Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

france24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 349 posts

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#221

Post by crowcroft »

EasyMark wrote: post #200
crowcroft wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It baffles me that more countries haven't put legislation in place to severely limit what ads can be served to under 18 year olds (or at least under 16). I worked in an ad agency a number of years ago, and Phillip Morris approached us with a deliberate plan to launch big budget ad campaigns on social media platforms specifically because they could get in front of younger demos more easily (traditional media having ex…

Probably because being tracked across all platforms is a bad idea in a democractic/liberal type of country, and not worth the "think of the children" argument. At some point parents have to take some responsibility.

First, I’m not sure being tracked across all platforms is actually a requirement here. On device age verification and device attestation and/or simply assuming anonymous users are under 18 from an ad safety perspective would allow a level of anonymity across platforms. It might also help solve a large chunk of ad fraud.

Second, I think you really need strong evidence to say that the upside you’re asserting is truly worth sacrificing kids safety.

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#222

Post by deskr »

beejiu wrote: post #72
deskr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very strange they say porridge oats are banned, then go on saying "natural porridge oats" are not. In my mind porridge oats are natural and you don't have to say that. If you have something else you need to say so.

They are not banned. They are on "the list" (as the article says) meaning they must be scored using the "NPM model". Only scores exceeding 4 are "banned", which will include sweetened oats.

>must be scored using the "NPM model". Only scores exceeding 4 are "banned", which will include sweetened oats

Thanks. Do you have a link to "the list" and this NPM model scoring system?

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#223

Post by themk »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #141
majormajor wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more "we don't want corporations selling unhealthy junk to have direct access to influence super-impressional kids" - cause guess what, in that case? You can be a perfectly responsible parent dietary-decision-wise, but have your kids whine and complain constantly because the kids aren't informed about the problems of it and just want the tasty shit they saw all the ads for. Would you allow salespeople into your…

As a parent I don't let my children watch things I disagree with. They can probably count the number of food ads they've seen in 1 hand because I don't let them watch TV. They can watch shows and movies but they're either streamed or checked out of the library. But that's the way I choose to parent my child. If another parent wants their children to watch TV and be exposed to those ads then they should have every rig…

I'm the same. My children are practically never exposed to these ads. But, all their peers are.

My kids have never had any fast food, and have never seen an ad, but they talk about KFC and McDonald's constantly. It all comes from their friends at school.

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#224

Post by jraph »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #144
jraph wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children are totally targeted. They will ask their parents and put pressure to buy them stuff. Maybe even the parents who don't cave in can be relieved of this. In the longer term, stuff that enters your brain as a child shapes you and lasts long. See how well how many people in their 30s remember ads of their childhood. Why would someone defend such ads anyway? I don't believe they achieve anything good for anyone e…

Its because I don't want the government, people who I've never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my behalf. Even if the majority of citizens agreed that forcing their morality on the minority is the right thing to do I still disagree because individual freedom is more important than majority opinion.

> Its because I don't want the government, people who I've never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my behalf.

But without the law, they are doing the moral decision of allowing the hurtful ads. There's no neutral state. The government has to pick a side anyway. So let's pick the side favorable to the citizens?

> individual freedom is more important than majority opinion

Isn't this a contradiction? If the majority wants something, you are hurting the individual freedom of the greatest number of people.

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#225

Post by jraph »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #209
MiguelX413 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of laws if not forcing morality?

Protecting individual rights and freedoms

Not at the cost of harming people, usually. Its role is also to protect individuals themselves.

Infinite individual freedom doesn't exist, it stops where others' individual freedom starts.

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#226

Post by jraph »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #208
frereubu wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the (large, I would argue) slice of parents who want to let their kids watch TV but don't want them bombarded with ads for sugar-saturated foods? (I mean, we're on HN, so the obvious answer is watching things on a laptop / projector with Firefox + uBlock Origin, but y'know - everyone else).

Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others. Thats how we get xenophobic and homophobic people voting to control women's bodies because they think others should do whatever they believe is moral and right.

> Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others

I believe forbidding these ads is morally good, but it's not just morality. It's knowledge backed by studies:

- children are easily influenced

- burgers cause public health issues that harm the individuals, and cost greatly to the society in healthcare

It's not a stance like "I believe women should not abort because God" (to take your example). It's a law aiming to reduce costs and and improve public health.

This laws doesn't prevent parents from speaking about burgers to their children, and doesn't prevent TV from speaking about them neither. It's not a freedom of speech issue.

There's an imbalance between the power of the big corporations and the power of the individuals and this law pushes the needle a bit towards the individuals. You the individual freedom defender should be happy with this :-)

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#227

Post by phyzix5761 »

jraph wrote: post #226
phyzix5761 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others. Thats how we get xenophobic and homophobic people voting to control women's bodies because they think others should do whatever they believe is moral and right.

> Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others I believe forbidding these ads is morally good, but it's not just morality. It's knowledge backed by studies: - children are easily influenced - burgers cause public health issues that harm the individuals, and cost greatly to the society in healthcare It's not a stance like "I believe women should not abort because God" (to ta…

Although I never made an argument regarding free speech we can say that this does prevent free speech because it prevents companies from speaking about their products through advertisements. Remember that business owners are people too. Often times they're citizens of the countries in which they're doing business.

I think most people tend to forget that and view companies as soulless abstract entities. In the US 99.9% (99.8% in the UK) of businesses are small businesses run by very few individuals who are just trying to make ends meet. If you remove the ability to advertise these products it doesn't hurt the big companies. They're established and have recognizable brands. But small businesses can't afford to lose their main way of finding customers. Eventually, they go out of business. This only helps the large corporations become even larger.

> There's an imbalance between the power of the big corporations and the power of the individuals...

Where is the imbalance of power in the scenario of burgers being advertised? All advertisement is designed to persuade the viewer to purchase the product or service. Marketing is a normal part of running a business. Children may be influenced by the commercials but so are adults. Should we ban all advertising now?

> - burgers cause public health issues that harm the individuals, and cost greatly to the society in healthcare

While burgers may not be the healthiest food, if you're a low income individual who can't access more expensive, healthier foods, burgers are nutrient and calorically rich and they're cheap.

A burger to someone living below the poverty line without access to food is a life saver. Its all about context and perspective.

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#228

Post by funnybeam »

thanksgiving wrote: post #151
justincormack wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are taxes, but they are largely on the earnings of the gaming companies

It makes sense though if I think about it. In theory, all the money wagered is money that has already paid income tax at some point so why tax it again?

That’s true of anything you pay money for

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#229

Post by phyzix5761 »

jraph wrote: post #224
phyzix5761 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its because I don't want the government, people who I've never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my behalf. Even if the majority of citizens agreed that forcing their morality on the minority is the right thing to do I still disagree because individual freedom is more important than majority opinion.

> Its because I don't want the government, people who I've never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my behalf. But without the law, they are doing the moral decision of allowing the hurtful ads. There's no neutral state. The government has to pick a side anyway. So let's pick the side favorable to the citizens? > individual freedom is more impor…

> But without the law, they are doing the moral decision of allowing the hurtful ads. There's no neutral state. The government has to pick a side anyway. So let's pick the side favorable to the citizens?

The idea of the government 'picking a side' is problematic because it assumes a one-size-fits-all solution that may not align with everyone's values. Allowing ads isn't endorsing them; it's respecting freedom of speech and trusting individuals to make their own choices. Once the government starts deciding which speech is acceptable, it opens the door for abuse and subjective enforcement, which can harm citizens more than it helps.

The free market should decide whether they want to be exposed to ads or not by voting with their dollars. If an ad campaign doesn't produce the results a company wants they pull the ads and try something else.

> Isn't this a contradiction? If the majority wants something, you are hurting the individual freedom of the greatest number of people.

Individual freedom means the freedom to do, say, or think whatever you please as long as you don't harm another or their property. The will of the majority to force the minority to behave a certain way is not freedom. The majority is free to act however they want as long as it doesn't harm others but they shouldn't be allowed to force others to behave a certain way.

Majority opinion can lead to tyranny if it infringes on the rights of individuals. History offers countless examples of majorities oppressing minorities. The role of a just society is to protect each person's right to life, liberty, and property, even when the majority disagrees.

The focus should be on safeguarding universal rights rather than catering to the fluctuating preferences of a majority.

Re: UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers

#230

Post by phyzix5761 »

jraph wrote: post #225
phyzix5761 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protecting individual rights and freedoms

Not at the cost of harming people, usually. Its role is also to protect individuals themselves. Infinite individual freedom doesn't exist, it stops where others' individual freedom starts.

Absolutely. Individuals should have rights and freedoms as long as they don't harm another's.
Post reply on HN