Possibly the worst Facebook ad ever | Hacker News Reader

Possibly the worst Facebook ad ever

glencanning.com

37 pointsantr17 comments

At the risk of being indelicate, what are the chances the company that used the images actually knew anything about her? A lot of these companies grab whatever image they "find" online; their reasoning (not justifiable, but it's still used) because it was posted online without credit, it must be in the public domain - or whatever the equivalent term is where PD isn't recognized.

Since the parent company of the dating site is based in Vietnam, this seems more likely than just maliciousness.

FB likely does no serious vetting of these images besides looking for obvious offensiveness and a face among a sea of faces isn't likely going to trigger any red flags. Besides that, they probably outsource their image vetting as well, so it's not unlikely the cultural disconnect played a part in this.

Callous indifference can be just as bad as malice.

I'm reminded of these t-shirts with "Keep Calm And..." slogans that were allegedly generated automatically (presumably culled from web searches) and sold on Amazon without human intervention: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21640347

I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it.

This situation is slightly different IMO. I'm not saying ignorance is an excuse, but the "Keep Calm..." ads are manufacturing the offensive product.

That company was actively engaged plagiarism and product is the trite rehash. The FB company wasn't selling the image per-se, but merely appropriating it for their service. If they were selling copies of Rehtaeh Parsons' image as a product itself rather than an uncredited and, as far as they're concerned, anonymous image of a girl to help them push the service, then they would be comparable.

> I think the lesson is, if your business model MUST involve pulling stuff from the Internet arbitrarily, it is no less your responsibility as if you had crafted it yourself if you intend to commercially repurpose it.

I totally agree. If your actions result in something tasteless or harmful, then it is your fault that you haven't foreseen those consequences.

A lot of "theses companies"?

Two weeks ago, Randomuser.me was advertised on Hacker News. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313952). They claim all images are hand-picked, but of course there's no guarantee that a thing like this could happen to us Hacker News-hackers too.

I doubt it happend by chance, even if coincidences do happen.

More likely, the dating site had somehow acquired knowledge of how many times the original hosted image was viewed and saw a visitor spike. Could be a direct or indirect partnership with facebook or some image hosting site, or could be their own hosted profiles. The sexual assault and the resulting death likely caused the increase.

I am a bit surprised that no one seems to blame Facebook in all this. Not only did they host the ad, they earned profit by doing so. It very likely that the ill-gotten profit from this event still persist in Facebooks bank account.

"Never attribute to malice..."

I can totally see the traffic spike = profit angle and that seems to be the most likely reason. If they're looking at raw data, then who the person is may not have even been a consideration.

Facebook does, of course, share blame in this since they allowed the ad to show up on their platform. If they did earn profit, they should do something like donate it to a fund that engages in bullying prevention.

Cached:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hEowO-S...

"Once an image is out there it’s out there forever." ...this advice should have been taught to the kids who recently broke-in, partied hard, and trashed a former NFL player's home in New York - http://www.helpmesave300.com/

I got through and read the article as well as an earlier one. They are worth reading if you have daughters, they're compulsory if you have sons.

What makes you say that?

What an excellent article. As a father I would never have been able to write something so reasoned. The final paragraph is great advice:

"Remember, just because those images on Facebook are free it doesn’t mean they won’t be costly, especially if you lift images of minors. That’s probably a good corporate rule to live by."

Why the site which released the ads is not opening? Showing a parked domain page from GoDaddy?

According to one of the comments on the page :

  "Facebook did permanently disable the advertiser’s account and 
  it looks like the site they were advertising is closed as well." - Mike Reed

So there you have it. Looks like the site is pretty much done operating since its reputation is utterly destroyed.

Yeah, this must be worst Facebook ad ever: "Resource Limit Is Reached The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. Apache/2.2.24 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.24 OpenSSL/1.0.0-fips mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 Server at glencanning.com Port 80", seems to be completely unrelated and theferore quite a bad ad.

Since you weren't able to read the article, I'll give you a head's up that you should save face while you can and delete your comment. It's not the kind of topic to be flippant about. The article was written by the father of Rahteah Parsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons) after he found out that her image was being used in a dating site's facebook ads.

The subject of the post is not really appropropriate for ridicule, also I don't think this post belongs on HN at all. This is the kind of story people like to read to be able to feel and express indignation and righteousness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com