB a couple of months ago due to the news feed SNAFU. Every single enforced update in FB since merely reinforces my decision.

    The benefits (staying in contact with friends and family, holiday snaps, etc) are by far and away outweighed by the negatives of my personal content no longer being 'personal' - but used to drive advertising revenue.

    Even by FB's standards, this is a cluster-f**k of a bad idea:

    1. use of personal content [picture] in advertising without consent

    2. a whole barrage of negative publicity for advertisers when clued-on users start uploading 'alternative' photos for the purposes of said photos being displayed in advertising

    I suspect that point 2 (bad publicity) as opposed to point 1 (concern about user privacy) will see volte-face.

    Whilst I actually expect this of FB, 'WTF' icon because clearly the ramifications have not thought through properly (whole sleuth of adult / inappropriate images i.e. enema images being posted on people's profiles).

    1. LaeMing

      I can imagine...

      ...compteing to get a screenshot of the most 'appropriate' sponsored story photo becoming a 'net meme some time soon.

  35. dssf

    Disparage the Ads...

    And, so, what if I see a sponsored story I despise? What if I disparage that story, and dig up dirt on that company and post it in order to discourage my friends and followers. I might not STATE anything other than simply post dirt links... Then what?

  36. HeyMickey

    Not just facebook

    Direct Line car insurance have been sending me creepy personalised mailshots for years... eg. Stock photo of your make/model/colour outside a stock photo house, but with your numberplate on the car and your house number/name on the house, and a road sign with your road name also in shot. I always make a point of letting them know just how creepy I find it each renewal, as i'm sure do others, but they keep doing it anyway..

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      Reinforcing behavior...

      "I always make a point of letting them know just how creepy I find it **each renewal**, ..." [emphasis added].

      But you continue to renew with then, don't you...over and over again...thereby reinforcing their bad behavior.

      Remember the First Rule of Computer Science: If it works, don't fix it! Seems that, as annoying as you claim Direct Line's behavior is, it **is ** working for them, because you continue to send them money in spite of how annoyed you claim you are...and you send them a note each time telling them, in effect, "I've noticed your whizzy approach to "personalizing" your web site to me". Such feedback is better than crack to a marketdroid. As far as they're concerned, what they're doing is why would they change anything?

      Wanna change them? Go. Somewhere. Else.

  37. zen1
    Thumb Down

    What if...

    I happen to be in a picture that was taken of someone else? I don't have a FB account, the person who uploaded the picture wasn't my representative and I sure has hell didn't agree to anything in FB's ToS. While I can probably get even with the moron who uploaded the picture, what I can't do is get that material removed from fb. As we all know, once it's on the net it, it's pretty much there forever. That is, unless google, fb and just about every analytics firm's systems all suffer catastrophic hard drive failures AND backup failures at the same time.

    Zuckerberg is proof positive that someone can be conceived through anal sex.

  38. JDX Gold badge

    Don't see the problem

    If I was a regular FB user, this seems a much more sensible way of making money from my membership (I see no problem with that) than regular boring ads.

  39. Jolyon Smith

    Deleting content does *not* terminate FB's rights to it...

    The T's and C's make it plain that content that is deleted does not become truly deleted if it has been previously shared with another FB account until ALL shares of the content are also deleted. In fact, this may be only one example of where "deleted" content isn't "truly" deleted.

    Yes, when "truly deleted" all rights are withdrawn, but just "deleting" something does not necessarily have the effect of actually deleting it. That's the catch.

    However, as someone else pointed out, the lack of a "model release" could be the sticking point for this "feature". The simple solution therefore is to ensure that your profile pic really is a pic of you and then wait for it to show up in a "sponsored story". Once that happens, send FaceBook a bill for the commercial use of your image without the required model release.

    If they manage to argue that as a FB account operator gave an implicit release when you agreed to the terms of service and "provided" your profile pic, then the fly in the ointment may be agitated by making your profile picture that of someone ELSE, taken specifically for the purpose. FaceBook then cannot argue that they have an implicit model release and will HAVE to exclude your profile pic unless/until the pic is changed or a model release is obtained from the subject.

    Or everyone should just change their profile pic to a blank/white image.

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Like and Endorse not the same

    I expect some of our esteemed members of society like footballers and film stars like coco-cola, but its only one or two who get paid millions to endorse them.

    I do not agree that if i like something on facebook then i am willing to be shown to be endorsing it complete with photo of me.

    I am sure FB's legal people have it sorted so that i cannot complain or do anything about it, so although FB is useful for staying in touch with people i have actually met, this is not something I agree with, the only vote i have is with my feet.

    Now if they were willing to give me a cut of the advertising revenue for my ad then we could be talking, but taking my endorsement and keeping the income it gets them is not fair.

  41. Coofer Cat


    These sorts of things are going to happen more and more. Facebook's hit the top, and is on the way down as it fights one battle after another, with or without lawsuits. It's no longer a social media service, it's a litigator.

    Zuckerburg is actually very shrewd. We all thought he was bonkers turning down deals that would have seen him personally gaining billions. However, if he IPOs the company as rumoured next year, he'll make way more than that. He also gets the "kudos" of being able to say "it grew and grew while I was running it, and it fell into a steaming pile of turd once public shareholders got their hands on it". Clever indeed...

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Obvious Watermark for FB photos

    "I do not endorse any product or services on this site.

    Oh, and vulva."

  43. Lallabalalla

    Perhaps *everyone* should change their pic to zuckerberg.

  44. John A Fotheringham

    Do No Evil

    People mock Google with their "Do no evil" mission statement, but frankly when a company like Facebook does something like this, you begin to see the point.

    1. El Andy

      Mocking "Do No Evil"

      The mockery of the "Do No Evil" thing is largely based around the fact Google have certainly done at least as much "evil" as any other major corporation. And yet the freetard brigade repeat it ad nauseam as if it were somehow proof that everything from the chocolate factory were as innocent as a newborn unicorn.

  45. Law
    Paris Hilton

    Do you still own the copyright on photos you upload to facebook, I can't remember?

    Does this mean if they start showing pics of your kids or friends in these ads (I'm assuming they don't auto-magically recognise you as a person) then they can get into trouble for infringing your copyright? The other option is only using your profile pic in these ads, which is fine, but I'm using images of other peoples products, so could that get them into trouble too?

    I'm just a little confused...

  46. JDX Gold badge

    re:do no evil

    Please explain precisely why this is 'evil'?

    1. Stoneshop

      If you have to ask

      you'll never know.

  47. Inachu
    IT Angle

    I am so sick of it!

    I am also sick of seeing (AND I"M A MORMON) promotions

    Go take your polytheistic crap someother place.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not too long till the bubble bursts now then!

    All of a sudden I don't like anything on FB!

    Looking forward to the social networking bubble bursting! Anyone who invests in the insane valuation of FB now is a moron.

    Already barely any of my friends 'use' FB use it anymore (they maybe 'active' but they do not 'use'), I can't be bothered either these days as it's turned into a marketing platform where your newsfeed is full off bullshit news on anything you or your friends have liked.

    When is was about social interaction with your friends it was good and that is what made it so massively popular. Now, it's getting less so by the day, and this ad insertion will just serve to accelerate that.

  49. Zippy the Pinhead

    If facebook wants to use my pic in an ad

    then I had better get a commission... oh and written permission first... not some mysterious opt out, opt in setting written in legalese.

  50. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

    Yummie time bomb

    This is about the biggest legal time bomb Farcebook could have developed.

    By using your face in an ad it implies you endorse whatever crap you're associated with in Facebook. There is nothing in T&Cs that solicits your endorsement, so what you have is fraudulent use of your name and reputation. All it needs is to hit one demi-celeb an they will be absolutely buried under lawsuits.

    I am looking forward to that. With enthusiasm.

    This is not crossing a line in the sand - this is crossing it and disappearing so far in the desert that the line is but a distant memory.

  51. Inachu
    IT Angle

    Typical shysters

    Mark Zuckerberg is just seeing how far he can go with being a shyster.

  52. Shanghai Tom

    Your picture is not Personal Information ?

    The distinction of Personal Information is weird on Facebook, Personally Identifiable Information which is normally classified as Confidential or above in a business seems to be PUBLIC in facebook, my picture IS PII - Confidential in standard business practices, so FB's saying there will be NO personal information is incorrect.. my picture IS personal Information.

    I use FB to see what my family is up to, but right now I am seriously considering telling them to email me or forget me... I truly resent FB continuously coming up with a new scam to publish my personal information to even more scammers and spammers.

    Having my Photo's suggested to people I didn;t even know ( Friends of Friends ) was bad enough when they started the Facial Recognition , now they still want to get my photo out there.

    Time to rethink about google+, but they are pretty bad about harvesting information also !

    Yeah, I got it, back to boring old email..

  53. Ted Treen


    ...such a load of heated bile?

    If you're prepared to put up with this - go on Facebook.

    If you're not, or have any other reason to avoid it e.g. you're still continually baffled regarding the attraction of social networking sites, then don't go on Facebook.

    I can't see the attraction - but then I AM over 60 - and I refuse to sign up before I can follow anyone else's urge to view their Facebook offering.

    I am therefore, a Facebook-free zone. I'm not smug or superior about it: I accept that others might have a different view and might find it valuable and enjoyable. Just because the reasons escape me is no cause for me to be vitriolic about others.

    Live & let live - and respect others' right to think differently.

    Beer? - why not? it IS the last day before returning to work.

  54. TimChuma

    Easy fixed!

    They had that issue where you could add people to groups without their permission, so a couple of Zuckerberg's friends created some NAMBLA groups and added him, it got fixed pretty quickly after that.

    It might cost a bit of money to run the ads, but the same method could be applied. The right product to advertise would have to be found of course.

  55. DJ Particle

    Not as bad as it sounds...

    It seems to me that this is what FB is trying to do:

    Say FB user "John" links via FB to something involving "Blammo Cola". He decides to "Like" a fan page for "We like using Blammo Cola for ice cream floats!".

    John's action appears on his friends' feeds, with a link to Blammo Cola.

    Or, say user "Jane" RSVPs to a ribfest event hosted by "Bob's Ribs 'n Tips".

    Jane's action appears in her friends' feeds, with a link to "Bob's".

    It sounds like you actually have to interact with an event or story in order to trigger the ad.

    Not exactly enamored with this new feature, but it's not as bad as the headline makes it sound.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like