Facebook is impersonating users without their consent | Hacker News Reader

Facebook is impersonating users without their consent

bureauofminds.com

138 pointscrcn73 comments

This article is disingenuous. Facebook is putting related sponsored content next to a 'like' in the feed and it is labeled as such. The complaint here boils down to that an unsophisticated viewer might think that sponsored content was what was originally liked when it was actually not. They say this is "impersonating a user". That seems way over the top.

Correct, but it is still a very valid concern.

The post from OP stemmed from such an "unsophisticated viewer," namely: his mother; she thought that he had liked an article about "Penis Waffles" that VICE posted some months ago, and she urged him to take the post down due to its vulgar nature.

Of course, he couldn't take the post down, and had no way of even KNOWING the post was being shown to his friends and family.

It is not. It can be turned off... https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads&section=social...

Your two statements are paradoxical.

Did you read the second part of it (and the article to which it links)? The implication is that Facebook is generating unintended likes for users out of thin air, so to speak. The screenshots provided clearly show what appear to be genuine "likes", not just a misleading juxtaposition. Moreover, it asserts that said users, once notified, were able to go manually "unlike" the content they claimed never to have liked in the first place.

I have no idea if this is actually happening, but if so it's quite a malicious practice on Facebook's part.

The likes are recycled. Bob likes an article on a website. Two years later that website advertises with Facebook. Facebook re-use Bob's like, and post the ad.

Some people 'like' a lot of things and might not remember what they've liked; or they may discover something about a previously liked company but not know how to unlike things or etc etc.

Facebook say you can turn off this behaviour. (https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads&view)

I'm not sure I'd use the word "malicious", but the combinations of obscure settings (how to find the list of liked things; how to unlike things; how to opt out of social ads; etc) is sub-optimal and gives the appearance of sleazy marketing.

> an unsophisticated viewer

By which you mean "99% of Facebook's user base".

You're facts are correct and this isn't officially "impersonating a user." However, there is a very fine line that Facebook is crossing.

Specifically, these sponsored posts are displayed in a way that causes confusion to the viewing user and, I am confident, this confusion is intentional on Facebook's part. As an apt web user with quite a bit of experience with Facebook and the web in general, I still get confused by these posts. I tend to assume they are posted by the friends that "liked" the brand and only in clearly questionable cases, such as when the post is about a bank, do I look close enough to realise it is sponsored content.

Intentionally causing confusion like this is shady, even if legal, and this "feature" of Facebook warrants as much attention as it is getting.

Ironically, this article is applying the same style of subtle confusion that it attacks (claiming that Facebook impersonates users when the author knows that's not technically accurate). But I must commend this article for providing the information in a simplified, easy-to-comprehend manner that is accessible by the average Facebook user. In fact, I may go share it right now...

> Specifically, these sponsored posts are displayed in a way that causes confusion to the viewing user

Ah, suddenly it all makes sense... I was genuinely wondering why my friends were "liking" advertisements. I don't use Facebook often enough to keep up with what they've changed, so this was genuinely confusing to me. The idea that they were "reusing" likes hadn't even crossed my mind.

For anyone who says what they're doing doesn't count as "impersonating a user" then I'd just like to counter with my own personal experience, that it sure looked that way to me!

Seriously... what's unfortunate is that all your favorite movies, bands, and essentially interests that are specific and listed in your profile can post.. for example since I posted "Big Lebowski" as a favorite movie years ago, I now see "Big Lebowski" posting to keep itself current. Sure, I get that.

However what I wouldn't expect is my friends to see "Big Lebowski" related content associated with my name. Normally I wouldn't mind, but then you start realizing there is a lot of value to having many people "like" you, and who are all the people who own these accounts associated with interests anyway.

I can imagine my friends see ads via my interest for Big Lebowski, for bowling, white russians, flights to LA, etc.. sky's the limit on monetization for these guys. But that was never my intent nor would I want my friends seeing all that crap due to me!

> I am confident, this confusion is intentional on Facebook's part.

How can you be so confident about someone's intent?

I disagree with your assessment but didn't downvote your comment because I want to understand.

He can feel confident because Facebook has a history of misleading users or oversharing data and this isn't a court room, rather the internet, and there is little consequence if he's wrong.

I'm not 100% confident that Facebook's intention was to mislead but the simple fact that these posts aren't being shown to the user(s) that they are being linked to is pretty damning.

I can be confident because Facebook spends more time and money studying user interaction with their advertisements than any other single aspect of their business. They have focus groups, they study eye movement with iris tracking, and they are leading authorities in online marketing. They don't make a change to their online ads without understanding 100% of the variables.

And, for the record, this analysis of Facebook's investment in user study isn't mere conjecture. I've been lucky enough to attend a talk by Facebook employees on their efforts.

I tried to be as genuine as possible. My wording revolved around unsophisticated individuals who makeup a majority of Facebook. "Impersonation" perhaps isn't the proper word to use, but it certainly encompasses the general concern about promoted content.

To the eyes of an unsophisticated friend, I like penis waffles. For the record, I don't. I never liked anything similar, but Facebook re-posted a "like" (VICE) under my name, and attached a related article to attract more people (Penis Waffles).

Facebook doesn't make it clear that promoted content posted under your name is advertisement. On top of that, advertisements posted under your name is hidden from you, and visible only to your friends.

It does make it clear with the obvious "RELATED POST" language that is in capital letters between the "<user> likes <page>" and the post below it.

The unsophisticated user won't read "related post" because it isn't noticeable. There's no clear differentiation between a recycled "like" post, and one that you physically like. They look almost identical.

The relatedness is very much up for debate though. If i like an article on a website, then later on that website publishes something else which is only related because its on the same site, does that mean facebook can re-use my like for the new page? Not only would i need to vet all the current content to see if there is something that i don't agree with, i would need to trust they would not post something horrible in future and have my name attached to it under a related post.

By now, everyone should know that anything you post or do, at all, on Facebook is probably going to become public at some point. That is how Facebook makes its money. If you value your privacy then simply don't use Facebook. I stopped about 2 years ago and quite frankly I haven't missed it for a moment.

If you do want to use Facebook then accept that your data is not your own, no matter what they say and quit complaining about it.

You and I may know that, as may the rest of the HN community, but it shouldn't stop us from trying to protect our friends and family who use Facebook unawares to these practices.

I know I don't want my mother thinking I liked a post about "2 Girls 1 Cup" – and my recourse shouldn't be to completely delete my Facebook account.

Given Facebook's behaviour and CEO, your recourse should be to completely delete your account. Facebook will not change their deceptive and manipulative behaviour because they need to do these things to make money, in fact they need to do a lot more of this sort of thing to justify their current stock price. If you stay on FB your likes, comments, images from your life, and your name will be used to endorse third party advertising without your explicit consent, and sometimes that's going to be products you don't agree with, particularly if you 'like' a magazine or similar which has many advertisers. The FB terms allow this, and they have shown what they think of user privacy.

It's really not, and there's no evidence of it. There are tight privacy controls which allows you to determine what people can see.

Even as it is, these are items which the user has chosen to 'like', something that is shared with friends (and optionally everyone, depending on your privacy settings). I don't like how users names can be put at the top of sponsored posts, but at no point are users being misrepresented, or is their privacy at risk, unless they have not configured their privacy settings correctly.

This is nothing new. Any facebook user has likely seen tons of these on their feed and so it's only somewhat logical to assume that, for your friends, you might come up in a similar fashion.

In fact, isn't this completely related? http://mashable.com/2013/01/03/facebook-settlement-email/. I think what the OP is referring to is exactly what Facebook calls a "Sponsored Story".

I don't think that this is Facebook "impersonating me without my consent". Perhaps it is Facebook "using me to advertise products without my consent". Either way, if I like "Spotify" on Facebook and then some of their posts come up on my friends' feeds because "So and So likes Spotify" then I understand that it is a form of advertising and I'm not going to throw a fit over it.

It's wrong if Facebook says that I like something which I don't. However, that isn't what they're doing at all.

I agree this is not new and probably not illegal but definitely misleading since a lot of people don't notice the subtle different between liking the post and the page.

Yes, the OP is specifically referring to "Sponsored Stories" – the concern and alarm is raised because the user has no way of knowing what stories are being attached to their name, or even that its happening at all.

As for your later point, your assumption that all users know these posts are advertisement and that users understand their friend didn't really like a post about 2 Girls 1 Cup – is patently false based on OP's own personal experience. His mother saw a Sponsored Story by VICE about "Penis Waffles" that had his name attached to it. When she saw the post, it looked to her as if he had liked the story/post and urged him to take it down.

No, it just says that you "like" something. The tense works both in the past and present. Facebook never says that you liked something that you did not.

This article is rather low on substance, but it links to [0], which has been here before (can't find any discussion, though), and claimed exactly the opposite, namely that Facebook said you liked something you never liked.

[0] http://readwrite.com/2012/12/11/why-are-dead-people-liking-s...

Maybe the guy despised corporate bullshit, but entered a Discover-sponsored sweepstakes or something similar that had a like requirement.

Or, he had to like Discover's page to be able to post comments there bashing their corporate bullshit.

There are a number of explanations, and deeming Facebook to be faking likes based on "I don't think my dead friend would've liked this page" is a little tenuous.

The tense doesn't work in both the past and present. That's why you had to switch to the past tense to make your second point. Translating it back to the present gives "Facebook says that you like something that you do not", which is what the OP is complaining about.

"Gruseom likes McDonalds Hamburgers." It works if you just did it, or did it 3 years ago.

This is so obviously not the case that I wonder why you would say it. What a person likes changes over time.

I'm not a Facebook hater but I don't have the time to keep up with all of their questionable tactics so I recently unliked everything and removed my profile and cover photos which I know understand are public. I also removed everything from my profile descriptions. Gaining my trust they are not.

I hate when people say things like "without users consent" as if those users didn't accept the TOS which I'm sure gives Facebook the ability to repost your likes.

Agreed. And they clearly say in there that ToS are subject to change so only an idiot wouldn't re-review them weekly. I make it a habit as part of my routine.

Well it's a shitty routine to have. Not being able to assume good faith is what's destroying trust in the services we use.

Right. But in the real world almost nobody actually reads the TOS and even fewer understand it. Expecting people to read and be sufficiently informed by what's written to deliberatively agree to TOS is unrealistic in most cases.

What facebook is doing here is similar to back when the bigger search engines got in hot water for mixing ads into search results in various shady ways (recall Paid Inclusion programs about 10 years ago, see http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/07/64092 ). It did not benefit the user and generally created confusion and a poor user experience, driving many users to try Google for the first time (Google never had Paid Inclusion that I can recall).

It's true that Facebook doesn't post anything that you haven't previously liked, however, I believe, in many cases people do think that somebody have explicitly liked that particular sponsored post rather than the page behind it.

Wait, did this guy really just expose dozens of his friends' private newsfeed posts to the public while criticizing Facebook?!

This has been happening for quite sometime. I believe those pages are sponsoring these advertisements, and essentially are showing that your friends had previously liked them.

Nothing new.

You've unfortunately missed the point. The "Johnny Wonny" user never 'liked' the article/post about 2 Girls 1 Cup. He merely like the VICE page. Facebook is now deciding to show the post to all his friends with his name attached, without any mention to Johnny in any form.

How can anyone defend this behavior by Facebook? They purposely don't show the advertisement it to the person they are impersonating. And yes, they are impersonating me if they post something on my behalf merely because I liked something.

When you're logged into Jonny Wonny and you're scrolling down your News Feed, how come a post from VICE is there (3:19 & 3:16)? You had to like VICE in order for it to appear in News Feed. So your whole argument is false.

A friend could have liked a brand years ago and it could just be showing in your News Feed now, it doesn't have to show based on when they liked it.

The point the OP is trying to make is not the liking of VICE – the "Johnny Wonny" account legitimately liked VICE, but did not like the POST that VICE chose to "sponsor" and show to other users as if he had liked it. It becomes disingenuous when Facebook doesn't inform the user that they are posting a specific article/post on the users behalf, to all his friends.

It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that the person liked just the brand, and that the brand is just advertising a post below the like. I would think it would say "Johnny Wonny liked VICE's post" if the user liked the post.

Correct, but this isn't obvious to everyone. This UI design seems purposefully chosen by Facebook to look as if the user has liked the post as well as the brand page.

If anyone is reading this, and they use facebook, get the hell off there. Delete your account today. They will always take take take. The most egregious of these kind of rights violations 4 years ago is today's standard practice. They will only get worse and drag the rest of the web down to their new lows. "Do be evil" is the motto of Zuckbergs ilk.

See my reaction to Condon's story here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/21/faceboo... As he suggests, “The only way to prevent re-posted content is to unlike everything.” And as Facebook continues to abuse the Like function, or to allow (or at least be unable to prevent) third-parties from abusing it, many users may find themselves doing just that, or ditching Facebook altogether.

I had some issue just reading the text on the page after clicking the video. Once the video had opened for me the scrollbar on the site disappeared. It reappeared on reloading the page but incredibly annoying and confusing behavior.

Nothing to really say about the video etc.

Relevant C&H comic: http://www.explosm.net/comics/2398/

I like how Google+ makes +1-ing and sharing that you +1'd something two separate operations. Sometimes you want people that have already found the content to discover that you liked it too, and sometimes you want to share something you like with your friends. It's nice that I get to decide.

I would say 'liking' a page is consent to have 'Friend likes this page' appear in your friends' news feeds. It doesn't state that they liked that particular post.

Annoying or not, I always thought it was reasonably clear that the post was coming from the page, not from the friend.

How is this even a problem, when you can turn it off? It's under the following link: https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads&section=social...

I posted this as a reply to jxi below, but you can easily opt out of this in your facebook settings (though its a bit shady imo that this behavior is enabled by default)

Is this a form of spoofing? If so isn't this a crime according to Carmen Ortiz.

What's wrong with the page? It wouldn't scroll.

It's a clone of the ever-so-intuitive Mac OS interface. That's why it took me a while to figure out how to scroll, too, and why it looks kinda bad.

The question is: can I opt out of this, or am I obliged to deal with this as long as I'm a Facebook user. I personally find this is pretty bad. I don't want my friends seeing my past likes from several years ago and seeing me endorse something stupid that I liked before (on the front page). Do I need to go through my likes and curate it all the time? It's different if it's just on my profile because having it in the news feed suggests that I liked this thing recently.

I think I'm seriously 1 step closer to just closing my Facebook account. Also, look at all those nasty ads on the right side. I use ad blocker so I don't see any of those, but looking at his video, that is definitely noisy.

To my mind it's the price of publically 'liking' something. With that in mind, I only 'like' things that I would be happy to market to my friends.

Have you manually retroactively disliked things you liked years ago, before policy changes?

I have, and do so regularly. I'm hoping and wishing for something better than Facebook to come along so I can jump ship, because of things like this.

Is there an app that can go through and unlike all? I don't care enough about liking something to have FB use it this way.

The problem is not just that Facebook is reposting one of your likes, it's that they're associating your like with a related item. The OP liked one article on vice.com, and now Facebook is promoting that he liked something "related" to penis shaped waffles.

Sorry, I was unclear about what I meant by 'market to my friends.' What I intended to communicate was that I only like entities that I would trust to market to my friends responsibly.

I would never like a site like Vice because I know that they promote NSFW and lowbrow content for pageviews, and I don't want to be associated with that. On the other hand, I'm fine with liking bands that I know the spirit of, or small local businesses that I trust.

...which crosses the borderline from "intrusive" to "outright deceptive".

I believe it's possible to turn off under "ads and friends" here: http://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads&section=social&... but you never can be too sure with Facebook

Why do you like things to begin with?

What do you get from it?

I don't get anything, but sometimes I'd like to show support to some particular effort/product that I think is worth my time.

Also, I think it used to be an "interests" section in Facebook, and all of those interests somehow got systematically migrated to "likes", I think. Those are the sketchy ones that I think I now need to go back and curate.

Yes - you can opt out of this - to do so, go to your settings, then click on 'ads' in the sidebar on the left and select 'edit' on the ads & friends section - there you can set "Pair my social actions with ads for" to "no one".

Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads&section=social...

Are you sure that's what that's for? When I go to that setting (which I'd already set to "no one" in an earlier privacy audit), the example it shows of what it controls is very different from the "related post" issue that's being complained about here.

You can opt out, but get ready to have to go re-opt-out every time Facebook changes a font somewhere on the website.

GUYS! We thought up a new way of how to describe why Facebook is bad, we'll make it seem like this hasn't been happening since "Likes" came into existence and watch people revolt!

If you're butthurt about your privacy and think big brother is spying on you, don't fucking use Facebook.

Also, why does this have 96 upvotes? Shame on you HN.

I'm not sure if this article is about this, it doesn't sound like it, but a lot of web apps provide their development team with the ability to impersonate users as it's a great way to debug issues a user may be seeing.

It is not about this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com