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

231–240 of 404 posts

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

#231

Post by randomdata »

ndriscoll wrote: post #230
randomdata wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody would buy something without an understanding of it being beneficial. I'll grant you that understandings can be faulty. One may learn that there was no benefit. But that's outside of the ad itself. Invalidating your hypotheseses is an important part of the scientific method.

Explain sugar cereals, soda, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. The advertisements create the misunderstanding. "Lucky Charms are part of a complete breakfast" etc. No normal person under normal circumstances would think that marshmallows or cookies are part of a healthy meal if you asked them directly to think about it.

What's to explain? They feel good when consumed, and thus improve one's life, even if only for a fleeting moment.

Who is buying Lucky Charms because they find them disgusting, but somehow see them as being important? Let's be real: People only (continue to, at least – they may buy once just to try) buy Lucky Charms if they like consuming them.

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

#232

Post by wslh »

crazygringo wrote: post #227
wslh wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, scientific source "Beyond Vicary’s fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice" [1]. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221...

That link literally starts by describing how the idea of flashing a frame of Coca-Cola was a hoax . It completely supports what I said. Like I said, test it yourself in a video editor. You'll immediately see how implausible it is.

Yes, I agree and added a reference. That's why I told my story.

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

#234

Post by pseudocomposer »

rurp wrote: post #192
throw12347825 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tragic story would be one where folks in positions of power in these organizations saw these crises coming from a million miles away, tried to avoid disaster, and failed. I don't think this is a tragic story. I think this is a rather boring and formulaic plot we're seeing over and over: the story of late-stage capitalism and the application of value-extraction to human social structures resulting in comically terri…

I'm beyond being shocked by this kind of behavior but it is still striking to me how some of the most profitable companies in history will go out of their way to do shady deals for a slight short term increase in their record profits. The resulting reputational damage and future risk to their monopoly revenue has got to make deals like this -EV for the company in the long run, but decision makers at these companies a…

Reputational damage is pretty easy to limit for companies that can control what news a huge majority of people see.

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

#235

Post by ToucanLoucan »

shadowgovt wrote: post #200
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line has to go up, and the slack has to be taken out of every last source of revenue. Like that story that was here yesterday about insurance companies monitoring customer's insured assets with drones and AI. Every unexploited dollar left on the table is slack, and a perfect market leaves no dollar unexploited. Therefore a more perfect market can be built with more perfect machine-powered decisions to more perfec…

And relatedly, I'm sorry that while you were speeding your brother to the hospital, you blew through a red light you couldn't stop for and caused a three-car pileup that killed an elderly woman. There's a reason we have these rules, and the problem of better enforcement leading to more application of the rules isn't a late-stage-capitalism problem; it's a "rules require flexibility" problem (but it's not great if the…

> And relatedly, I'm sorry that while you were speeding your brother to the hospital, you blew through a red light you couldn't stop for and caused a three-car pileup that killed an elderly woman.

Firstly, surveilling every person in the world at all times to ensure safety is a gross misapplicaiton of tech that flies in the face of personal freedom and privacy.

Secondly, we're not even talking about authorities surveilling you to prevent safety situations (which would, by itself, already be plenty vile enough). We're talking your insurance company checking on you to make sure your roof doesn't have moss on it, and jacking your price/nuking your policy if they feel your behavior is too "risky," according to a model you (and probably they) don't fully understand how it works.

There's so much wrong with this and if you don't think so I doubt a comment here is going to change your mind. If you place ANY value at all on personal autonomy and privacy, I don't believe it's possible to, at the same time, say your insurance company by virtue of insuring your car, has the right to surveil that car at a time and via a method of their choosing, with no notification, and with no oversight, solely for the purpose of jacking up your price and/or rewriting your contract on the fly. These relationships already heavily, heavily bias in the favor of the corporation. Do they really need YET MORE unearned, unchecked authority in our lives?!

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

#236

Post by bitbuilder »

randomdata wrote: post #194
snapcaster wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate ads, but this is not a winning argument. Instead of winning people over to the sympathetic cause (nobody really LIKES ads besides google and meta employees) you alienate people

Ads can be likeable under the right conditions. Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? Which is also ideal for advertisers. Who wants to pay to advertise to an audience that doesn't want their product? Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are l…

I don't think it's the random ads that bother me and others so much, those are easy to tune out. Nobody cares about billboards. Random junk ads on websites are annoying, but I don't think they're doing much societal harm.

On the contrary, it's the hyper targetting of ads, nested in content algorithmically maximixed for engagement, that I object to.

I've worked in the ad industry, so I've certainly heard and appreciate the whole "we're just educating consumers about products they might be interested in" angle. That's fine, academically speaking, if that's all advertising was. However, advertising more often than not attempts to pray on people's emotions to generate demand for a product. And when we know exactly who someone is, it's SO much easier to do that.

As a perfect example, I woke up last Saturday, started scrolling IG, and saw an ad with a photo of a miserable looking middle aged man lying in bed, asking "Are you tired of feeling like a horrible father because of your drinking problems? Try Reframe!" (No idea what the exact phrasing was, but close enough to that.)

Yes, I'd in fact had drinks with friends the night before. And yes, I'm a middle aged dad. I thought the targetting was pretty hilarious, so I laughed and shared it with my wife and friends. But also, Reframe is praying on my feelings of guilt and shame in an attempt to sell me their shitty app.

I can laugh it off, but I'm not so sure your typical teenager could.

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

#237

Post by Gunax »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #226
harimau777 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are forced in the sense that it's a prisoner's dilemma type of thing: Farmers would be better off if none of them used exploitative seeds. However since they are competing with farmers who are using those seeds then have to do so as well in order to stay competitive.

I dont see how that is the case. How does one farmer using monsanto seeds mean another needs to as well? Each farmers seed choice has no effect on others choices. If the monsanto seeds cost more than they were worth farmers wouldnt use them. In fact saying that you need to use their seeds to be competitive makes it clear that you understand that the seeds are worth it, you just wish they were free or cheaper. But in…

[flagged]

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

#238

Post by vel0city »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #171
ndriscoll wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I enjoy building panopticons

> hopefully you can find a job that does both?

Hopefully we quit building panopticons?

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

#239

Post by shadowgovt »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #235
shadowgovt wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And relatedly, I'm sorry that while you were speeding your brother to the hospital, you blew through a red light you couldn't stop for and caused a three-car pileup that killed an elderly woman. There's a reason we have these rules, and the problem of better enforcement leading to more application of the rules isn't a late-stage-capitalism problem; it's a "rules require flexibility" problem (but it's not great if the…

> And relatedly, I'm sorry that while you were speeding your brother to the hospital, you blew through a red light you couldn't stop for and caused a three-car pileup that killed an elderly woman. Firstly, surveilling every person in the world at all times to ensure safety is a gross misapplicaiton of tech that flies in the face of personal freedom and privacy. Secondly, we're not even talking about authorities surve…

> surveilling every person in the world at all times to ensure safety is a gross misapplicaiton of tech that flies in the face of personal freedom and privacy

Not at all times, of course.

But if we built the technology to do it whenever someone is operating a multi-ton vehicle on a shared roadway (similar to how we require police to wear body-cams), I wouldn't actually be sad about it or feel unduly watched.

I do concur, however, that routing it through the insurance company is pretty sub-optimal; I'd much prefer a public authority that I could vote out if they screw up.

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

#240

Post by randomdata »

bitbuilder wrote: post #236
randomdata wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads can be likeable under the right conditions. Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? Which is also ideal for advertisers. Who wants to pay to advertise to an audience that doesn't want their product? Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are l…

I don't think it's the random ads that bother me and others so much, those are easy to tune out. Nobody cares about billboards. Random junk ads on websites are annoying, but I don't think they're doing much societal harm. On the contrary, it's the hyper targetting of ads, nested in content algorithmically maximixed for engagement, that I object to. I've worked in the ad industry, so I've certainly heard and appreciat…

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that this Reframe is some miracle app that will truly do what you think it claims to. Would that not be an ideal way to get the solution into your hands if you have that problem?

You're not going to feel guilt or shame unless you already are under the understanding that you're not, in this case, being then parent you wish to become. Anyone who takes an interest in this ad will do so only because they actually want to make their life better by becoming a better parent and drinking less, and are seeking solutions to see that through.

It seems the only problem here is that the app is shitty.

Post reply on HN