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

391–400 of 404 posts

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

#391

Post by shadowgovt »

kelnos wrote: post #269
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…

> 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)? Not the person you're replying to, but yes, absolutely stuff like that. (I think GP was talking about drone surveillance and stuff like that, but sure, we can talk about this too.) The problem is that people are being coerced into giving up their privacy and a…

> only rich people are allowed to have privacy.

We already live in a world where being wealthy can buy you more privacy. The question is only where we put the comfort slider on that fact, not whether it is a fact.

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

#392

Post by cacois »

fwip wrote: post #199
cacois wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully disagree - their peers often make an unhealthy environment on the internet. Kids need in-person communication and interactions, its necessary for healthy development. The internet looks like it provides social interaction, but it actually does not provide what kids need. They should interact with their peers elsewhere, synchronously.

I feel like interacting with a moderate-sized set of real peers is workable - like chat rooms on AIM with the kids you know from school. Kids have always had unsupervised time with their peers. Where it breaks down, is when you get a whole ecosystem populated entirely by kids and those trying to make money off of them.

I agree that AIM was fine. Not as good as in-person interaction, and no real substitute for it, but as an augmentation it caused no real harm. Chatrooms could be in the same boat, but had more problems.

However, social media ever since feeds and the "like" button are an entirely different beast which is addicting, dehumanizing, and antisocial - preventing kids from developing socially.

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

#394

Post by whywhywhywhy »

troupo wrote: post #99
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle where if we lose we give up our privacy. The setting could have just been a browser toggle, but because of government incompetence every publisher gets to skirt the guidelines and trick or frustrate people into clicking accept. You can be against the problem and against incompetents forcing bad solutions at a government level or us…

> Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle Please show me where exactly EU laws mandate the cookie dialog puzzle. > The setting could have just been a browser toggle, Yes, it could've, and browsers have now had 6 years to implement it. Instead, the industry decided that obnoxious cookie banners are the way to go. > against incompetents forcing bad solutions Which solution…

I mean you seem to know a lot about it so how about you provide the sources rather than trying to impose work on others as an argument strategy.

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

#395

Post by gU9x3u8XmQNG »

Xen9 wrote: post #49
gU9x3u8XmQNG wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second this! Quite interesting. @Xen9 please follow up!

My mind would be the source. This is actually one of my least confident comments; I was almost not going to post it. I consider putting a text together later. Regardless—I've observed, to one example, a young girl I know wanting to buy horse toys to make YouTube horse videos with play & interest in horses being a side motive. The adults are proud of her basically being an instrument of marketing. On one hand, making…

Thanks for your answer!

Very interesting mindset. Thanks for sharing.

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

#396

Post by CRConrad »

tekknik wrote: post #344
toofy wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[flagged]

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

#400

Post by throw10920 »

CRConrad wrote: post #396
tekknik wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[flagged]

> mistaking morality for having anything to do with whom you are or are not allowed to fuck

> Except of course kids and in general people who don't want you to

There's no self-consistent system of morality (that does not involve religion) that simultaneously supports all of these positions. What religious morality are you using?

Post reply on HN