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 …
Time to start pulling photos from facebook
Or just replace them with photos who work at facebook.
Or replace them...
... with a picture of someone bending over with their trousers around their ankles...!
Photos like that will be used to advertise the new "Best of The Rolling Stones" album - track #1 being "Brown-Eyed Girl".
...just don't use Farcebook. Very simple solution.
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.
Hmm Cartoon perv'?
Well, won't this be fun...
For all those people that clicked "Like" on the website for the Pleasuremax "Leviathon" Personal Vibrator.....
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
Or they're not covering their costs, either way this isn't going to end well.
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.
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.
Facebook has ads?
Never yet seen any advertising on Facebook. What's that? Ah no, I'm not disabling AdBlocker tyvm
not ads... "sponsored" stories
they'll be put into your feed...
Hopefully the firefox add-on Better Facebook will soon update to remove them
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.
What instead of "investing" your time, oh so wisely, by expressing some mindless twattery via a tech forum at 10pm on weekday evening?!
How is that any different from mindless twattery posted thursday @ 12.57?
At least I had a point to make!
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!
Indeed I did. Bouncing back and fore all day long!
"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.
@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. :(
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.
"I think well known brands tend to pay more for R&D"
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.
The quicker FB goes the way of MySpace, a slow protracted death, the better!
So the answer is...
... don't 'Like' any products on Facebook?
... 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 :-)
"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!
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.
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.
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.
Can't those unhappy with being featured as "liking" a product they Liked just, er, Unlike it?
I'm so glad I left that cesspool of morons.
So now there are one moron less on Facebook then?
...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.
New Years Resolution
Update all pictures of my face on facebook to picture of a willy.
Don't forget to put a pair of Groucho Marx comedy glasses on it for full effect.
You do read a bit like a cock
Surely all the images of twitface users are pictures of willies?
Replace all the pictures in your FB account with ones of Zukerburg.
Hard to imagine a bigger dickhead than that.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
- Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees
- 14 antivirus apps found to have security problems
- Feature Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?
- Apple winks at parents: C'mon, get your kid a tweaked Macbook Pro
- FTC to mobile carriers: If you could stop text scammers being jerks that'd be just great