Suing Facebook Because You Liked Something Is Idiotic

A California judge ruled today that’s it’s OK to sue Facebook for showing your picture in an ad. That’s dumb, and to pretend that it’s anything but turns a blind eye to how that nearly everyone uses Facebook.

The issue, according to the potential plaintiffs, is whether we are “economically injured by the misappropriation of our names, photographs and likeness,” when Facebook reminds our friends that we gave a thumbs up to Doritos that one time. Facebook, in response, claims that the sponsored posts are covered by California’s newsworthiness exemption. Given that you voluntarily put that shit in your news feed, I’m inclined to agree with Facebook.

Here’s the thing: Liking something is an inherently public action. Hell, posting anything to social media, in any kind of profile, is basically performance art. Like that story about North Korean poverty? You’re like, conscious, man. And that Slate piece? You’re an original thinker, too. And yeah, of course you like Louis CK, Arrested Development, and Vitamin Water. (Girls like guys who are into those things, right?)

And there’s nothing wrong with using Facebook like that! In fact, you should. But do so aware that Facebook isn’t a stream of consciousness existence-dump. It’s a curated existence dump. You don’t (or at least shouldn’t) just toss everything you come across into your feed; you make an active choice about each bit of information you share. If you Like something on Facebook, not only do you know your friends will see it — you probably expressly want them to.

So what, then, is the big deal about a company bragging to your friends that you Like it? It’s not that Facebook is blowing up your deviant interests — you did that yourself if you clicked the little blue button. You broadcasted it, now it’s being re-broadcast. No biggie, except for when it’s framed as the dirtiest phrase on the internet: personalised advertising.

Time was, showing up in an ad — on the internet or otherwise — would be pretty cool. Hey now, you’re a celebrity! But that time’s passed. Now it’s seen as a violation. How dare you say that thing I just said. Grow up. You Liked it. Now you should own it. And if you didn’t want your opinion known, maybe you shouldn’t have shared it in the first place. [Bloomberg]

Image via mkabakov/Shutterstock.com

Discuss

(12 Comments)
  • [–]

    NOZ

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 8:54 AM

    how was it shared?

  • [–]

    Titsnass

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM

    turns a blind eye to how that nearly everyone uses Facebook

    Only the sheep Kyle, only the sheep!

    • [–]

      cayal

      Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM

      There’s always one elitist moron in a facebook article.

      • [–]

        Titsnass

        Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 9:29 AM

        Sounds like you might be one of the sheep to me, keep bleating , someone will “like” you for it sooner or later!

        • [–]

          Osiris Fox

          Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

          I prefer bourgeoisie myself, but elitist will do.

          • [–]

            Titsnass

            Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 4:18 PM

            Ha, Trust me, if I were bourgeoisie, I’d be in the Bahamas on the beach with one of those umbrella drinks! Not slumming it around here, heh he :)

  • [–]

    DarthDVD

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 8:58 AM

    Did facebook ask (ASK) for his permission to use the users face??

    they most likely did… in small print that no one can read.

    and the user isnt getting his fee for use of his picture or likeness. so there is economical disavantage to the user in not collecting his fee.

  • [–]

    light487

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 1:14 PM

    Pretty sure it’s in the Facebook T&C that it’s all owned by FB and anything you do there they can use commercially.. That’s why I only post select pictures there and so on.. I keep all my photo collections elsewhere where they can’t be used commercially without my direct permission.

  • [–]

    LingLing

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM

    You’re given the option of whether you want social advertising to be able to use your likes in your account options. As much as I loathe personalised advertising it should be your own responsibility to ensure your security settings are set at the level you’re comfortable with.

    It’s not small print and it’s easily found and understood. If it were hidden away obscurely, or you couldn’t configure the permissions for it then yeah I’d say there’s cause for outrage but the reality is most users are simply lazy.

  • [–]

    conbobulate

    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 10:47 PM

    You need to get permission to use someone’s likeness for commercial gain, and you need to pay them. If it had been Angelina Jolie who’d liked those Doritos, would this article have been different? The fine print isn’t worth squat if it violates the law. Sue away and be merry.

  • [–]

    Bdc

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 9:53 AM

    Bober is right, though could have been less offensive ; p

  • [–]

    Womp

    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 1:18 PM

    +1

    Also, I think the offensiveness is warranted, so, +1 on that too.

Join The Discussion