alt.hn

6/29/2026 at 1:26:35 PM

Instagram is incorporating users' photos in ads for Meta Glasses

 https://twitter.com/i/status/2071277885646868536

by notRobot

6/29/2026 at 2:00:55 PM

Didn't Facebook do this years and years ago?

Yes, 2013: https://mashable.com/archive/facebook-ads-photo#ggcKnNfAUaqy

> According to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:

> You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.

So it's not new. If you don't want this, delete your facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/privacy/dialog/delete-your-informat...

by Cthulhu_

6/29/2026 at 3:05:59 PM

Those are incredible terms that no one read.

by smalltorch

6/29/2026 at 5:24:00 PM

Almost literally every single social media site in the past ~15+ years has had those exact terms in it.

Everything you upload, almost everywhere, can be used by the site owners to do whatever they like for their own purposes (reselling is somewhat often excluded / non-transferrable). There are a handful of exceptions, but they're very much exceptions, not the normal rule.

by Groxx

6/29/2026 at 6:42:42 PM

HN maybe?

by greggsy

6/29/2026 at 3:17:10 PM

I cancelled my Instagram account when they added those terms in the early 2010s. At the time it was mostly photographers reading them and closing accounts but it wasn’t exactly a secret.

by acdha

6/29/2026 at 3:09:49 PM

Speak for yourself.

“Few”, maybe.

by DANmode

6/29/2026 at 3:57:23 PM

"No one" does not literally mean "not a single individual" in common English parlance, something that everyone (see what I did there?) here understands.

by satvikpendem

6/29/2026 at 6:38:36 PM

Yes it does. If I'm asked how many people are in the pool and I respond "no one", that means not a single individual.

by breezybottom

6/29/2026 at 6:53:07 PM

It literally does mean that.

It figuratively does not.

You’re not going to change the meaning of two words, here…

by DANmode

6/29/2026 at 3:11:08 PM

I mean, I read them, but just goes to show the majority of people skipped this important reading.

If anyone actually read them it's typically a unlimited unrestricted pipe of data they can use for anything.

by smalltorch

6/29/2026 at 3:54:27 PM

No one reads the terms and conditions. I went to a resort and read the T&C they made you sign to sign in and was told I was the only person in months who had actually done so.

And even I have mostly given up on the website T&C because most of them are so lengthy, a lot like I've given up on disabling javascript since the modern web frequently won't even render anything if you disable it.

by Espressosaurus

6/29/2026 at 5:30:44 PM

NoScript allows most of the modern web to work with selective whitelisting.

by kevin_thibedeau

6/29/2026 at 3:21:24 PM

99% of people don't read terms and condition.

by cute_boi

6/29/2026 at 3:24:08 PM

We’re saying the same thing.

by DANmode

6/29/2026 at 6:10:03 PM

I wonder if terms and conditions vary between jurisdictions. I would guess so.

by bryanrasmussen

6/29/2026 at 3:56:21 PM

> If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.

To be fair, if they actually honor this promise, and if it means what it sounds like in plain English -- i.e. that if you only posted your photo for friends, only friends can ever see it even if FB uses it for advertising -- that is a halfway decent mitigation of the issue. Not ideal, but then again, you're not paying for FB, so what did you really expect?

by rootusrootus

6/29/2026 at 4:16:32 PM

"respect your choice" sounds like it means something but doesn't mean something.

by microgpt

6/29/2026 at 5:48:19 PM

respect your choice may mean something if a court decides.

by bryanrasmussen

6/29/2026 at 2:35:12 PM

> If you don't want this, delete your facebook account

What? I thought I could just paste a paragraph of all-caps legalese to my profile, and it would solve this!

by pavel_lishin

6/29/2026 at 5:46:10 PM

I can confirm it works exactly as well as putting "everything belongs to its original owners, no copyright intended" in your youtube video description

by hmry

6/29/2026 at 3:50:48 PM

To be fair it seems like it should be equally valid in contract law.

by pbhjpbhj

6/29/2026 at 3:04:12 PM

This made me laugh and cry at the same time...

by steve1977

6/29/2026 at 5:43:13 PM

Both sounds kind of the same thing to me, a wall of text that nobody will read and each essentially saying "I have the right to do whatever I want"

by realusername

6/29/2026 at 5:23:41 PM

Yes, like immediately after they were beta on unsuspecting university students. Anyone with a Facebook in 2026, ...well we can't just say they deserve it because that is definitely (no sarcasm intended) blaming the victim. But sometimes it feels like, why does the Nigerian Prince scam keep working after 30 plus years? Do we have to sacrifice the weak and vulnerable to have any sense of freedom and creativity? I don't know honestly ...perhaps?

by jubilee33

6/29/2026 at 4:39:55 PM

FYI, Meta earns billions by showing scam ads.

https://qz.com/consumer-federation-america-sues-meta-scam-ad...

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...

It is unlikely that Meta will suddenly gain morals scruples to avoid profiting from user content, with or without user consent.

This is the same company that invasively spies on its own employees, to train AI models.

https://www.wired.com/story/meta-accidentally-let-employees-...

Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp — has a long history of abusing user trust. It has been fined billions for illegal activities like unauthorised data harvesting (Cambridge Analytica), illegal facial recognition, and mishandling children’s private information. Beyond what’s illegal, Meta is ethically notorious for emotional manipulation experiments, addictive design targeted at teenagers, rampant surveillance (even of non-users), promoting misinformation, and ignoring research that shows its products harm mental health.

https://leehopkins.com/meta-data-abuse-revealed/

by vee-kay

6/29/2026 at 2:42:12 PM

Many years ago (back when Facebook still had sidebar ads), my sister was presented with a dating ad for "Hot Christian Singles" accompanied by a photo of our brother.

It was hilarious, but also mind-boggling. In what scenario would pulling in a friend's profile photo create a useful ad?

by RattlesnakeJake

6/29/2026 at 3:04:11 PM

> In what scenario would pulling in a friend's profile photo create a useful ad?

Exactly in the scenario you just described. You still remember it and you are actively talking about it years after the fact.

by dewey

6/29/2026 at 3:22:22 PM

wouldn't "useful ad" imply either 1) clicking through and buying the product or service, or else 2) building up a positive brand association to help increase sales later?

remembering an advert correlates but is different to it being valuable.

by fumblebee

6/29/2026 at 4:48:52 PM

Yeah I remember some studies showed this with overly sexy ads. They were very memorable to the audience but all they remembered was hot chicks, they couldn't recall the product.

by svachalek

6/29/2026 at 3:40:16 PM

Sounds like the viewers were highly unlikely to have clicked through. Cost the advertiser a view but lost the conversion.

Useful ad for Facebook. They made money on it. The advertiser didn't.

by not_a_bot_4sho

6/29/2026 at 6:41:42 PM

If the viewers don't click on facebook, advertisers would stop advertising on facebook.

by theNotFractured

6/29/2026 at 3:26:10 PM

But it didn't bring clicks to the website nor goodwill toward the company.

No one remembers who ran the ad. Even if we did, it would only be in a negative light due to a weird and off-putting advertising approach.

by RattlesnakeJake

6/29/2026 at 3:38:09 PM

Don't get hung up on this specific example of the dating ad.

There's a difference between awareness campaigns and click / conversion campaigns and if there's some ads for a garden chair and your friend is sitting on it you'll definitely remember it more than some random model. Or clothes that are advertised on your body. Not saying that's the future we want, but it would definitely work for a while.

by dewey

6/29/2026 at 6:22:38 PM

That doesn't come across as any less creepy to the average user: "They stole my friend's likeness to sell me a lawn chair" still feels slimy.

I'm sure the real reason is that Facebook added a poorly thought out feature to their marketing tools around that time, and someone just decided to try it out.

by RattlesnakeJake

6/29/2026 at 6:43:53 PM

All this talk about how creepy Facebook is and yet most people use it? If Facebook was that creepy it wouldn't be a trillion dollar company. So they saw a "creepy" ad. They went "haha" or whatever and then kept using it. I mean how would you even quantify that the feature was "poorly thought out" or "slimy" at that point? If that was the case why didn't the user log off and never come back? Then at least Facebook would have a signal to work with.

Sometimes people really miss the forest for the trees. Most people actually like Facebook. If you can't wrap your head around that you have to accept you are distinct from the typical consumer. A trillion dollars is not made by appealing to the margins. If Facebook really sucked so bad everyone would log off.

Instead of another boring Facebook sucks comment why don't you ask your sibling why they didn't stop interacting with the website after that? You would probably learn more about the world doing that then trying to speculate about marketing tool features at a company you don't work for.

by godwinson__4-8

6/29/2026 at 4:57:55 PM

Zero people in the process of creating that ad said "we'll suggest people date their siblings, it'll be so memorable"

That is absolutely not a success story when trying to market a Christian dating platform.

by hbn

6/29/2026 at 5:10:09 PM

It's about the "in which scenario" question of the OP, not this dating ad in particular.

by dewey

6/29/2026 at 4:46:44 PM

This is a ridiculous argument that just because someone still remembers something means it was a good advertising strategy. This is partly why advertising sucks. The correct metric in this case would be did the user actually go on the date with the said person or at least initiated the conversation. In this person's case, very likely not. So the strategy is dumb, ridiculous and laughable but not useful or good in any sense.

by dwa3592

6/29/2026 at 4:23:44 PM

Many people want to date their own friends? Seeing your friend is on the site would show it's okay to use?

by boelboel

6/29/2026 at 4:01:09 PM

Roll tide.

by PyWoody

6/29/2026 at 6:56:45 PM

How much abuse are the users willing to take before the take action?

by croes

6/29/2026 at 3:09:27 PM

Is Meta abusing its users a problem? Yes. Does the TOS allow for it? Yes. Can people decide to just create a shell account and not actually participate? Sure.

One of the real insidious problems with Instagram and to some extent Facebook is that they provide a free, low friction way for business to communicate with current or potential customers. As a result many small businesses use Instagram as replacement for a public facing website and perhaps a blog or email newsletter. Many small business in my region depend on Instagram for this purpose, its nearly universal. It helps keep you stuck in Instagram so that you can see a business' hours, menu, or special events. I guess a shell account is the answer but you're still going to have to navigate the skinner box feed.

by srmatto

6/29/2026 at 3:13:13 PM

Every time I try to create a shell account, it gets banned with no reason given. Even if it's just to follow a few influencer accounts.

by haliskerbas

6/29/2026 at 3:18:37 PM

Well there you go, there is no reasonable way to be a non-participant while also staying up to date on businesses that choose to use the platform.

by srmatto

6/29/2026 at 4:10:04 PM

If the only way to interact with a business is via Facebook or Instagram, I don't interact with the business.

Unfortunately this is more of a problem for me than it is for them. I hope my position on this becomes more popular over time so that everyone can stop using spy- and adware.

by plagiarist

6/29/2026 at 6:12:44 PM

Small businesses are pretty important for a number of reasons and I think if people adopted this stance it would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt Meta.

by srmatto

6/29/2026 at 3:22:31 PM

You can't create shell account on fb/meta anymore. They will ask to turn on camera and rotate your head.

by cute_boi

6/29/2026 at 3:37:56 PM

Print out a face of someone on Facebook and use that?

by ed_elliott_asc

6/29/2026 at 4:01:20 PM

It’ll be obvious when you turn “their” head that it’s not real.

by afavour

6/29/2026 at 5:14:08 PM

print out a panagram of a head, and paste it to a lampshade, or use a mannequin head and describe how you were horribly burned as a child.

by rolph

6/29/2026 at 3:40:33 PM

U a manequin head. Add hair and moles. It mightbtake more than one try but it works. Eventually, people who make shell accounts will be declared creepy child predators, but that isn't the case, yet.

by catlikesshrimp

6/29/2026 at 6:40:42 PM

I'm not making a mannequin head to see a restaurant menu.

by breezybottom

6/29/2026 at 4:15:27 PM

Just stop using that cursed website

by remywang

6/29/2026 at 4:31:46 PM

It really is that simple. “Users of company with a long track record of unethical behavior surprised at the company’s latest unethical business decision.”

I know it’s not easy for some to stop using their platform for some reason or another. That’s the point. When you use their product not because they are the best choice in a free market with options, but when you use it because you have to. Just don’t surprised when FB keeps pushing the limits.

by fourside

6/29/2026 at 6:34:49 PM

Yeah just done that. Hosed my Instagram account.

by cryo32

6/29/2026 at 2:26:19 PM

This shouldn't really be surprising. It's very similar to what they did ~1.5 year ago when they started to use users' photos to promote Meta AI

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42615538

by penr0se

6/29/2026 at 4:18:25 PM

https://xcancel.com/venturetwins/status/2071277885646868536

by microgpt

6/29/2026 at 5:34:39 PM

"Damn, this is creepy level though & generally I’m all for ads knowing everything about me. Putting my wife’s profile pic in an ad is too much"

Presumably this reply is a joke?

by bcraven

6/29/2026 at 4:36:11 PM

Sometimes it seems like Black Mirror screenwriters work at Meta as a side hustle.

by VortexLain

6/29/2026 at 2:25:46 PM

Comment on that thread:

> This seems entirely counter-productive and creepy.

Apt description of Instagram in general.

by tantalor

6/29/2026 at 3:12:43 PM

I feel like having an account on a Meta site is today’s equivalent of being a smoker.

by encomiast

6/29/2026 at 6:41:31 PM

Being a smoker in the 1950s maybe.

by breezybottom

6/29/2026 at 3:17:28 PM

There isn't better analogy. I hope it spreads and we will see the same effect and social pressure as smokers faced.

by nicce

6/29/2026 at 3:42:08 PM

Vaping is the new smoking. Except you knew what was inside a cigar, while vape liquid is a generic term for anything inside a bottle.

by catlikesshrimp

6/29/2026 at 5:37:22 PM

Amazing we live in an age where making a fake image of someone that looks realistic enough (and for a tiny thumbnail resolution to boot) with a company that makes arguably lesser used but somewhat frontier AI models, not using said models to make these ads less intrusive, whilst still making them feel slightly personalized.

by giancarlostoro

6/29/2026 at 6:12:58 PM

Always amusing when people discover they’re paying for free services with something other than money.

by mcmcmc

6/29/2026 at 5:51:54 PM

As if Meta glasses weren't creepy enough already.

by red_admiral

6/29/2026 at 4:48:15 PM

Why? Because they can, and they will.

Leaving these services looks difficult or impossible, until you do it, and the world just keeps spinning.

by jmorenoamor

6/29/2026 at 2:11:21 PM

Ten years ago maybe this causes outrage, but I'm not sure anyone cares in 2026 including potential customers.

by fullshark

6/29/2026 at 6:48:59 PM

Company owned by a sociopath and which has proven time and time and time again that they have no regard for your privacy does it again. It’s good to keep talking about it so that there is still some friction attached to pulling this off for Meta, but if you’re surprised at this I don’t know what to tell you.

Delete your social media and join the rest of us living free!

by ornornor

6/29/2026 at 4:46:57 PM

I actually find this incredible, since this highlights how desperate they are to advertise these glasses

by halflife

6/29/2026 at 4:53:44 PM

IG users were the proverbial product on this free-to-partake vanity fair since its inception.

by wartywhoa23

6/29/2026 at 3:10:29 PM

Something similar happened to me a few years ago. my photo was used in an ad, making it look like I was selling stuff and promoting a page I’d never even clicked on... absolutely mind-blowing....

by ricardofranco

6/29/2026 at 2:15:50 PM

Is there actual proof that they are doing this. Theres not much to go on in the tweet.

by quadrature

6/29/2026 at 2:24:01 PM

Besides the proof in the screenshot? What more do you want?

Do you think this user is faking it?

by tantalor

6/29/2026 at 3:50:33 PM

Yes people frequently fake screenshots on social media. I'd want either a screenshot from a credible person, reporting from a journalist, trusted blogger, company statement etc.

by quadrature

6/29/2026 at 5:01:36 PM

I'm not a journalist, but I don't think a reporter would go much further than "one user said...".

There is no need for fact checking an individual source, other than to verify the reporting is accurately representing what they said.

by tantalor

6/29/2026 at 5:46:51 PM

A credible journalist would not entertain writing a story based on a screenshot some random user posts on social media.

by quadrature

6/29/2026 at 4:32:32 PM

[dead]

by vee-kay

6/29/2026 at 2:36:15 PM

yes, it happened to me recently.

The photo wasn't mine, but showed a profile photo of one of my facebook friends, and it had the glasses and said "On my way!"

by ryan42

6/29/2026 at 2:53:39 PM

And they have a history of doing this. And their privacy/ToS allows it.

by edoceo

6/29/2026 at 4:19:41 PM

When you don't pay for the product... YOU are the product.

by glimshe

6/29/2026 at 2:28:38 PM

The XKCD for this exact scenario is 14 years old.

https://xkcd.com/1150/

by Zhyl

6/29/2026 at 2:42:04 PM

Kind of a stretch, these days can't imagine anyone that views instagram as a place to store their cherished photos also.

by fullshark

6/29/2026 at 4:37:47 PM

Yeah, and then the charging businesses start selling your stuff anyway. So really, it's the comic creator, who is naive.

by jijijijij

6/29/2026 at 2:33:35 PM

Some reason that strip doesn't load for me.

by doublerabbit

6/29/2026 at 3:22:04 PM

It is just saying that if you don't pay for something, you are the product. I think it still fits well here.

by nicce

6/29/2026 at 3:08:11 PM

"I'm uncomfortable"

Should have read the terms and conditions

by invalidusernam3

6/29/2026 at 5:25:17 PM

By reading this comment, you agree to the following terms and conditions: You will send me one million dollars in small unmarked bills. Your reading this comment constitutes agreement to the preceding terms and conditions.

by urbnspacecowboy

6/29/2026 at 3:36:25 PM

What percentage of people read those? They’re even unitelligible to the layman.

by onemoresoop

6/29/2026 at 3:51:38 PM

And that's how the HUMANCENTiPAD keeps growing.

by hurfdurf

6/29/2026 at 4:17:20 PM

Hey Siri, find the gotchas in this EULA being presented /s

by dylan604

6/29/2026 at 5:14:44 PM

As horrible as it sounds.

For the median user, It really is impossible to have an alternative to instagram / whatsapp / facebook. It is so easy to live in a bubble and say I'll host my own things. but a totally different thing to have a functioning network effects machine.

by subygan

6/29/2026 at 3:33:11 PM

why are people using these products exactly?

signing away their rights to their photos? making psychopaths filthy rich?

if the surveillance glasses are coming, these people will also have signed away the commons, which are not theirs to give away

by ThouYS

6/29/2026 at 3:51:48 PM

The surveillance glasses are nearing 3rd gen.

You'd know that if you used social media /s

by literalAardvark

6/29/2026 at 2:01:01 PM

https://xcancel.com/venturetwins/status/2071277885646868536

by ThePowerOfFuet

6/29/2026 at 2:20:05 PM

i edited it to the same url before opening as i usually do for twitter urls so that i can see the full conversation without being logged into twitter.

for some reason the url rewrote iteself to this: https://themenspiegel.click/c/de/52_merzchrupalla/?method=po...

which is a german language scam site. i have no explanation how this happened, whether it is xcancel.com doing this or something loaded from twitter that caused xcancel to do this. never seen anythin like it before, would like to know more.

btw any further reloads of the xcancel url to that tweet totally work as expected.

by kuschkufan

6/29/2026 at 2:36:20 PM

Throwing an additional anecdote into the bucket, this did not happen for me. Any chance you have a dodgy extension installed?

by pavel_lishin

6/29/2026 at 3:02:08 PM

Sure you didn't just make a typo and hit a squatted domain?

by jadamson

6/29/2026 at 5:14:40 PM

did not think of that, maybe it's this. i tried a couple typos just now and holy shit most of these are registered and you land on some really dodgy shit, i.e. porn and sites that seem to try out browser exploits. did not find the scam site from earlier, but can't count it out either.

do not go to sites like xancel.com, xcancl.com, xcncl.com .. they are not safe. damn typoswatters.

by kuschkufan

6/29/2026 at 4:31:47 PM

Doubt. xcancel.com does not even seem to have any advertisements at all, when I disable ublock. Site seems remarkable clean, no thirdparty connections apart from a cdn. Sure you didn't type cancelx.com? Cause there something shady is going on. Otherwise, I would strongly suggest checking your extensions or system for malware.

by jijijijij

6/29/2026 at 2:10:34 PM

I mean, what would you expect from company with morality of tobacco and slot machines producer? This is the least evil they are doing.

This thing resurface from time to time. It's the small text you never read. In this case, small part in ridiculously and intentionally big eula.

by hsuduebc2

6/29/2026 at 4:37:20 PM

I am surprised with the downvotes. Meta is the new tobacco corp.

by avgDev

6/29/2026 at 3:36:35 PM

[dead]

by nicechianti