Slashdot Mirror
Should Facebook 'Likes' Count As Commercial Endorsements?
The rationale for the case against the Facebook 'your-friends-have-liked-this' ads, seems to be that Facebook is violating laws and social norms against using someone's image in a commercial endorsement without their permission. But I can only think of two reasons for why those laws and social norms exist, and neither of those reasons would seem to apply to Facebook 'likes.' The two main reasons that come to mind are (1) loss of control over one's image, and (2) the creation of the false impression that the company has paid for a product endorsement.
Consider first the issue of the loss of control over your image. You would probably be annoyed if a company took a picture of your face and started featuring it prominently in their advertisements without your permission. (If you had taken the photo yourself, then the company would of course also be on the hook for copyright infringement, but let's assume that the company had one of their photographers take the photo so that they owned the copyright, and the only issue is the unfair use of your likeness.) At that point, you have no control over the dissemination of the picture. Even assuming that you like the way you look in the picture, you might find it creepy to think of thousands of strangers looking at the photo of you (or your kids). That would be an argument in favor of requiring companies to get people's permission before using their likenesses in advertisements.
But that argument would not apply to an ad in your Facebook feed which shows you the profile pictures of friends who have 'liked' a page. Those profile pictures were uploaded by those users expressly so that their Facebook friends could see them. At any time, they can select a different 'profile picture', or remove any profile pictures that they no longer wish to be visible to friends. (Facebook took a lot of well-deserved criticism for exposing users' profiles and pictures to non-friends, as well, even for users who have disabled that setting — but that's a separate issue. The "ads" in question only display your pictures to your friends.)
Second, consider the issue of creating the false impression of a paid product endorsement. With traditional advertisements, it might seem strange that people respond to ads featuring a nice, attractive-but-not-in-your-face-attractive person using a product, even if the photo doesn't seem to directly convey any information about the product itself. What the photo really conveys is that the company behind the product has resources — to hire models, photographers, lighting crews, photo editors, and of course to buy the space to display the ad. This ostentatious display of "resources" might reassure a customer that the company similarly has the resources to test their product thoroughly, to replace a product that breaks, or to honor their returns policy. But it only works if the user believes that the company actually did spend money on all of those things to create the ad.
This is even more true of ads featuring paid celebrities. Steven Landsburg, in a passage from his book The Armchair Economist, writes:
"[I]t is also common to see products endorsed by celebrities who have no particular expertise, and who are obviously being paid for their testimony. Well-known actresses endorse health clubs; ex-politicians endorse luggage; in Massachusetts recently, a Nobel prize-winning economist endorsed automobile tires. People respond to these ads, and sales increase. What useful information can there be in knowing that the manufacturer of your overnight bag paid a six-figure fee to feature a famous person in a television commercial? How can it be rational to choose your luggage on this basis?
Let me suggest an answer. [...] Hiring a celebrity to endorse your product is like posting a bond. The firm makes a substantial investment up front and reaps returns over a long period of time. A firm that expects to disappear in a year won't make such an investment. When I see a celebrity endorsement, I know that the firm has enough confidence in the quality of its product to expect to be around awhile.
(The full argument is in the text of The Armchair Economist on Scribd, although you've probably got the idea.)
However, none of this applies to your friend's profile picture appearing in an ad in your Facebook feed. No rational person would think that meant that the friend had been paid for the endorsement, so the ad doesn't falsely convey anything about the company's "resources." (All you really know is that the company paid some money to buy the ad — but, unlike a print ad that appears in a national magazine, you have no idea how much they spent to promote their brand on Facebook just because you happen to be seeing the promotion.) The valuable information conveyed in the ad is just what it seems — at least one of your friends thought the company or product was cool enough to 'like' it.
(This argument does leave an interesting case uncovered. What if a real recognizable celebrity 'liked' a page on Facebook, and that company paid for a flurry of ads in people's Facebook feeds prominently featuring the celebrity's likeness, truthfully claiming that the celebrity liked their product, but without paying the celebrity? I don't happen to know of any real-life case where a company found out that a celebrity actually used their product, and then started advertising the fact that their product was used by that celebrity without actually paying the celebrity, using the defense that all they were doing was stating a true fact. (Tell me in the comments if you know if that's happened.) However, Facebook seems to have ducked that issue for now, because virtually no actual celebrities have regular user profiles on Facebook; they have official fan pages, clearly demarcating the line between "them" and "us." So the sponsored ads are not likely to include a real celebrity's likeness any time soon.)
Fundamentally, if an 'ad' appears in your Facebook feed telling you that some of your friends 'liked' a page, all that ad is doing is stating a true fact, something that Facebook ought to be allowed to do under the First Amendment. I don't agree with Mitt Romney that "corporations are people too, my friend," but they do have First Amendment rights, which I would argue should include the right to tell you if friends of yours have publicly indicated that they like a product or service.
One currently pending lawsuit against Facebook makes much of the fact that Facebook's ads were displaying the profile pictures of minors, and that California law requires the permission of a minor's parents to use their likeness in an ad. But when that law was drafted, the authors probably had in mind the kind of traditional advertisements that raise the two concerns above — where (1) the minor and their family lose control over the dissemination of their image, and (2) the use of the likeness creates the false impression of a paid advertisement. It's not obvious that they would have considered the law to apply to a note in your Facebook feed telling you that your friend had liked a page. To the extent that the law could be interpreted to prohibit those kinds of notifications, that's arguably a violation of Facebook's First Amendment rights.
Of course, I've made this argument by assuming that the two reasons listed at the top are the only reasons that a company should be required to get people's permission before using their likeness in advertisements, and that if those reasons don't apply to Facebook 'likes,' then the permission requirement should not apply. But there may be other reasons besides those two, reasons that would also apply to ads listing Facebook 'likes,' and then that would invalidate the argument. But in the meantime, even though I don't use Facebook, if I did, I'd tentatively be fine with Facebook showing my profile picture in 'ads' to friends listing me as one of a group of people who had 'liked' a particular page.
On the other hand, if Facebook is really scanning your private messages for mentions of a particular page, and then automatically indicating on your profile that you 'like' that page, then yes, that means that any 'likes' acquired in that manner were not intended by the user to be public, and yes, that changes everything.
Another Bennett wall of text. Does anyone actually read these?
I'm surprised he didn't insert his whining about being rightfully pegged as a spammer.
They have paid for a product endorsement. They just haven't paid you.
But, joking aside, I believe it should be illegal to use my name or image to endorse a product without me being explicitly asked, and compensated. Anything else is a fraudulent use of my name.
Oh, and Mark Zuckerberg is a douchebag.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Stop using facebook. Now.
Or maybe "like" is an term with no formal meaning here and I'm just "liking" page because that's what we call "bookmarks" on this particular website. Or "favorites", or "starred", or whatever. I might even be "liking" the page because I want to remember what a bunch of douchebags the associated outfit have been to me or my family in the past and want to keep an eye on their marketing babble so that I can warn friends/family not to be caught out by it.
When I "favorite" a website in Internet Explorer, nobody thinks it implies I commercially endorse whatever organization's page it was. Why should a "like" infer that.
Of course in practice I firewall Facebook at the router.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
FB uses the tern "friend" to describe someone with whom you wish to have some level of communication, not someone who fits the conventional definition of "friend". The action of "like" is used in FB to indicate an acknowledgement of some post, not necessarily approval - I've seen people "like" posts about horrific events.
To further confuse things, companies will collect "inappropriate" likes. Some vendor vendor posts a picture of a cute kitten. People "like" the picture in the hopes that their friends will see it as well. That "like" in no way indicates that they actually recommend the (often completely unrelated) product. Sometimes it isn't even obvious to users that they are endorsing a commercial product.
This leads to a rather confusing landscape where people (who are not actually friends), are listed as "liking" a product that they do not in any way actually endorse. Whether advertising that "your friends like this product" is deceptive or not depends on whether you are using the conventional or FB definitions of "friends" and "like".
Personally I completely ignore this sort of endorsement because I understand what it really means (which is nothing). I make an effort to avoid "liking" any commercial links to avoid giving the impression that I endorse their products.
The whole 'internet' thing is just a fad too.
Sometimes I *like* something because I want to follow it. I might not like some of my local politicians, but I still like their pages just so I can follow what train wreck policy they might be putting to a vote that week. Liking it makes it conveniently show up on my newsfeed.
A lot of commercial "likes" are generated as opt-ins to contests and the like. For example, a local news channel will instruct its viewers to like a certain Facebook page to be eligible to win something. To me, the commercial value of a "like" would be low, I don't know of anybody who says "I will buy XXX instead of YYY because they have more likes on their Facebook page" (or more followers on Twitter, whatever). I don't ses the ROI on social media engagement, unless you are a marketing firm or consultancy charging by the project or hour.
Therefore, many / most "Likes" are meaningless CfC's. IMO.
Particularly meaningless without "DisLikes".
What does 100 "Likes" mean without knowing if there are 10 "DisLikes" or 1000 "DisLikes" that go with it?
You can't be on social media and still claim to be a privacy advocate. One or the other. No one understands the meanings of these words anymore. Social media is just that: SOCIAL. If you want privacy, then you should probably not be on facebook, you blithering idiot.
I'm all for more privacy for social networking users
What part of "social network" does Bennett not understand? If you use these damn "services" then you should expect them to be doing shit like this. I'm much more concerned that almost every site that I visit lately sends traffic to Facebook and lets them track information about me, even though I have never and will never use facebook.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Facebook is for hipsters.
All "likes" are sarcastic.
Seriously though; relabelling the "inform me of changes on this page" button to "like", doesn't mean I actually "like" it. It just means that you're mislabelling your functionality.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So if I'm in a private thread on someone's non-public timeline, and I click "like" on some link my friend adds to his private dialogue with me on his timeline, which may be a political link or controversial or make sense only in that particular context, will what I did believing it private cease to be private without my knowledge or permission?
Why would you ever "Like" or "+1" something (in the official FB or Google sense) shared in a private conversation if you didn't want that information to become more public? You're in a conversation already FFS, you can just say "Hey, I agree." Using a social-media platform tool to indicate approval implies that you want that social-media platform tool to take some action - any action - on that click. Its well documented that even the publicly stated purpose of those platforms is to share the information that you give them with your "network."
WTF else do you expect the platform to do when you click "Like"? Wink slyly and say, "That one's just between the two of us, friend?"
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Private data is semi-private. Don't want your name to be associated to something, don't use social media. Remember the services own the content, not you.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Does this kid pay /. to have his blog entries posted here?