Heh, really? Are we talking about the same Zuckerberg who got his start making webapps by having people rate illegitimately-gained pictures of his peers? ("The Kirkland dormitory facebook is open on my desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendiedous facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of some farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive."). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facemash#Facemash
Or the guy who called people who submitted information to his site "dumb fucks"? (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg).
This latest move is exactly the quintessential spirit of the Zuck. But honestly, I'm expecting a lot more to come as the secret comes out that they can't make a lot of money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag) -- I think they'll sell private information of users to insurance companies.
Usage of users' photos in ads should be opt-in to begin with. Prior to this "new normal" people were normally compensated for appearing in ads, according to a contract.
The surface area of all the ways that Facebook decides to use you and your data is beyond most people's ability to correctly understand, let alone the ability of minors. And then they take and use the right to unilaterally change the terms any time they wish, opt you back in to things you repeatedly opted out of, etc.
The sooner we stop making special excuses for Facebook's pervasive, intentional, greedy misconduct, the better. It's not like it's impossible to do profitable business without making it a policy to act like a total scumbag.
The amount of work required to put in such a system would also be prohibitive, since most countries would have seperate systems, and each one of these would need to be accounted for. It'd raise barrier of entry for sites, since along with other infrastructure, they'd need to set up complex identification rules (granted, after some time there will be libraries for that. still, it's another step they have to take).
It'd be a soggy mess to set up something like that.
This is not the case, nor is it normal. Facebook tested naming friends (not making anyone appear) in recommendations: there was no new information revealed (you can see your friend's Likes at all time on their page); Facebook tested displaying relevant information in different ways. They similarly name common friends when someone you don't know comments on a thread you have taken part of. Some of the content on Facebook is paid for: some by me, as an individual, to promote important information about myself; some by corporate entities. In one, unsuccessful, test Facebook tried to associate friends that where also fans with paid-for targeted recommendation.
If you want to be compensated for your image appearing on Facebook ads, I know agencies that enroll model: I’d be happy to refer you. I'm sure they'll pay you as usual.
> For other legal purposes it is not enough to say "but the 13-year-old said she was 18" so it is interesting that this is enough for Facebook.
Facebook is very clear in their enrollment process that they need their users to be trustworthy in their statement; it has to do with the cost of the service. I have seen so much grief over Facebook actually checking your identity after an ID theft, that I can't imagine the amount butt-hurt over them checking the age of underage teenagers, from parents like OP, teenagers who lied and are most likely going to rationalise that out of the park, and more importantly you.