[pmorici]

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.

[tobyjsullivan]

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...

[Osmium]

> 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!

[redwood]

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!

[orijing]

> 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.

[jaredmcateer]

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.

[tobyjsullivan]

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.

[timerickson]

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.

[mekwall]

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

[lilsunnybee]

Your two statements are paradoxical.

[crcn]

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.

[matthuggins]

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.

[uzusan]

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.

[crcn]

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.

[shock-value]

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.

[DanBC]

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.

[derleth]

> an unsophisticated viewer

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