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

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

#401

Post by throw10920 » Tue, Aug 20, 2024, 2:42 AM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #378

ath3nd wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to guns is simple. Ban guns and make ownership hard. It's the same reason you don't allow 10 year-olds to operate a vehicle, cause it can be a danger to society. > it doesn’t matter how many times this is said, rational people know the issue is with humans and not capitalism. This statement is the equivalent of hand waving. Capitalism is a system made by humans, it's not some divine order. We have topple…

> The solution to guns is simple. Ban guns and make ownership hard. But then this is stepping on an enumerated right. If we remove or make it difficult the right to own guns, what’s next? Freedom of speech? That one was attacked recently as well. So no the solution is not to further limit rights due to the hoplophobia of a few, the solution is actually what you’re trying to stop. Prior to recent history, it was quite…

> But then this is stepping on an enumerated right. If we remove or make it difficult the right to own guns, what’s next? Freedom of speech?

It may be enlightening to read some of the GP's other comments, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41290361

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

#402

Post by CRConrad » Tue, Aug 20, 2024, 10:57 AM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #400

CRConrad wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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?

[flagged]

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

#403

Post by CRConrad » Tue, Aug 20, 2024, 11:04 AM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #398

CRConrad wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

1) You've got your chronology and causality wrong[1]. No, I did not "stalk [your] other comment threads" after my other response to you.

2) And no, pointing out flawed logic in an argument is not a "personal attack".

3) My interests and motivations don't affect the validity of my arguments. I just said that assertions aren't proofs (here), and that working for a particular employer is a choice, not mandatory (elsewhere, at your link above). Hitler could say either of those, and it would still be correct. So could Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Emperor Bokassa, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Churchill. See how it has nothing to do with ideology?

4) What you claim are "proofs" are still just assertions, and working for a particular employer is still a choice. You were wrong, that is all.

___

[1]: I think I've replied to you exactly twice before, and you posted this exact same (apart from the link) response to both. Since what you're saying is either "you attacked me elsewhere, and then followed me here!" or "you attacked me here, and then followed me elsewhere!", it's confusing as Hell. Which is supposed to be "elsewhere", and which "here"? It even took me a while to realise both links were valid, and not some weird loop... (I was beginning to speculate whether Dan G had moved one sub-thread or both into some offshoot. That is, after I realised they are two separate sub-threads in the first place.)

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

#404

Post by fedeb95 » Tue, Aug 20, 2024, 12:46 PM UTC

ndriscoll wrote: post #214

fedeb95 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a matter of threshold. There's a point up to which targeted advertising doesn't cause harm, after that, it does. Ads on smartphones cross that threshold. Doesn't matter if TV also does: if it does, it should be limited too, otherwise, it doesn't matter. Why smartphones and related software cross that threshold? They're specifically designed to increase use time, i.e. to be addictive. It's a drug.

The fact that companies making sugary cereals haven't gone out of business and the current obesity crisis suggest to me that those TV commercials are also quite harmful. Something causes people to switch off their brains and feed their kids cookies and marshmallows for breakfast as long as the TV says it's okay and normal.

Maybe also TV. But that doesn't mean that targeted web advertising doesn't also, or that it's more harmful, or at the same level. Let's cut both.

On another note, obesity isn't widespread everywhere there are TV commercials.