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

341–350 of 404 posts

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

#341

Post by ath3nd »

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.

Sure it doesn't ALL go in their pockets.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2022/

The average CEO nowadays is paid 344 times more than an average worker, while in 1978 this figure was "only" 21 times.

And indeed, lots of it goes to prevent serious penalties, like lawyering-up, lobbying, (deceitful) media campaigns, bribing "scientists" and "doctors", etc. Just look at Big Tobacco's playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement and see it playing out with Big Oil and climate change, Big Chem (PFAS in our water), etc etc. And, let's not forget Big Tech, with companies like Twitter/X where fascism now thrives, and Instagram/TikTok/Whatever who mine our attention.

These companies have grown, much like tumors, to be overly powerful, overly protected, and overly influential. And they wreck havoc on our societies and planet. Their attempts of "self-regulation" are laughable, and so far also laughable have been our governments' attempts to reign them in.

My point is that the kind of corp feudalism we see now is a direct following of unrestrained capitalism/libertarianism. Unless we reign in the companies, break them down, make them pay fair wages and hold them responsible for their societal and environmental impact, we will drown in our own garbage.

And yes, it's capitalism to blame, a philosophy where you optimize only for profit, throwing all other values out the window, in the hope that the (non-existent) "invisible hand" of the market will somehow fix everything magically.

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

#342

Post by tekknik »

throw12347825 wrote: post #29
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.

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…

> the story of late-stage capitalism and the application of value-extraction to human social structures resulting in comically terrible outcomes

You mean the MBAs. Ban anything related to business administration degrees and fix the problem.

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

#343

Post by tekknik »

markovs_gun wrote: post #340
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

> 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?

let’s be accurate with statements yes? i was offered one of these devices, refused it, and my rates did not increase. you’re claiming the rates people have been paying are lower than after they refuse the device. This is incorrect.

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

#344

Post by tekknik »

toofy wrote: post #328
throw10920 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

if we want to point fingers then I certainly have my targets but what good will that do? you’ll piss off one side, promote the other, and increase the divide for both.

another solution, actually boycott immorality. morality was pushed from society not so long ago, at least in the US, and what you see is the result. why wouldn’t you follow the letter of the law and screw over large swaths of people if it’s legal?

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

#345

Post by tekknik »

ath3nd wrote: post #341
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.

Sure it doesn't ALL go in their pockets. https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2022/ The average CEO nowadays is paid 344 times more than an average worker, while in 1978 this figure was "only" 21 times. And indeed, lots of it goes to prevent serious penalties, like lawyering-up, lobbying, (deceitful) media campaigns, bribing "scientists" and "doctors", etc. Just look at Big Tobacco's playbook: https://en.wikipe…

> it's capitalism to blame

it doesn’t matter how many times this is said, rational people know the issue is with humans and not capitalism. we can’t keep giving human behavior a pass and blaming systems that literally cannot take any action on their own. we see this with guns as well, the problem is not the system nor the laws, the problem is people. i wish you luck in fixing people, as many have tried before you and failed.

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

#346

Post by markovs_gun »

tekknik wrote: post #343
markovs_gun wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

> 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? let’s be accurate with statements yes? i was offered one of these devices, refused it, and my rates did not increase. you’re claiming the rates people have been paying are lower than after they refuse the device. This is incorrect.

That's not the mechanism by which this happens. It's likely illegal (or at the very least, a bad look PR wise) for them to increase your rates based on your refusal to be spied on, but the base price will likely increase as the adoption of technologies like this becomes more widespread, and the discounts will become a more important part of how people afford car insurance. It's not that your specific policy will go from $200/mo to $300/mo for not opting in, it's that over time the same policy for new customers will be $300/mo but with a $100/mo discount for letting them spy on you.

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

#347

Post by tekknik »

Manabu-eo wrote: post #283
HDThoreaun wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

This is an interesting twist of the original urban legend around these seeds. The story was that if you didn’t pay for monsanto seeds, and your neighbor did and planted them, and one blew into your yard then you’d be targeted by a lawsuit.

in reality though, i’d like to see this farmland so close to another that they can’t accurately spray or sow. there’s fences and access roads between fields, sometimes trees as well.

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

#348

Post by tekknik »

kelnos wrote: post #274
HDThoreaun wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My guess would be it's about pricing. Let's imagine a world where there are only two farms, mine and my neighbor's. We're both using regular seeds, and we do a decent job, but it's not wonderful, and some years our yield isn't so great. Then Monsanto comes along and wants to sell us a product that gives us better, more consistent yields, even better than our best harvests with the regular seeds. The catch, of course,…

You do realize that most farming is subsidized by the gov these days right? So in your scenario here, likely no farmer is making profit and the gov is paying the difference.

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

#349

Post by tekknik »

sham1 wrote: post #335
briandear wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

take a complex solution that doesn’t actually solve the problem and make it more complex so then it solves it, yet still doesn’t.

a less complex solution, let companies like apple do what they do and allow ad blockers and develop an AI feature for removing them.

people still seeing ads these days are doing so by choice.

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

#350

Post by tekknik »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #303
kelnos wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

the advertiser also doesn’t know what they don’t know.

if you hadn’t joined the robotics club, chances are very high you would tripped over robotics on your way off of the stage when graduating. it’s that prevalent these days. if not then you would’ve seen one of the many youtube videos convincing you to join some company. had you seen an ad for robot building school, most would consider it a scam and move on.

Post reply on HN