7 ms·

𝚃̶𝚊̶𝚛̶𝚐̶𝚎̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚗̶𝚐̶ ̶!̶=̶ ̶𝚕̶𝚞̶𝚛̶𝚒̶𝚗̶𝚐̶,̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚞̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚖̶𝚊̶𝚔̶𝚎̶𝚜̶ ̶𝚏̶𝚘̶𝚛̶ ̶𝚐̶𝚘̶𝚘̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚕̶𝚒̶𝚌̶𝚔̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚝̶.̶ When it com

𝚃̶𝚊̶𝚛̶𝚐̶𝚎̶𝚝̶𝚒̶𝚗̶𝚐̶ ̶!̶=̶ ̶𝚕̶𝚞̶𝚛̶𝚒̶𝚗̶𝚐̶,̶ ̶𝚋̶𝚞̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚒̶𝚝̶ ̶𝚖̶𝚊̶𝚔̶𝚎̶𝚜̶ ̶𝚏̶𝚘̶𝚛̶ ̶𝚐̶𝚘̶𝚘̶𝚍̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚕̶𝚒̶𝚌̶𝚔̶𝚋̶𝚊̶𝚒̶𝚝̶.̶ When it comes to putting things in their body, it's ok (eating cereal from Kellog). When it comes to socialization media, it's ok. (dressing up as Disney characters) When it's FB, hold the bar door. FB is garbage for known reasons. This story feels like some witch hunt material stretched thin - "Zuck is bad and we have to keep the eyeballs on the demonization of FB!"

taylorfinley 5y ago
I think the difference is there are documents showing Facebook is aware their platform harms teenage children. If Disney did studies that showed their products were psychologically damaging their consumers I think we would be right in 'witch hunting' them too. Honestly I think marketing to children is predatory in general and it's kind of crazy that we don't have more checks on this.
- jensensbutton 5y ago
  As I understand it those same documents showed that actually they mostly _benefit_ teenage children.
- goatlover 5y ago
  So you think shows and toys made for children should only be marketed to the parents? What if the kid is alone watching an ad on tv or the internet?
eli 5y ago
Wait, what is the difference between "targeting" and "luring" in this case?
- imgabe 5y ago
  Would you apply the same language to any other company that markets to kids? Do Fisher Price and Disney “lure” children or do they just make products that are intended to be used by children?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > Would you apply the same language to any other company that markets to kids? Yes, I would.
  - beardedetim 5y ago
    > Do Fisher Price and Disney “lure” children or do they just make products that are intended to be used by children? If we change `lure` to `manipulate into wanting`, then yes I would say that. I would also expand this to _any_ marketing. I am currently wrestling with if I would go as far to say that _all communication_ is _manipulation_ but I feel that's a step too far for some reason while I definitely feel that _marketing_ is _manipulation_.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      To me lure specifically implies that you are just offering something desirable as bait in order to trap someone and do harm to them. Evil witches in the forest use gingerbread houses to lure children in and eat them. Pedophiles lure children into vans with candy. You use a fishing lure to catch fish. Now, there’s certainly a case that Facebook’s products are harmful, but is it Facebook’s intent to harm people? I don’t personally think so, but others may disagree. “Lure” is the type of language you use if you want to equate Facebook with pedophiles and fairytale villains in your readers’ minds.
      - jfrunyon 5y ago
        > you are just offering something desirable as bait in order to trap someone and do harm to them Offering something desirable (a product that people want to use) - check To trap someone (can't move to another platform, all your friends and data are in a walled garden) - check And do harm to them (use data to target further manipulation/advertising) - check (And that's not even considering the more psychological harms of Facebook, which they may not intend but they certainly know about, have enflamed, and have done nothing to combat)
      - geoka9 5y ago
        > but is it Facebook’s intent to harm people? For the purposes of this discussion, is it really different from knowing that their products are harmful and still making sure as many people as possible use them?
- freyir 5y ago
  “Luring” implies that you’re tempting someone with intent to trap and ultimately harm them. “Targeting” is more neutral. You might target someone with an ad because you believe in your product and expect it will improve their life. But it would be a bit weird to say you’re luring someone to use your beneficial product. In Facebook’s case, they apparently know of harmful effects on youth, so “lure” seems appropriate.
atoav 5y ago
> When it comes to putting things in their body, it's ok (eating cereal from Kellog). Spain just barred cereal makers from advertising to kids. For a reason
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  I don't understand cereals, practically all of them are complete garbage foods. Why do people buy into them?
  - smabie 5y ago
    I like garbage foods! And so do others
    - forty 5y ago
      Perfectly reasonable. However it's another thing to give them to your kids.
      - notJim 5y ago
        Kids like them too!
  - Steltek 5y ago
    Oh man, you don't know the half of it. John Harvey Kellogg developed breakfast cereal to keep you from jerking off. He originally didn't include any sugar: it was just tasteless plant crap in a bowl. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/32042/corn-flakes-were-invented-part-anti-masturbation-crusade https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/32042/corn-flakes-were-i...
  - jeffrallen 5y ago
    Mmmmm, müsli.
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    People have various intelligence and various education. Some do not understand nutrition, and assume naively that garbage would not be sold as food, especially for kids.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> When it comes to putting things in their body, it's ok (eating cereal from Kellog) Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's okay. There aren't many people out there celebrating the fact that nutritional equivalent of sugar and sawdust is marketed and sold to children who don't understand the impact of nutrition on their health and well-being. There are plenty of people and groups that are against advertising to children, and who are against the proliferation of junk food.
samizdis 5y ago
Good point re use of "lure". That was the Ars headline (title), but I've just edited it to remove lure and use target.
JeremyNT 5y ago
I don't know whether this is whataboutism or just plain defeatism. Just because our social institutions have failed to protect us from various other bad actors doesn't mean we should abandon hope on trying to do something about the one in front of us today.
- Diesel555 5y ago
  I never like the arguments that state we should not care about `a` because `b` and `c` are equally bad or worse and we have done nothing about them. Can we just talk about an issue as its own issue? Maybe `b` and `c` are really hard to solve, but `a` is easy to solve. Many arguments against action are usually framed in this comparison structure - I think it is a weak argument unless you explain why `b` and `c` out prioritize `a` for shared resources.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  It comes off as agenda rather than sincere concern and that should be highlighted. Surely not defeatism, when I think it's a reasonable thing for companies to plan around demographics. I don't think it's a good idea to empower social institutions to decide that you can't be considered a consumer until your 18th birthday. It's whataboutism for sure, but in the sense that FB is literally less impactful than existing brands so the question comes to the forefront. Why? Well because Zuckman bad.

taylorfinley 5y ago

I think the difference is there are documents showing Facebook is aware their platform harms teenage children. If Disney did studies that showed their products were psychologically damaging their consumers I think we would be right in 'witch hunting' them too. Honestly I think marketing to children is predatory in general and it's kind of crazy that we don't have more checks on this.

jensensbutton 5y ago
As I understand it those same documents showed that actually they mostly _benefit_ teenage children.
goatlover 5y ago
So you think shows and toys made for children should only be marketed to the parents? What if the kid is alone watching an ad on tv or the internet?

eli 5y ago

Wait, what is the difference between "targeting" and "luring" in this case?

imgabe 5y ago
Would you apply the same language to any other company that markets to kids? Do Fisher Price and Disney “lure” children or do they just make products that are intended to be used by children?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Would you apply the same language to any other company that markets to kids? Yes, I would.
- beardedetim 5y ago
  > Do Fisher Price and Disney “lure” children or do they just make products that are intended to be used by children? If we change `lure` to `manipulate into wanting`, then yes I would say that. I would also expand this to _any_ marketing. I am currently wrestling with if I would go as far to say that _all communication_ is _manipulation_ but I feel that's a step too far for some reason while I definitely feel that _marketing_ is _manipulation_.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    To me lure specifically implies that you are just offering something desirable as bait in order to trap someone and do harm to them. Evil witches in the forest use gingerbread houses to lure children in and eat them. Pedophiles lure children into vans with candy. You use a fishing lure to catch fish. Now, there’s certainly a case that Facebook’s products are harmful, but is it Facebook’s intent to harm people? I don’t personally think so, but others may disagree. “Lure” is the type of language you use if you want to equate Facebook with pedophiles and fairytale villains in your readers’ minds.
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      > you are just offering something desirable as bait in order to trap someone and do harm to them Offering something desirable (a product that people want to use) - check To trap someone (can't move to another platform, all your friends and data are in a walled garden) - check And do harm to them (use data to target further manipulation/advertising) - check (And that's not even considering the more psychological harms of Facebook, which they may not intend but they certainly know about, have enflamed, and have done nothing to combat)
    - geoka9 5y ago
      > but is it Facebook’s intent to harm people? For the purposes of this discussion, is it really different from knowing that their products are harmful and still making sure as many people as possible use them?
freyir 5y ago
“Luring” implies that you’re tempting someone with intent to trap and ultimately harm them. “Targeting” is more neutral. You might target someone with an ad because you believe in your product and expect it will improve their life. But it would be a bit weird to say you’re luring someone to use your beneficial product. In Facebook’s case, they apparently know of harmful effects on youth, so “lure” seems appropriate.

atoav 5y ago

> When it comes to putting things in their body, it's ok (eating cereal from Kellog). Spain just barred cereal makers from advertising to kids. For a reason

formerly_proven 5y ago
I don't understand cereals, practically all of them are complete garbage foods. Why do people buy into them?
- smabie 5y ago
  I like garbage foods! And so do others
  - forty 5y ago
    Perfectly reasonable. However it's another thing to give them to your kids.
    - notJim 5y ago
      Kids like them too!
- Steltek 5y ago
  Oh man, you don't know the half of it. John Harvey Kellogg developed breakfast cereal to keep you from jerking off. He originally didn't include any sugar: it was just tasteless plant crap in a bowl. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/32042/corn-flakes-were-invented-part-anti-masturbation-crusade https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/32042/corn-flakes-were-i...
- jeffrallen 5y ago
  Mmmmm, müsli.
- Viliam1234 5y ago
  People have various intelligence and various education. Some do not understand nutrition, and assume naively that garbage would not be sold as food, especially for kids.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> When it comes to putting things in their body, it's ok (eating cereal from Kellog) Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's okay. There aren't many people out there celebrating the fact that nutritional equivalent of sugar and sawdust is marketed and sold to children who don't understand the impact of nutrition on their health and well-being. There are plenty of people and groups that are against advertising to children, and who are against the proliferation of junk food.

samizdis 5y ago

Good point re use of "lure". That was the Ars headline (title), but I've just edited it to remove lure and use target.

JeremyNT 5y ago

I don't know whether this is whataboutism or just plain defeatism. Just because our social institutions have failed to protect us from various other bad actors doesn't mean we should abandon hope on trying to do something about the one in front of us today.

Diesel555 5y ago
I never like the arguments that state we should not care about `a` because `b` and `c` are equally bad or worse and we have done nothing about them. Can we just talk about an issue as its own issue? Maybe `b` and `c` are really hard to solve, but `a` is easy to solve. Many arguments against action are usually framed in this comparison structure - I think it is a weak argument unless you explain why `b` and `c` out prioritize `a` for shared resources.
Supermancho 5y ago
It comes off as agenda rather than sincere concern and that should be highlighted. Surely not defeatism, when I think it's a reasonable thing for companies to plan around demographics. I don't think it's a good idea to empower social institutions to decide that you can't be considered a consumer until your 18th birthday. It's whataboutism for sure, but in the sense that FB is literally less impactful than existing brands so the question comes to the forefront. Why? Well because Zuckman bad.