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

171–180 of 404 posts

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

#171

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ndriscoll wrote: post #165
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgetting about pay, are those jobs intellectually stimulating? Do straight conventional E commerce compared to testing infrastructure for video conferencing software? A lot of the appeal of a FAANG is the interesting work you can do at one. The only thing better would be a less secure startup working on something really novel.

So now instead of "I need to do it for my family to survive", it's "I enjoy building panopticons"?

hmmm, hopefully you can find a job that does both? Feed the family and is something that is fun to do.

If you are a social justice warrior, you might prioritize that instead. To each their own.

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

#172

Post by the1thatgb »

Zambyte wrote: post #50
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.

We could also make it illegal to advertise to children at all. Wouldn't that be funny if all of us started clicking "I am below 18" :D

There should be operating systems just for minkrs that are devoid of tracking and using software for kids like the kiddle search engine and social media for kids (not the one we all know of)

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

#173

Post by cacois »

Zambyte wrote: post #120
mhx1138 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could make it illegal for minors to use the internet at all. It is too dangerous. Similar to driving. That would solve so many current problems.

I think it's more interesting when you scope it to mass media system. I think kids using the internet to communicate directly with their peers and family makes a lot of sense. Kids consuming an infinite amount of media and trying to broadcast themselves to the whole world is very often unhealthy. I think this is also true if adults, but I think kids are particularly susceptible to unhealthy habits / addictions around…

Respectfully disagree - their peers often make an unhealthy environment on the internet. Kids need in-person communication and interactions, its necessary for healthy development. The internet looks like it provides social interaction, but it actually does not provide what kids need. They should interact with their peers elsewhere, synchronously.

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

#174

Post by vel0city »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #163
ndriscoll wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still tons of jobs. They might not pay as well, but "I need to provide for my kids" might mean you take a crappy IT job that pays 60k, not that you build global surveillance/propaganda systems to be used against them and their peers. This isn't the depression. And up until recently, there were tons of really good jobs. What's the excuse there? If you have kids, you're presumably a few years into your career…

Forgetting about pay, are those jobs intellectually stimulating? Do straight conventional E commerce compared to testing infrastructure for video conferencing software? A lot of the appeal of a FAANG is the interesting work you can do at one. The only thing better would be a less secure startup working on something really novel.

> testing infrastructure for video conferencing software

There's lots of companies out there that aren't Meta/Alphabet/etc. that also do things like video conferencing software if that's your jam. Smaller companies like BigBlueButton, Whereby, and ClickMeeting; more mid-sized ones like and Zoho Meeting, and the larger players like Webex and GoToMeeting and what not. And this isn't an exhaustive list of non-FAANG video conferencing systems.

Its not like the only "tech" (software?) jobs out there are small mom and pop e-commerce sites or FAANG companies.

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

#175

Post by codr7 »

hn72774 wrote: post #117
codr7 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, that concept is mostly used as weapon and shield by the worst kind of people, to let them get away with their manipulative bs. Speaking clearly sometimes means saying things that are uncomfortable to hear.

That sounds more like gaslighting. Non-violent communication isn't at all about manipulation. It's about discussing behaviors and their impact on the person vs attacking and defending in circles that go nowhere.

Yeah, I get the potential, and I'm not saying it's a bad idea.

It's just that in practice I've only seen it used by morons to shut down discussions they don't feel like having.

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

#176

Post by whythre »

hn72774 wrote: post #117
codr7 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my experience, that concept is mostly used as weapon and shield by the worst kind of people, to let them get away with their manipulative bs. Speaking clearly sometimes means saying things that are uncomfortable to hear.

That sounds more like gaslighting. Non-violent communication isn't at all about manipulation. It's about discussing behaviors and their impact on the person vs attacking and defending in circles that go nowhere.

One can couch their words in the language of nonviolence and still be manipulative, cruel or discriminatory. It can and does act as a form of social camouflage, because humans are shitty and a method of communication will not safeguard against predators.

You can’t make people harmless, but you can force them to innovate different ways to harm others.

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

#177

Post by FridayoLeary »

mattacular wrote: post #63
Zambyte wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could also make it illegal to advertise to children at all. Wouldn't that be funny if all of us started clicking "I am below 18" :D

Dream bigger? We could make it illegal to advertise period.

That is overly simplistic. Advertising is a great way to make people aware of things they may find useful. Without a good method to spread the news no one could sell their innovations.

But i do agree that most ads are annoying.

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

#178

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

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.

On free speech vs violent acts of speech (if we want to keep using that term)

A possible compromise that might work is to protect _good faith_ speech while working against bad faith speech.

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

#179

Post by guerrilla »

hn72774 wrote: post #83
immibis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly this.

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

#180

Post by throwawaymanbot »

neilv wrote: post #166

> “We’ll also be taking additional action to reinforce with sales representatives that they must not help advertisers or agencies run campaigns attempting to work around our policies.” Useful would be a chronology of when: * Individuals learned/knew about the rule violations. * Individuals were arguably rewarded. * Individuals were disciplined. That might give a sense of how bad the infection is, and whether their im…

[dead]
Post reply on HN