I hate that Meta is using pictures of peoples’ kids without their express permission.
But can we, as a society, please get past this disgusting idea that a picture is really anything more than it appears? Okay, so using the one in the picture, I just see a girl in a skirt with a bag. I recognize that she’s somewhat pretty. But the article mentions “bare legs or stockings”. So fucking what? We all have legs — well, except a few who have had amputation or other such cases — I do not mean to not be inclusive. But I’m saying, why do we have to sexualise it? Because a few people do? Because someone at Meta knew some person would and used it as a sly marketing technique? Possibly because something like 200 million Americans voted for or refused to vote against a president who is pretty much a pedophile?
Can the majority of us just see that picture as “pretty girl” or even just “girl” or maybe “content girl” or “moderately successful young woman” without reading any more into it?
I may be on the asexuality spectrum (I am not ace, I might be demi) but a girl in a skirt standing in a house, whether she’s 13 or 23 or 33 or 43, it doesn’t do anything for me. It’s not a sexy picture. Maybe this is one of the more mild examples? Anyway, the way we sexualise people, adolescent girls in particular, just perpetually annoys me. At time it disgusts me as well, but I find it annoying that our minds go to the sex appeal — or to what we perceive to be the sex appeal to those less ethical than us — of a person who happens to be female.
But I’m saying, why do we have to sexualise it? Because a few people do? Because someone at Meta knew some person would and used it as a sly marketing technique?
This is why. Especially because Meta is doing it as a “sly marketing technique”; they are exploiting a child using her sexuality without her express consent (I don’t give af what the ToS says about implicit consent), and now if anybody who has seen those ads, sees her on the streets they might harass her about it.
It’s noble of you to want to keep normal things normal. In a perfect world, none of this would be an issue at all, and Meta would’ve reached out to the girl and/or her parents to ask for permission. People wouldn’t be up in arms about it, and we’d all be living happy, productive lives as a utopian society.
But that’s not the word we live in, and pretending otherwise is a disservice to those who are exploited. We must recognize the atrocities for what they are, and act accordingly.
Can the majority of us just see that picture as “pretty girl” or even just “girl” or maybe “content girl” or “moderately successful young woman” without reading any more into it?
Sure, the example picture in the article is just girls in uniform. That said, the schoolgirl outfit has been sexualized by a large portion of society and meta using it in a targeted way towards men is creepy. Context matters.
Why do you think Meta is using pictures of little girls and not little boys to advertise to grown men?
Thinking this is innocent is sticking your head in the sand. Your sexuality is kinda irrelevant or perhaps is blinding you here. There are a LOT of grown men who sexualize little girls and the “So what?” here is quite glaring and disgusting.
Asexual too! It also does nothing for me. But I recognize there are many for whom it will, specifically because they might suspect those girls to be underage. The thumbnail picture looks like something I would have taken in my teen years—simply me existing in my school uniform—but I also recognize she is probably pretty and it shows legs (which will up the rate she gets sexualized at, no matter how nonsexual her intent or how nonsexual the intent of her parent that posted that), and that pedophiles exist.
The children’s images were used by Meta after their parents had posted them on Instagram to mark their return to school. The parents were unaware that Meta’s settings permitted it to do this. One mother said her account was set to private, but the posts were automatically cross-posting to Threads where they were visible. Another said she posted the picture to a public Instagram account. The posts of their children were highlighted to the stranger as “suggested threads”.
Blah blah Meta untrustable, but even still I expected “private” to mean “you might train AI models on my pictures and do stuff with my data, but strangers won’t be seeing my pictures.” Did not expect it to be put in ads. I’m so so lucky I intentionally never posted anything I would feel uncomfortable having the public at large see, but it still feels like a violation to know that I expected nobody outside my social circle, nobody outside people I approved as followers would be allowed to see my stuff in-app. That Instagram would not recommend my stuff or show it to strangers.
(Yes, I am super aware I could have misjudged a person I let follow me, and that follower could 1) screenshot my stuff and 2) post it on some public forum like Reddit, “look at this [insulting adjective] person, let’s mock them”—which is another reason why everything I posted is incredibly safe for work, but even still. Who knows, I might be getting mocked publicly on r/milquetoastdullpeople r/livelaughlove or a Lemmy equivalent or something. The point is Facebook breaking the expectations we had of it. And need I say I made my account far before it was a Facebook acquisition, and then all my peers were there, so… please don’t blame my teenage self for not doing the perfect FOSS user thing and severing all connections to avoid Facebook’s awful practices. There’s a lot of dumb stuff teens do for social approval. I didn’t drink and drive or go 95mph in a 25 to look cool, post pictures of myself at a party next to people passed out, none of those dumb kid life-risking thrillseeker mistakes, let my teenage self have this more quiet failing.)
Thanks for the warning, even more reason I should actually delete all my stuff on Instagram instead of just leaving the account inactive.
But can we, as a society, please get past this disgusting idea that a picture is really anything more than it appears?
Congrats: you won the creepy comment of the day award! This is bordering “age is just a number” logic.
This isn’t about spontaneous ejaculation upon seeing exposed legs; they could’ve been covered three layers of clothing and it’s still fucked up. Meta is using pictures of under-aged girls to entice a 37 year old man to join Threads. What kind of adult man would join an app after seeing those pictures? Who exactly is Meta targeting with these ads? I challenge you to come up with an answer to that question that isn’t “pedos”.
In a sane world, Meta and all the employees involved in this campaign would be investigated for human trafficking/csam/pedophilia/etc. If I was an employee I’d even go as far as to report any coworkers with kids who were involved in this to CPS. Children are trafficked all the time on sites Meta’s services, so this is a very serious and real danger to society.
Of course, that shit isn’t going to happen. Instead, it’s up to the sane people left in society to shame them for this disgusting behavior.
I hate that Meta is using pictures of peoples’ kids without their express permission.
But can we, as a society, please get past this disgusting idea that a picture is really anything more than it appears? Okay, so using the one in the picture, I just see a girl in a skirt with a bag. I recognize that she’s somewhat pretty. But the article mentions “bare legs or stockings”. So fucking what? We all have legs — well, except a few who have had amputation or other such cases — I do not mean to not be inclusive. But I’m saying, why do we have to sexualise it? Because a few people do? Because someone at Meta knew some person would and used it as a sly marketing technique? Possibly because something like 200 million Americans voted for or refused to vote against a president who is pretty much a pedophile?
Can the majority of us just see that picture as “pretty girl” or even just “girl” or maybe “content girl” or “moderately successful young woman” without reading any more into it?
I may be on the asexuality spectrum (I am not ace, I might be demi) but a girl in a skirt standing in a house, whether she’s 13 or 23 or 33 or 43, it doesn’t do anything for me. It’s not a sexy picture. Maybe this is one of the more mild examples? Anyway, the way we sexualise people, adolescent girls in particular, just perpetually annoys me. At time it disgusts me as well, but I find it annoying that our minds go to the sex appeal — or to what we perceive to be the sex appeal to those less ethical than us — of a person who happens to be female.
This is why. Especially because Meta is doing it as a “sly marketing technique”; they are exploiting a child using her sexuality without her express consent (I don’t give af what the ToS says about implicit consent), and now if anybody who has seen those ads, sees her on the streets they might harass her about it.
It’s noble of you to want to keep normal things normal. In a perfect world, none of this would be an issue at all, and Meta would’ve reached out to the girl and/or her parents to ask for permission. People wouldn’t be up in arms about it, and we’d all be living happy, productive lives as a utopian society.
But that’s not the word we live in, and pretending otherwise is a disservice to those who are exploited. We must recognize the atrocities for what they are, and act accordingly.
N. b aaCW
Sure, the example picture in the article is just girls in uniform. That said, the schoolgirl outfit has been sexualized by a large portion of society and meta using it in a targeted way towards men is creepy. Context matters.
Why do you think Meta is using pictures of little girls and not little boys to advertise to grown men?
Thinking this is innocent is sticking your head in the sand. Your sexuality is kinda irrelevant or perhaps is blinding you here. There are a LOT of grown men who sexualize little girls and the “So what?” here is quite glaring and disgusting.
Asexual too! It also does nothing for me. But I recognize there are many for whom it will, specifically because they might suspect those girls to be underage. The thumbnail picture looks like something I would have taken in my teen years—simply me existing in my school uniform—but I also recognize she is probably pretty and it shows legs (which will up the rate she gets sexualized at, no matter how nonsexual her intent or how nonsexual the intent of her parent that posted that), and that pedophiles exist.
Blah blah Meta untrustable, but even still I expected “private” to mean “you might train AI models on my pictures and do stuff with my data, but strangers won’t be seeing my pictures.” Did not expect it to be put in ads. I’m so so lucky I intentionally never posted anything I would feel uncomfortable having the public at large see, but it still feels like a violation to know that I expected nobody outside my social circle, nobody outside people I approved as followers would be allowed to see my stuff in-app. That Instagram would not recommend my stuff or show it to strangers.
(Yes, I am super aware I could have misjudged a person I let follow me, and that follower could 1) screenshot my stuff and 2) post it on some public forum like Reddit, “look at this [insulting adjective] person, let’s mock them”—which is another reason why everything I posted is incredibly safe for work, but even still. Who knows, I might be getting mocked publicly on r/milquetoastdullpeople r/livelaughlove or a Lemmy equivalent or something. The point is Facebook breaking the expectations we had of it. And need I say I made my account far before it was a Facebook acquisition, and then all my peers were there, so… please don’t blame my teenage self for not doing the perfect FOSS user thing and severing all connections to avoid Facebook’s awful practices. There’s a lot of dumb stuff teens do for social approval. I didn’t drink and drive or go 95mph in a 25 to look cool, post pictures of myself at a party next to people passed out, none of those dumb kid life-risking thrillseeker mistakes, let my teenage self have this more quiet failing.)
Thanks for the warning, even more reason I should actually delete all my stuff on Instagram instead of just leaving the account inactive.
Congrats: you won the creepy comment of the day award! This is bordering “age is just a number” logic.
This isn’t about spontaneous ejaculation upon seeing exposed legs; they could’ve been covered three layers of clothing and it’s still fucked up. Meta is using pictures of under-aged girls to entice a 37 year old man to join Threads. What kind of adult man would join an app after seeing those pictures? Who exactly is Meta targeting with these ads? I challenge you to come up with an answer to that question that isn’t “pedos”.
In a sane world, Meta and all the employees involved in this campaign would be investigated for human trafficking/csam/pedophilia/etc. If I was an employee I’d even go as far as to report any coworkers with kids who were involved in this to CPS. Children are trafficked all the time on sites Meta’s services, so this is a very serious and real danger to society.
Of course, that shit isn’t going to happen. Instead, it’s up to the sane people left in society to shame them for this disgusting behavior.