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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Stupid American brat clicks on Facebook ad she doesn't like. The world is shocked.

    Clearly important for the new slashdot "pro beta" crowd!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Stupid American brat clicks on Facebook ad she doesn't like.

      Er, no, she did "like" it, that's the point. However, I don't know if she, like, "like" liked it or not.

    • Re:News at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jopsen (885607) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Sunday March 02, 2014 @02:04PM (#46382805) Homepage

      Stupid American brat clicks on Facebook ad she doesn't like. The world is shocked.

      No... the news will be parent sues ad company for advertising underaged teens as webcam models. From the summary:

      Clicking on it (the ad) ....... did mean they would receive the page's updates and could be mentioned in future versions of the ad.

      So when the ad company automatically uses a teens photos in a new version of the ad... Some parents might get slightly angry, and a lawsuit and police charges probably wouldn't be impossible.

      Anyways, I for one am looking forward to that story :)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Adblock to the rescue! (And fuck Facebook. Hope they go bankrupt.)

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Adblock to the rescue! (And fuck Facebook. Hope they go bankrupt.)

      You have the option to leave if you want to.

      • by Nehmo (757404)

        You have the option to leave if you want to.

        Resistance is futile.

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

        by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:01AM (#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 ...
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Well, it's better than the perpetual NSA account. There probably isn't even a form to request an NSA account deletion.

        • by exomondo (1725132)

          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 ...

          And for some reason you just won't be able to resist signing in to it?

          • "And for some reason you just won't be able to resist signing in to it?"

            What the hell are you babbling about? Do you even have any idea yourself. When I told them to delete my account (which I only created to get ahold of one person I couldn't contact otherwise), they told me: "No. We refuse to honor your request. We'll do it in a couple of weeks ... maybe ... but for now it stays despite your wishes." Are you really too stupid to understand that?

            • by exomondo (1725132)
              Wow you really seem to be pretty emotionally tied to this. The point made here [slashdot.org] was "You have the option to leave if you want to.". So your account still exists for a few weeks, big deal. That doesn't mean you need to log in to it. Post a final message (even change all your personal details if you feel the need), schedule it for deletion and walk away. What's the problem?
              • "So your account still exists for a few weeks, big deal"

                That's correct. That's the big deal. If you are too stupid to figure out why, that really isn't my problem.

                • by exomondo (1725132)

                  That's correct. That's the big deal.

                  Why is that a big deal?

                  Just relax and try to discuss this in a more measured manner, you're clearly getting extremely worked up and emotional about this issue so just calm down and tell me what the real problem is. So your profile exists for 2 weeks after you asked them to delete it, how does that affect your ability to not use facebook?

                  • by dbIII (701233)
                    The anger makes sense. They've just worked out that they are the product and not the consumer, and they have almost no power over how they are presented to the consumer.
                • That's correct. That's the big deal. If you are too stupid to figure out why, that really isn't my problem.

                  I'm not sure my not knowing how you rationalize your paranoia about FB taking its time deleting your profile in any way suggests I'm stupid. Let's stipulate though that I am. Please explain then, in terms even I can understand, why it is a big deal. You never had to provide any accurate, let alone secret, information about yourself. You don't have to "Like" anything, or post any pictures of your pets, or click on any adverts, or send or accept any "Friend Requests", or even log in. So then, what is the big

                  • " Please explain then, in terms even I can understand, why it is a big deal."

                    This is because my account is still active. As you point out, I will continue to get friend requests. Also, that for those two weeks my account can be compromised. The best part is that said compromise constitutes an excuse to keep my account open.

                    " So then, what is the big deal?"

                    OK. That's twice you've asked now. It must really be important to you to understand this, so I will continue to explain some more.

                    "but would you con

                    • By telling me, in effect: Hey Asshole. We'll delete your account if and when we want to, but we sure in the hell aren't doing it when you ask us to. they set a dangerous precedent, and make clear that they will do whatever the hell they please with your^H^H^H^Htheir account.

                      Are you starting to see the issue now?

                      No, but I see what you think is the issue. Before, you just sounded unreasonable. Now you seem maybe hyper-vigilant, but at least not nuts.

              • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

                It's not really deleted though. You can't sign up again with the same email address, so they must keep at lest that much on file. Why just keep previously used email addresses though, what use could they have on their own?

                I'm currently trying to get Apple to delete my Apple account too. They say they did but that I can't sign up with the same email address ever again, which means they didn't. Currently they claim their engineers are looking into ways to remove it, but of course even if they claim to have do

                • by exomondo (1725132)
                  Realistically you can never guarantee what you put on the internet has ever been deleted, but then most of us have known that ever since the internet was invented.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Unfortunately kids are being forced to sign up at age 8 in school. They aren't being given a choice... Their privacy is being ripped away from them before they even know what that means.

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

      by Xicor (2738029) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:17AM (#46381689)
      lol... i block more adds on facebook with adblock plus than i do on porn sites and malware sites.
      • Re:Adblock! (Score:5, Informative)

        by GNious (953874) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @12:12PM (#46382013)

        I have AdBlock set to block a couple of facebook domains wholesale ... that sped up my browser quite noticeably.

  • Good example (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StripedCow (776465) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:43AM (#46381525)

    This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

    • Good Grief (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:15AM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, it clearly demonstrates this girl, like so many others is a moron who just clicks on things with out investigating what's she's clicking on...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:49AM (#46381553)

    said she was thought she was 'liking' a Facebook ad related to fashion modeling.

    Wow... I understand she's only 14 and all, but we really need to start making sure kids understand how the internet works, and that every single thing they do is data-mined and used to monitize them... and not for their benefit! That they should NEVER "like" a facebook ad, and even better, should only be online using adblock.

    It's scary that someone who's 14 is unaware of how to protect themselves online, and it's scary that we're not as a society teaching them this, just like we teach them reading, writing, math, history, civil rights, and balancing a budget. Knowing how to protect yourself in the digital world is now just as important as knowing how to protect yourself in the real world.

    • by morari (1080535) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:12AM (#46381661) Journal

      [...] just like we teach them reading, writing, math, history, civil rights, and balancing a budget.

      Actually, I don't believe that we tend to teach them any of those things either.

    • by Overzeetop (214511) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:37AM (#46381797) Journal

      I mean - I get it, we should all be aware on line. But it's not the end of the world to "like" a product manufacturer or service provider. It can be a symbiotic relationship - I like your stuff and want to keep abreast of what you're doing so I "like" your page and get updates. That might be the release of a new octocopter, or a new show opening at Disney World, or casting dates for an indie film, or a coupon for a new makeup product.

      This sounds more like false advertising from a sleazy online porn shop. So, yes, we should all be aware; but we shouldn't be paranoid.And, yes, I think Facebook has a role/responsibility in vetting their advertisers and leveraging their data for appropriate marketing targets.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:46AM (#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.

      • Maybe because there is a difference between someone "targetting" someone and publishing something with a "target audience" in mind.

        Only if the company booked facebook to a show an ad only to 14 year old girls, this would be actual targetting. If they just booked the ad for a, say, generally femaile audience, 14 year olds might still see it, but would not be targetted.

      • by mikehilly (653401)
        While I agree with most of your post, I will point out what the difference could be. Intention makes up a very large portion of how the law interprets actions. In your examples when a company or person manually targets it is clear that their intention is "not good" however when automation is involved it could be the case that the intention was different. This can obviously get into a gray area and is easier for the company to claim ignorance, but that is the general idea around intention.
    • by PPH (736903)

      Not just the Internet. But that guy with the fedora, mink coat and lots of bling.

    • and balancing a budget.

      who taught them this? certainly not congress.

    • They should never be using Facebook, either.

    • We should be telling them not to use their real name on the net but Facebook etc killed that obvious step for kids to protect themselves on the net years ago.

      unaware of how to protect themselves online

      They are actively encouraged by expensive marketing to expose themselves online. Adults are not resisting it so why expect the kids to have more guts and resist?

  • by ericloewe (2129490) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:13AM (#46381671)

    Typically, porn-related ads are a sign of a desperate website.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss (770223) *

      Typically, porn-related ads are a sign of a desperate website.

      Creating an advert that takes advantage of the Facebook API, and than buying screen time on Facebook does not involve human interaction of any kind on Facebook's part.

      A flaw? Perhaps. But your thesis is not supported by this occurrence.

      First, there is nothing wrong at all about advertising adult services to adults. While the majority of Americans are prudes, there are some that are not.

      Second, you know as well as I do that as soon as Facebook became / becomes aware of this incident, they will remove it.

      Sure

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Creating an advert that takes advantage of the Facebook API, and than buying screen time on Facebook does not involve human interaction of any kind on Facebook's part.

        yes, clearly it is a brilliant idea to take that into consideration and remove all responsibility from everyone that automates their work in the interest of higher profit margins.

      • by sjames (1099)

        If they were less desperate, the default for positing unseen ads wouldn't be yes. Surely they, like every other corporation big enough to have a PR dept. is well aware that there are some things they just don't want to be associaited with.

  • by Webs 101 (798265)

    This is the worst thing since newspaper classified ads recruited women for phone sex.

    Remember newspaper classified ads? They were like Craigslist, except you had to buy the newspaper to see them.

  • Wait (Score:5, Funny)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:30AM (#46381755)

    Wait... there are still people under the age of 35 on facebook?

  • by Chelloveck (14643) on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:43AM (#46381839) Homepage

    This is awful! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you! I'm going to write to my congressman and tell him... Tell him... Um...

    Wait, what exactly am I supposed to be outraged about here?

  • They tried to get her to pose nude, and she lives in "see quim"?

  • I need it. For research purposes.
  • aren't teenager the main target for such products?

    • by fermion (181285)
      Yeah, I don't see how this is any different that advertising acne and psychotropic drugs to teens. Yes, some people have a medical need for the drug, but most are being given drugs with no benefits and significant side effects.

      As far as advertising naked internet webcam show for pay to kids, yes this is illegal, but face the facts. If a kid is interested in modeling, the most likely way to make money without allowing oneself to be physically molested and becoming addicted to drugs and actually making m

  • In case you're wondering "Sequim" is pronounced "skwim" excatly like "swim" with a "K" after the "S".

  • Wow, she's an idiot. If you go to Vegas and say you're interested in gambling, you're all set. If you get to inner city New Jersey and say you're interested in gambling, you're not going to get quite the same quality of gambling establishments interested in your patronage. In related news, don't try to get into modeling anywhere on the entire internet.
    • by dbIII (701233)

      Wow, she's an idiot

      If you weren't an idiot at least once when you were 14 then you are not human.

  • I usually run adblock+ on my browsers so I don't see that many ads, and because of that, I not clicked on any ads.
    But at one time I did log in to Facebook using a computer that did not have adblock+ installed and the ads were the type I really did not expect even Facebook to allow. It was really just porn ads disguised as someone sending me a personal message or whatever.
    When they have no problems going that low, I feel even better about using adblock+.
    For other reasons, I have not logged in to Facebook for

    • by ruir (2709173)
      My favourite google ad is/was a gif at the bottom of your screen that shows a "facebook mailbox" with a "new message" to read.
  • Isn't it based on old traditions and superstition about 14 year olds and sexuality?

    Because by the time she's about that age, she's taken nude pictures of herself however many times, and has lost her virginity. And by age 16 or 18 she's going to perform her first sex act, strip, or webcam scene for money. What is the deal with introducing this information to her at 14, exactly, and why should she not be able to handle it on her own (to dismiss or accept it, for her own individual purposes)?..

That does not compute.

Working...