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

321–330 of 404 posts

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

#321

Post by throw10920 »

ath3nd wrote: post #54
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…

[flagged]

This is deluded. "Capitalism" is not "structured" in this way at all. This is a failure of regulation, and it's extremely easy to see why: because competent regulators would take anticompetitive action against large monopolies like Google and Meta, as well as enacting laws to prevent undesirable things like personal data being sold.

> The perverse incentives of capitalism will never create good social change

...and you just outed yourself as being extremely ignorant of basically all history, as the vast majority of socially beneficial inventions and rights of all time have come from capitalist countries.

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

#322

Post by throw10920 »

ssklash wrote: post #209
adamc wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem that could be solved with serious penalties (say, 20 years in prison for executives involved) and serious enforcement.

It's really not though. All that money goes somewhere, and not just in their pockets. Some goes to make sure that serious penalties and serious enforcement doesn't happen, because that too is another avenue of ensuring maximum profit.

> Some goes to make sure that serious penalties and serious enforcement doesn't happen

Representatives aren't emotionless puppets that respond to money. They're people, and they can be good or bad. In this case, they're bad, and they're the ones to blame, because they're responsible for protecting consumers from bad companies.

> that too is another avenue of ensuring maximum profit

This is also insanely deluded and ignorant of reality. Every communist country in existence has power deals between bureaucrats in charge of the state, and bureaucrats in charge of producing things. This is a result of human nature, and capitalism doesn't come into it at all.

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

#323

Post by brookst »

talldayo wrote: post #258
brookst wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of us is emotional, and it’s not me. Chill.

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

#324

Post by randomdata »

ndriscoll wrote: post #320
randomdata wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it.

Yeah, so did my kids at that age. In fact, if given the choice, they would choose the healthy food over the candy. Get back to us in a few years.

On that note, there is nothing to me that suggests the ad in question is even trying to convince you that your unruly 3 year old that you are rushing to get off to school is a problem. It clearly portrays older children. You appear to be the exact embodiment of the idea that ads are not likeable when they are not applicable.

What does seem applicable to your preferences is healthy food. Would you be this miffed if you were shown an ad in a similar vein about a new food product that tastes great and has proven to be healthy? Or would you be glad to learn about it?

> She doesn't know things like cereal exist.

Without some kind of advertising, she also wouldn't know anything exists – even healthy food. Seems you're trying to go down the same road as the parallel thread of "advertising is only bad if the product is bad".

Which is hard to deny on some kind of superficial level, sure, but seems to conflate a number of ideas that I'm not sure should be conflated.

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

#325

Post by ndriscoll »

randomdata wrote: post #324
ndriscoll wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Yeah, so did my kids at that age. In fact, if given the choice, they would choose the healthy food over the candy. Get back to us in a few years. On that note, there is nothing to me that suggests the ad in question is even trying to convince you that your unruly 3 year old that you are rushing to get off to school is a problem. It clearly portrays o…

Of course she would know healthy food exists: her parents show her. That is fundamentally different from a paid message.

I don't see why you wouldn't tie those ideas. Sure, ads that remind you to do some push-ups and tell kids how cool it is to be strong would be great, but they don't exist. Talking about decent adverts might as well be talking about how "true" communism hasn't been tried. In the real world, the product generally is somewhere between unnecessary and outright bad. It's obtuse to ignore that.

One of us is talking about hypothetical ads for fantasy products. The other is talking about actual ads.

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

#326

Post by sebastiennight »

randomdata wrote: post #324
ndriscoll wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Yeah, so did my kids at that age. In fact, if given the choice, they would choose the healthy food over the candy. Get back to us in a few years. On that note, there is nothing to me that suggests the ad in question is even trying to convince you that your unruly 3 year old that you are rushing to get off to school is a problem. It clearly portrays o…

I enjoyed reading your side of the argument but am less convinced with

> Without some kind of advertising, she also wouldn't know anything exists – even healthy food.

Do you actually believe that before the 1900s and the invention of advertising, nobody knew about food?

I don't see how you can make such a big claim without resorting to "well, daddy telling you to eat cucumber is a form of advertising".

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

#327

Post by defrost »

ndriscoll wrote: post #325
randomdata wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Yeah, so did my kids at that age. In fact, if given the choice, they would choose the healthy food over the candy. Get back to us in a few years. On that note, there is nothing to me that suggests the ad in question is even trying to convince you that your unruly 3 year old that you are rushing to get off to school is a problem. It clearly portrays o…

Of course she would know healthy food exists: her parents show her. That is fundamentally different from a paid message. I don't see why you wouldn't tie those ideas. Sure, ads that remind you to do some push-ups and tell kids how cool it is to be strong would be great, but they don't exist. Talking about decent adverts might as well be talking about how "true" communism hasn't been tried. In the real world, the prod…

Reading the two of you is surreal:

> Without some kind of advertising, she also wouldn't know anything exists – even healthy food.

Our family didn't see, hear, or read an advertising until myself and siblings were well into our teens .. we were all too far out from cities to get TV, the national broadcasting radio didn't carry ads, etc.

We all knew what healthy food was, the food we grew, raise, and caught. The bulk goods that were ordered.

> Sure, ads that remind you to do some push-ups would be great, but they don't exist.

Sure they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjEge3Awl8 the first "ad" campaign series I saw. As a teenager.

Life without advertising is possible, even today - I principally use the internet and haven't seen an add their for decades thanks to sponser blocks and ad blocking.

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

#328

Post by toofy »

throw10920 wrote: post #322
ssklash wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not though. All that money goes somewhere, and not just in their pockets. Some goes to make sure that serious penalties and serious enforcement doesn't happen, because that too is another avenue of ensuring maximum profit.

> Some goes to make sure that serious penalties and serious enforcement doesn't happen Representatives aren't emotionless puppets that respond to money. They're people, and they can be good or bad. In this case, they're bad, and they're the ones to blame, because they're responsible for protecting consumers from bad companies. > that too is another avenue of ensuring maximum profit This is also insanely deluded and i…

> and they're the ones to blame, because they're responsible for protecting consumers from bad companies.

in your example they’re both bad—both the original aggressor and the one refusing to enforce against that aggressor.

we need to mitigate against this desire to find The One thing to blame. By their very nature complicated situations will have many problems, rarely simply one. we need to remember this so we don’t accidentally stifle conversations by saying “No! It’s this other thing! Not what you said!” we need to recognize this when we find ourselves falling into this trap.

keep in mind, in your scenario, if the elected representative were to enforce against the aggressor, the aggressor would go to jail because their actions are bad—-this tells us that no, it isn’t only the elected person. Both of the parties in your scenario are actively making the situation worse.

it’s both. they both deserve our derision.

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

#329

Post by randomdata »

ndriscoll wrote: post #325
randomdata wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My kid doesn't turn her nose up at healthy food; she asks for it. Yeah, so did my kids at that age. In fact, if given the choice, they would choose the healthy food over the candy. Get back to us in a few years. On that note, there is nothing to me that suggests the ad in question is even trying to convince you that your unruly 3 year old that you are rushing to get off to school is a problem. It clearly portrays o…

Of course she would know healthy food exists: her parents show her. That is fundamentally different from a paid message. I don't see why you wouldn't tie those ideas. Sure, ads that remind you to do some push-ups and tell kids how cool it is to be strong would be great, but they don't exist. Talking about decent adverts might as well be talking about how "true" communism hasn't been tried. In the real world, the prod…

> Of course she would know healthy food exists: her parents show her. That is fundamentally different from a paid message.

Advertising does not necessarily imply paid, but let's go down that road. How do you, and therefore your child, know how to obtain the food that your children eat?

In my case, I go to the grocery store. But I only know that there that grocery store to go to because they spend quite a lot of money to let it be known that they exist. And when in the grocery story, they spent quite a lot on marketing to let it be known what I can buy, healthy or otherwise.

It is advertising all the way down.

> Talking about decent adverts might as well be talking about how "true" communism hasn't been tried.

Well, of course it hasn't been tried. Communism is a work that imagines what life could be like if we achieve post-scarcity. Star-Trek is another adaptation of the same idea. Outside of science fiction, trying either at this juncture is fundamentally impossible. We have not yet succeeded in fulfilling the necessary preconditions that would allow trying.

Yes, indeed, there is hopeful progress towards that goal. We have, according to the UN, achieved post-scarcity in the area of food. It is quite possible that we will get all the way there some day. But not yet. Its time has not yet come.

So what purpose would a "Star-Trek hasn't been tried!" ad actually serve? Just to state the obvious? Perhaps you see it as some kind of gorilla marketing tactic to convince people to watch Star-Trek, or to what you really said, read about the imagined world of communism, because you find it to be entertaining and think others will too?

> One of us is talking about hypothetical ads for fantasy products. The other is talking about actual ads.

And then there is what the rest of us are talking about. What is not clear is who the second player is. Do you have a split personality, by chance?

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

#330

Post by randomdata »

defrost wrote: post #327
ndriscoll wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course she would know healthy food exists: her parents show her. That is fundamentally different from a paid message. I don't see why you wouldn't tie those ideas. Sure, ads that remind you to do some push-ups and tell kids how cool it is to be strong would be great, but they don't exist. Talking about decent adverts might as well be talking about how "true" communism hasn't been tried. In the real world, the prod…

Reading the two of you is surreal: > Without some kind of advertising, she also wouldn't know anything exists – even healthy food. Our family didn't see, hear, or read an advertising until myself and siblings were well into our teens .. we were all too far out from cities to get TV, the national broadcasting radio didn't carry ads, etc. We all knew what healthy food was, the food we grew, raise, and caught. The bulk…

> The bulk goods that were ordered.

Wait. Ordered as in you shouted out into the wilderness: "Oh great vast expanse, give me rice!"

Or ordered as in, like, you contacted a business that supplies bulk goods and requested that they fulfill an order? I'm assuming this one, but how did you magically find out about this business without some kind of advertising letting its existence be known?

Hell, even if we believe the former, how did you come to learn that rice (or whatever good it is that you ordered) exists? You (or your parents, or their parents, whatever) were somehow magically born with that knowledge?

Post reply on HN