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

301–310 of 404 posts

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

#301

Post by johnnyanmac »

kelnos wrote: post #277
Nasrudith wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fraud is closer but still a massive reach.

IMO advertising is worse than fraud. At least with fraud the impact is usually fairly clear, and not buried in our broken, manipulated, subconscious minds.

We know so little about out subconscious that this simply seems alarmist. Maybe TV really does rot our brain, maybe it's better to answer kids's questions about everything and expose them to it rather than set age restrictions.

Until some substantial info of our brains occur, I can't say the ability to make people aware of products is worse than fraud.

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

#302

Post by randomdata »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #298
randomdata wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the advertisement inappropriately calls the product a solution to an unrelated problem. Yes, but that is true in both cases. A miracle cure-all, if there were such a thing, would, indeed, solve your halitosis and girl troubles. If I am to infer something here, it is that you didn't realize what a "cure-all" can do. It took more precise language to get you thinking about specific problems and how to solve th…

> Yes, but that is true in both cases. I think I can see where you're coming from with this but it's still not how I read it. The second advertisement is telling me that the product will cure my bad breath and therefore my girl problems but my girl problems are not necessarily related to my bad breath. It's the same as the drinking father example; a person's parenting can be good or bad irrespective of their drinking…

> but it's still not how I read it.

Right. Which also demonstrates why the latter type of ad tends to be much more effective, even though both technically say the same thing.

So, it seems to me that we have two different discussions trying to compete here:

- The acceptability of false advertising.

- The acceptability of advertising that attempts to evoke emotions.

While you are not wrong in noticing that these examples also exhibit false advertising, that is staring to move away from the original discussion, which was about preying on insecurities.

> Can you think of a non-cure-all example for which this argument holds?

How about we turn to the ad that shows up on just about every HN page? It will be well-familiar to everyone here. Here are two variants on one of those ads (with a little paraphrasing on my part):

- "Rust: It will protect your memory!"

- "Still programming in C like it is 1972? The hackers are going to get you. Secure your programs with Rust!"

My understanding from earlier in the thread is that only the first example should be allowed according to the beliefs of those who participated. But, I must say, I'm far more compelled by the latter. It addresses problems I understand deep down when programming in C and then offers a solution. The "It will protect your memory" doesn't tell me much. Why do I need my memory protected? Next.

Assuming only the latter ad catches my attention, which I think is a decent assumption based on what we've seen in this very thread and around ad response behaviour in general, is it possible that the consumer actually benefits from the latter?

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

#303

Post by johnnyanmac »

kelnos wrote: post #279
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…

> Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? I don't, honestly. If I've decided I want something, I'll seek it out. If I've identified an area where I feel like my life is lacking, I might look for a product to help fix that. If I don't even know about something that I might want, I'm fine not having it. The problem is that I don't really trust anyone else to determine what kind…

>If I've decided I want something, I'll seek it out.

you dont know what you don't know. I wouldn't have even been aware of tech if I didn't randomly bumble into a robotics club in high school. Would I have been fine likely making much less in a field I'm less paasoinate about? Maybe, but that seems to be a big sacrifice just so your life is "ad-free" (an odd ideal, if possible at all).

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

#304

Post by bryan_w »

burningChrome wrote: post #183
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.

This sounds eerily familiar with how big tobacco targeted underage kids to get them hooked on their products in the 60's and 70's.

Howso? This seems like a separate situation than the one you mentioned.

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

#305

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

>Any person of sound mind would say that giving that to your kids as a meal is neglect,

it's grains either way, even if some grains have sugar on them (we have a lot of stuff with too much sugar/salt for taste or preservative purposes. Fresh food every day is sadly a luxury). This seems overly dramatic to the point of dismissing your whole point. Giving "bad breakfast cereal" is neglect? Really?

You're free to only give your kid soylent 3 times a day if you want to minmax health, but you seem to be missing a core point that humans also desire pleasurable senses.

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

#306

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

>Would that not be an ideal way to get the solution into your hands if you have that problem?

I think that's where the algorithm matters more than the ad. e.g. if it was some random traveling saelesman going door to door and they researched this neighborhood having 30 year old dads, it wouldn't feel that bad to happen upon a convinient solution.

When you know some company sold your data (with dubious consent) to a bidder who can then pay another company who has your data to say "yeah, give this ad to 30 year old dads", then start starts to feel overly invasive. Not because the product is bad per se, but because two different conglomerations exploited your data.

and for the absurd, "optimal" solution: if this company had government surveillance about your private life up to your recent daily activity, and used that to directly text your spouse or older kid about how your spouse/dad needs this to get over his drinking problem, that'd go way over the line.

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

#307

Post by soared »

miki123211 wrote: post #288
iamacyborg wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Same way you implement all the other advertising laws - make it a law, identify companies breaking the law. Anyone could run a commercial where someone drinks alcohol, but that would be illegal.

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

#308

Post by crazygringo »

wslh wrote: post #232
crazygringo wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ha, sorry. It must say something about my mood today that I just (for no reason) assumed a reply was disagreeing. Never mind, thanks!

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

#309

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

randomdata wrote: post #302
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, but that is true in both cases. I think I can see where you're coming from with this but it's still not how I read it. The second advertisement is telling me that the product will cure my bad breath and therefore my girl problems but my girl problems are not necessarily related to my bad breath. It's the same as the drinking father example; a person's parenting can be good or bad irrespective of their drinking…

> but it's still not how I read it. Right. Which also demonstrates why the latter type of ad tends to be much more effective, even though both technically say the same thing. So, it seems to me that we have two different discussions trying to compete here: - The acceptability of false advertising. - The acceptability of advertising that attempts to evoke emotions. While you are not wrong in noticing that these exampl…

The Rust example is categorically different from the drinking father example. The former evokes emotions around professional decisions while the latter evokes emotions around personal decisions.

The consumer may still ultimately benefit from this advertisement which evokes emotions in such a personal way, especially if we assume the efficacy of the product to be as advertised. The advertisement might also cause a mentally unhealthy individual to become worse as such. The negativity of the emotions might push someone into a worse spot or into learning self-harming or abusive behaviors.

As much as advertisers A/B test their advertisements, I don’t get the feeling they measure the effect they have on national suicide rates. Do you think they’d publish those numbers if they had them?

Admittedly, I dragged this away from OP’s point a bit but I think I brought it back. One person might laugh it off while another abuses their family. It’s really hard to say that the advertisement is not evil, even if it can be demonstrated to be a net good for some.

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

#310

Post by randomdata »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #309
randomdata wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's still not how I read it. Right. Which also demonstrates why the latter type of ad tends to be much more effective, even though both technically say the same thing. So, it seems to me that we have two different discussions trying to compete here: - The acceptability of false advertising. - The acceptability of advertising that attempts to evoke emotions. While you are not wrong in noticing that these exampl…

The Rust example is categorically different from the drinking father example. The former evokes emotions around professional decisions while the latter evokes emotions around personal decisions. The consumer may still ultimately benefit from this advertisement which evokes emotions in such a personal way, especially if we assume the efficacy of the product to be as advertised. The advertisement might also cause a men…

> The former evokes emotions around professional decisions while the latter evokes emotions around personal decisions.

That there is a division between personal emotions and professional emotions is a new idea to me. What is the difference?

> It’s really hard to say that the advertisement is not evil, even if it can be demonstrated to be a net good for some.

If we assume that advertisements can be evil, how are we certain the type that doesn't go after insecurities aren't the evil ones? Like you say, there doesn't seem to be much data published to back up which and which ads aren't evil.

Post reply on HN