9 ms·

This outrage culture is getting to be a bit much. Anyone who's worked in gaming knows that "Whale" is a term to refer to high spenders that are several deviati

This outrage culture is getting to be a bit much. Anyone who's worked in gaming knows that "Whale" is a term to refer to high spenders that are several deviations from the norm. A 1-year old racked up $10k in bills on a game where people normally spend $30? Whale. Period. That's not unreasonable at all because the 1-yr old is in-fact a high spender several deviations from the norm. Does any of this mean the game was explicitly marketed to 1-year olds? No. Is it possible that the parent racked up the $10k in bills and blamed it on their kid? Entirely. Have at it HN.

rmc 8y ago
But the optics aren't good
slededit 8y ago
It doesn’t matter if it was marketed to them or not. They have both a moral and legal duty of care to protect children. Legally the parents consented to the charges, but it’s clear from the leaked documents Facebook knew parents thought it was a one time charge not something their kid could spend without limits.
- adrianmonk 8y ago
  Of course they have a duty to protect children or at the very least not knowingly market to children. But the complaint here is that the headline implies that it means something that they used the term whale. It doesn't. Whales are just a segment of customer. And incidentally, there are real, legit whales. There are a lot of rich people in the world who willingly throw money at luxury items like exotic cars, expensive vacations, lavish parties, etc. And some of those people like to play video games too and are totally content spending $500 or $5,000 on coins and junk for a game. Basically there are two ways to interpret this story. One of them has Facebook salivating while asking themselves, "Is this kid a whale?" The other interpretation has Facebook asking themselves with some degree of concern, "Is this whale a kid?"
icedchai 8y ago
The parents probably won't even pay those bills. They'll just call the credit card company, dispute the charge, and tell them it must be an error. No individual generally sees those sorts of charges from Facebook.
- Footkerchief 8y ago
  I would like to see a source for this quantitative claim.
  - icedchai 8y ago
    $100 on Facebook, sure. $1000, probably not. $10K, no way. The CC company is going to believe it is an error. It is wayyyyy out of line. No source is needed.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "The parents probably won't even pay those bills." If that were certain, then it's irrational for facebook to refuse the refund.
  - icedchai 8y ago
    Of course, it's not certain. I said probably. There is a difference between FB giving a refund and a credit card dispute. The dispute may fail and they will be forced to pay , since the charges are technically legitimate. If Facebook simply refunds them, there is no chance of them paying. The rational thing for FB is to never refund them, take what you can get...
will_brown 8y ago
>This outrage culture is getting to be a bit much. [HN user proceeds to post his outrage at outrage culture] That’s awesome, reminds me of the movie PCU, where the students protest protesting.
ScottEvtuch 8y ago
Presumably if they were using an industry term to categorize these young children they were definitely aware of what they were doing. That implies a level of malice on their part and is what I believe people are actually outraged about, not simply the usage of the term.
pcnix 8y ago
It reveals the attitude that pervades among these companies towards children that have been duped into spending via dark patterns and addictive games. You're making an argument that since the word is consistent, everything is fine and dandy, but the meaning of the word hardly changes the situation here. Not everything is about outrage, there are legit disturbing points this article makes.
- falcolas 8y ago
  Forget for a moment that they're calling children whales. They've normalized calling people whales (and dolphins and krakens and...). They've dehumanized their clients; made it easier to not feel concerned that people are dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars on intentionally addictive video games.
  - kempbellt 8y ago
    Most high-dollar industries have clients that are referred to as whales (gambling, forex, stock exchanges, crypto markets). Facebook didn't normalize it. It's a term that has been use for years. The fact that the word "children" part of the discussion is a side-note. They're high-dollar spenders (whales). I don't understand the outrage about the term "whale" here. I do understand outrage about the targeting of underage gamers though.
    - class4behavior 8y ago
      You are justifying widespread use of a dehumanizing term by its widespread use. I think, you should revisit your line of reasoning, especially from a historical perspective concerning other terms certain groups were called by. While whale does not carry a very offensive undertone when you're characterizing a group falling victim to some scheme, it is certainly insulting and dehumanizing when they are your targets, especially when calling individuals as such.
      - kempbellt 8y ago
        I think you should revisit your emotional reasoning. I explained a term. Your vague comment about "certain groups" names, doesn't add anything to the conversation, nor address anything that I said. My reasoning is fine. I don't like Facebook, and I don't recommend it, because it is dehumanizing, by nature. Assume less. It makes for better conversation..
dpau 8y ago
It's not unjustified "outrage culture". It's Facebook's actual outrageous, egregious behavior, repeated over and over again, that is getting to be too much.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
clomond 8y ago
I think you are misinterpreting the backlash with the article and what's been happening overall. > Facebook wouldn't refund large purchases made by underage gamers. (Regardless of if they are 1 years old) Need more be said? My interpretation of all these stories coming out on the news this past year is the creation of a narrative (you could also say exposing) of the reality of Facebook's corporate culture. One that lacks empathy towards its users and society overall, and instead is focused solely on the ends of user engagement, data collection, and revenue generation plowed with a blind following of the word of "Zuck". This all regardless of the means to get there. Given the prominence of FB's products in so many people's lives, I don't think the outrage is misplaced.
stefan_ 8y ago
This is what you took away from this article?
- askafriend 8y ago
  The headline implies that "Whale" is used with explicit malicious intent towards young children. People are taking that and running with it, rather than discussing the details of the actual story which are far more nuanced. The entire piece starts with a faulty, provocative implication that has no basis in reality.
guelo 8y ago
Whale is a gambling term. Which shows exactly what was happening here, Facebook (and yes, a lot of the gaming industry) provides gambling to kids. It should be illegal. And no, you won't shame me into not being outraged by it.
- askafriend 8y ago
  Yeah I'm sure the employee in question used the term explicitly because he or she gets off on corrupting 5 yr old brains as a hobby. OR It might have been a quick reaction to the exorbitant expenditure and it was the first word that occurred to the employee because it's a common term and they've dealt with 50 other cases that day.
eganist 8y ago
> Have at it HN. Sure thing. COPPA. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-... If they knew these patrons were as young as five and didn't have informed consent from their parents, they're in deep.
a13n 8y ago
Related: "Is there an actual Facebook crisis, or media narrative about Facebook crisis?" https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebook-crisis-or-media-narrative-about-facebook-crisis/ https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebo... So sick of seeing this junk on HN every day.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  You, and the other facebook [ex-]employees in this discussion, have an ethical responsibility to disclose that you've worked at the company being criticized.
Alex3917 8y ago
> This outrage culture is getting to be a bit much. Kids under 2 aren't supposed to be getting any screen time, except possibly to talk with their parents or grandparents on Skype/Hangouts/Facetime. If people are outraged about 1-year-olds racking up enormous gambling debts, then they're not nearly outraged enough since for every 1 kid who does that there needs to be thousands or tens of thousands using the app in the first place.
miguelmota 8y ago
Completely agree with you sentiment. In the cryptocurrency world, a whale is referred to some that owns a lot of a cryptocurrency because they 'make a splash' in the ecosystem. Getting kind of tired seeing daily Facebook posts on HN
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  Everyone knows what whale means in the context of sales and marketing. I feel like this thread is missing the forest for the trees. It’s the immorality of trying to get young children hooked on gambling that people are angry about, not that they’re being equated to the mammal.
  - miguelmota 8y ago
    I'd argue it's bad parenting and lack of education. Don't parent's realize you can get notifications when ever there is a charge on a credit card? Why would you give your child who has no concept of financial responsibility a credit card? Businesses will always try to profit maximize. Not stating what Facebook is doing is right or wrong because that's subjective depending from which perspective you look at it but the root of the problem is not Facebook itself; it's people using Facebook.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      When Facebook exploits a child who has bad parents, there are two roots to the problem. If facebook thinks children with bad parents are fair game (they obviously do) then they are deeply immoral.
      - miguelmota 8y ago
        Define "deeply immoral". I'm sure we'll have different interpretations and so do many others (obviously). Completely disagree that there are two root problems. It's still one and that's the parents. Media and social companies are not obligated to tailor to bad parents.
quietthrow 8y ago
@askafriend: You are totally missing the point. I am not saying you don’t have a point. Just that your point is completely irrelevant to the context and sentiment of the post. Just because you have a valid point from a domain perspective doesn’t mean it’s applicable to any and all discussions within a domain. Considering asking a friend on it :)
dclowd9901 8y ago
Counterpoint: how you contextually frame something says something about how you value it. Facebook, by calling young kids “whales” (a term usually reserved for corporate arenas and large clients) objectified what was actually happening such that they could wipe their conscience clean of the badness of it. Have at it, askafriend.
billfruit 8y ago
Moreover the Facebook requires that its users be above 13+ to use it, but these kids/their parents are in violation of that. I do think the outrage culture as found in Reddit, etc and most of main stream media are slowly creeping in to HN. Now my automatic reaction to articles like this, any side that resorts to appeals to emotion in an argument, is trying to be manipulative.

rmc 8y ago

But the optics aren't good

slededit 8y ago

It doesn’t matter if it was marketed to them or not. They have both a moral and legal duty of care to protect children. Legally the parents consented to the charges, but it’s clear from the leaked documents Facebook knew parents thought it was a one time charge not something their kid could spend without limits.

adrianmonk 8y ago
Of course they have a duty to protect children or at the very least not knowingly market to children. But the complaint here is that the headline implies that it means something that they used the term whale. It doesn't. Whales are just a segment of customer. And incidentally, there are real, legit whales. There are a lot of rich people in the world who willingly throw money at luxury items like exotic cars, expensive vacations, lavish parties, etc. And some of those people like to play video games too and are totally content spending $500 or $5,000 on coins and junk for a game. Basically there are two ways to interpret this story. One of them has Facebook salivating while asking themselves, "Is this kid a whale?" The other interpretation has Facebook asking themselves with some degree of concern, "Is this whale a kid?"

icedchai 8y ago

The parents probably won't even pay those bills. They'll just call the credit card company, dispute the charge, and tell them it must be an error. No individual generally sees those sorts of charges from Facebook.

Footkerchief 8y ago
I would like to see a source for this quantitative claim.
- icedchai 8y ago
  $100 on Facebook, sure. $1000, probably not. $10K, no way. The CC company is going to believe it is an error. It is wayyyyy out of line. No source is needed.
darkpuma 8y ago
> "The parents probably won't even pay those bills." If that were certain, then it's irrational for facebook to refuse the refund.
- icedchai 8y ago
  Of course, it's not certain. I said probably. There is a difference between FB giving a refund and a credit card dispute. The dispute may fail and they will be forced to pay , since the charges are technically legitimate. If Facebook simply refunds them, there is no chance of them paying. The rational thing for FB is to never refund them, take what you can get...

will_brown 8y ago

>This outrage culture is getting to be a bit much. [HN user proceeds to post his outrage at outrage culture] That’s awesome, reminds me of the movie PCU, where the students protest protesting.

ScottEvtuch 8y ago

Presumably if they were using an industry term to categorize these young children they were definitely aware of what they were doing. That implies a level of malice on their part and is what I believe people are actually outraged about, not simply the usage of the term.

pcnix 8y ago

It reveals the attitude that pervades among these companies towards children that have been duped into spending via dark patterns and addictive games. You're making an argument that since the word is consistent, everything is fine and dandy, but the meaning of the word hardly changes the situation here. Not everything is about outrage, there are legit disturbing points this article makes.

falcolas 8y ago
Forget for a moment that they're calling children whales. They've normalized calling people whales (and dolphins and krakens and...). They've dehumanized their clients; made it easier to not feel concerned that people are dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars on intentionally addictive video games.
- kempbellt 8y ago
  Most high-dollar industries have clients that are referred to as whales (gambling, forex, stock exchanges, crypto markets). Facebook didn't normalize it. It's a term that has been use for years. The fact that the word "children" part of the discussion is a side-note. They're high-dollar spenders (whales). I don't understand the outrage about the term "whale" here. I do understand outrage about the targeting of underage gamers though.
  - class4behavior 8y ago
    You are justifying widespread use of a dehumanizing term by its widespread use. I think, you should revisit your line of reasoning, especially from a historical perspective concerning other terms certain groups were called by. While whale does not carry a very offensive undertone when you're characterizing a group falling victim to some scheme, it is certainly insulting and dehumanizing when they are your targets, especially when calling individuals as such.
    - kempbellt 8y ago
      I think you should revisit your emotional reasoning. I explained a term. Your vague comment about "certain groups" names, doesn't add anything to the conversation, nor address anything that I said. My reasoning is fine. I don't like Facebook, and I don't recommend it, because it is dehumanizing, by nature. Assume less. It makes for better conversation..

dpau 8y ago

It's not unjustified "outrage culture". It's Facebook's actual outrageous, egregious behavior, repeated over and over again, that is getting to be too much.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

clomond 8y ago

I think you are misinterpreting the backlash with the article and what's been happening overall. > Facebook wouldn't refund large purchases made by underage gamers. (Regardless of if they are 1 years old) Need more be said? My interpretation of all these stories coming out on the news this past year is the creation of a narrative (you could also say exposing) of the reality of Facebook's corporate culture. One that lacks empathy towards its users and society overall, and instead is focused solely on the ends of user engagement, data collection, and revenue generation plowed with a blind following of the word of "Zuck". This all regardless of the means to get there. Given the prominence of FB's products in so many people's lives, I don't think the outrage is misplaced.

stefan_ 8y ago

This is what you took away from this article?

askafriend 8y ago
The headline implies that "Whale" is used with explicit malicious intent towards young children. People are taking that and running with it, rather than discussing the details of the actual story which are far more nuanced. The entire piece starts with a faulty, provocative implication that has no basis in reality.

guelo 8y ago

Whale is a gambling term. Which shows exactly what was happening here, Facebook (and yes, a lot of the gaming industry) provides gambling to kids. It should be illegal. And no, you won't shame me into not being outraged by it.

askafriend 8y ago
Yeah I'm sure the employee in question used the term explicitly because he or she gets off on corrupting 5 yr old brains as a hobby. OR It might have been a quick reaction to the exorbitant expenditure and it was the first word that occurred to the employee because it's a common term and they've dealt with 50 other cases that day.

eganist 8y ago

> Have at it HN. Sure thing. COPPA. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-... If they knew these patrons were as young as five and didn't have informed consent from their parents, they're in deep.

a13n 8y ago

Related: "Is there an actual Facebook crisis, or media narrative about Facebook crisis?" https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebook-crisis-or-media-narrative-about-facebook-crisis/ https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/14/is-there-an-actual-facebo... So sick of seeing this junk on HN every day.

darkpuma 8y ago
You, and the other facebook [ex-]employees in this discussion, have an ethical responsibility to disclose that you've worked at the company being criticized.

Alex3917 8y ago

> This outrage culture is getting to be a bit much. Kids under 2 aren't supposed to be getting any screen time, except possibly to talk with their parents or grandparents on Skype/Hangouts/Facetime. If people are outraged about 1-year-olds racking up enormous gambling debts, then they're not nearly outraged enough since for every 1 kid who does that there needs to be thousands or tens of thousands using the app in the first place.

miguelmota 8y ago

Completely agree with you sentiment. In the cryptocurrency world, a whale is referred to some that owns a lot of a cryptocurrency because they 'make a splash' in the ecosystem. Getting kind of tired seeing daily Facebook posts on HN

ilikehurdles 8y ago
Everyone knows what whale means in the context of sales and marketing. I feel like this thread is missing the forest for the trees. It’s the immorality of trying to get young children hooked on gambling that people are angry about, not that they’re being equated to the mammal.
- miguelmota 8y ago
  I'd argue it's bad parenting and lack of education. Don't parent's realize you can get notifications when ever there is a charge on a credit card? Why would you give your child who has no concept of financial responsibility a credit card? Businesses will always try to profit maximize. Not stating what Facebook is doing is right or wrong because that's subjective depending from which perspective you look at it but the root of the problem is not Facebook itself; it's people using Facebook.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    When Facebook exploits a child who has bad parents, there are two roots to the problem. If facebook thinks children with bad parents are fair game (they obviously do) then they are deeply immoral.
    - miguelmota 8y ago
      Define "deeply immoral". I'm sure we'll have different interpretations and so do many others (obviously). Completely disagree that there are two root problems. It's still one and that's the parents. Media and social companies are not obligated to tailor to bad parents.

quietthrow 8y ago

@askafriend: You are totally missing the point. I am not saying you don’t have a point. Just that your point is completely irrelevant to the context and sentiment of the post. Just because you have a valid point from a domain perspective doesn’t mean it’s applicable to any and all discussions within a domain. Considering asking a friend on it :)

dclowd9901 8y ago

Counterpoint: how you contextually frame something says something about how you value it. Facebook, by calling young kids “whales” (a term usually reserved for corporate arenas and large clients) objectified what was actually happening such that they could wipe their conscience clean of the badness of it. Have at it, askafriend.

billfruit 8y ago

Moreover the Facebook requires that its users be above 13+ to use it, but these kids/their parents are in violation of that. I do think the outrage culture as found in Reddit, etc and most of main stream media are slowly creeping in to HN. Now my automatic reaction to articles like this, any side that resorts to appeals to emotion in an argument, is trying to be manipulative.