Facebook Will…Wait. What?


The Evening nbrdedesfs
Standard announced
that Facebook will “automatically warn parents if they share pictures of their children with the public by accident.”

Thank goodness! Imagine if the public saw a photo of my child at the park! All bets are off! Here’s how Jay Parikh, Facebook’s vice president of Engineering, explained the new feature:

“If I were to upload a photo of my kids playing at the park and I accidentally had it shared with the public, this system could say: ‘Hey wait a minute, this is a photo of your kids, normally you post this to just your family members, are you sure you want to do this?’

Hell no! One glimpse and predators from all across the country would be booking flights to my neighborhood in the hopes that my child — clearly the most adorable, abductable moppet in America — would be at the same park again sometime soon. They’d pack some sandwiches and wait in the bushes. I’d be lucky if I ever saw my child again!

What’s worse is the message a picture like this sends. If somehow, God (and Facebook) forbid,  it went public, predators would finally figure out the secret we’ve worked so hard to keep on the QT: kids play in parks. The day that cat is out of the bag, it’s not just MY child I’ve placed in danger. It is ALL children.

Thank goodness technology is a step ahead of the bad guys. I’m sure it has nothing to do with any kind of data-gathering for financial purposes. It is simply the safety of our precious children.

It always is. – L.

Oh my God, did I just post a photo of my child on Facebook???

Oh my God, did I just post a photo of my child on Facebook? My poor, dear sweetheart — forgive me! We will meet in heaven! 

, , , , , , , , , ,

58 Responses to Facebook Will…Wait. What?

  1. bob magee November 18, 2015 at 11:06 am #

    a tool that can have some use (I only want to post those pictures of me wearing a lampshade at Uncle Dave’s wake to friends and family – and not the facebook public at large) is perverted to be a “vital” tool in the War On Children (and, by extension, the War on Parenting Choices)

    A pox on all fear mongering marketing.

  2. lollipoplover November 18, 2015 at 11:08 am #

    Will it also notify the Facebook users who constantly upload food pictures no one wants to see that they are likely narcissists? That would be helpful.

    What about game requests for Candy Crush? Can you please notify these people who seem to be stalking me online and can’t seem to get hint that their unwanted requests are annoying?

  3. James Pollock November 18, 2015 at 11:10 am #

    The first rule of marketing is that you don’t sell people what they actually need… you sell them what they think they want.

  4. Doug November 18, 2015 at 11:15 am #

    Reason # 458 to not be on Facebook.

    Don’t all those users wonder how Facebook knows what their children look like? If any stranger on the street walked up and said “How’s your son Johnny today?” my guess is a good number of them would freak out. But if a faceless corporation a thousand miles away does it, no worries, it’s cool, it’s for our safety.

    Unfortunately, a couple groups I am a member of are debating moving to Facebook for ease of management. Guess I’ll have to figure out a really awesome secret identity.

  5. Dave November 18, 2015 at 11:26 am #

    In general, I think this has some benefit — the idea here is that if Facebook detects a shift from your normal activity, it’ll suggest maybe you didn’t intend that.

    So if, for example, I always post family pictures in a “Friends” privacy mode, but after some other activity I’ve accidentally posted it in “Public,” it’ll be smart enough to say, “Are you sure you meant that?”

    Absent the “children” angle, it’s a cool feature. Facebook obviously keeps track of what I do, so why not let that information help me? Similar to GMail saying “You mentioned you were attaching a document to this email, but there’s no attachment, are you sure?”….

  6. coasterfreak November 18, 2015 at 11:27 am #

    Speaking of fear mongering, at work yesterday I was working on someone’s computer and they had their radio on. A commercial came on and the first words were, “You send your children to school every morning (begin dark foreboding music and deeper voice-over) not knowing if it’s the last time you’ll ever see them.” I have no idea what the commercial was advertising because that first sentence made me so mad that I had to turn it off. Before I did, I managed to hear something about a “bomb just waiting to explode.” It’s unbelievable what advertisers will stoop to in order to sell stuff to terrified people.

  7. Mandy November 18, 2015 at 11:33 am #

    “This is a photo of your kids. Are you sure you want to do this? You run the risk of making your childless friends feel REALLY old.”

  8. Havva November 18, 2015 at 11:39 am #

    Bigger question, how does/would Facebook even know the person in the photo was my child? I’m also concerned about all the talk of “objectionable content” especially when they say this idea will “also make it easier for Facebook to remove “objectionable content” automatically, without the need for a human to check it.”

    I wonder how many pictures of babies resting their little heads on an adult would be automatically deleted because it might look to a computer like a picture of a baby breastfeeding.

  9. MichaelF November 18, 2015 at 11:49 am #

    So does this mean Facebook won’t be changing my settings every time they do a major update?

    THAT is an update that I really want.

  10. Tracy November 18, 2015 at 12:17 pm #

    @Havva Why is a picture of a breastfeeding baby objectionable?

  11. lollipoplover November 18, 2015 at 12:34 pm #

    What I still don’t understand is how people think posting photos on Facebook is the 21st century version of a scrapbook or family photo album.

    It will NOT stay private, even if you use the most stringent privacy controls! You just posted on SOCIAL media. Pictures of your kids posted just for your friends still can get shared just like the drunk ones of you at the office Christmas party. Trust me, the ones at the Christmas party are so much more interesting than the kids ones that no one even cares about.

    I personally find photos of dogs and cats way more interesting than the posed kid photos (does anyone else loathe the first day of school ones?). I probably have dozens of pet photos just today in my newsfeed . But there hasn’t been a rash of dognapping or catnappings with the incredible amount of pet photos shared on social media.

  12. lollipoplover November 18, 2015 at 12:37 pm #


    There are quite a few FB related breastfeeding “bans”, but this one I remember:


  13. pentamom November 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    Oh, it’s a good thing that Facebook is doing this. If not, someone might accidentally make a picture of a child public, and then predators would have information previously unavailable to them — what children look like.

  14. Yocheved November 18, 2015 at 12:42 pm #

    How are they going to find these pictures? Do they have facial recognition software that can identify a person under 18? Will they be flagging all of the teens who are posting selfies every day, warning them that they are at risk for abduction?

  15. Lora November 18, 2015 at 12:49 pm #

    I would rather Facebook earn my kids when they are posting stupid sex pictures on public. Can Facebook say.. Hey stupid kid! That photo will follow you FOREVER!

  16. Poppy November 18, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    Here’s another angle. I appreciate this. When I post to my family, I realize that there is a risk someone will share, but, on the other hand, these are the people who want to see pictures of my kids and who I trust. It’s not that I don’t trust the world at large, it’s that I respect my children’s privacy. I know photographs posted online can move around the world at rapid speed, and I don’t think that’s fair to my children. They are young and should be able to choose whether they want these photos posted to the public versus their aunts and uncles.

  17. Heartfruit November 18, 2015 at 1:13 pm #

    For those asking… yes, both Google and Facebook are actively perfecting software that will identify people in photos. Google would very much like you to be able to search for people via a photo. From an organizing the worlds data that makes a lot of sense. But a lot of people find it creepy an invasive.

    I don’t post photos of my daughter that she might find embarrassing in 20 years. I also don’t post photos of her publicly. Not because I think they endanger her in the sense that some stranger will seek her out and steal her away. But because I think she has the right to define her own internet persona, whatever that may be. As with other aspects of her life, I will provide her guidance and a hope she doesn’t make too many mistakes along the way.

    This seems like a fine tool. The example provided though does play into worst first thinking.

  18. John November 18, 2015 at 1:14 pm #

    You know, it is this type of nonsensical over reaction from the social media gurus that enable the worst-first thinkers. Now ALL pictures of children will be considered inappropriate and even a form of child porn. Before you know it, youtube will be getting on the bandwagon and delete videos that kids put out of themselves competing in sports or just being plane goofy (like kids do). This all will be done as an over reaction by the “one-step ahead” people who have ZERO, or at least, very little evidence to justify their cause.

    The frustrating thing is, when you point the absurdity of this over reaction to these “worst-first” thinkers, you’ll get the usual “Ohhh children have indeed been targeted by predators because of their pictures were out on the internet!!” Then they’ll ramble on about some child in….Oregon for example, who was molested by a pedophile who saw his picture on Facebook, yada, yada, yada. In reality, there is probably more perspective to that particular story than what they realize or it’s a one in a gazillion misfortune OR it was simply an urban myth that never even happened.

    Rebutting people like that is like trying to disprove tooth fairies. Where do you begin?

  19. Ben November 18, 2015 at 1:26 pm #

    People don’t spend enough time considering where their online content goes and who sees it.
    I’d support Facebook if they gave people who never set their privacy settings to just friends an occasional warning or if they warn you when you share differently than you usually do (with all your content).

    To determine your kids are in the picture, Facebook has to invade your privacy. Not cool, Facebook!

  20. CLamb November 18, 2015 at 1:27 pm #

    How will the software determine if the picture is being shared accidentally or intentionally?

  21. Kimberly Herbert November 18, 2015 at 1:31 pm #

    Oh great they are going to blow up my phone next week. I will be watching my Sister’s kids, because I’m off, the kids are off, Sis and BIL have to work. So I take lots of pictures while we are at the Zoo, Museum, beach (Hey I’m in Texas it might be warm enough to go swimming) and put them on Facebook for Sis, BIL, all our aunts (12), uncles (14), and cousins (Lost count at 50 over 13 yo) and all the family friends.

  22. Roger the Shrubber November 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    Poppy – Facebook is not the only way for one to share photos.

  23. Ashley November 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    This article is ignorant. Honestly, this has nothing to do with predators or free range parenting. You are going to the opposite end of the spectrum and imagining a fear of predators everywhere, instead of imagining predators everywhere.

  24. E November 18, 2015 at 1:40 pm #

    I haven’t had a FB account for years, but reading the comments below sure make it seem like it’s not worth the hassle.

    I realized FB was not for me when I found my thoughts affected by things “friends” posted. And I also realized that my “friends” group was really my actual friends, surrounded by a ton of “other people I know”. When my kid was struggling academically, I felt worse when people posted their kids GPAs (and that’s terrible to do — no one cares except you and the grandparents). Between politics and ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and a friend who posted something patently false about their kid (to paint a rosy, but fake picture) I realized it was just not for me.

    However, given how much (it seems) FB changes their privacy settings, it’s probably nice that they issue a reminder of where/how you are posting something.

    There are other websites and software the do warn you if you are changing a setting or a default or whatever.

    But yes, the framing of it is certainly trying to invoke fear.

  25. EricS November 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm #

    Sometimes, this is how things go from bad to worse. Enabling and encouraging negative behavior is never he answer. This is how paranoia and fear is nourtured, and spread. This can just tell already paranoid individuals, “Facebook is even aware of the problems with predators, and is doing this to help parents”. Like it’s a huge epidemic happening anywhere and everywhere to everyone.

    Here’s a novel idea, sheeples should be a little more attentive when online. THINK before posting. You don’t need people do the work for you. You’re posting, be responsible with what you post. Plain and simple. The more people are taught that things will be done for them, the less and less they will think for themselves. Perhaps this is the reason why there are fewer and fewer people using common sense.

  26. Brian42 November 18, 2015 at 2:08 pm #

    Do fearful parents actually have any interest in their children? Aren’t they only interested in seeing that they make it into adulthood? There are regions of my family who behave like that. The offspring who couldn’t live without the presence of genuine parents, and compensated that lack with companionship elsewhere (peers), now have a very low threshold for frustration and aggression.

  27. KB November 18, 2015 at 2:19 pm #

    My favorite facebook photo glitch is that it asked me if I wanted to tag my friend that it recognized in a photo. Mind you, the photo was of an architectural feature that included a bust on a famous old building… but, yeah, if you think it is Laura – I’ll tag her. Fortunately, her sense of humor is as quirky as mine and she was ok with it.

    Facial recognition software has come a long way, but isn’t flawless.

  28. Liz November 18, 2015 at 2:20 pm #

    When my son was in the NICU one of his grandfathers took a picture of him during a diaper change and said he was going to put it on his Facebook. I freaked out, not because “oh no some pervert will see this and jerk off” but because I don’t feel that my son should have pictures of his nude body online without his permission.
    HOWEVER everyday playing pictures? Not a violation. My son is adorable. If someone wants to share his image with the world, I have no problem with it.
    Well, unless they use it to make money. Then I care. Because then we should see that money. But just sharing ’cause he’s cute? Go for it!

  29. lollipoplover November 18, 2015 at 2:44 pm #

    “I realized FB was not for me when I found my thoughts affected by things “friends” posted. And I also realized that my “friends” group was really my actual friends, surrounded by a ton of “other people I know”. When my kid was struggling academically, I felt worse when people posted their kids GPAs (and that’s terrible to do — no one cares except you and the grandparents).”

    This is true of pretty much all social media. On any platform, some people get what I call “Facebook Balls” to overshare things they would never say in person and give details to overcompensate for some issue in their life. Bragging about grades and sports accomplishments will happen even without the evil of Facebook. It just spreads faster online. And don’t forget the dreaded Facebook disease FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) which spreads like wildfire.

  30. E November 18, 2015 at 3:04 pm #

    @lollipoplover — yup. I wasn’t so much jealous of people’s vacations (I’m pragmatic enough to process that, lol) but I honestly didn’t like that I even allowed other people’s kids ‘performances’ affect my brain at all. Granted, misery has always loved company, so it’s not like my feelings were groundbreaking. I just realized it was not good for me and I really would NEVER know little Jimmy’s GPA if not for facebook. I also couldn’t take the political posts — even from people whose stance aligns with mine. It’s all so strange.

    If you are only telling grandma, it doesn’t matter if you say it on the phone or via email or whatever, but really — no one else really cares.

    You don’t just go up to “people you know” an say “Jimmy got a 4.0”. Then again, I did work a volunteer event with a Mom whose child went to the same college as my kid. She quite literally blurted out “Eric made the Dean’s List” and as I was helping the next person in line was like “oh that’s nice”. I’m not even sure she knew my name, lol. Maybe I was supposed to answer “My kid didn’t?”.

    Anyway — FB is probably trying to gain atta boys for this on a “protect the children” front, but it might nice for other people. I could see my Mom having no real idea what she’s doing and little hints/reminders might be appreciated.

  31. James Pollock November 18, 2015 at 3:12 pm #

    “To determine your kids are in the picture, Facebook has to invade your privacy. Not cool, Facebook!”

    That horse has left the barn if you already have a Facebook account.

  32. JKP November 18, 2015 at 3:39 pm #

    “I realized FB was not for me when I found my thoughts affected by things “friends” posted.”

    Not just that, but FB has admitted to actually experimenting on their users. By filtering your newsfeed, and then analyzing your resulting postings and status updates, they found that they could manipulate your mood by manipulating what you see in your newsfeed.

    So your thoughts may have been intentionally affected.

  33. Diana November 18, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

    Boycott Facebook. You’d be amazed what you can live without.

  34. I Just Remembered November 18, 2015 at 4:18 pm #

    What about the freaks who take the photo of the kid and use it to make a “Go Fund Me” page, saying that their kid is sick and they need gobs of money to cover expenses? That’s possible.

  35. pentamom November 18, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

    I think the way they detect this is to recognized pictures that match the faces in ones you’ve previously posted. That’s how they suggest tagging. And yes, they probably can distinguish between child faces and adult faces.

    For those who think that’s an invasion of privacy, it’s really not. You’ve already given them the pictures of your family, and if you’ve tagged them, you’ve identified the appearance of those family members. For kids who aren’t tagged, they’re just recognizing that it’s the 64th picture of whoever that person is.

    I don’t agree with the policy but it’s no more an invasion of privacy than someone recognizing your kids on the street after you’ve already shown them 47 pictures of your kids. It’s just using technology instead of human recognition.

  36. pentamom November 18, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

    “What about the freaks who take the photo of the kid and use it to make a “Go Fund Me” page, saying that their kid is sick and they need gobs of money to cover expenses? That’s possible.”

    It’s possible, fraud is already illegal, and it still doesn’t actually hurt your kid.

  37. Puzzled November 18, 2015 at 4:54 pm #

    Well, I suspect Facebook is really just a toy for conducting large-scale social experiments, so I don’t find this surprising.

  38. Steve Florman November 18, 2015 at 5:04 pm #

    Well, at least kids don’t play in parks without their parents, unless those parents want to get arrested!

  39. Beth November 18, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    I must be the worst parent on the planet, as I never worried all that much about my children’s privacy. I took them out in public for gosh sakes. I certainly never even thought that a posted photo of them with their grandparents or swinging on a swing or playing in the sandbox was going to haunt them for all time. If it did, well, I didn’t raise very resilient kids, did I?

  40. Beth November 18, 2015 at 5:19 pm #

    Oh, one other thing. Someone posted above that FB is manipulating user’s moods. Why would anyone at FB care what mood I’m in? They can’t even KNOW what mood I’m in, since I would bet (I’m SURE someone will correct me if I’m wrong) that mood is often dependent on other factors than FB.

  41. andy November 18, 2015 at 5:24 pm #

    @lollipoplover You should be able to block notifications from games (e.g. candy crush). Click on the down arrow (looks like v) on right top corner of the request and hide them.

  42. andy November 18, 2015 at 5:48 pm #

    @Roger the Shrubber It is convenient method of sharing photos. Most people are not interested in having another account on another site just for family photos (and migrating them when that other site goes gets closed). If they just post pics on facebook, interested family and friends will see the album and everybody else skips it. No need to mail address or send messages.

    I like to see places where my friends were and do not mind seeing pics of their kids. Especially in case of friends that live far away.

    I do not get the big deal about kids and holiday and diaper change and whatever pics anyway. What is so private about kids playing in the water or doing something funny? What is it so private people share that supposed sheeple should think twice before sharing? Most of that is of no consequence.

    If some of your friends posts too much, click that v and choose “see less posts like this” or “unfollow” or “hide all”.

  43. John November 18, 2015 at 5:51 pm #


    “I must be the worst parent on the planet, as I never worried all that much about my children’s privacy. I took them out in public for gosh sakes. I certainly never even thought that a posted photo of them with their grandparents or swinging on a swing or playing in the sandbox was going to haunt them for all time. If it did, well, I didn’t raise very resilient kids, did I?”

    SPOT-ON Beth!!!!! 😉 You’re just using too much common sense!

  44. andy November 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm #

    @Beth They are curious, can and it is their playground. Plus, they might find something relevant to how/when they show ads so that you are more likely to click on those ads. Facebook lives from ads.

    And who knows, Zuckenberg may decide one day he wants to influence politics or whatever. Being able to guess moods and influence them on facebook would be useful ability for that.

  45. Rook November 18, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

    Simpler solution: don’t post pictures online at all. Not that email is all that much safer or most people are even aware that it exists anymore, but I just email pictures to family. I don’t keep hidden because I’m concerned about any imminent threats or danger. I’m just really anti-social and don’t want to run the risk of some total stranger coming up and acting like we’re old friends. And then never stop talking to me. I don’t go to the grocery store to socialize, I go there to get food and then return to my safe little cave away from chatty people who give me headaches. 😛

  46. JKP November 18, 2015 at 7:30 pm #

    Beth – “Why would anyone at FB care what mood I’m in? They can’t even KNOW what mood I’m in, since I would bet (I’m SURE someone will correct me if I’m wrong) that mood is often dependent on other factors than FB.”

    Yes, mood is dependent on many other factors too. But FB has a sampling size of millions, which makes it easier to overcome the bias of those other factors. So if they randomly assign 1/3 to the control group which has no changes to their FB, then 1/3 to the group that is only shown depressing news, and 1/3 to the group that is shown only happy news. Then they compare your before and after status updates, counting up the # of positive and negative posts/updates. Showing a statistically significant difference between those randomly assigned groups would indicate that the FB manipulation was causing the change in mood rather than individual factors which would be equally represented in each group.


  47. Warren November 18, 2015 at 11:52 pm #

    Remember the photo shops that had the machine in the front window, so you could see how pictures were developed and processed. Well I knew a couple of people that refused to use those shops, because “Who knows who will see our private photos.”.

    Tech may change, and the future will come, but paranoia will live forever.

  48. LRH November 19, 2015 at 1:50 am #

    Beth, I think, was one who said she “respected her kid’s privacy.”

    Where I come from, kids don’t have a say. If you as the parent want to share pictures of your children, it is your prerogative. They don’t get a say, nor should they, if you ask me. Part of being a parent is being proud of your children and wanting to show them off, and a minor with their limited life experience and development in my opinion has no say in such matters, even though it’s in fact them. In fact, my daughter at one point around age 4 or so was uncooperative with picture-taking (in terms of wanting to play vs be still for a minute), I’d actually discipline her for doing that.

    Beyond that, the thing to me also is that parents have this crazy notion that they have the right to dictate what images circulate of their children. They think they have some copyright or something of their children’s “likeness” and that ANY photo ANYWHERE which circulates of their children absolutely should go through their approval first. I could not disagree more with that.

    As much as I respect parental sovereignty and thus think that I as the parent ALONE should make decisions on how they’re raised, I also realize they’re part of the world at large and they have lives and interests separate from me. Things such as organized sports and spending time at playing with their friends come to mind. It is the most natural thing in the world, say, for another parent to include pictures of my children if, say, my child is attending their child’s birthday party, and not just “coincidental” pictures, but maybe my son and their son happen to do something cute and adorable and this child’s parent wants to photograph the moment. Even though my son may be my son, I think I have no moral right to interfere in any of that.

  49. sexhysteria November 19, 2015 at 4:36 am #

    I already limit my FB information (images, etc.) to Friends, as a matter of privacy. I’m not worried that it would be dangerous to publicly exhibit pictures of children, I just don’t want everyone to see my (and my Friends’) personal information. I do publish photos of children on Yahoo’s photography site Flickr, as do millions of other Flickr members, most of which are visible to the public, but many members don’t list their real name or location on their profile page – unlike FB.

  50. Beth November 19, 2015 at 7:24 am #

    @LRH, that was kind of a rant for something I never said. Here’s what I said:


    “I must be the worst parent on the planet, as I never worried all that much about my children’s privacy.”

  51. LRH November 19, 2015 at 8:34 am #

    Beth You are right, it was Poppy. Your point of view, I like and agree with.

    I will agree with what Roger the Shrubber said. Facebook isn’t the only way to share photos, but people sure think they are. We’ve had Flickr, SmugMug, and many other photo-hosting sites for YEARS, and frankly many of them (t0 me) do a better job. No one seemed so paranoid with worry until Facebook started doing it, what with the “tagging” and their insistence on usage of real names. You can upload them to Flickr or such and use an “alias,” and until facial recognition gets crazy good, the risk of someone finding that photo and associating it with you is far lower than if it’s posted on Facebook where it’s “tagged” with your real name on it.

    At the same time, I think the real problem is what I perceive as a change in many people’s views on work vs personal and the “separate worlds” concept .Remember George Costanza’s rant in Seinfeld about the “separate worlds?” Granted he was talking more “relationship George vs independent George” instead of “work life George vs personal life George,” but to me the point is the same. Those are separate entities. You shouldn’t have to hide your personal life out of fear your employer will find it and it will compromise your work life. Employers are supposed to understand that employees have a life, and it’s the most natural thing in the world to share this with fellow web members via a Facebook or Flickr page or whatever, and that as long as your crazy antics outside the office are kept outside the office, as long as you do at work what you’re supposed to, then it shouldn’t matter if you, say, get drunk in Europe on vacation and post about it.

    I don’t care if my son’s teacher, on vacation, exhibits her “wild side” and has topless photos of her out there where she went to a topless beach in France and let herself go wild, especially if her real name isn’t attached to them. I understand she has a personal life and isn’t obligated to keep it under lock & key. So long as, AT WORK (school), she is what she is supposed to be, and that life of hers outside of school doesn’t “cross contaminate” into school itself, I say that’s her prerogative.

    Unless you’re a high profile person such as Tim Cook or (in the past) Lee Iacocca, you’re not an unpaid public relations of your firm. This idea that you’re a round-the-clock ambassador of your company and obligated to behave in “work mode” outside the office, as in not posting about your personal life at all because clients or the public could find out about it and associate such with your company, that’s silly. That idea needs to be destroyed, enough I’d even agree with legislation (if it could be enforced) that MAKES companies not consider
    their employees’ (or hiring candidate’s) offsite behavior in hiring/firing decisions.


  52. Roger the Shrubber November 19, 2015 at 8:42 am #

    Andy – I merely stated that for those who don’t like Facebook policy, that there are alternatives. If you don’t have a problem with them, share away!

  53. Roger the Shrubber November 19, 2015 at 9:00 am #

    LRH – I agree, and I think it goes even beyond that. If you don’t have a problem with Facebook, do what you wan’t. Personally, I think Facebook is creepy, both many of the users that populate the site and the company itself. The photo tagging and facial recognition software tops my concerns.

    That photo of you stupid drunk at that frat party, wearing that ‘culturally inappropriate’ or sexually suggestive costume, that was a good time! You weren’t even the one who took or posted the photo. But now, Facebook has a database with that photo and your name attached to it. 25 years later, you are a politician or activist of some sort. Maybe you promote a policy that is counter to the goals of Mark Zuckerburg or anyone with the money to pay for access to the database. I hope you enjoy having that photo surface, taken completely out of context, and used to assault your character. Paranoid? Perhaps. But this is a foreseeable use of existing technology. 15 years ago if I predicted how, today, anyone would be able to innocently pry into the personal lives of complete strangers, you would have called me paranoid.

  54. andy November 19, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

    @Roger the Shrubber Your blackmail scenario works exactly the same way with pictures on a service that is not facebook. Even if you just sent them by mail and any recipient uses gmail, google has them. Linking accounts to you is easy for someone motivated with resources.

    If those pictures are visible by public anywhere, then I do not even need to own the site to get them.

    Would a drunken pic from youth seriously endanger your voting chance? It is not like electorate would be composed of abstinents. Anyway, I would rather hope that current wave of puritanism dies, so that people who wore “sexually suggestive costume” wont get stigmatized for the rest of their lives. Through this particular issue is more of a women problem, LHR being guy does not really risks that much when looking good. (He risks more if he sits on bench next to playground or interacts with kids.)

  55. Roger the Shrubber November 19, 2015 at 6:45 pm #

    Andy, like I said, if you have no problem, share away. I do not insist that you share in my paranoia in this issue. Looking at Facebook, I am well aware that I am in a minority.

    I can think of worse scenarios than inappropriate Halloween costumes. I have seen Facebook posted pictures of my nephew with bongs in the background.

    Within 15 years, when the young people of today who share way to much inappropriate content come of age, this scenario will have played out.

    The paranoia of the people who think their children will be stalked by random pedos after seeing their photo on Facebook? THOSE people are the crazy ones 😉

  56. lollipoplover November 20, 2015 at 10:17 am #

    @Roger the Shrubber-

    About Halloween costumes:
    We have a big Halloween block party every year. This year was on a Saturday and we had even more people than usual, especially extra kids, some who I didn’t recognize. Before the kids went trick-or-treating, we gathered those who were willing to be in the group picture (some of the older ones were way to cool for it). I used my *good* camera, not my phone, like most of the other parents.

    The next day, I got several texts from parents that they didn’t get a group picture (it was really dark) and wanted me to send them one if I had it. I did- and the easiest way was to upload it on FB and tag them. When I went through the faces to tag, I noticed 3 boys (2 baseball players and an evil clown) in the front row who I had absolutely no idea who they were! After I posted the picture, I noticed it was shared several times. Two of the moms of the “stranger” boys shared it-I’m glad they liked it, their kids behaved like angels and I didn’t even notice them at my party and I hope they had a good time. It was a great party! Sometimes sharing fun memories is GOOD.

  57. lollipoplover November 21, 2015 at 7:07 am #

    There’s also a page on Facebook (Photo Doggies for Anthony) for a young boy who has leukemia and loves dogs.
    Strangers from all over the WORLD are sharing family pictures to the public of their dogs (and kids!) to brighten up his day. I have this page on my newsfeed and have to say, I enjoy these random stranger photos of dogs more than the political “send all of these refugees somewhere else” rhetoric that is currently out there.

  58. bmommyx2 November 22, 2015 at 5:56 pm #

    The funny thing is the the really over paranoid parents don’t post their kids photos on FB even for friends to see