this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
184 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

40344 readers
607 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For anyone curious how Meta could possibly get worse -- excellent news.

Meta has used back-to-school pictures of schoolgirls to advertise one of its social media platforms to a 37-year-old man, in a move parents described as “outrageous” and “upsetting”.

The man noticed that posts encouraging him to “get Threads”, Mark Zuckerberg’s rival to Elon Musk’s X, were being dropped into his Instagram feed featuring embedded posts of uniformed girls as young as 13 with their faces visible and, in most cases, their names.

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”.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] InevitableList@beehaw.org 9 points 1 day ago

I love how all of facebook's privacy settings are set to 'use and abuse me' and periodically get reset to such every now and again. It used to tell you what shopping your friends did, like if your boyfriend bought an engagement ring. When asked if he thought this was a good thing Zuckerberg's answer was basically, "Yes."

[–] root@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago

Where is Collective Shout when you need them?

/s

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 97 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The children’s images were used by Meta after their parents had posted them on Instagram to mark their return to school.

STOP POSTING PICTURES OF YOUR CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET. Even IF Meta weren't going to use the photos for advertising purposes, that shit is still public. Even if you set it to "friends only", you don't know everybody on your friend list as well as you'd like to think.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

STOP POSTING PICTURES OF YOUR CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET.

Stop using Facebook/Instagram.

[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When I give pictures of my children to data mining company and data mining company uses them for weird stuff.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"Who could have seen this coming? They'd been so privacy focused until now!"

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

2010 they changed privacy policy, even if I had everything locked down, that policy let them use my "friends" access level to glean data. Byebye facebook

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 40 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Don't post your children online.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

Don't use Facebook.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Thats the same vibe as: Don't drive your kids to school, you might get hit by a drunk driver. Meta will take any image, per previous claims, they don't care if it was public or not

[–] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

which is why you don't put it online in the first place, as the user said..

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Personally I don't, I don't have facebook, I'm degoogled, I self host my images on an immich server, etc. But we should nt be victim blaming, companies like meta should be accountable and develop better policies

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's moreso like asking the drunk driver to take your kids to school

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No. You are doing something legal in good faith and the other person is being devious.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 10 points 2 days ago

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Thats the same vibe as: Don’t drive your kids to school, [because] you might get hit by a drunk driver.

Nope. The poster is choosing to put the PII online, and cannot guarantee privacy. In IT Security, "How do you know" is the most powerful phrase; and for Facebook/Meta/etc, you just don't.

This is a fundamental rule since childhood ("If you're coming home late from band practice, stay in a group because of the cougar") and I'm not sure where you missed it.

[–] Deyis@beehaw.org 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hang on, so I need to upload government ID and/or a selfie in order to access "adult material" in order to protect kids but Meta trying to bait men with pictures of girls under the age of consent is perfectly fine? What the fuck is happening?

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 13 points 2 days ago

"Rules for thee, but not for me."

[–] kami@lemmy.dbzer0.com 52 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Meta is a disgusting company and Zuckerberg is an embarrassment for humanity.

That being said, the parents of those kids are stupid fucking idiots who should feel ashamed for exposing their own kids on such a shithole of social media.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 45 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

There are a shocking number of people who still think Facebook is a good way for Grandma to see back-to-school photos, and either are unaware or don't care that ceased to be central to the platform while Obama was in office. Inertia is a bitch. And so is Zuck.

[–] FundMECFS@anarchist.nexus 12 points 2 days ago

This is just the vast vast vast majority of people.

Us privacy awares are less than one % of the population.

[–] pasdechance@jlai.lu 24 points 2 days ago

Multiple people within the company allowed that to happen. The brightest minds money can buy. Cumulative experience that can be measured in decades either did not forsee this or shrugged it off as "not their problem."

Nasty.