Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Advertising The Almighty Buck

The Facebook Ads Teens Aren't Supposed To See 111

Posted by samzenpus
from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children? dept.
schwit1 writes in with this story about Facbook's questionable ads including webcam modeling and diet drugs. "Sophie Bean, 14, of Sequim, Wash., said she was thought she was 'liking' a Facebook ad related to fashion modeling. Instead, it promoted a Facebook page that recruited adult webcam models. 'I just thought it was for modeling, and I'm interested in that, and I thought it would help me out,' Sophie said. Sophie wasn't the only teen connecting with the page, which Facebook statistics show is most popular with users 13 to 17. Clicking on it didn't pull the teens into nude webcam modeling, but did mean they would receive the page's updates and could be mentioned in future versions of the ad."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Facebook Ads Teens Aren't Supposed To See

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Adblock! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @12:01PM (#46381611) Homepage
    Not today you don't. If you decide to leave today you will not be allowed to do so for a couple of weeks. Facebook will keep your account active for two weeks after you request it be deleted. Just an FYI ...
  • Good Grief (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Sunday March 02, 2014 @12:15PM (#46381675)

    This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

    Yes, yes, yes... We know this already. So much so, in fact it's now an official Slashdot meme.

    But of course we are intelligent educated adults with good sense, so we understand this and know how to avoid being sucked in, right?

    The case in point demonstrates at least (but probably more) two things: One, children (the story is about a 13 year old) are not generally as "worldly wise" as us intelligent educated adults with good sense, and that Facebook is facilitating a commercial activity that potentially exploits vulnerable people, some of whom are minors.

    Shocking? Perhaps, but this is just one that slipped through to be discovered. Of course we are the product, and being the product, it goes without saying that we will be exploited while using Facebook. Or *any* "social media" including Slashdot

    This just shows how low things have sunk, something that should have been expected.

    There's nothing wrong with "erotica" and indeed there are many who think that there is nothing wrong with children discovering "erotica", but there are limitations, exploiting vulnerable woman (and men) is questionable, and a promotional system that allows for the exploitation of children is certainly well "across the line".

    Facebook is a big machine, perhaps they were not aware of this "problem" customer. They should at least be afforded the opportunity to take care of this and perhaps close the hole.

    But yes, I think we already know that we are Facebook's "product".

  • Re:Adblock! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Xicor (2738029) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @12:17PM (#46381689)
    lol... i block more adds on facebook with adblock plus than i do on porn sites and malware sites.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02, 2014 @12:46PM (#46381857)

    Wow... I understand she's only 14 and all, but we really need to start making sure kids understand how the internet works

    I'm not going to argue against this because it is clearly a good idea to teach your children how to take care of themselves and avoid trouble.
    But I do feel that the way the laws regarding advertising like this isn't applied in a way that is equal to everyone.

    If a large company were to manually target a 14 year old for nude modelling that would be considered to be a large criminal network and highly illegal.
    If an individual were to manually target a 14 year old for nude modelling he/she would be considered a pedophile.
    If an individual were through automation targeting a 14 year old for nude modelling it could be taken into consideration that it wasn't intentional but even if he/she isn't considered a pedophile he/she will never get a proper work again and will have a hard time if moving to a community with children in it.

    Why is it that it is suddenly OK just because it is an automated service from a large company. Does responsibility go out the window just because you let a computer do it instead of doing it manually?
    For industrial machinery the developer is to some extent responsible if people get hurt, that is one reason development of them is expensive.

    I feel that it is a bit strange that one can avoid the law by automating a task. It might not be possible to prove intention but Facebook has the resources to at least try to figure out that this kind of thing could happen and take precautions to prevent it.
    If they can't reasonably prevent certain ads to be shown for minors then they could at least avoid selling advertising space to services that isn't suitable for many of their users.
    Yes, it will cut into their profits. Good, not everything should be profitable.

  • by noh8rz10 (2716597) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @02:04PM (#46382351)

    First off it's like 0.0001% of girls. Second off models have a half life of 19mo. Third what go said about uniqueness is true, but if you watch Top Model and other shows you see the most defining trait is being rail thin. If you're super skinny and not deformed and can do the pout face (blue steel!) then they can paint you with makeup and light you well and shoot with pro cameras and pro photographers, and you will look like a model.

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...