Why they don't just make the search facilities work better and attach adverts to those instead of these sorts of shenanigans is beyond me.

People just need to watch what they 'like' and maybe go back through those 'likes' to do some cleaning. I actually like this, because it puts the full blame on the user to be more responsible on what they 'like', and not to just 'like' everything possible.

I'm very skeptical that this was accidental. Even if it was, it looks intentional: users don't see the promoted posts that are associated with their past likes so they don't have any intrinsic feedback that would make them curate their likes. That looks underhand. If it didn't we wouldn't be seeing the fuss.

Stuff liked years ago can now clutter the feeds of friends and family and look like you wanted to show it to them right now.

They've changed the consequences of choosing to 'like' stuff without any indication to the user.

That doesn't change the fact that the intention of the UI is to imply a person has endorsed a product or message when in fact they've only endorsed the messenger

To put it bluntly, advertisers are spending those dollars because they know the majority of their "fans" won't go so far as to "like" the product or message in question if approached to do so, which would put a message in their friends' newsfeed at no cost. It's an opt-out system that works because it's poorly understood, and Facebook and their advertising partners have identified that and put a dollar value on it.

If we reach a situation where we're discussing who is to "blame" for an inadvertent endorsement, there's a problem.

It is painfully obvious this company is desperate and undaunted it its efforts to "package peer pressure as a service" they can sell to bring more exposure to brands, with or without users' consent, knowledge or approval. It's not merely confusing UI to pull in some random post from a site you "liked" once and post that as part of an endorsement. It is part of an established pattern of ethical melt-downs and trust. Moreover, it's been established that Likes can be derived from simply sending a link in a PM or posting one to your timeline, even in a negative context.

Putting "full blame" on the user fits nicely with the CEO's view during college that we're all just "dumb fucks" for using the thing.

I hate to be so negative, but I find this outrageous and indefensible. Because of it's scale and the many talented people working there, I think Facebook holds promise in lots of areas, but it is profoundly creepy the way they are always trying to lull us all into gradual acceptance of using our information however they damn well please for a mythical valuation sustaining cash cow that has as of yet to materialize.

*credit to Jaron Lanier & his book You Are Not A Gadget book for some of my phrasing and ideas here. He articulated this when Beacon was their only offense, and his predictions about their direction have proven completely and totally accurate.

Have you heard of "surfacing," as a data-product?

http://www.palantir.com/what-we-believe/

Anecdotally, I had a friend who 'liked' an apartment rental company, and it took me a number of postings to realize that he was not suddenly looking at 7500/mo Beacon Hill palaces on a bartender's wage. At first, I thought he was just clicking like on a beautiful apartment regardless of cost, but as "liked" listing after listing showed up over the course of about two weeks, I realized something was up. It can be that confusing.

If Facebook creates the appearance that this has happened are you annoyed? If not why not?

Suppose the latter was intentional. Does that affect your annoyance?

Yes, I would be annoyed because it's an action on my behalf that I did not do.

> If Facebook creates the appearance that this has happened are you annoyed? If not why not?

As someone who gets what they are doing, I realize it's just an appearance so it doesn't bother me. I'm a UI/UX designer for a living, so I see a lot of ways things that are done differently and/or badly. I see what they are trying to do, and while it's a poor job, I get it. And because I get it, it doesn't bother me.

> Suppose the latter was intentional. Does that affect your annoyance?

I don't think there is really a way to prove if it was intentional or not, but I get your overall point. I personally don't believe it was intentional, but that is just me.

Almost every single designer I talked to thought the changes I made were "broken" or a "poor design job." As an example, bolding the title of the last form field to give users the impression that it was important would decrease abandonment rate. It looked ugly as hell, but worked.

The fundamental problem with monetization on a social platform is that it is near impossible to make an advertisement that is more compelling than your friends. You just can't compete with the emotional response of jealousy of your friends ski trip, or the desire from seeing your high school crush in swimwear. What Facebook has done here is broken that barrier and involved your friends in the advertisement. They need to create an assumed connection that Bob likes this article on CNN, so you'll go read it and find out why.

In my professional opinion, this is absolutely intentional. It's not a mistake, it is exactly what I would tell them to do if I was hired on to solve engagement problems with brands.

Are you serious?

But Joe Schmoe user on Facebook?

He's definitely going to think Johnny liked the Vice article. And Facebook damn well knows that.

To rephrase your question, how many times must a "not that bad" mistake be overhyped before people realize that reporters are trolling for hits?

They employ some of the world's best UI designers… and marketers… and ad sales people. It's disingenuous to pretend they just "oopsied," especially when all their oopsies happen to benefit them and not their users.