> According to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:
> You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.
I cancelled my Instagram account when they added those terms in the early 2010s. At the time it was mostly photographers reading them and closing accounts but it wasn’t exactly a secret.
DANmode 2 hours ago [-]
Speak for yourself.
“Few”, maybe.
satvikpendem 1 hours ago [-]
"No one" does not literally mean "not a single individual" in common English parlance, something that everyone (see what I did there?) here understands.
smalltorch 2 hours ago [-]
I mean, I read them, but just goes to show the majority of people skipped this important reading.
If anyone actually read them it's typically a unlimited unrestricted pipe of data they can use for anything.
Espressosaurus 1 hours ago [-]
No one reads the terms and conditions. I went to a resort and read the T&C they made you sign to sign in and was told I was the only person in months who had actually done so.
And even I have mostly given up on the website T&C because most of them are so lengthy, a lot like I've given up on disabling javascript since the modern web frequently won't even render anything if you disable it.
cute_boi 2 hours ago [-]
99% of people don't read terms and condition.
DANmode 2 hours ago [-]
We’re saying the same thing.
2 hours ago [-]
rootusrootus 1 hours ago [-]
> If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.
To be fair, if they actually honor this promise, and if it means what it sounds like in plain English -- i.e. that if you only posted your photo for friends, only friends can ever see it even if FB uses it for advertising -- that is a halfway decent mitigation of the issue. Not ideal, but then again, you're not paying for FB, so what did you really expect?
microgpt 47 minutes ago [-]
"respect your choice" sounds like it means something but doesn't mean something.
pavel_lishin 2 hours ago [-]
> If you don't want this, delete your facebook account
What? I thought I could just paste a paragraph of all-caps legalese to my profile, and it would solve this!
pbhjpbhj 1 hours ago [-]
To be fair it seems like it should be equally valid in contract law.
steve1977 2 hours ago [-]
This made me laugh and cry at the same time...
vee-kay 24 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
RattlesnakeJake 2 hours ago [-]
Many years ago (back when Facebook still had sidebar ads), my sister was presented with a dating ad for "Hot Christian Singles" accompanied by a photo of our brother.
It was hilarious, but also mind-boggling. In what scenario would pulling in a friend's profile photo create a useful ad?
dewey 2 hours ago [-]
> In what scenario would pulling in a friend's profile photo create a useful ad?
Exactly in the scenario you just described. You still remember it and you are actively talking about it years after the fact.
hbn 6 minutes ago [-]
Zero people in the process of creating that ad said "we'll suggest people date their siblings, it'll be so memorable"
That is absolutely not a success story when trying to market a Christian dating platform.
not_a_bot_4sho 1 hours ago [-]
Sounds like the viewers were highly unlikely to have clicked through. Cost the advertiser a view but lost the conversion.
Useful ad for Facebook. They made money on it. The advertiser didn't.
fumblebee 2 hours ago [-]
wouldn't "useful ad" imply either 1) clicking through and buying the product or service, or else 2) building up a positive brand association to help increase sales later?
remembering an advert correlates but is different to it being valuable.
svachalek 15 minutes ago [-]
Yeah I remember some studies showed this with overly sexy ads. They were very memorable to the audience but all they remembered was hot chicks, they couldn't recall the product.
RattlesnakeJake 2 hours ago [-]
But it didn't bring clicks to the website nor goodwill toward the company.
No one remembers who ran the ad. Even if we did, it would only be in a negative light due to a weird and off-putting advertising approach.
dewey 1 hours ago [-]
Don't get hung up on this specific example of the dating ad.
There's a difference between awareness campaigns and click / conversion campaigns and if there's some ads for a garden chair and your friend is sitting on it you'll definitely remember it more than some random model. Or clothes that are advertised on your body. Not saying that's the future we want, but it would definitely work for a while.
boelboel 40 minutes ago [-]
Many people want to date their own friends? Seeing your friend is on the site would show it's okay to use?
dwa3592 17 minutes ago [-]
This is a ridiculous argument that just because someone still remembers something means it was a good advertising strategy. This is partly why advertising sucks. The correct metric in this case would be did the user actually go on the date with the said person or at least initiated the conversation. In this person's case, very likely not. So the strategy is dumb, ridiculous and laughable but not useful or good in any sense.
PyWoody 1 hours ago [-]
Roll tide.
remywang 48 minutes ago [-]
Just stop using that cursed website
fourside 32 minutes ago [-]
It really is that simple. “Users of company with a long track record of unethical behavior surprised at the company’s latest unethical business decision.”
I know it’s not easy for some to stop using their platform for some reason or another. That’s the point. When you use their product not because they are the best choice in a free market with options, but when you use it because you have to. Just don’t surprised when FB keeps pushing the limits.
penr0se 3 hours ago [-]
This shouldn't really be surprising. It's very similar to what they did ~1.5 year ago when they started to use users' photos to promote Meta AI
Sometimes it seems like Black Mirror screenwriters work at Meta as a side hustle.
wartywhoa23 10 minutes ago [-]
IG users were the proverbial product on this free-to-partake vanity fair since its inception.
jmorenoamor 15 minutes ago [-]
Why? Because they can, and they will.
Leaving these services looks difficult or impossible, until you do it, and the world just keeps spinning.
srmatto 2 hours ago [-]
Is Meta abusing its users a problem? Yes. Does the TOS allow for it? Yes. Can people decide to just create a shell account and not actually participate? Sure.
One of the real insidious problems with Instagram and to some extent Facebook is that they provide a free, low friction way for business to communicate with current or potential customers. As a result many small businesses use Instagram as replacement for a public facing website and perhaps a blog or email newsletter. Many small business in my region depend on Instagram for this purpose, its nearly universal. It helps keep you stuck in Instagram so that you can see a business' hours, menu, or special events. I guess a shell account is the answer but you're still going to have to navigate the skinner box feed.
haliskerbas 2 hours ago [-]
Every time I try to create a shell account, it gets banned with no reason given. Even if it's just to follow a few influencer accounts.
srmatto 2 hours ago [-]
Well there you go, there is no reasonable way to be a non-participant while also staying up to date on businesses that choose to use the platform.
If the only way to interact with a business is via Facebook or Instagram, I don't interact with the business.
Unfortunately this is more of a problem for me than it is for them. I hope my position on this becomes more popular over time so that everyone can stop using spy- and adware.
cute_boi 2 hours ago [-]
You can't create shell account on fb/meta anymore. They will ask to turn on camera and rotate your head.
ed_elliott_asc 1 hours ago [-]
Print out a face of someone on Facebook and use that?
afavour 1 hours ago [-]
It’ll be obvious when you turn “their” head that it’s not real.
catlikesshrimp 1 hours ago [-]
U a manequin head. Add hair and moles. It mightbtake more than one try but it works.
Eventually, people who make shell accounts will be declared creepy child predators, but that isn't the case, yet.
I feel like having an account on a Meta site is today’s equivalent of being a smoker.
nicce 2 hours ago [-]
There isn't better analogy. I hope it spreads and we will see the same effect and social pressure as smokers faced.
catlikesshrimp 1 hours ago [-]
Vaping is the new smoking. Except you knew what was inside a cigar, while vape liquid is a generic term for anything inside a bottle.
halflife 17 minutes ago [-]
I actually find this incredible, since this highlights how desperate they are to advertise these glasses
tantalor 3 hours ago [-]
Comment on that thread:
> This seems entirely counter-productive and creepy.
Apt description of Instagram in general.
glimshe 44 minutes ago [-]
When you don't pay for the product... YOU are the product.
ricardofranco 2 hours ago [-]
Something similar happened to me a few years ago. my photo was used in an ad, making it look like I was selling stuff and promoting a page I’d never even clicked on... absolutely mind-blowing....
fullshark 3 hours ago [-]
Ten years ago maybe this causes outrage, but I'm not sure anyone cares in 2026 including potential customers.
quadrature 3 hours ago [-]
Is there actual proof that they are doing this. Theres not much to go on in the tweet.
tantalor 3 hours ago [-]
Besides the proof in the screenshot? What more do you want?
Do you think this user is faking it?
quadrature 1 hours ago [-]
Yes people frequently fake screenshots on social media. I'd want either a screenshot from a credible person, reporting from a journalist, trusted blogger, company statement etc.
tantalor 2 minutes ago [-]
I'm not a journalist, but I don't think a reporter would go much further than "one user said...".
There is no need for fact checking an individual source, other than to verify the reporting is accurately representing what they said.
vee-kay 31 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
ryan42 2 hours ago [-]
yes, it happened to me recently.
The photo wasn't mine, but showed a profile photo of one of my facebook friends, and it had the glasses and said "On my way!"
edoceo 2 hours ago [-]
And they have a history of doing this. And their privacy/ToS allows it.
invalidusernam3 2 hours ago [-]
"I'm uncomfortable"
Should have read the terms and conditions
onemoresoop 1 hours ago [-]
What percentage of people read those? They’re even unitelligible to the layman.
hurfdurf 1 hours ago [-]
And that's how the HUMANCENTiPAD keeps growing.
dylan604 46 minutes ago [-]
Hey Siri, find the gotchas in this EULA being presented /s
which is a german language scam site. i have no explanation how this happened, whether it is xcancel.com doing this or something loaded from twitter that caused xcancel to do this. never seen anythin like it before, would like to know more.
btw any further reloads of the xcancel url to that tweet totally work as expected.
pavel_lishin 2 hours ago [-]
Throwing an additional anecdote into the bucket, this did not happen for me. Any chance you have a dodgy extension installed?
jijijijij 32 minutes ago [-]
Doubt. xcancel.com does not even seem to have any advertisements at all, when I disable ublock. Site seems remarkable clean, no thirdparty connections apart from a cdn. Sure you didn't type cancelx.com? Cause there something shady is going on. Otherwise, I would strongly suggest checking your extensions or system for malware.
jadamson 2 hours ago [-]
Sure you didn't just make a typo and hit a squatted domain?
hsuduebc2 3 hours ago [-]
I mean, what would you expect from company with morality of tobacco and slot machines producer? This is the least evil they are doing.
This thing resurface from time to time. It's the small text you never read. In this case, small part in ridiculously and intentionally big eula.
avgDev 26 minutes ago [-]
I am surprised with the downvotes. Meta is the new tobacco corp.
nicechianti 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 17:03:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Yes, 2013: https://mashable.com/archive/facebook-ads-photo#ggcKnNfAUaqy
> According to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:
> You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.
So it's not new. If you don't want this, delete your facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/privacy/dialog/delete-your-informat...
“Few”, maybe.
If anyone actually read them it's typically a unlimited unrestricted pipe of data they can use for anything.
And even I have mostly given up on the website T&C because most of them are so lengthy, a lot like I've given up on disabling javascript since the modern web frequently won't even render anything if you disable it.
To be fair, if they actually honor this promise, and if it means what it sounds like in plain English -- i.e. that if you only posted your photo for friends, only friends can ever see it even if FB uses it for advertising -- that is a halfway decent mitigation of the issue. Not ideal, but then again, you're not paying for FB, so what did you really expect?
What? I thought I could just paste a paragraph of all-caps legalese to my profile, and it would solve this!
It was hilarious, but also mind-boggling. In what scenario would pulling in a friend's profile photo create a useful ad?
Exactly in the scenario you just described. You still remember it and you are actively talking about it years after the fact.
That is absolutely not a success story when trying to market a Christian dating platform.
Useful ad for Facebook. They made money on it. The advertiser didn't.
remembering an advert correlates but is different to it being valuable.
No one remembers who ran the ad. Even if we did, it would only be in a negative light due to a weird and off-putting advertising approach.
There's a difference between awareness campaigns and click / conversion campaigns and if there's some ads for a garden chair and your friend is sitting on it you'll definitely remember it more than some random model. Or clothes that are advertised on your body. Not saying that's the future we want, but it would definitely work for a while.
I know it’s not easy for some to stop using their platform for some reason or another. That’s the point. When you use their product not because they are the best choice in a free market with options, but when you use it because you have to. Just don’t surprised when FB keeps pushing the limits.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42615538
Leaving these services looks difficult or impossible, until you do it, and the world just keeps spinning.
One of the real insidious problems with Instagram and to some extent Facebook is that they provide a free, low friction way for business to communicate with current or potential customers. As a result many small businesses use Instagram as replacement for a public facing website and perhaps a blog or email newsletter. Many small business in my region depend on Instagram for this purpose, its nearly universal. It helps keep you stuck in Instagram so that you can see a business' hours, menu, or special events. I guess a shell account is the answer but you're still going to have to navigate the skinner box feed.
Unfortunately this is more of a problem for me than it is for them. I hope my position on this becomes more popular over time so that everyone can stop using spy- and adware.
> This seems entirely counter-productive and creepy.
Apt description of Instagram in general.
Do you think this user is faking it?
There is no need for fact checking an individual source, other than to verify the reporting is accurately representing what they said.
The photo wasn't mine, but showed a profile photo of one of my facebook friends, and it had the glasses and said "On my way!"
Should have read the terms and conditions
https://xkcd.com/1150/
signing away their rights to their photos? making psychopaths filthy rich?
if the surveillance glasses are coming, these people will also have signed away the commons, which are not theirs to give away
You'd know that if you used social media /s
for some reason the url rewrote iteself to this: https://themenspiegel.click/c/de/52_merzchrupalla/?method=po...
which is a german language scam site. i have no explanation how this happened, whether it is xcancel.com doing this or something loaded from twitter that caused xcancel to do this. never seen anythin like it before, would like to know more.
btw any further reloads of the xcancel url to that tweet totally work as expected.
This thing resurface from time to time. It's the small text you never read. In this case, small part in ridiculously and intentionally big eula.