Google and Meta struck secret ads deal to target teenagers • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 1:03 AM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #238

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, I build testing infrastructure for video conferencing software. I guess I can see how video conferencing can be misused, but my conscious is relatively clear.

You are just doing the social justice warrior thing, which is great and all, but I've seen it before and it never seems very effective. Vote for political change if you want to see things really happen.

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

#312

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 1:05 AM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #174

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.

> 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 vide…

There are medium-sized profitable tech firms, but they are like the worst of both worlds: you have the politics of a FAANG with the pay of a mom/pop firm, and your work isn't going to be very interesting. I really liked working for a non-profit research lab for one year (YCR even!), but it didn't last.

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

#313

Post by shiroiushi » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 1:18 AM UTC

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…

>"Do you like Blink 182? Turns out they are actually touring again and they are in your city next weekend. Buy tickets now"

I don't like Blink 182, but there have been many times when a band I would have liked to see was in my city and I didn't find out until too late. LiveNation has a feature to warn you about upcoming concerts but it doesn't work well in my experience.

Honestly, it would be really nice to have actual useful advertising like this, but instead we mostly get abusive and intrusive advertising.

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

#314

Post by shiroiushi » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 1:23 AM UTC

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.

>Contextual ads wouldn’t require tracking as it’s just advertising based on the page context

This sounds similar to the "you might also be interested in..." ads/recommendations you see on Amazon or Aliexpress. Those are actually pretty useful at times. If I'm looking at product X from brand A, and it shows me there's a competing product X from brand B, that's lower priced or a better product, that's useful. Or a product that works with the one I'm looking at. Of course, these aren't 3rd-party ads: these are just more products being advertised to you by the shopping site you're already browsing and looking for product X on, and not too different from going to a physical store and finding similar products placed next to each other.

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

#315

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 1:55 AM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #310

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ce…

> What is the difference?

The emotions are all personal but some topics evoke emotions of lesser or greater intensity than others; the topic of one’s parenting will likely be more emotionally intense than the topic of their tech stack at work. Most people in relevant situations will be far more invested in the former than the latter.

> 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.

It’s a personal belief that this behavior is evil; indeed, that seems a necessary component of calling anything evil. I also wouldn’t distinguish between advertisements which play on emotions and those which don’t -- they all play on emotions. The important distinction for me is in the specific topic being exploited. (There was also the distraction I brought up of false advertising but I think that’s more uncontroversially “evil”.)

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

#316

Post by 325125 » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 1:57 AM UTC

burningChrome wrote: post #282

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....

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.

What are the harmful side effects if you don't have a preexisting health condition?

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

#317

Post by Terr_ » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 2:07 AM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #250

Terr_ wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be some more-creative options out there too. For example, in Washington State there isn't a blanket prohibition on signs advertising to people on the highway, but anything advertised must be available for purchase on the property. So far, that's been enough to curb companies from lining the highways with walls of giant billboards. So--just spitballing here--imagine if people had a legal right to use and sel…

Or you can do like a few different states have done and just fucking ban billboards, and the world doesn't end, and the economy doesn't crash, and the world is an explicitly better place. So much stupid nonsense just to not make the world a better place and I don't understand it. You don't need to be creative. Speaking of which, at this point it's only a matter of time before some big name attempts to put a satellite…

> Or you can [...] just fucking ban billboards

I feel this "just do X" formula is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. Will you force most gas stations dismantle their price-signs? Will "garage sale here" signs become illegal? What zones are or aren't covered?

Vehemence is unfortunately not a substitute for planning or clear rules.

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

#318

Post by ndriscoll » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 2:13 AM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #305

ndriscoll wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

I'm not sure what you mean by it's grains either way. My older kid usually asks for cottage cheese in the morning. She wouldn't know to demand cereal because we've never bought it or even gone into that aisle in the store. She's never heard of it, and advertisers don't have access to her to suggest it.

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

#319

Post by randomdata » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 2:33 AM UTC

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #315

randomdata wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ce…

> What is the difference? The emotions are all personal but some topics evoke emotions of lesser or greater intensity than others; the topic of one’s parenting will likely be more emotionally intense than the topic of their tech stack at work. Most people in relevant situations will be far more invested in the former than the latter. > If we assume that advertisements can be evil, how are we certain the type that doe…

> the topic of one’s parenting will likely be less emotionally intense than the topic of their tech stack at work. Most people in relevant situations will be far more invested in the former than the latter.

Where does "Are you tired of feeling like a horrible father because you are spending more time tracking down error cases you forgot to handle than with your children? Try Rust!" fall?

> I also wouldn’t distinguish between advertisements which play on emotions and those which don’t -- they all play on emotions.

You kind of have to distinguish between them in order to meaningfully participate in this discussion. That there is no difference follows my point made initially, so I can certainly appreciate your position in a vacuum, but we moved long past that to explore the idea that there is a difference. If you cannot speak to a difference then there is only nonsense.

Perhaps I misunderstand?

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

#320

Post by ndriscoll » Fri, Aug 09, 2024, 2:36 AM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #300

ndriscoll wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Evidently people don't pay attention to what is said and will go off and do their own thing. It's almost like that was the intention. It's weird how the ad doesn't prominently show the eggs, beans, etc. and talk about how great they are, and instead focuses on how you can totally eat cookies for breakfast! Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnvHUXssIAo "Not Candy! Resees Puffs cereal!" It is candy.…

> The purpose of this commercial is not to inform you about how to use their product Assuming we watched the same video, the purpose is to inform the offer of a solution to a problem: The problem of parents needing to rush off to work and the kids off to school, without time to prepare a proper healthy breakfast, with the kids crying "I'm hungry" yet turning their nose up at anything that might be even reasonably hea…

Again, this is a problem the advertisers create. My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Want to know why? She doesn't know things like cereal exist. She wouldn't know to ever ask for it, much less demand it. In her mind, strawberries are a treat.

We don't eat candy for breakfast because candy is not food. Thus the issue of fighting to enforce good habits never arises. Without advertisements undermining us, the idea simply does not exist. If it ever occurred to her, it's easy to say "no, candy is not food" and we don't have a TV telling her otherwise.