Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 483 posts

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#461

Post by Eumenes »

KittenInABox wrote: post #187
Eumenes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, I've watched my wife and female friends/family scroll Instagram ... every 3rd post is an example you provided. Body image/beauty issues for women were a thing before Instagram and social media so I don't think regulating the nature of advertisements would change much, at least in any measurable way. There are infinite influencers creating similar content as the advertisements.

If you've seen your wife and female friends scroll Instagram then you know you were inaccurately describing the scenario as trying to ban "classically beautiful" women. The problem is you think it doesn't change anything, maybe because you're ignorant that Instagram knows they are measurably worsening, on a mass scale, the self esteem and body image of young girls. Instagram has the data on all these girls and knows…

My comment was in regards to what the FTC appointed child psychologists will inevitably suggest: that particular ad content is "bad". It will change absolutely nothing.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#462

Post by orochimaaru »

InSteady wrote: post #454
orochimaaru wrote: post #339

Does this have merit? I don’t know if a single kid on Facebook. Maybe instagram. But primarily they’re all on TikTok and Snapchat.

There are about 73 million children in the US. I'm going to go ahead and bet that even though you don't personally know one who uses facebook, quite a few of them in fact do.

Probably - but just a poll of my middle schoolers class and I can guarantee the mention of Facebook will get blank stares. Insta - yes, that they’re familiar with.

What they use most is TikTok and Snapchat. My point being the harmful marketing cannot be proven if hardly any children actively use it

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#463

Post by klyrs »

xwdv wrote: post #448
klyrs wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optimism, defined. Alternative strategy: downvote, flag where appropriate, and they'll eventually be shadowbanned.

I will really stop posting at 1000.

Saying "really" doesn't make you any more credible.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#464

Post by balls187 »

quest88 wrote: post #325
b20000 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

social media is more like crack or some other terrible drug

Really? It bankrupts its users? People can't hold a job because of it? People will rob stores to get more money to use more social media? It causes families to painfully detach themselves from addicts?

Those behaviors aren't limited to substance addiction--perhaps most well known is gambling addiction.

It's no secret that technology companies (especially social media companies) spend billions coming up with ways to keep users on their apps/services. Engagement is a palatable way to measure addiction.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#466

Post by adrr »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #352
adrr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't bring lawsuits that they can't win. I can't name one case they lost.

Are you serious? AGs lose cases all the time (often they get settled out of court though). It's a trivial google search away to find examples

Settling is losing for the company. Company has to pay millions or even tens of millions on fines and be subjected to strong injunctive actions. Since I suck at google, find me a company that won a court case against a state in federal court.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#468

Post by wolverine876 »

anon-3988 wrote: post #439
wolverine876 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fat shaming is certainly bullying but it's also certainly effective at discouraging overeating As far as I know, it just traumatizes people and discourages them from eating in front of the people shaming them. Then, as we all do, they relieve the trauma by using their usual coping mechanism - in their case, eating. It's just like hitting kids. It teaches them to avoid getting hit; they learn nothing about their beh…

> As far as I know, it just traumatizes people and discourages them from eating in front of the people shaming them. Then, as we all do, they relieve the trauma by using their usual coping mechanism - in their case, eating. But if you materially get fat you will get fat shamed regardless. So while it doesn't make you stop eating garbage, you will somehow, someway figure out how to keep a decent figure. This can eithe…

> So while it doesn't make you stop eating garbage, you will somehow, someway figure out how to keep a decent figure.

What makes you say that? Lots of people remain overweight, lots of research shows that shaming doesn't have the impact you say.

Also, lots of people can't physically do anything about it.

Re: Meta sued by states over harmful youth marketing

#469

Post by wolverine876 »

nineteen999 wrote: post #431
wolverine876 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to think about the correlation between hard work and income, watch someone operating a jackhammer and then visit a golf course.

Watch the person operating the jackhammer go to a golf course, or watch someone operating a jackhammer and then visit a golf course myself? Your sentence is ambiguous. Are you trying to say that you think that some manual labor roles are overpaid? Why can't a jackhammer operator play golf if they want to? In my country an entry level jackhammer operator makes about $60K and an experienced one about $100K. Doesn't sou…

I meant, compare the incomes of the jackhammer operator, who is working very hard, and the people on the golf course, who are playing golf.
Post reply on HN