Ah, suddenly it all makes sense... I was genuinely wondering why my friends were "liking" advertisements. I don't use Facebook often enough to keep up with what they've changed, so this was genuinely confusing to me. The idea that they were "reusing" likes hadn't even crossed my mind.
For anyone who says what they're doing doesn't count as "impersonating a user" then I'd just like to counter with my own personal experience, that it sure looked that way to me!
However what I wouldn't expect is my friends to see "Big Lebowski" related content associated with my name. Normally I wouldn't mind, but then you start realizing there is a lot of value to having many people "like" you, and who are all the people who own these accounts associated with interests anyway.
I can imagine my friends see ads via my interest for Big Lebowski, for bowling, white russians, flights to LA, etc.. sky's the limit on monetization for these guys. But that was never my intent nor would I want my friends seeing all that crap due to me!
How can you be so confident about someone's intent?
I disagree with your assessment but didn't downvote your comment because I want to understand.
I'm not 100% confident that Facebook's intention was to mislead but the simple fact that these posts aren't being shown to the user(s) that they are being linked to is pretty damning.
And, for the record, this analysis of Facebook's investment in user study isn't mere conjecture. I've been lucky enough to attend a talk by Facebook employees on their efforts.
Specifically, these sponsored posts are displayed in a way that causes confusion to the viewing user and, I am confident, this confusion is intentional on Facebook's part. As an apt web user with quite a bit of experience with Facebook and the web in general, I still get confused by these posts. I tend to assume they are posted by the friends that "liked" the brand and only in clearly questionable cases, such as when the post is about a bank, do I look close enough to realise it is sponsored content.
Intentionally causing confusion like this is shady, even if legal, and this "feature" of Facebook warrants as much attention as it is getting.
Ironically, this article is applying the same style of subtle confusion that it attacks (claiming that Facebook impersonates users when the author knows that's not technically accurate). But I must commend this article for providing the information in a simplified, easy-to-comprehend manner that is accessible by the average Facebook user. In fact, I may go share it right now...