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

251–260 of 404 posts

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

#251

Post by mrguyorama »

fwip wrote: post #199
cacois wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like interacting with a moderate-sized set of real peers is workable - like chat rooms on AIM with the kids you know from school. Kids have always had unsupervised time with their peers. Where it breaks down, is when you get a whole ecosystem populated entirely by kids and those trying to make money off of them.

No, most of the problem with internet interaction is how the human brain considers the username saying things to you on AIM is NOT the same as the dude you hang out with every day in real life, and more importantly, the usernames you don't know in real life are just vague spirits your brain is much more willing to demonize. This exact same effect is the main cause of roadrage and why everyone is such an asshole when you put them in steel boxes and have them interact on the road.

It is NOT SOCIALIZATION to talk to people on the internet. Your brain simply does not treat it the same way.

Kids are fine interacting in person at school and other public places. They don't need this social media bullshit, and even private messaging systems like AIM or MSN aren't really that great.

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

#252

Post by pfdietz »

thfuran wrote: post #158
pfdietz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that would work.

If the reason that you think it's good to allow advertising to children, despite it being bad in and of itself, is that it prepares them to be subjected to ads as an adult, wouldn't it be better to instead remove the ads for adults as well?

Ads serve a useful function, particularly if one can filter out deception.

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

#253

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

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…

> 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.

Are you referring to the opt-in system of surveillance which insurance companies use to monitor driving (install our app/plug our device into your OBD port)?

Or are they, these days, buying data on your driving from stuff like traffic cams (wouldn't be surprising, sorry if I'm giving them the idea now)?

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

#254

Post by ToucanLoucan »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #253
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #235

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. 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…

> 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. Are you referring to the opt-in system of surveillance which insurance companies use to monitor driving (install our app/plug our device into your OBD port)? Or are they, these days, buying data on your driving from stuff like traffic cams (wouldn't b…

In the thread I saw yesterday, can't spend the time to find it atm, the topic was specifically about an insurance company using drones and AI to ascertain that someone's roof had moss growing on it. The homeowner fully acknowledged that this was a lapse in his upkeep, but also, I am incredibly opposed to the notion that a company can surveil people as such simply because they buy insurance from them.

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

#255

Post by choppaface »

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.

Google has yet to experience significant penalties due to their Jedi Blue price-fixing scheme ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue ). Perhaps this story covers some other set of claims that will be broken out of the larger Jedi Blue case.

Edit: this is actually a recent campaign, the story says 2023 but some other outlets said it executed this year in 2024.

After all, Google fought very hard and farted out a cashier's check to the US Gov to avoid a jury trial in one of their ad monopoly cases https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-ad-tech-virginia...

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

#256

Post by sebastiennight »

randomdata wrote: post #231
ndriscoll wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Who is buying Lucky Charms because they find them disgusting, but somehow see them as being important?

Have... you met a teenager?

I'm failing to see the point of this example, as I don't think I've never met a single person who found their first cigarette enjoyable. Is your experience that people buy their first and second pack out of enjoyment of the taste?

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

#257

Post by fragmede »

belter wrote: post #225
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.

Looking at the stories here in the last two days, lots in HN are more worried with the location of Twitter headquarters...( Will never mention that letter...)

For all the speculation about the move, the reason is simple. Twitter is going to launch a payments system, San Francisco has a tax on gross receipts, which is so unfair to payments processing companies that several others - square, stripe, and block - moved out of SF to avoid paying that tax, and Twitter is simply following suite. it's too inside baseball for the average reader to follow, so we're left with baseless speculation and conspiracy theories on why they're moving HQ when it's a subplot business decision that has made made by others already.

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

#258

Post by talldayo »

brookst wrote: post #217
talldayo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but also lots of innocuous behavior, with a “spirit of the law” enforcement regime. This is great, and you're only mad because it's the perfect riposte to Apple's "loophole around the spirit of the law" mentality. Cry more! We got into this mess because Apple illegally manipulated their implementation of normal software; App Stores, browsers, messaging apps, you name it. The point of this legislation is to make bus…

What an insulting post. Do you talk to people IRL that way?

To people with emotional attachment to businesses? I upset them pretty often, no matter how I police my tone.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, they'll be hurt quite a bit more if you insist on excusing all of Apple's deficiencies in the same way. It's best to not make a habit out of defending companies that incessantly lie, lest you start taking the truth personally.

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

#259

Post by randomdata »

sebastiennight wrote: post #256
randomdata wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Who is buying Lucky Charms because they find them disgusting, but somehow see them as being important? Have... you met a teenager? I'm failing to see the point of this example, as I don't think I've never met a single person who found their first cigarette enjoyable. Is your experience that people buy their first and second pack out of enjoyment of the taste?

I have never met a teenager who is concerned about eating a "whole" breakfast, no, especially if that "whole" breakfast requires eating something that is otherwise unpleasant. Even if this so-called whole breakfast was some scientific truth, proven to improve health outcomes, what teenager would care? Have... you met a teenager?

I don't really see the point of the example either, frankly, but it is what we were given. I expect the contextual parent was just desperately trying to come up with something in the absence of having something meaningful to say.

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

#260

Post by bitbuilder »

randomdata wrote: post #240
bitbuilder wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wil…

That's a valid way to look at this, and I appreciate that perspective.

However, I think you may be missing the point that the advertisement is specifically meant to elicit, or create, those feelings of guilt or shame. Maybe I feel just fine about the amount I drink, but the wording of the ads subtely implied I should feel guilty about my drinking. If the question was "Do you feel like you could use help with your drinking? Then try Reframe.", then I'd agree with your point more.

But maybe a bad example, because in that case perhaps the end result of the targetted ad could in fact be a better outcome for everyone, as you point out. To pick a bit of a hyperbolic example, what if instead the ad had instead said "Tired of being the the ugliest girl in your class? Try BetterMakeup!" (with all the appropriate imagery the targetting provides). Is advertisement like that truly good for anyone but the seller?

As a bit of a side note, everyone knows ads are targetted now, so there's an implicit assumption on the viewers part that the seller must know something about them. And now advertisers are using that to their advantage.

I think the larger point though is that many of us simply do not think its ethical or healthy to give companies the tools to manipulate our emotions and tap into our insecurities in the pursuit of profit. The seller doesn't care about the buyer, they only care about convincing the buyer to buy their product, even if that means making them feel shitty about themselves.

Post reply on HN