47 comments

  • Cthulhu_ 2 hours ago

    Didn't Facebook do this years and years ago?

    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...

    • smalltorch an hour ago

      Those are incredible terms that no one read.

      • acdha 34 minutes ago

        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 42 minutes ago

        Speak for yourself.

        “Few”, maybe.

        • smalltorch 41 minutes 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.

        • cute_boi 30 minutes ago

          99% of people don't read terms and condition.

          • DANmode 28 minutes ago

            We’re saying the same thing.

    • pavel_lishin an hour 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 a minute ago

        To be fair it seems like it should be equally valid in contract law.

      • steve1977 an hour ago

        This made me laugh and cry at the same time...

  • RattlesnakeJake an hour 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 an hour 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.

      • not_a_bot_4sho 11 minutes 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.

      • RattlesnakeJake 25 minutes 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 14 minutes 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.

      • fumblebee 29 minutes 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.

  • penr0se an hour 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

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42615538

  • srmatto 42 minutes 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 38 minutes 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 33 minutes 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.

    • cute_boi 29 minutes 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 14 minutes ago

        Print out a face of someone on Facebook and use that?

      • catlikesshrimp 11 minutes 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.

  • encomiast 39 minutes ago

    I feel like having an account on a Meta site is today’s equivalent of being a smoker.

    • nicce 34 minutes ago

      There isn't better analogy. I hope it spreads and we will see the same effect and social pressure as smokers faced.

      • catlikesshrimp 10 minutes 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.

  • tantalor an hour ago

    Comment on that thread:

    > This seems entirely counter-productive and creepy.

    Apt description of Instagram in general.

  • ricardofranco 41 minutes 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 2 hours ago

    Ten years ago maybe this causes outrage, but I'm not sure anyone cares in 2026 including potential customers.

  • quadrature 2 hours ago

    Is there actual proof that they are doing this. Theres not much to go on in the tweet.

    • tantalor an hour ago

      Besides the proof in the screenshot? What more do you want?

      Do you think this user is faking it?

      • quadrature a minute 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.

    • ryan42 an hour 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 an hour ago

      And they have a history of doing this. And their privacy/ToS allows it.

  • invalidusernam3 43 minutes ago

    "I'm uncomfortable"

    Should have read the terms and conditions

    • onemoresoop 15 minutes ago

      What percentage of people read those? They’re even unitelligible to the layman.

  • jimt1234 26 minutes ago

    I don't know what's worse - this, or all the ads/commercials for Meta Glasses featuring Kylie Jenner, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yYQO8exxaU

  • ThouYS 18 minutes ago

    why are people using these products exactly?

    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

  • ThePowerOfFuet 2 hours ago
    • kuschkufan 2 hours ago

      i edited it to the same url before opening as i usually do for twitter urls so that i can see the full conversation without being logged into twitter.

      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.

      • pavel_lishin an hour ago

        Throwing an additional anecdote into the bucket, this did not happen for me. Any chance you have a dodgy extension installed?

      • jadamson an hour ago

        Sure you didn't just make a typo and hit a squatted domain?

  • Zhyl an hour ago

    The XKCD for this exact scenario is 14 years old.

    https://xkcd.com/1150/

    • fullshark an hour ago

      Kind of a stretch, these days can't imagine anyone that views instagram as a place to store their cherished photos also.

    • doublerabbit an hour ago

      Some reason that strip doesn't load for me.

      • nicce 30 minutes ago

        It is just saying that if you don't pay for something, you are the product. I think it still fits well here.

  • hsuduebc2 2 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.