Social media giant Facebook fresh allegations of manipulating vulnerable teenagers through its advertising practices, raising serious questions about the ethics of online data use.
Facebook's advertising system relies heavily on data collected from users' online behaviour. Evidence suggests that Facebook detects when teenage girls delete selfies, then serves them targeted beauty ads immediately afterwards. This practice appears to capitalise on moments of insecurity, prompting concern about the platform's role in shaping young people's self-esteem.
The Mechanics Behind the Allegation
A former insider, Sarah Wynn-Williams, reveals that in 2017 the company was exploring ways to expand its ad targeting to young teens aged 13 to 17 across Facebook and Instagram. The goal was to reach adolescents during their most impressionable years, especially when they were experiencing self-image concerns.
According to Wynn-Williams, Facebook tracked when teenage girls deleted selfies, then served customised beauty ads at that exact moment. The platform's algorithms identified these deletions as cues of insecurity or dissatisfaction, and acted on them by showing ads promoting skincare, makeup, or cosmetic procedures. This real-time targeting was designed to capitalise on negative feelings and encourage spending.
The Ethical Implications
The realisation that Facebook could pinpoint moments of emotional vulnerability and capitalise on them has sparked widespread criticism. As Wynn-Williams notes, the platform's behaviour hints at a pattern of exploiting insecurities for profit, especially among impressionable youths. The company's own internal pitch decks, as reported, bragged about its ability to target users based on psychological states such as feeling worthless, anxious, or stressed.
Facebook's stance has been deflective. A spokesperson pointed to a 2017 blog post claiming that the company does not target individuals based on emotional states directly. Instead, they argue, the data is anonymous and used solely for understanding how people express themselves. However, critics argue that the very act of tracking selfie deletions and emotional indexes suggests a much more invasive approach.
The Consequences of Surveillance Capitalism
This controversy is a stark reminder of how modern social media platforms operate within a system known as surveillance capitalism. In simple terms, companies like Facebook, Google, and TikTok make billions by collecting and trading vast amounts of personal data. This data helps create detailed profiles that enable highly specific advertising campaigns. The industry's revenue was over £220 billion (approximately $290 billion) in 2022 and is projected to nearly double by 2030.
The data trade extends beyond just interests or browsing habits. It involves analysing personal information, behavioural patterns, and even social and racial identities. Targeting based on psychographics — the analysis of emotional and social traits — allows advertisers to reach audiences with alarming precision. Such practices often blur ethical lines, especially when vulnerable groups like teenagers are involved.
The Role of Corporate Silence and Denial
Despite the mounting evidence, Facebook (now Meta) maintains that it does not use emotional or psychological data for targeted advertising. The company's representatives argue that any analysis of user expression is anonymous and purely for understanding user engagement.
Yet, Wynn-Williams' account paints a different picture, suggesting that internal research and product development aimed explicitly at exploiting emotional states.
The allegations highlight a troubling trend: the monetisation of insecurity among teenagers. With platforms able to detect when users feel vulnerable and serve them tailored ads, the boundary between marketing and manipulation becomes dangerously thin. Critics argue this kind of targeted advertising can deepen insecurities, fuel consumerism, and erode trust.
As society grapples with the scope of social media's influence, calls for tighter regulation grow louder. Protecting young users from exploitation should be a priority, but the current system seems geared more towards profit than safeguarding mental health. The real question remains: how much longer can these practices remain hidden before they cause lasting damage?
