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

321–330 of 349 posts

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

#321

Post by autoexec »

bobthepanda wrote: post #19
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #13

I could see supporting with this, but it does seem like an abuse of the 'for the children' argument for this. Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until they get a job. Also some chicken nuggets are bad, but some average a gram of protein per 10 calories, which is a pretty good ratio, and especially for frozen food. Can't help but think this is too broad.

more so in the past, there was a lot more food advertising directed at kids, because the thought was that kids could annoy their parents enough to drag the whole family to an establishment. and some marketing tricks work a lot better on children because of their social settings and general impulsiveness (e.g. "All the cool kids have Lunchables")

> nd some marketing tricks work a lot better on children because of their social settings and general impulsiveness

Kids don't have the defenses against manipulation, especially when it's refined by billions in research dollars and decades of work by scientists and psychologists dedicated to exploiting their young minds.

Research has shown that kids (even into their teens) can't tell the difference between ads and content. They don't even know an ad when they see one, and the line between ad and content is often intentionally blurred. I've even seen adults struggle to identify ads when they're right in their face.

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

#322

Post by autoexec »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #146
mirsadm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have children? They're targeted with ads everywhere . You can be a responsible parent but these things cause unnecessary stress. Quite frankly if the government wants to ban all advertising I would be thrilled.

I do have children and I don't let them be exposed to things I disagree with. But thats my moral decision. Why should my morality be forced on others? Making the decision to not expose your children to certain ads is a moral decision. Let the parents choose if its important for them. They can choose exactly what kind of content their children watch with streaming and DVDs. Long gone are the days where kids just sat i…

> Long gone are the days where kids just sat in front a television and had to watch live cable TV where the parents didn't know what was coming up next.

I've seen streaming services auto-play whatever they want to push at viewers after whatever show/movie was playing ended. I imagine there are a lot of kids that end up watching things they (and their parents) didn't choose for themselves.

When it comes to ads, parents and children don't get to choose what ads they see either.

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

#323

Post by WD-42 »

phyzix5761 wrote: post #219
WD-42 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the massive amounts of sugar is all the motivation they need.

How do they know it has sugar just by looking at the food or the packaging?

Because most children aren't stupid and when something is called a "Fruit Loop" or the box displays pieces of cereal that resemble halloween candy they can make the connection to sugar.

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

#324

Post by lmm »

hermitcrab wrote: post #245
lmm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Index funds charge around 1% per year. You're getting ripped off, you should be paying a small fraction of that.

Vanguard UK charge 0.06% to 0.6% per year on their index funds: https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/what-we-offer/all-product... Plus a 0.15% account fee: https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/what-we-offer/fees-explai... Most others charge more.

That 0.6% one is actively managed. The true index funds on that list are charging 0.2% or less (0.12% for most of the ones you'd want). So 0.27%-0.35% all-in. I stand by 1% being be a rip-off.

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

#325

Post by phyzix5761 »

WD-42 wrote: post #323
phyzix5761 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do they know it has sugar just by looking at the food or the packaging?

Because most children aren't stupid and when something is called a "Fruit Loop" or the box displays pieces of cereal that resemble halloween candy they can make the connection to sugar.

Exactly. That's why I said "I'm sure the cartoons and colors help the kids get motivated to eat the cereal"

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

#326

Post by Fnoord »

autoexec wrote: post #319
Fnoord wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My kid recently got a second hand iPad tablet. On it, she uses YouTube Kids. I made an account for her. Now, they ask _me_ for consent, since she cannot legally give it. They throw ads at her about toys, but this is illegal in my country to target children with ads. Ads are supposed to target parents, not kids. Now, if it were one ad at start, I'd hate it, but they go further: in a 10-minute movie, the thing quits li…

I don't know if apple will allow you to do it on an ipad, but even very young kids can learn to use something like newpipe or yt-dlp which can download videos and removes youtube's ads. If nothing else you could download ad-free videos and copy them to a device so there's a massive library of safe media you've vetted and wont have to worry about.

I use YouTube ReVanced and NewPipe on my own snartphones but I have not figured out of how block ads on the iPad (it does use DNS-based blocking via Unbound blocklists on OPNsense), she just got the iPad for a few days. On our smartphones, the children are the primary users of YouTube (on STB too, there we use SmartTube). Even YouTube Premium Family I had was primarily for my children. However they increased the subscription costs and went after people who set a different country than where they were located (I used India and paid 2 EUR a month). Now I am forced to pay the price if The Netherlands which is an illegal geolock since I should be allowed to define I am from elsewhere in EU (because I might be from Romania, living in The Netherlands).

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

#327

Post by Fnoord »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #307
Fnoord wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My kid recently got a second hand iPad tablet. On it, she uses YouTube Kids. I made an account for her. Now, they ask _me_ for consent, since she cannot legally give it. They throw ads at her about toys, but this is illegal in my country to target children with ads. Ads are supposed to target parents, not kids. Now, if it were one ad at start, I'd hate it, but they go further: in a 10-minute movie, the thing quits li…

You have the power to stop this: disable the app if you believe the ads are harming your child, or opt to pay for YT or another kids video service that doesn't serve ads. One issue is that YT is possibly violating the law. A separate issue is that parents are allowing children to continue consuming harmful ad content on an app.

I have a pretty staunch policy for my kids. I don't mind paying for something if price us reasonable. Malware, nagware, adware however? No.

However there's two parents. So I draw a firm line at malware but allow adware. Especially also since grandma is OK with playing a F2P game with them helping them get past the ads. On the bright side: they certainly do learn to hate advertising. And dark patterns. Their little fingers are better at clucking the small X than mine!

Either way, I will figure out how to stop the nonsense without paying the mob my overly expensive contribution.

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

#329

Post by petre »

ben_w wrote: post #283
EasyMark wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> At some point parents have to take some responsibility By voting for the party that promises to enforce bans against it? There's more than one way to be responsible, and it's not good to be a "helicopter parent" even if you have enough free time to actually pair-browse the internet with your kid, and even if you did that doesn't stop them seeing inappropriate content or ads it just means there's a witness who knows…

Even voting is influenced by social media campaign as recently seen in Romania, Moldova and Georgia. The right approach is ban the behaviour and fine the perpetrators like the EU does. If you can't punish the perps, fine the ad delivery network instead.

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

#330

Post by genewitch »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #310
gwerbret wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct quote from the article which I'm sure you read: "This government is taking action now to end the targeting of junk food ads at kids, across both TV and online."

Because when kids go on the internet they always end up in regulated age appropriate areas.

this is silly, though. If the kids are in "adult" areas then they're still not going to see ads for lucky charms because lucky charms isn't marketed for adults.

and the several posts "an it harm none do what thou wilt" on this topic are silly too. My breath takes oxygen out of the atmosphere. Me drinking a glass of water takes that water out of the ground (or stream, or lake), making you unable to drink it. Every footstep changes the terrain.

It sounds good in text form "as long as they're not harming anyone but themselves" but what about smoking? assume someone lives alone so they're not second-handing anyone else, they're still a burden on the system. there's still poison being sprayed on tobacco crops, diesel being burned to harvest and transport, plastics being used to manufacture the cigarettes, and so on. There's external costs to literally everything except living in a log cabin made from local logs in the middle of a forest and only foraging and hunting for food. And even then i am sure i could argue that has unbalanced negative externalities.

If you're going to attempt to make a point, make sure it makes sense from more than one angle, first.

Post reply on HN