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

Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 404 posts

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#81

Post by BiteCode_dev »

rendaw wrote: post #42
imiric wrote: post #22

"We're sorry." This is not surprising. Google has a history violating the privacy of and targetting ads to not only teenagers, but children: - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/youtube-ads-kids... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/media/youtube-ki... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/business/media/google-you... - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube... - https://www.n…

In case anyone replies with "well all companies are bad in some way"... scale is also a factor here. Even if Google does the same things as a small family owned business, they have significantly greater ability to inflict harm. And I'm not sure I buy that all companies are bad. A lot of companies are earnest and customer-focused when they're smaller and desperate for more users. And I've worked at many companies whic…

It's like saying all gov are bad in some way. But Spain gov and North Korea gov are definitely not bad in the same way.

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#82

Post by echoangle »

cantrevealname wrote: post #33
a2128 wrote: post #15

This reads like a tragic story. Once you've collected enough data on every internet user out there to group them into different advertising cohorts, the remaining ungrouped users, by process of elimination (due to privacy or targeted advertising laws), are children; and now they can be targeted just as easily.

> the remaining ungrouped users, by process of elimination..." This being hacker news, I can't help but appreciate the pure evil genius of this. It reminds me of some other cases cunning corporate ingenuity: - Monsanto and their "terminator" seeds that prevents farmers from planting seeds they harvest, requiring them to purchase new seeds for every planting.[1] - Volkswagen and how they programmed diesel engines to a…

> Monsanto and their "terminator" seeds that prevents farmers from planting seeds they harvest, requiring them to purchase new seeds for every planting.

Kind of misleading to just state it like this if your source points out that Monsanto never sold this, pledged 25 years ago they won’t do this, and according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_tech... , they also didn’t invent it.

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#83

Post by hn72774 »

immibis wrote: post #75
guerrilla wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an abused substance, it's violence.

This is not the first time I'm hearing someone say free speech is violence, but it is the first time they actually meant it about free speech and weren't covering up something else by calling it that.

Not who shared that but there's a concept of non-violent communication that they may be referring to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

Coercion -> force -> violence

Forcing ads onto kids = violence?

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#84

Post by BiteCode_dev »

imiric wrote: post #79
moffkalast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Granted, the EU is pushing back against some of this. But it's far from enough, it's only one continent, and like others mentioned, their solutions often have technical problems. I'm still glad they're at least trying to do the right thing. I've seen the patterns you mention, but yes, they're not coming from the same people. It's indicative of differing opinions, so the hive mind comparison is not a good fit (in this…

On HN, hundreds of devs worked for FAANGS and this includes working on all the projects we also claim are immoral.

If you start discussing this topic here, you will get a wall of people defending their position and a ton of downvotes, but the bottom line is, they are like the politicians or CEO they blame: if the money is good enough, morality is flexible.

No amount of BS in their beautifully worded code of conduct will change that.

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#85

Post by Y_Y »

immibis wrote: post #74
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle where if we lose we give up our privacy. The setting could have just been a browser toggle, but because of government incompetence every publisher gets to skirt the guidelines and trick or frustrate people into clicking accept. You can be against the problem and against incompetents forcing bad solutions at a government level or us…

You are free to enable Do-Not-Track and then sue a company for not respecting it, which will create precedent that companies must default to "reject all" if this header is present, if you win.

Seems sensible, which makes me wonder why it hasn't already happened

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#86

Post by [deleted] »

geodel wrote: post #73
moffkalast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Well it is same thing that people complaining about low tech salaries in Europe and people praising EU privacy laws at the same time. Without ever thinking that million dollars TC at SV companies comes at cost of privacy and livelihood of billion less fortunate people.

[deleted]

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#87

Post by pfdietz »

londons_explore wrote: post #30
imiric wrote: post #22

"We're sorry." This is not surprising. Google has a history violating the privacy of and targetting ads to not only teenagers, but children: - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/youtube-ads-kids... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/media/youtube-ki... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/business/media/google-you... - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube... - https://www.n…

Not allowing advertising to children I think isn't the correct route for society. Instead we should prevent children having money. Until you're 16, you may not handle money. You may not buy things for money. You may not sell things. You may not enter into contracts to exchange money. Your parents however can do all of those things on your behalf. At that point, advertising to children no longer is relevant - the chil…

Having ads targeted at children can be seen as a good thing: it trains the children in what advertising is like, about how they can be manipulated and exploited. It's good for them to get this experience while young when the stakes are low.

Of course, this might also train children to be the exploiters and manipulators. Maybe their parents would think that's a good thing too, at least in the long run.

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#88

Post by spunker540 »

guerrilla wrote: post #68
hn72774 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax ad revenue as a vice like at alcohol and tobacco levels, or higher.

It's not an abused substance, it's violence.

You do a disservice to anyone actually exposed to real violence. I’m sure they’d prefer advertising to violence any day

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#89

Post by Y_Y »

immibis wrote: post #75
guerrilla wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an abused substance, it's violence.

This is not the first time I'm hearing someone say free speech is violence, but it is the first time they actually meant it about free speech and weren't covering up something else by calling it that.

Why is free speech free? If you think people (and by extension businesses) should be allowed to express themselves that's one thing, but advertising is importantly distinct from that. It's protected speech in most of the Anglosphere to say you don't like some person or group, but not to maliciously damage someone's reputation or incite hatred. I can imagine an analogous situation where you're free to express that you think your product is good, but not to incite irrational desire in consumers or try so place information about your product in places that are difficult to avoid, like public billboards.

Re: Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers

#90

Post by 23B1 »

moffkalast wrote: post #67
imiric wrote: post #22

"We're sorry." This is not surprising. Google has a history violating the privacy of and targetting ads to not only teenagers, but children: - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/youtube-ads-kids... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/media/youtube-ki... - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/business/media/google-you... - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube... - https://www.n…

[flagged]

There is no moral equivalence here.
Post reply on HN