9 ms·

That's a lot different than what I got from the headline, which to me implied that they were regularly categorizing children as "whales" (high spenders) based o

That's a lot different than what I got from the headline, which to me implied that they were regularly categorizing children as "whales" (high spenders) based on their age and susceptibility to marketing. In this case, that 5 year old is a whale. I doubt many are

afiori 8y ago
In my opinion it should be ethically wrong to call a 5 years old a whale even if he/she is one. > based on their age and susceptibility to marketing When you realize that you are (by mistake or not) marketing to 5 years old that can spend thousands for addictive entertainment you should also realize that something is seriously wrong.
- mc32 8y ago
  I think you’re both right. It’s morally wrong to categorize a 5yo as a whale but it also appears to be an isolated case, so the headline is very inflammatory.
  - afiori 8y ago
    Yes, I have overreacted and read a bit more than what was written. I stand by my point, but the reality is more nuanced than how I portrayed.
  - kzrdude 8y ago
    It's not morally wrong to categorize them. It's morally wrong to use them to take their family's money, though. (And maybe that's what being gotten at: a notion of these as regular and eager customers of free will, which is wrong.)
- ed312 8y ago
  Are you suggesting publishers should not view 5 year olds as valuable customers? Or is the total dollar amount the issue? If this was a child of an UHNWI there really isn't a problem with spending $5k on a video game at the end of the day. Really this article is just click bait jump on the FB hate wagon.
  - kuu 8y ago
    > Are you suggesting publishers should not view 5 year olds as valuable customers? Yes? I mean, 5 years old...
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      Who is the customer for children's toys? You might argue it's the parents because they supply the money, but I think that would be like arguing that the customer for any product is the actual customer's employer - who provides the money. It is the child who supplies the purchase motivation and the child who your product needs to satisfy. I'd say the customer is the child. I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking of children as customers. I do think there's something wrong with manipulating children into spending thousands of dollars on digital gems, but I think that actually generalizes - it doesn't strike me as good moral choice to manipulate anyone into wasting large amounts of money on mobile games.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I think it's wrong to market addictive entertainment to children even if they're rich.
    - pluma 8y ago
      I think it's wrong to market anything that is intentionally created to be addictive.
  - eropple 8y ago
    > Are you suggesting publishers should not view 5 year olds as valuable customers? Mu; your question is a shitty rhetorical trap and I am certain you know it. Designing systems to exploit children is reprehensible; designing systems to exploit anyone should give you pause but children haven't finished baking their brains and everyone involved knows it. And Facebook does not need you to cape up for them. Their stock ticker will do just fine, thank you.
  - mistersquid 8y ago
    > If this was a child of an UHNWI there really isn't a problem with spending $5k on a video game at the end of the day. The problem is not the relative amount of money being spent by a family's child whether that family be wealthy or of means. The problem is that five-year-old children cannot provide informed consent. EDIT: remove superfluous "the".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wuliwong 8y ago
  I think that there is some other concern about the general issue of clickbait or "fake news" that is entering this HN discussion. I didn't get it at first but now looking at it it does appear that the title is a little misleading. It appears that the actual chat logs show them referring to a 15 year old as a whale. I'm totally with you that referring to a 5 year old as a whale is disturbing but if that isn't what the employees did then the headline of this article is incorrect. I'm not really sure how I feel about the 15 year old and I'm not sure exactly what information they are working with. It does _seem_ like as long as the person is over 13 then it's policy for FB to charge them. Can a 13 year old even have a credit card?
  - enedil 8y ago
    Well, yes. I had credit card since I was 16 and I believe 13 was the lower limit (but that's not in US).
- TheRealPomax 8y ago
  Any wallet that keeps on paying, regardless of its age, is a whale. The fact that facebook calls them whales is basically a convenient way to not have to question how the HELL five year olds have spending habits to begin with. Because I can guarantee you that's not because Facebook enables them. You know, what with the whole "5 year olds don't have jobs or bank accounts" and the like.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    Terms like Whale are derogatory and dehumanizing words used to remove empathy from a conversation. When you refer to a "whale" you're not bringing humanity into the discussion and thus precluding it form influencing your decisions.
    - jsight 8y ago
      Alternatively, the term is intended to frame the developers of these applications as whalers trying capture some percentage of the public without their clear-headed consent. Essentially the term is intended to refer to the developers of these applications as predators.
      - cptskippy 8y ago
        Even when the term is turned around it serves the same function. The distinction is that you agree with it's use in one context but perhaps not the other. I'm not necessarily advocating for or against it's usage in either context, just pointing out the effect of using such a term has in terms of framing a conversation.
    - TheRealPomax 8y ago
      Facebook shouldn't have to factor "this person is 5" into their decisions at all. Minors, in countries where Facebook can rake in the dough, can't legally own or use creditcards. The term whale is derogatory, and is a super great subversion tactic: its presence distracts you form paying attention to the real problem, and instead tricks you into falling over the word itself, ignoring the real problem. And hey, looks like it got the job done.
- collyw 8y ago
  Pretty sure I got worse than that in the playground at 5 years old.
smrtinsert 8y ago
Oh I'm sure it stopped at one 5 year old - said no one ever. Are you kidding me?
- wuliwong 8y ago
  If you read the article it apparently was about a 15 year old not a 5 year old. The title is apparently misleading.

afiori 8y ago

In my opinion it should be ethically wrong to call a 5 years old a whale even if he/she is one. > based on their age and susceptibility to marketing When you realize that you are (by mistake or not) marketing to 5 years old that can spend thousands for addictive entertainment you should also realize that something is seriously wrong.

mc32 8y ago
I think you’re both right. It’s morally wrong to categorize a 5yo as a whale but it also appears to be an isolated case, so the headline is very inflammatory.
- afiori 8y ago
  Yes, I have overreacted and read a bit more than what was written. I stand by my point, but the reality is more nuanced than how I portrayed.
- kzrdude 8y ago
  It's not morally wrong to categorize them. It's morally wrong to use them to take their family's money, though. (And maybe that's what being gotten at: a notion of these as regular and eager customers of free will, which is wrong.)
ed312 8y ago
Are you suggesting publishers should not view 5 year olds as valuable customers? Or is the total dollar amount the issue? If this was a child of an UHNWI there really isn't a problem with spending $5k on a video game at the end of the day. Really this article is just click bait jump on the FB hate wagon.
- kuu 8y ago
  > Are you suggesting publishers should not view 5 year olds as valuable customers? Yes? I mean, 5 years old...
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    Who is the customer for children's toys? You might argue it's the parents because they supply the money, but I think that would be like arguing that the customer for any product is the actual customer's employer - who provides the money. It is the child who supplies the purchase motivation and the child who your product needs to satisfy. I'd say the customer is the child. I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking of children as customers. I do think there's something wrong with manipulating children into spending thousands of dollars on digital gems, but I think that actually generalizes - it doesn't strike me as good moral choice to manipulate anyone into wasting large amounts of money on mobile games.
- adrianN 8y ago
  I think it's wrong to market addictive entertainment to children even if they're rich.
  - pluma 8y ago
    I think it's wrong to market anything that is intentionally created to be addictive.
- eropple 8y ago
  > Are you suggesting publishers should not view 5 year olds as valuable customers? Mu; your question is a shitty rhetorical trap and I am certain you know it. Designing systems to exploit children is reprehensible; designing systems to exploit anyone should give you pause but children haven't finished baking their brains and everyone involved knows it. And Facebook does not need you to cape up for them. Their stock ticker will do just fine, thank you.
- mistersquid 8y ago
  > If this was a child of an UHNWI there really isn't a problem with spending $5k on a video game at the end of the day. The problem is not the relative amount of money being spent by a family's child whether that family be wealthy or of means. The problem is that five-year-old children cannot provide informed consent. EDIT: remove superfluous "the".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wuliwong 8y ago
I think that there is some other concern about the general issue of clickbait or "fake news" that is entering this HN discussion. I didn't get it at first but now looking at it it does appear that the title is a little misleading. It appears that the actual chat logs show them referring to a 15 year old as a whale. I'm totally with you that referring to a 5 year old as a whale is disturbing but if that isn't what the employees did then the headline of this article is incorrect. I'm not really sure how I feel about the 15 year old and I'm not sure exactly what information they are working with. It does _seem_ like as long as the person is over 13 then it's policy for FB to charge them. Can a 13 year old even have a credit card?
- enedil 8y ago
  Well, yes. I had credit card since I was 16 and I believe 13 was the lower limit (but that's not in US).
TheRealPomax 8y ago
Any wallet that keeps on paying, regardless of its age, is a whale. The fact that facebook calls them whales is basically a convenient way to not have to question how the HELL five year olds have spending habits to begin with. Because I can guarantee you that's not because Facebook enables them. You know, what with the whole "5 year olds don't have jobs or bank accounts" and the like.
- cptskippy 8y ago
  Terms like Whale are derogatory and dehumanizing words used to remove empathy from a conversation. When you refer to a "whale" you're not bringing humanity into the discussion and thus precluding it form influencing your decisions.
  - jsight 8y ago
    Alternatively, the term is intended to frame the developers of these applications as whalers trying capture some percentage of the public without their clear-headed consent. Essentially the term is intended to refer to the developers of these applications as predators.
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      Even when the term is turned around it serves the same function. The distinction is that you agree with it's use in one context but perhaps not the other. I'm not necessarily advocating for or against it's usage in either context, just pointing out the effect of using such a term has in terms of framing a conversation.
  - TheRealPomax 8y ago
    Facebook shouldn't have to factor "this person is 5" into their decisions at all. Minors, in countries where Facebook can rake in the dough, can't legally own or use creditcards. The term whale is derogatory, and is a super great subversion tactic: its presence distracts you form paying attention to the real problem, and instead tricks you into falling over the word itself, ignoring the real problem. And hey, looks like it got the job done.
collyw 8y ago
Pretty sure I got worse than that in the playground at 5 years old.

smrtinsert 8y ago

Oh I'm sure it stopped at one 5 year old - said no one ever. Are you kidding me?

wuliwong 8y ago
If you read the article it apparently was about a 15 year old not a 5 year old. The title is apparently misleading.