Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Facebook Ads Teens Aren't Supposed To See

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children? dept.

Facebook 111

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hey, Clock Monkeys! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381477)

T-minus Seven Days and Counting

Citizens Everywhere Will Damage Their Biological Rhythm for Society's Good; Will You Be One of Them? Jump, Boy, Jump!

Re:Hey, Clock Monkeys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382889)

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

FTFY

News at 11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381517)

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

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

Re:News at 11 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381601)

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.

Be that as it may... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381717)

...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.

Re:Be that as it may... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381795)

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

Re: Be that as it may... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381843)

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.

Re: Be that as it may... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381907)

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?

Re: Be that as it may... (1)

zacherynuk (2782105) | about 9 months ago | (#46382265)

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

Re: Be that as it may... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46386833)

This made me laugh harder than when I read GP

Re: Be that as it may... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 9 months ago | (#46382427)

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.

Re: Be that as it may... (4, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#46382351)

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.

Re: Be that as it may... (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 9 months ago | (#46382771)

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

Re:Be that as it may... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46383253)

> 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!

Re:Be that as it may... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46384759)

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

Re:News at 11 (3, Insightful)

jopsen (885607) | about 9 months ago | (#46382805)

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 :)

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46385745)

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).

Adblock! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381523)

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

Re:Adblock! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381551)

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

You have the option to leave if you want to.

Re:Adblock! (2)

Nehmo (757404) | about 9 months ago | (#46381583)

You have the option to leave if you want to.

Resistance is futile.

Re:Adblock! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382055)

Hey Everybody, ever wonder what I look like? This [postimg.org] was a picture I took of myself last night after sex with a female. While there's no nudity, it's not one for the kids!

I'm at Soylent News now. Later!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Adblock! (1)

Nehmo (757404) | about 9 months ago | (#46382619)

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

Re:Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46383661)

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

Re:Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381603)

Dear Facebook Employee,

Fuck Facebook.

- Anonymous

Re:Adblock! (4, Interesting)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 9 months ago | (#46381611)

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 ...

Re:Adblock! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46383063)

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

Re:Adblock! (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 9 months ago | (#46384099)

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?

Re:Adblock! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 9 months ago | (#46384247)

"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?

Re:Adblock! (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about 9 months ago | (#46384519)

Wow you really seem to be pretty emotionally tied to this. The point made here [slashdot.org] 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?

Re:Adblock! (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 9 months ago | (#46384557)

"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.

Re:Adblock! (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 9 months ago | (#46384839)

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?

Re:Adblock! (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46386941)

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.

Re:Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46385171)

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.

Re:Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46386551)

"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?

Re:Adblock! (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 9 months ago | (#46386889)

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.

Re:Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46384865)

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.

Re: Adblock! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382233)

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.

Re: Adblock! (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 9 months ago | (#46383667)

[citation needed]

Re: Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46383675)

...What?

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

Re: Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46386165)

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)

Re:Adblock! (3, Interesting)

Xicor (2738029) | about 9 months ago | (#46381689)

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

Re:Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381851)

lol... i block more adds...

College grad, are you?

Re:Adblock! (5, Informative)

GNious (953874) | about 9 months ago | (#46382013)

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

Re:Adblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46384117)

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

Re:Adblock! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46384503)

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.

Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46384735)

[Different AC]

Felt good. Should have done this years ago.

Good example (5, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | about 9 months ago | (#46381525)

This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

Re:Good example (0)

Nehmo (757404) | about 9 months ago | (#46381573)

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.)

Good Grief (4, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 9 months ago | (#46381675)

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".

Re:Good Grief (5, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#46381833)

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!"

Re:Good example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381735)

This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!

Karma whore.

American Indian, right? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 9 months ago | (#46382133)

Full-voting member of the Slapaho tribe?

Re:Good example (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381805)

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...

Re:Good example (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382231)

She's 13, much like you

Captcha - gaseous - oddly appropriate

Re:Good example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382073)

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

multiple levels of scaryness (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381553)

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.

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (5, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | about 9 months ago | (#46381661)

[...] 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.

Seems more like sleazy advertisers (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#46381797)

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.

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381857)

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.

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 9 months ago | (#46384139)

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.

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46384265)

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.

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (1)

PPH (736903) | about 9 months ago | (#46381937)

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

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (3, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 9 months ago | (#46381991)

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.

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (1)

leonardluen (211265) | about 9 months ago | (#46382207)

and balancing a budget.

who taught them this? certainly not congress.

Re:multiple levels of scaryness (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 9 months ago | (#46384145)

They should never be using Facebook, either.

We should be telling them not to use their real na (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 9 months ago | (#46386979)

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?

Facebook is not for teens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381565)

It is for adults.

Re:Facebook is not for teens (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381781)

It is for adults that act like kids.

FTFY

Re:Facebook is not for teens (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 9 months ago | (#46382447)

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

I'm from Portugal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381589)

And here the age of consent is 14.

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

Re:I'm from Portugal (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 9 months ago | (#46381953)

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.

Re:I'm from Portugal (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 9 months ago | (#46382349)

Well my 14 year old niece thinks she knows everything.

So desperate already? (4, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 9 months ago | (#46381671)

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

Re:So desperate already? (1, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 9 months ago | (#46381785)

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".

Re:So desperate already? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382049)

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.

Re:So desperate already? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#46384287)

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.

Dumb Fucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381699)

Why would tell FB that you like anything?

Actually, this is exactly what she needed to learn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381705)

The thing about modeling is that it's not all glamor, but there is a seedy underside to it that involves a deeper level of exploitation.

It won't take long before there's some photographer or fashion agent who says you can get ahead, if only you take off some clothes, or show you're dedicated, or an excellent in handling some people, all you need is play around a bit...

Worst thing since... (1, Insightful)

Webs 101 (798265) | about 9 months ago | (#46381725)

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.

Re:Worst thing since... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46381825)

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

Wait (4, Funny)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#46381755)

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

Re:Wait (0)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#46381895)

zing!

Re:Wait (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 9 months ago | (#46383733)

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

I'm SHOCKED! (3, Funny)

Chelloveck (14643) | about 9 months ago | (#46381839)

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?

Re:I'm SHOCKED! (1)

fred911 (83970) | about 9 months ago | (#46382053)

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

Re:I'm SHOCKED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382913)

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.

Huh huh. Heh heh. (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 9 months ago | (#46381943)

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

Re:Huh huh. Heh heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46382227)

The e in Sequim is silent.

So, what page was it? (1)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 9 months ago | (#46382083)

I need it. For research purposes.

Diet drugs? (1)

allo (1728082) | about 9 months ago | (#46382829)

aren't teenager the main target for such products?

Re:Diet drugs? (1)

fermion (181285) | about 9 months ago | (#46383365)

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.

Aren't teens abandoning Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46383261)

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

Pronunciation Guide (1)

anagama (611277) | about 9 months ago | (#46383681)

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

a great analogy (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 9 months ago | (#46383829)

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.

This has happened to me before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46383841)

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

Some Facebook ads are just disgusting (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about 9 months ago | (#46384129)

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.

Re:Some Facebook ads are just disgusting (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 9 months ago | (#46386177)

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.

Parents Should Know Better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46384453)

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.

wait... why is this wrong again? (1)

strstr (539330) | about 9 months ago | (#46385579)

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)?..

Re:wait... why is this wrong again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46386181)

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...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?