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

281–290 of 404 posts

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

#281

Post by comfysocks »

codr7 wrote: post #272
whythre wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but that isn't it at all, I'm afraid. It's much darker. The fact is that exactly the same people who are pushing the idea, are the ones who we would need protection from. And they're not innovating much, it's the same bs over and over and over again.

I don’t think the dynamic you are talking about has much to do with Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication.

Perhaps a slightly reductive view, but I see “NVC” as basically saying that when people argue, emotions can sometimes overrule logic.

When people get emotional, they sometimes plug their ears and start screaming into the void.

NVC is then basically a bunch of tactics to circumvent the emotional aspect so that the discussion can get back to logical facts.

It also tries to create a framework where the people arguing have to hear the other side’s arguments before making a counter argument.

I think the book has some very useful ideas mixed in with some amount of self-promotion. I think the name “Nonviolent Communication” (which might throw some people off) is part of that self-promotion. Don’t let the name fool you.

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

#282

Post by burningChrome »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #246
supertofu wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to go that far back. Remember Juul in the 2010s?

Juul sent representatives to schools who told kids that Juuls weren’t addictive. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping....

I remember a ton of vaping threads extoling the idea vaping was totally safe on Reddit. When people brought up the possible negative side effects of vaping they were routinely downvoted into oblivion. Nobody wanted to believe vaping was dangerous are could have harmful side effects.

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

#283

Post by Manabu-eo »

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…

If you neighbor uses monsanto seeds, he also sprays pesticides that might kill your crops or make them have too much pesticides to be edible. It's also basically impossible to do organic farming besides such a farm.

https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins...

https://inthedirt.substack.com/p/when-the-neighbor-kills-you...

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

#284

Post by [deleted] »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #280
radicaldreamer wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juul sent representatives to schools who told kids that Juuls weren’t addictive. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping....

> sent representatives to schools This seems like something that should need to be positively justified by the organization which wants to send salespeo^W representatives to schools, in a way that is publicly auditable.

[deleted]

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

#285

Post by ndriscoll »

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…

Actually these days new cars have GPS tracking built in, and the manufacturers sell your location data, so it's much more fine-grained than traffic cams, and they didn't need your help getting the idea.

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

#286

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

randomdata wrote: post #275
bitbuilder wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dri…

> I think you may be missing the point that the advertisement is specifically meant to elicit, or create, those feelings of guilt or shame. I'm not sure that was missed, but, as before, you cannot elicit or create feelings where there isn't already an understanding of what the feelings reflect. The particular ad no doubt does elicit feelings in those who already see themselves as not being the parent they want to be.…

> And if you do have concern about the way you are parenting, wouldn't you want to improve upon that?

> 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.

Reading this discussion, I remain unconvinced. Unless I lost the plot somewhere along the way (admittedly, that's a possibility), it sounds like the context is that of someone advertising a product in a probably dishonest way and it's justified because people want the thing that's being advertised, even though it's not necessarily the thing that's being sold.

> Although I am not sure you have made clear why advertising is to blame for shitty products.

Put another way: what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear? Maybe it's more than just a shitty product.

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

#287

Post by randomdata »

ndriscoll wrote: post #270
randomdata wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point of the example is that there are plenty of things that have no benefit at all, and in fact have obvious downsides that everyone knows about. However, there is an immense amount of marketing around those things to try to make them seem "cool" and minimize their perceived harm. People get addicted to these things, and struggle to stop consuming them even when they know they're literally dying from it. No one…

> No one in their right mind would ever give their kids Oreos for breakfast

Assuming you are going to feed your children Oreos at some point, why not for breakfast?

> Cookies are, in fact, not a part of a complete breakfast.

They could be. If you are going to eat them anyway, why not at breakfast?

> Evidently, you can convince people that they are by just repeating the message thousands of times to them.

Evidently not. Remember, a "complete breakfast" refers to a specific culinary dish that consists of items like bacon, sausages, eggs, baked beans, tomatoes, mushrooms, etc.

Who eats a bowl of cookies in addition to all that? I've certainly never met such a person. I've known people who eat bowls of cookies for breakfast, indeed, but when they do that's approximately the only thing they eat, which violates what is told in the advertisement. The advertisement you point to is abundantly clear that these cookies are only to be eaten with all those other foods.

Evidently people don't pay attention to what is said and will go off and do their own thing.

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

#288

Post by miki123211 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #47
Ylpertnodi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is one case where contextual advertising would actually work better than what we have now. No. No. No. That a) would involve tracking and b) what we have now are ads based on what you bought/ have looked at. I already have an 'x', why would i want more ads for it...or ads for what some algorithm thinks i might be interested in, related to it. Unless I choose to.

Contextual ads wouldn’t require tracking as it’s just advertising based on the page context, ie a video about a videogame will have different ads than an article about remortgaging. There should probably be laws in place to prevent advertising targeting children though, regardless of the advertising mechanism.

> There should probably be laws in place to prevent advertising targeting children though, regardless of the advertising mechanism

How would you even implement that? Do you mean no ads on TV channels for children and websites that are rarely frequented by adults?

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

#289

Post by rchaud »

gretch wrote: post #249
Nasrudith wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would it look like when it is being used for good? Not being a smartass implying its existence, legitimately wondering.

There's lots of products that people really need and could help improve their lives, but they don't know about the existence of the problem/solution. For example "Hey do you have hip pain when walking down the stairs? Turns out this is extremely common and we solved it with this special walking stick. Click here to buy the walking stick" "Were you an Iraq war veteran who served between 2004 and 2006? Turns out the go…

> Hey do you have hip pain when walking down the stairs? Turns out this is extremely common and we solved it with this special walking stick. Click here to buy the walking stick"

This is where a forward thinking marketer would say "we have a database of email addresses of people reporting hip problems, how much will you pay me for access to them?", aka what Google did.

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

#290

Post by randomdata »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #286
randomdata wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you may be missing the point that the advertisement is specifically meant to elicit, or create, those feelings of guilt or shame. I'm not sure that was missed, but, as before, you cannot elicit or create feelings where there isn't already an understanding of what the feelings reflect. The particular ad no doubt does elicit feelings in those who already see themselves as not being the parent they want to be.…

> And if you do have concern about the way you are parenting, wouldn't you want to improve upon that? > 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. Reading this discussion, I remain unconvinced. Unless I lost the plot somewhere along the way (admittedly, that's a possibility), it sounds like the context is that of someone advertising…

> I remain unconvinced.

Was there something we were supposed to convince you of?

> what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear?

The discussion is about advertising preying on insecurities, not marketing in general. If we assume snake oil were to be advertised, is there some reason to prefer: "Snake Oil: The miracle cure-all!" over "Your bad breath is scaring off the girl of your dreams. Cure it with Snake Oil!"?

If yes, why is the latter less preferable? Is it because it calls attention to a real problem someone might want to solve? Does that continue to hold if we assume snake oil truly is a miracle cure-all that eliminates bad breath?

Post reply on HN