Slashdot Mirror


The Facebook Ads Teens Aren't Supposed To See

schwit1 writes in with this story about Facbook's questionable ads including webcam modeling and diet drugs. "Sophie Bean, 14, of Sequim, Wash., said she was thought she was 'liking' a Facebook ad related to fashion modeling. Instead, it promoted a Facebook page that recruited adult webcam models. 'I just thought it was for modeling, and I'm interested in that, and I thought it would help me out,' Sophie said. Sophie wasn't the only teen connecting with the page, which Facebook statistics show is most popular with users 13 to 17. Clicking on it didn't pull the teens into nude webcam modeling, but did mean they would receive the page's updates and could be mentioned in future versions of the ad."

111 comments

  1. News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stupid American brat clicks on Facebook ad she doesn't like. The world is shocked.

    Clearly important for the new slashdot "pro beta" crowd!

    1. Re:News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stupid American brat clicks on Facebook ad she doesn't like.

      Er, no, she did "like" it, that's the point. However, I don't know if she, like, "like" liked it or not.

    2. Re:News at 11 by jopsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stupid American brat clicks on Facebook ad she doesn't like. The world is shocked.

      No... the news will be parent sues ad company for advertising underaged teens as webcam models. From the summary:

      Clicking on it (the ad) ....... did mean they would receive the page's updates and could be mentioned in future versions of the ad.

      So when the ad company automatically uses a teens photos in a new version of the ad... Some parents might get slightly angry, and a lawsuit and police charges probably wouldn't be impossible.

      Anyways, I for one am looking forward to that story :)

    3. Re:News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when the ad company automatically uses a teens photos in a new version of the ad...

      That's not how FB ads work. The way it works is that anybody on HER "Friend" list might see her picture show up next to any Ad which she clicked "like" on. And only if she has her privacy settings currently set to "allow my zit-covered face to be shown". If she turns that option off, her picture, etc. won't be shown.

      The only legal challenge I could see in all of this is the company marketing an Adult Web-Cam service to anyone under the age of 18 (17 in some US States, 14 in many other Countries).

  2. Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Adblock to the rescue! (And fuck Facebook. Hope they go bankrupt.)

    1. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Adblock to the rescue! (And fuck Facebook. Hope they go bankrupt.)

      You have the option to leave if you want to.

    2. Re:Adblock! by Nehmo · · Score: 2

      You have the option to leave if you want to.

      Resistance is futile.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    3. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Facebook Employee,

      Fuck Facebook.

      - Anonymous

    4. Re:Adblock! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not today you don't. If you decide to leave today you will not be allowed to do so for a couple of weeks. Facebook will keep your account active for two weeks after you request it be deleted. Just an FYI ...

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:Adblock! by Xicor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      lol... i block more adds on facebook with adblock plus than i do on porn sites and malware sites.

    6. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol... i block more adds...

      College grad, are you?

    7. Re:Adblock! by GNious · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have AdBlock set to block a couple of facebook domains wholesale ... that sped up my browser quite noticeably.

    8. Re: Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately kids are being forced to sign up at age 8 in school. They aren't being given a choice... Their privacy is being ripped away from them before they even know what that means.

    9. Re:Adblock! by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't click on Anonymous Coward links.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    10. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, it's better than the perpetual NSA account. There probably isn't even a form to request an NSA account deletion.

    11. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hiya, Ethie! You've not died in a fire yet?

    12. Re: Adblock! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re: Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...What?

      Try signing up for an account with your birthday as 2006 and see how that works out for you.

    14. Re:Adblock! by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Not today you don't. If you decide to leave today you will not be allowed to do so for a couple of weeks. Facebook will keep your account active for two weeks after you request it be deleted. Just an FYI ...

      And for some reason you just won't be able to resist signing in to it?

    15. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to elaborate on how I could do this? And which domains?

    16. Re:Adblock! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "And for some reason you just won't be able to resist signing in to it?"

      What the hell are you babbling about? Do you even have any idea yourself. When I told them to delete my account (which I only created to get ahold of one person I couldn't contact otherwise), they told me: "No. We refuse to honor your request. We'll do it in a couple of weeks ... maybe ... but for now it stays despite your wishes." Are you really too stupid to understand that?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    17. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Any number of ways ... the simplest being your HOSTS file ... on Linux it's in /etc/hosts ... on Win32 it's in Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts ... on OSX it's in /private/etc/hosts ... the format of the HOSTS file is documented here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_(file) ...

      facebook domains to block (route to 127.0.0.1) are:

      facebook.com
      www.facebook.com
      www.facebook.net
      www.facebook.org
      connect.facebook.net
      static.ak.facebook.com
      s-static.ak.facebook.com

      Unfortunately, HOSTS syntax does not allow wildcards, you have to block each domain specifically.

      You can discover additional domains to block by using the Chrome 'developer tools' window, or FireBug on FireFox, Fiddler (and many others) for Windows ... these will show you *all* of the domains your browser hits when rendering a page on a site.

    18. Re:Adblock! by exomondo · · Score: 2

      Wow you really seem to be pretty emotionally tied to this. The point made here was "You have the option to leave if you want to.". So your account still exists for a few weeks, big deal. That doesn't mean you need to log in to it. Post a final message (even change all your personal details if you feel the need), schedule it for deletion and walk away. What's the problem?

    19. Re:Adblock! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      "So your account still exists for a few weeks, big deal"

      That's correct. That's the big deal. If you are too stupid to figure out why, that really isn't my problem.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    20. Re:Adblock! by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's correct. That's the big deal.

      Why is that a big deal?

      Just relax and try to discuss this in a more measured manner, you're clearly getting extremely worked up and emotional about this issue so just calm down and tell me what the real problem is. So your profile exists for 2 weeks after you asked them to delete it, how does that affect your ability to not use facebook?

    21. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not today you don't. If you decide to leave today you will not be allowed to do so for a couple of weeks.

      yes actually today *i will*. if i want to stop using facebook today i *will* stop using facebook today, not in a couple of weeks.

    22. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they go along and immediately delete your account on the servers. It will still take 2-4 weeks for them to cycle through their backup tapes to the point where the changes are eventually wiped from the tapes.

      But hey, if you're too stupid to realise why your account wont be removed in 2 weeks, thats not my problem either. If you're that concerned about it, you could always offer Facebook compensation for the time and effort involved in pulling every single backup tape and removing your data from each one individually.

    23. Re: Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately kids are being forced to sign up at age 8 in school. They aren't being given a choice... Their privacy is being ripped away from them before they even know what that means.

      This is just so much FUD that it is hilarious. Are Slashdotters really this clueless about Facebook? (hint for this one, which was even +1 moderated, check Facebook minimum age, you won't be able to complete sign-up at age 8)

    24. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So your account still exists for a few weeks, big deal"

      That's correct. That's the big deal. If you are too stupid to figure out why, that really isn't my problem.

      So if you were running a world wide data center operation you would offer your customers immediate ad hoc data deletion from all levels of backup?

    25. Re:Adblock! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not really deleted though. You can't sign up again with the same email address, so they must keep at lest that much on file. Why just keep previously used email addresses though, what use could they have on their own?

      I'm currently trying to get Apple to delete my Apple account too. They say they did but that I can't sign up with the same email address ever again, which means they didn't. Currently they claim their engineers are looking into ways to remove it, but of course even if they claim to have done so it will be hard to check without creating a new account.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Adblock! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The anger makes sense. They've just worked out that they are the product and not the consumer, and they have almost no power over how they are presented to the consumer.

    27. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's talking about backups you idiot.

    28. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's talking about backups you idiot.

      Actually Facebook is, when they talk about how long it will take to delete all your data completely.

    29. Re:Adblock! by sunsurfandsand · · Score: 1

      That's correct. That's the big deal. If you are too stupid to figure out why, that really isn't my problem.

      I'm not sure my not knowing how you rationalize your paranoia about FB taking its time deleting your profile in any way suggests I'm stupid. Let's stipulate though that I am. Please explain then, in terms even I can understand, why it is a big deal. You never had to provide any accurate, let alone secret, information about yourself. You don't have to "Like" anything, or post any pictures of your pets, or click on any adverts, or send or accept any "Friend Requests", or even log in. So then, what is the big deal? Granted, it's not your problem, but would you condescend to say what it it that troubles you so?

    30. Re:Adblock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the details, some of that is a bit over my head (running Windows 7). But doesn't this block the website content itself? Or does it simply mean ads hosted by, for example facebook.com, will be blocked?

    31. Re:Adblock! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " Please explain then, in terms even I can understand, why it is a big deal."

      This is because my account is still active. As you point out, I will continue to get friend requests. Also, that for those two weeks my account can be compromised. The best part is that said compromise constitutes an excuse to keep my account open.

      " So then, what is the big deal?"

      OK. That's twice you've asked now. It must really be important to you to understand this, so I will continue to explain some more.

      "but would you condescend to say what it it that troubles you so?"

      I can't do that unfortunately. I can only tell you why everyone should be troubled. You will mistakenly believe it is something that troubles me only because I am a paranoid, etc. which is of course absurd.

      By telling me, in effect: Hey Asshole. We'll delete your account if and when we want to, but we sure in the hell aren't doing it when you ask us to. they set a dangerous precedent, and make clear that they will do whatever the hell they please with your^H^H^H^Htheir account.

      Are you starting to see the issue now?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    32. Re:Adblock! by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Realistically you can never guarantee what you put on the internet has ever been deleted, but then most of us have known that ever since the internet was invented.

    33. Re:Adblock! by sunsurfandsand · · Score: 1

      By telling me, in effect: Hey Asshole. We'll delete your account if and when we want to, but we sure in the hell aren't doing it when you ask us to. they set a dangerous precedent, and make clear that they will do whatever the hell they please with your^H^H^H^Htheir account.

      Are you starting to see the issue now?

      No, but I see what you think is the issue. Before, you just sounded unreasonable. Now you seem maybe hyper-vigilant, but at least not nuts.

  3. Good example by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Good example by Nehmo · · Score: 0

      This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

      ...if you are a 13 year old girl. Actually, in contrast to the government snooping and perhaps eventually throwing me in jail for views differing from the current gang in power, this is not a big concern. (Sorry for the move off-subject.)

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    2. Re:Good example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

      Karma whore.

    3. Re:Good example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it clearly demonstrates this girl, like so many others is a moron who just clicks on things with out investigating what's she's clicking on...

    4. Re:Good example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, Sherlock. This is true for every advertiser supported website including the one you're using right fucking now . So fucking what?

    5. Re:Good example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's 13, idiot.

  4. multiple levels of scaryness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    said she was thought she was 'liking' a Facebook ad related to fashion modeling.

    Wow... I understand she's only 14 and all, but we really need to start making sure kids understand how the internet works, and that every single thing they do is data-mined and used to monitize them... and not for their benefit! That they should NEVER "like" a facebook ad, and even better, should only be online using adblock.

    It's scary that someone who's 14 is unaware of how to protect themselves online, and it's scary that we're not as a society teaching them this, just like we teach them reading, writing, math, history, civil rights, and balancing a budget. Knowing how to protect yourself in the digital world is now just as important as knowing how to protect yourself in the real world.

    1. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by morari · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [...] just like we teach them reading, writing, math, history, civil rights, and balancing a budget.

      Actually, I don't believe that we tend to teach them any of those things either.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    2. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow... I understand she's only 14 and all, but we really need to start making sure kids understand how the internet works

      I'm not going to argue against this because it is clearly a good idea to teach your children how to take care of themselves and avoid trouble.
      But I do feel that the way the laws regarding advertising like this isn't applied in a way that is equal to everyone.

      If a large company were to manually target a 14 year old for nude modelling that would be considered to be a large criminal network and highly illegal.
      If an individual were to manually target a 14 year old for nude modelling he/she would be considered a pedophile.
      If an individual were through automation targeting a 14 year old for nude modelling it could be taken into consideration that it wasn't intentional but even if he/she isn't considered a pedophile he/she will never get a proper work again and will have a hard time if moving to a community with children in it.

      Why is it that it is suddenly OK just because it is an automated service from a large company. Does responsibility go out the window just because you let a computer do it instead of doing it manually?
      For industrial machinery the developer is to some extent responsible if people get hurt, that is one reason development of them is expensive.

      I feel that it is a bit strange that one can avoid the law by automating a task. It might not be possible to prove intention but Facebook has the resources to at least try to figure out that this kind of thing could happen and take precautions to prevent it.
      If they can't reasonably prevent certain ads to be shown for minors then they could at least avoid selling advertising space to services that isn't suitable for many of their users.
      Yes, it will cut into their profits. Good, not everything should be profitable.

    3. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by PPH · · Score: 1

      Not just the Internet. But that guy with the fedora, mink coat and lots of bling.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by jd2112 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not just the Internet. But that guy with the fedora, mink coat and lots of bling.

      On one hand he's using Fedora. A Linux user can't be that bad. But on the other hand he's using Bing, there's just no excuse for that.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    5. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      and balancing a budget.

      who taught them this? certainly not congress.

    6. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Maybe because there is a difference between someone "targetting" someone and publishing something with a "target audience" in mind.

      Only if the company booked facebook to a show an ad only to 14 year old girls, this would be actual targetting. If they just booked the ad for a, say, generally femaile audience, 14 year olds might still see it, but would not be targetted.

      --
      bickerdyke
    7. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      They should never be using Facebook, either.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    8. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should re-read the post. It actually considered the distinction between intentional and non-intentional targeting.

      Generally the law also makes a distinction, that is why murder is considered different from manslaughter.
      From the perspective of the perpetrator there is a large difference, from the perspective of the victim, not so much. Because of this it is still interesting to consider manslaughter a crime.

      Just because you automate a task to the extent that you no longer have control over it doesn't mean that you no longer have a responsibility for what you automation does.

    9. Re:multiple levels of scaryness by mikehilly · · Score: 1

      While I agree with most of your post, I will point out what the difference could be. Intention makes up a very large portion of how the law interprets actions. In your examples when a company or person manually targets it is clear that their intention is "not good" however when automation is involved it could be the case that the intention was different. This can obviously get into a gray area and is easier for the company to claim ignorance, but that is the general idea around intention.

  5. Facebook is not for teens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is for adults.

    1. Re:Facebook is not for teens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is for adults that act like kids.

      FTFY

    2. Re:Facebook is not for teens by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Best comment I've seen in a while, too bad you posted AC.

  6. I'm from Portugal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here the age of consent is 14.

    Are they also not targeting people under 21 for alcohol beverages?

    1. Re:I'm from Portugal by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure people from most other countries understand the "think of the CHIIIIILDREN!" hysteria that grips the Anglophone world on a regular basis. We seem to have developed this bizarre idea that people are supposed to be completely sheltered from the world until they reach the age of legal adulthood ... at which point they're supposed to know in every particular how to deal with the responsibility that entails.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:I'm from Portugal by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well my 14 year old niece thinks she knows everything.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. So desperate already? by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Typically, porn-related ads are a sign of a desperate website.

    1. Re:So desperate already? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Typically, porn-related ads are a sign of a desperate website.

      Creating an advert that takes advantage of the Facebook API, and than buying screen time on Facebook does not involve human interaction of any kind on Facebook's part.

      A flaw? Perhaps. But your thesis is not supported by this occurrence.

      First, there is nothing wrong at all about advertising adult services to adults. While the majority of Americans are prudes, there are some that are not.

      Second, you know as well as I do that as soon as Facebook became / becomes aware of this incident, they will remove it.

      Sure, everyone knows that Facebook is derided and hated at Slashdot, but really, what else should they do? And anyway, Little Sophie from Sequim (pronounced "Skwim" by the way) will be set after her parents hire a lawyer extort a few hundred thousand from Facebook for "psychological damage and suffering".

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:So desperate already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Creating an advert that takes advantage of the Facebook API, and than buying screen time on Facebook does not involve human interaction of any kind on Facebook's part.

      yes, clearly it is a brilliant idea to take that into consideration and remove all responsibility from everyone that automates their work in the interest of higher profit margins.

    3. Re:So desperate already? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If they were less desperate, the default for positing unseen ads wouldn't be yes. Surely they, like every other corporation big enough to have a PR dept. is well aware that there are some things they just don't want to be associaited with.

  8. Good Grief by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

    Yes, yes, yes... We know this already. So much so, in fact it's now an official Slashdot meme.

    But of course we are intelligent educated adults with good sense, so we understand this and know how to avoid being sucked in, right?

    The case in point demonstrates at least (but probably more) two things: One, children (the story is about a 13 year old) are not generally as "worldly wise" as us intelligent educated adults with good sense, and that Facebook is facilitating a commercial activity that potentially exploits vulnerable people, some of whom are minors.

    Shocking? Perhaps, but this is just one that slipped through to be discovered. Of course we are the product, and being the product, it goes without saying that we will be exploited while using Facebook. Or *any* "social media" including Slashdot

    This just shows how low things have sunk, something that should have been expected.

    There's nothing wrong with "erotica" and indeed there are many who think that there is nothing wrong with children discovering "erotica", but there are limitations, exploiting vulnerable woman (and men) is questionable, and a promotional system that allows for the exploitation of children is certainly well "across the line".

    Facebook is a big machine, perhaps they were not aware of this "problem" customer. They should at least be afforded the opportunity to take care of this and perhaps close the hole.

    But yes, I think we already know that we are Facebook's "product".

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Good Grief by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's nothing wrong with "erotica"

      Waldorf: "There's nothing like a good erotic webcam show."
      Statler: "And that was nothing like a good erotic webcam show!"

  9. Dumb Fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would tell FB that you like anything?

  10. Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...unless she is in the upper 1% of hotness, she had better line up some other career options. Modeling is not what teens imagine it to be, and the competition is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm sure there was at least one teen girl drawn in to webcam stuff because of this. shame on Facebook!

    2. Re: Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Upper 1% of hotness? Have you actually looked at models? It's 'uniqueness'. There's still a requirement for symmetry, but not for beauty.

      Tyra banks? Huge forehead. Mills jovovich? Kind of cute but also slightly androgynous. Most other models have wide set eyes and weird chins. They are in essence, outliers of hotness...also known as being kind of ugly.

      You know what's scientifically proven to be hot? Average-ness. If you're symmetrical and your facial features approximate an average of all human phenotypes, you're hot.

      Again, if you want to be a model...you just need to look weirder than most people.

    3. Re: Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Upper 1% of hotness? Have you actually looked at models? ... They are in essence, outliers of hotness...also known as being kind of ugly.

      Again, if you want to be a model...you just need to look weirder than most people.

      You know you're gay, right?

    4. Re: Be that as it may... by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

      That made me laugh. Then I realised what site I was on.

    5. Re: Be that as it may... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First off it's like 0.0001% of girls. Second off models have a half life of 19mo. Third what go said about uniqueness is true, but if you watch Top Model and other shows you see the most defining trait is being rail thin. If you're super skinny and not deformed and can do the pout face (blue steel!) then they can paint you with makeup and light you well and shoot with pro cameras and pro photographers, and you will look like a model.

    6. Re: Be that as it may... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he thinks the SI swimsuit and Victoria's Secret models are exceptions. I'd think so anyway. I know a lot of the fashion runway models are a little strange looking.

    7. Re: Be that as it may... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      ...after a few hours of retouching in Photoshop...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Modeling is not what teens imagine it to be, and the competition is ridiculous.

      Better she finds out now than being disappointed years down the road... getting her 'junk' out in front of a camera is the most 'modeling' she's ever likely to do!

    9. Re:Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with webcam 'modeling', only your dignity may be harmed; instead of your body, your sense of self-worth, your self-image, etc.

    10. Re: Be that as it may... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This made me laugh harder than when I read GP

    11. Re: Be that as it may... by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Just to add to this. the Definition of "Skinny" changes with the times a little, but all models are also above average tall.

  11. Worst thing since... by Webs+101 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is the worst thing since newspaper classified ads recruited women for phone sex.

    Remember newspaper classified ads? They were like Craigslist, except you had to buy the newspaper to see them.

    --

    "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:Worst thing since... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what are newspapers? Are classified ads like monster.com? I read all my news online.

  12. Wait by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wait... there are still people under the age of 35 on facebook?

    1. Re:Wait by noh8rz10 · · Score: 0

      zing!

    2. Re:Wait by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      There are 14 year old girls who are not already doing nude webcam modeling?

  13. Seems more like sleazy advertisers by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean - I get it, we should all be aware on line. But it's not the end of the world to "like" a product manufacturer or service provider. It can be a symbiotic relationship - I like your stuff and want to keep abreast of what you're doing so I "like" your page and get updates. That might be the release of a new octocopter, or a new show opening at Disney World, or casting dates for an indie film, or a coupon for a new makeup product.

    This sounds more like false advertising from a sleazy online porn shop. So, yes, we should all be aware; but we shouldn't be paranoid.And, yes, I think Facebook has a role/responsibility in vetting their advertisers and leveraging their data for appropriate marketing targets.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  14. I'm SHOCKED! by Chelloveck · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is awful! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you! I'm going to write to my congressman and tell him... Tell him... Um...

    Wait, what exactly am I supposed to be outraged about here?

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    1. Re:I'm SHOCKED! by fred911 · · Score: 1

      Porn and children, terrorism, drugs, atheists, homosexuality, evolution.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:I'm SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing. i'm pretty sure using 13 year olds to promote your 'adult' buisness is already illegal with or without thier consent... so someone just needs to call thier da's office.

  15. Huh huh. Heh heh. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    They tried to get her to pose nude, and she lives in "see quim"?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  16. So, what page was it? by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

    I need it. For research purposes.

  17. American Indian, right? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Full-voting member of the Slapaho tribe?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  18. Re:Huh huh. Heh heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The e in Sequim is silent.

  19. Diet drugs? by allo · · Score: 1

    aren't teenager the main target for such products?

    1. Re:Diet drugs? by fermion · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I don't see how this is any different that advertising acne and psychotropic drugs to teens. Yes, some people have a medical need for the drug, but most are being given drugs with no benefits and significant side effects.

      As far as advertising naked internet webcam show for pay to kids, yes this is illegal, but face the facts. If a kid is interested in modeling, the most likely way to make money without allowing oneself to be physically molested and becoming addicted to drugs and actually making money is the web cam route. It is not ideal, but I suspect most of these ads are not for any kind of modeling career, but scams to separate parents from the hard earned money, and sell young people fake dreams.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  20. Re:Hey, Clock Monkeys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citizens Everywhere Will Damage Their Biological Rhythm for Nobody's Good

    FTFY

  21. Aren't teens abandoning Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If teens aren't abandoning Facebook, maybe they will now.

  22. Pronunciation Guide by anagama · · Score: 1

    In case you're wondering "Sequim" is pronounced "skwim" excatly like "swim" with a "K" after the "S".

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  23. a great analogy by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    Wow, she's an idiot. If you go to Vegas and say you're interested in gambling, you're all set. If you get to inner city New Jersey and say you're interested in gambling, you're not going to get quite the same quality of gambling establishments interested in your patronage. In related news, don't try to get into modeling anywhere on the entire internet.

    1. Re:a great analogy by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wow, she's an idiot

      If you weren't an idiot at least once when you were 14 then you are not human.

  24. This has happened to me before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I-I was only looking for underwear for my girlfriend, I didn't think it'd be a porn page!!

  25. Some Facebook ads are just disgusting by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    I usually run adblock+ on my browsers so I don't see that many ads, and because of that, I not clicked on any ads.
    But at one time I did log in to Facebook using a computer that did not have adblock+ installed and the ads were the type I really did not expect even Facebook to allow. It was really just porn ads disguised as someone sending me a personal message or whatever.
    When they have no problems going that low, I feel even better about using adblock+.
    For other reasons, I have not logged in to Facebook for 1/2 a year now and I have disabled my account so I don't know if this crap is still going on.

    1. Re:Some Facebook ads are just disgusting by ruir · · Score: 1

      My favourite google ad is/was a gif at the bottom of your screen that shows a "facebook mailbox" with a "new message" to read.

  26. Parents Should Know Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is exactly why Parents should monitor their kids computer use. Who is making a big stink about this story? The internet is not all flowers, puppies, and unicorns.

  27. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Different AC]

    Felt good. Should have done this years ago.

  28. wait... why is this wrong again? by strstr · · Score: 1

    Isn't it based on old traditions and superstition about 14 year olds and sexuality?

    Because by the time she's about that age, she's taken nude pictures of herself however many times, and has lost her virginity. And by age 16 or 18 she's going to perform her first sex act, strip, or webcam scene for money. What is the deal with introducing this information to her at 14, exactly, and why should she not be able to handle it on her own (to dismiss or accept it, for her own individual purposes)?..

    1. Re:wait... why is this wrong again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Control yourself, we are not talking about your sister here. It used to be a university kid was a small adult a few years ago, now they are just big kids...

  29. We should be telling them not to use their real na by dbIII · · Score: 1
    We should be telling them not to use their real name on the net but Facebook etc killed that obvious step for kids to protect themselves on the net years ago.

    unaware of how to protect themselves online

    They are actively encouraged by expensive marketing to expose themselves online. Adults are not resisting it so why expect the kids to have more guts and resist?