Instagram is incorporating users' photos in ads for Meta Glasses
Instagram is reportedly using users’ existing photos and profile images in ads for Meta’s smart glasses, triggering concerns about consent, privacy, and how far platform terms of service really extend. Commenters note that Meta and other social platforms have long granted themselves broad rights over user content via dense EULAs that few people read, arguing that this practice effectively normalizes repurposing personal images for advertising. The exchange also highlights how network effects and business reliance on Instagram and Facebook make it hard for individuals to opt out, prompting calls for political and regulatory solutions rather than purely individual ones.
Background: Instagram Photos in Meta Glasses Ads
- Users report Instagram profile photos being pulled into ads for Meta smart glasses, sometimes featuring spouses or friends.
- Several see this as “creepy” and an escalation of already invasive personalization.
History and Terms of Service
- Commenters note Facebook/Instagram have claimed broad rights to user content since at least 2013, including using names, photos, and content in commercial or sponsored material without compensation.
- Many point out this is now standard across major social platforms; HN’s own terms are cited as similarly broad.
- Some argue sites include expansive licenses mainly for legal protection; others believe it’s about maximizing exploitation.
Consent, Rights, and Ethics
- People highlight that users may consent via ToS, but photo subjects in images often have not.
- Meta is framed as having a long record of trust abuses (scam ads, data misuse, surveillance), so few expect it to act ethically here.
- There’s concern users are effectively signing away not just their own rights but the “commons” of public imagery.
“Read the ToS” vs Practical Reality
- Repeated debate over whether users can be blamed if they didn’t read or understand huge, opaque EULAs.
- Most agree practically no one reads them; some say that’s exactly why companies bury objectionable terms.
Effectiveness, Creepiness, and Ad Logic
- Some recall past Facebook ads using friends’ photos (e.g., dating or product ads).
- Disagreement on whether such ads are “useful” (memorable, possibly attention-grabbing) or just off-putting and brand-damaging.
Lock-in and Alternatives
- Many say “just delete Facebook/Instagram,” and some report having done so.
- Others note practical lock-in: small businesses, events, and even governments rely on Instagram/WhatsApp, making abstention costly.
- Attempts to use “shell accounts” often trigger bans or intrusive identity checks; third-party viewers exist but are imperfect.
Overall Attitude
- Very little surprise; Meta is frequently compared to tobacco or gambling companies.
- Core tension: users dislike the practice but remain on the platforms due to network effects and lack of viable alternatives.