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

331–340 of 404 posts

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

#331

Post by randomdata »

sebastiennight wrote: post #326
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…

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".

> but am less convinced

Is there something we are supposed to convince you of?

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

1900s? Even what is considered "modern" advertising dates back to the 17th century – i.e. the 1600s.

> 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".

Okay, but unless "daddy" hales from Mesopotamia, then he didn't really stumble upon one in nature by happenstance. The rest of world only came to learn of the existence of cucumbers through advertising.

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

#332

Post by ssklash »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #301
kelnos wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If all ads did was make you aware of products, we would not be having this discussion. They attempt to hijack deep-seated human urges and tenancies in order to get you to buy their crap. Watch any perfume or cologne commercial and tell me they are simply making you aware that the product exists.

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

#333

Post by drekk »

325125 wrote: post #316
burningChrome wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Besides a crippling nicotine addiction?

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

#334

Post by xigoi »

randomdata wrote: post #329
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…

> 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…

> 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.

You know, there is this thing called a “map” that you can use to find places without having them advertize themselves to you. And of course grocery stores show you the food they sell, how else would they sell it?

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

#335

Post by sham1 »

briandear wrote: post #221
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limit advertising budgets to some percentage of reported (and taxed) income. Solve multiple problems at once :)

So the big companies can spend more and the startups wouldn’t be able to advertise at all. That’s not solving anything.

Those sorts of taxes could be made progressive. And if one wanted to be really cheeky, the progression could be based on percentages of global revenue.

Ads really are a negative externality, and they should really be treated as such.

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

#336

Post by carlmr »

325125 wrote: post #316
burningChrome wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We don't know yet. But besides the nicotine addiction, there are other components in the vapor which we have no long-term data on, because it's just so new. But we know that there are components in the vapor that are harmful to your health, and nicotine itself is cardiotoxic, so there's that [1].

We do however have studies showing that vaping can be implicated in lung cancer [2].

[1] https://www.moffitt.org/cancers/lung-cancer/faqs/lung-cancer... [2] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240520/Study-reveals-inc...

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

#338

Post by galkk »

ndriscoll wrote: post #198
pfdietz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having ads targeted at children can be seen as a good thing: it trains the children in what advertising is like, about how they can be manipulated and exploited. It's good for them to get this experience while young when the stakes are low. Of course, this might also train children to be the exploiters and manipulators. Maybe their parents would think that's a good thing too, at least in the long run.

Personally, I plan to prepare my kids by keeping them away from as many sources of advertising as possible and teaching them how to do the same when they're older. e.g. they're completely unaware of the existence of anything Disney-related.

Do you have kids now?

I was in the same boat (try to avoid any branded toys etc), but it’s just impossible, unless you avoid any socialization.

I see that on the example of Frozen. Kids in daycare, wearing Elsa dresses. Kids in playgrounds, wearing same dresses. Backpacks, t-shirts with sisters from Frozen… unfortunately, that battle seems to be lost already.

Huge bookshelves at book stores with books with Taylor Swift.

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

#339

Post by markovs_gun »

mrguyorama wrote: post #243
pseudocomposer wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reputational damage is pretty easy to limit for companies that can control what news a huge majority of people see.

If the "Craftsman" brand of tools didn't go completely out of business despite removing the lifetime warranty and just slapping the brand name on cheap chinese tools, then "Reputational damage" does not exist.

Yep. Reputational damage is a thing of the past in a world where everyone is completely bombarded with useless and incorrect information 24/7. Maybe it was never a thing at all, and companies merely assumed it was as a theoretical. Either way, I have never seen any brand actually suffer long term because of their reputation.

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

#340

Post by markovs_gun »

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…

Does it really matter if it's opt-in when insurance companies are going to make the price without the "discounts" you get for opting in completely unaffordable for most people? When I shopped around for auto insurance most recently, I discovered that Liberty Mutual is already using this model. The quoted price is way higher than most, but convenient discounts are offered if you download an app that lets them spy on your driving habits. What happens when every insurer starts doing stuff like this because it becomes socially acceptable for them to do so? The issue, as usual, isn't from one or two firms offering a discount in exchange for data collection, it's when this data collection happens at scale and is practically unavoidable, especially for people who don't realize what they're really opting into.
Post reply on HN