Facebook is Face-booking You

[Mach]

And you were wondering why they bought Face.com (http://face.com/).....

Facebook is agreeing to give its users the right to “limit” how the social-networking site uses their faces in ads, as a part of a way to settle a privacy lawsuit brought against the company.

The other part of the settlement is $10 million in fees to the lawyers who brought the case against Facebook’s so-called Sponsored Stories program and a $10 million donation to charity.

Sponsored stories work like this: If a Facebook user ‘likes’ an advertiser, that user’s profile and picture may appear on their friends’ Facebook pages — in ads — stating that the person, indeed, ‘likes’ that advertiser. Facebook also reserves the right to do this on ads that appear on sites other than Facebook.

The suit, filed in April 2011, claimed that the social-networking site did not adequately inform people of the feature or give them a way to opt out of the advertising program that began in January 2011.

CONT....

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/sponsored-stories-accord/

[heavenlyboy34]

Another reason I'm glad to have never put any personal pics on FB.

[liberdom]

stupid lawsuit, stupid claims of privacy, you voluntarily give up your photos, you have no right to use their site,.....I'll leave it at that.

[kuckfeynes]

I've seen what they're talking about, and I don't see what's so bad about it.
It's the same thing your friends could always see on your profile, it's just now also strategically placed under paid ads.
Facebook's entire business model has always been an arbiter of personal info. A like is an endorsement of something. So now they are arbitraging that.

[Mach]

Facebook also reserves the right to do this on ads that appear on sites OTHER than Facebook.

So they're selling your face.... next thing you know they will be asking for DNA.

I have to say, I too, do not enhance their site with my face..... or anything else.

[Justinfrom1776]

stupid lawsuit, stupid claims of privacy, you voluntarily give up your photos, you have no right to use their site,.....I'll leave it at that.

Bingo! You have always had the option to edit how they use your pictures in ads. You can simply not use a photo or not use Facebook.

It's sickening to think that there are groups of lawyers who sit around all day and dream up ways to extort money from successful companies. Who is John Galt?

[QuickZ06]

Why are people still using this site?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Why are people still using this site?

I use it personally to disseminate my libertarian views whenever and wherever possible

[Weston White]

What about in cases where people use faces that are not really of them, for example, say I use Jack Nicholson, Keanu Reeves’ Matrix images, or whoever else, and then like a bunch of whatever ads?

Or what about if Facebook devises some future Website features where you can globally search for photos by gender, sexual preference, geographical area, past relationships, etc. and your image is conveniently displayed for everybody to see, which subsequently results in your peers from school ceaselessly harassing you from then on?

[Weston White]

I use it personally to disseminate my libertarian views whenever and wherever possible

The force is strong with this one.

[teacherone]

Never mind

[liberdom]

Bingo! You have always had the option to edit how they use your pictures in ads. You can simply not use a photo or not use Facebook.

It's sickening to think that there are groups of lawyers who sit around all day and dream up ways to extort money from successful companies. Who is John Galt?

Yep. When I hear libertarians complaining about privacy in places like these, I start to wonder how they are different than entitlement demanding liberals. The same sigh I feel when I hear allegedy "liberty movement" people wanting to require food label, banning GMO, or recently, complaining that there's no free wifi in their airport (as if there was a law prohibiting it)

[Peace Piper]

The Onion does Facebook:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0

Facebook - the CIA conspiracy

"...The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".

Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies, which was one of those companies responsible for the rise of the internet.

Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel's board, and had been director of Defence Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defence.

She was also an adviser to the Secretary of Defence and overseeing the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is responsible for high-tech, high-end development..."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12685

[Weston White]

Yep. When I hear libertarians complaining about privacy in places like these, I start to wonder how they are different than entitlement demanding liberals. The same sigh I feel when I hear allegedy "liberty movement" people wanting to require food label, banning GMO, or recently, complaining that there's no free wifi in their airport (as if there was a law prohibiting it)

So, you are against labeling foods to identify conventional from organic and are not concerned with GMO eventually cross-contaminating and altering all known plant and animal life, and associate some warped connection between such issues and free WiFi in airports or wherever? Is this what the standard is from the libertarian's viewpoint? Geez!

[seraphson]

I use it personally to disseminate my libertarian views whenever and wherever possible

This is of but one (though hopeless to find many other) good reasons people still use it. That, and they're bored to tears. And the haven't a clue about how much fun the Civilization games are. Who needs farcebook when you can have a 10 hour game of Civ?!

[heavenlyboy34]

So, you are against labeling foods to identify conventional from organic and are not concerned with GMO eventually cross-contaminating and altering all known plant and animal life, and associate some warped connection between such issues and free WiFi in airports or wherever? Is this what the standard is from the libertarian's viewpoint? Geez!
He said "people wanting to require food label(s)". I agree with him on that part. I imagine food makers would label their food voluntarily if customers demanded it.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Why are people still using this site?

I use it mostly to show videos related to Ron Paul or the liberty movement, or ridiculous police state activities. It's one of the best ways to influence people you already know. Of course, you have to not be afraid to wear it on your forehead. I'm not. Better speak up now.

[Weston White]

He said "people wanting to require food label(s)". I agree with him on that part. I imagine food makers would label their food voluntarily if customers demanded it.

Well, as to that point, aware, people are and have been making such demands and now as a consequence, conventional and preprocessed food manufactures are lobbying to sack the last remaining legal distinctions between organic, natural, and conventional. Think of it as an extension of the contents ingredients, e.g., if my meat is feed with leftover animal bits and parts and GMO feed, injected with hormones and whatever else, raised inside of a cage or pen, mass-processed and then covered in whatever type of gas or slime, etc., I want to know about it and I have a right as a consumer to know about such information.