5 ms·

I'd suggest if you don't understand why this is outrageous you just take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't und

I'd suggest if you don't understand why this is outrageous you just take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't understand. You likely come from a culture that lets pharmaceutical companies advertise on TV. You likely come from a culture that doesn't restrict fast food companies from advertising during children's programming. You likely come from a culture that doesn't force all product placement to be clearly marked with an icon on the programme. Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries. We don't believe in the right for companies to advertise whenever or wherever they like. Gambling is fully legalised, in part so that it is easier to regulate, including regulating when and where it is advertised. There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors. This is, I think, a more mature approach than banning or heavily restricting online gambling and pretending it isn't a problem.

linza 3y ago
> take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't understand. I guess i understand the sentiment, but we shouldn't shame people away from discourse. Everyone should be allowed to be wrong, if comments are made in good faith.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I don't think it's shaming to suggest people take a beat and to offer relevant items for consideration. I thought the comment was well constructed and nonaccusatory.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It wasn't doing that. It was saying to not comment, and offer some stereotypes of the US as a little insinuation as to exactly who shouldn't be allowed to comment.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      Those aren't so much stereotypes about the US as much as observations about the ways UK regulations might be different from people's expectations or experiences. I don't think they're saying "shut up Americans" as much as, "if you don't understand why this is a big deal for people in the UK, here is a list of things that might seem normal to you that seem bizarre to me." For what it's worth, I'm from the US, I took no offense.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        I'm from the UK, but I just dislike that sort of thing. People should be able to speak without others pre-emptively discouraging them.
        maxbond 3y ago
        I just don't see the problem with politely asking people who've self identified as not understanding the issue from sounding off on it before they've given it due consideration. They're still free to do so, but frankly I don't think it would add to the conversation.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        This isn't something to preach on a thread, though. It's how people should treat every discussion. Otherwise why aren't you pasting the same message into every comment thread on the site?
        KyeRussell 3y ago
        [flagged]
        maxbond 3y ago
        I disagree with them too but there's no reason to be rude or patronizing, we were having a perfectly reasonable conversation where we explored our differences of opinion here. Please don't lob a grenade into the conversation.
jacquesm 3y ago
I don't see the comments that this is supposed to be a response to, which ones did you have in mind? Or was this meant preemptively?
- actualwitch 3y ago
  Probably refers to dead comment at the bottom.
thih9 3y ago
I get that this is outrageous, then again I find it hard to be outraged right now, this seems predictable given the rise of ad targeting and our past experience, e.g.: - Ads that follow new mothers even after miscarriage [1], - Age discrimination in employment ads [2], - Cambridge Analytica was also mostly about targeting, - probably many more. Perhaps we should explore some actual transparency in the context of ad targeting. [1]: "How to stop pregnancy ads following you after a loss" https://www.tommys.org/about-us/charity-news/how-stop-pregnancy-ads-following-you-after-loss https://www.tommys.org/about-us/charity-news/how-stop-pregna... [2]: "Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads" https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimination-targeting https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimi...
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Obligatory reminder that advertising is a cancer on modern society? It's getting funny - in a sad, tragicomic way - to see people getting so worked up about other people having biases against them, afraid that such people being allowed to publish/speak/exist will somehow, somewhen lead to bad thing for you and yours. At the same time, people are completely ignoring that there exists a whole industry that's actively malicious, that's harming you right now - one that doesn't even hate you, but rather denies you your humanity, and cares only about extracting some money off you. If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less. Yes, that's the advertising industry, and associated sales and marketing cultures. I suppose the trick is, it's hard for people to realize who's consistently screwing with their lives - with tragic outcomes such as those hinted in the comments above - when the perpetrator controls the very means people use to communicate and learn about the world. EDIT: It's doubly hard because this means the perpetrators are among us - among our friends, among our families, even ourselves - many whose work involves either directly or indirectly, to a greater or lesser degree, attempting to screw over innocent strangers. It shows that, the way modern economy is structured, it's really hard for anyone to be fully innocent. It's very uncomfortable to think about, even more uncomfortable to talk about. It's much easier to focus instead on hypothetical others, somewhere out there, that are out to get us.
  - 3y ago
lynx23 3y ago
[flagged]
- nindalf 3y ago
  That’s an uncharitable summary of that comment. A better one would be “please understand that this is talking about advertising and regulation in a country with norms very different from your own. If you don’t know the difference, don’t jump in with comments about how you think things should be.” Like if someone defends this advertising under the First Amendment, that isn’t very relevant to the UK is it?
  - KyeRussell 3y ago
    Every Hacker News thread inevitably devolves into a conversation about the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers regardless of any attempts to stop it. The ongoing insinuation that the US is the One True Way to run a State has caused so much legitimate worldwide damage. It’s sad to see supposedly enlightened HN commenters continue to perpetuate it.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      That is mostly because americans still haven't learnt that the internet is not USA exclusive but actually world-wide. This phenomenon was already quite apparent in the 90s, on usenet for instance. One would assume this gets better over time, but alas, no, it doesn't. Americans are about the only people on this planet that behave like they are the only country on earth.
ricardobayes 3y ago
Sure, yet I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else. I've never seen a gambling ad on TV anywhere but the UK. How is that "heavily regulated"?
- harvey9 3y ago
  What are you counting as a pharma advert? UK has lots of ads for over-the-counter meds but should be none for prescription-only ones, unless you're reading things like The Pulse magazine.
- ohashi 3y ago
  Have you never watched a sports game in the US? It's all gambling ads.
  - MillerMark 3y ago
    [dead]
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  > I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else Even the USA? Prescription drug advertisements are illegal in the UK, except when aimed specifically at medical professionals. When I visit the USA, it throws me every time when I see prescription drugs advertised on prime-time TV.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nicgrev103 3y ago
Just because people have a different opinion does'nt mean they 'don't understand'.
Hendrikto 3y ago
> Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries. Funny. Ads seems to absolutely everywhere in the UK. It feels very overwhelming. Reminds me of those famous crossings in New York and Tokio.
- thinkingemote 3y ago
  The regulation is more about the content rather than the distribution. So advertisements can and are everywhere so long as they are not misleading, targeting kids or grossly offensive (I imagine)
Prickle 3y ago
I would personally prefer a complete blanket ban on gambling and psuedo gambling online. My country (Japan) likely has one of the highest rates of child gambling addiction in a developed nation. The number of times I heard "I spent all my savings on the casino haha, gotta skip some meals I guess" was ludicrous. That was in highschool. And now I see it in middle schools. (Siblings) I have done my part ensuring my sibling doesn't get involved in that garbage.
- edandersen 3y ago
  What do you mean by casino here?
  - Prickle 3y ago
    Pachinko parlors and gacha games. The are all fundamentally designed around the same psychological hooks.
  - ralphfaddenmar 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - MillerMark 3y ago
    [dead]
- harvey9 3y ago
  Are children allowed into physical casinos in Japan, or are they gambling online and if so is that restricted at all?
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    it's a Pachinko parlor
    - harvey9 3y ago
      Thanks. I guess since no gambling technically takes place, there's no reason to exclude minors.
kerrsclyde 3y ago
> There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors. The shirt sponsor ban is a pre-emptive measure so that when the goverment comes after the Premier League they can point to the fact that betting companies have been banned from sponsoring shirts. Betting promotion in the form of pitchside displays / TV ads before & during games will still be allowed.
globular-toast 3y ago
Advertising is evil and UK law doesn't go nearly far enough. There is no good reason for advertising. It's all bad. It's silly to single out specific examples when the whole lot needs to go. Fuck advertising.
m348e912 3y ago
It occurred to me (not recently) and maybe painfully obvious to others that pharmaceutical advertising on TV isn't really for the consumer. The whole "ask your Dr if this medication is right for you" is such a weird trope because that's not how prescription medication is supposed to be marketed. Large advertising spends have pilfered a tremendous amount of pharmaceutical influence in mainstream media. So much so that much of the salary of mainstream news personalities is funded by drug companies. It has become exceptionally difficult to criticize or challenge drug companies on major tv and print outlets.

linza 3y ago

> take a step back away from this topic, rather than try to comment on a problem you don't understand. I guess i understand the sentiment, but we shouldn't shame people away from discourse. Everyone should be allowed to be wrong, if comments are made in good faith.

maxbond 3y ago
I don't think it's shaming to suggest people take a beat and to offer relevant items for consideration. I thought the comment was well constructed and nonaccusatory.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  It wasn't doing that. It was saying to not comment, and offer some stereotypes of the US as a little insinuation as to exactly who shouldn't be allowed to comment.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Those aren't so much stereotypes about the US as much as observations about the ways UK regulations might be different from people's expectations or experiences. I don't think they're saying "shut up Americans" as much as, "if you don't understand why this is a big deal for people in the UK, here is a list of things that might seem normal to you that seem bizarre to me." For what it's worth, I'm from the US, I took no offense.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I'm from the UK, but I just dislike that sort of thing. People should be able to speak without others pre-emptively discouraging them.
      - maxbond 3y ago
        I just don't see the problem with politely asking people who've self identified as not understanding the issue from sounding off on it before they've given it due consideration. They're still free to do so, but frankly I don't think it would add to the conversation.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        This isn't something to preach on a thread, though. It's how people should treat every discussion. Otherwise why aren't you pasting the same message into every comment thread on the site?
      - KyeRussell 3y ago
        [flagged]
        maxbond 3y ago
        I disagree with them too but there's no reason to be rude or patronizing, we were having a perfectly reasonable conversation where we explored our differences of opinion here. Please don't lob a grenade into the conversation.

jacquesm 3y ago

I don't see the comments that this is supposed to be a response to, which ones did you have in mind? Or was this meant preemptively?

actualwitch 3y ago
Probably refers to dead comment at the bottom.

thih9 3y ago

I get that this is outrageous, then again I find it hard to be outraged right now, this seems predictable given the rise of ad targeting and our past experience, e.g.: - Ads that follow new mothers even after miscarriage [1], - Age discrimination in employment ads [2], - Cambridge Analytica was also mostly about targeting, - probably many more. Perhaps we should explore some actual transparency in the context of ad targeting. [1]: "How to stop pregnancy ads following you after a loss" https://www.tommys.org/about-us/charity-news/how-stop-pregnancy-ads-following-you-after-loss https://www.tommys.org/about-us/charity-news/how-stop-pregna... [2]: "Dozens of Companies Are Using Facebook to Exclude Older Workers From Job Ads" https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimination-targeting https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-age-discrimi...

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Obligatory reminder that advertising is a cancer on modern society? It's getting funny - in a sad, tragicomic way - to see people getting so worked up about other people having biases against them, afraid that such people being allowed to publish/speak/exist will somehow, somewhen lead to bad thing for you and yours. At the same time, people are completely ignoring that there exists a whole industry that's actively malicious, that's harming you right now - one that doesn't even hate you, but rather denies you your humanity, and cares only about extracting some money off you. If you become poor, or sick, or die in the process? This group couldn't care less. Yes, that's the advertising industry, and associated sales and marketing cultures. I suppose the trick is, it's hard for people to realize who's consistently screwing with their lives - with tragic outcomes such as those hinted in the comments above - when the perpetrator controls the very means people use to communicate and learn about the world. EDIT: It's doubly hard because this means the perpetrators are among us - among our friends, among our families, even ourselves - many whose work involves either directly or indirectly, to a greater or lesser degree, attempting to screw over innocent strangers. It shows that, the way modern economy is structured, it's really hard for anyone to be fully innocent. It's very uncomfortable to think about, even more uncomfortable to talk about. It's much easier to focus instead on hypothetical others, somewhere out there, that are out to get us.
- 3y ago

lynx23 3y ago

[flagged]

nindalf 3y ago
That’s an uncharitable summary of that comment. A better one would be “please understand that this is talking about advertising and regulation in a country with norms very different from your own. If you don’t know the difference, don’t jump in with comments about how you think things should be.” Like if someone defends this advertising under the First Amendment, that isn’t very relevant to the UK is it?
- KyeRussell 3y ago
  Every Hacker News thread inevitably devolves into a conversation about the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers regardless of any attempts to stop it. The ongoing insinuation that the US is the One True Way to run a State has caused so much legitimate worldwide damage. It’s sad to see supposedly enlightened HN commenters continue to perpetuate it.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    That is mostly because americans still haven't learnt that the internet is not USA exclusive but actually world-wide. This phenomenon was already quite apparent in the 90s, on usenet for instance. One would assume this gets better over time, but alas, no, it doesn't. Americans are about the only people on this planet that behave like they are the only country on earth.

ricardobayes 3y ago

Sure, yet I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else. I've never seen a gambling ad on TV anywhere but the UK. How is that "heavily regulated"?

harvey9 3y ago
What are you counting as a pharma advert? UK has lots of ads for over-the-counter meds but should be none for prescription-only ones, unless you're reading things like The Pulse magazine.
ohashi 3y ago
Have you never watched a sports game in the US? It's all gambling ads.
- MillerMark 3y ago
  [dead]
maxehmookau 3y ago
> I see more pharma, fast food and gambling ads on UK television than anywhere else Even the USA? Prescription drug advertisements are illegal in the UK, except when aimed specifically at medical professionals. When I visit the USA, it throws me every time when I see prescription drugs advertised on prime-time TV.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nicgrev103 3y ago

Just because people have a different opinion does'nt mean they 'don't understand'.

Hendrikto 3y ago

> Advertising in the UK is much more heavily regulated than in other countries. Funny. Ads seems to absolutely everywhere in the UK. It feels very overwhelming. Reminds me of those famous crossings in New York and Tokio.

thinkingemote 3y ago
The regulation is more about the content rather than the distribution. So advertisements can and are everywhere so long as they are not misleading, targeting kids or grossly offensive (I imagine)

Prickle 3y ago

I would personally prefer a complete blanket ban on gambling and psuedo gambling online. My country (Japan) likely has one of the highest rates of child gambling addiction in a developed nation. The number of times I heard "I spent all my savings on the casino haha, gotta skip some meals I guess" was ludicrous. That was in highschool. And now I see it in middle schools. (Siblings) I have done my part ensuring my sibling doesn't get involved in that garbage.

edandersen 3y ago
What do you mean by casino here?
- Prickle 3y ago
  Pachinko parlors and gacha games. The are all fundamentally designed around the same psychological hooks.
- ralphfaddenmar 3y ago
  [flagged]
- MillerMark 3y ago
  [dead]
harvey9 3y ago
Are children allowed into physical casinos in Japan, or are they gambling online and if so is that restricted at all?
- raverbashing 3y ago
  it's a Pachinko parlor
  - harvey9 3y ago
    Thanks. I guess since no gambling technically takes place, there's no reason to exclude minors.

kerrsclyde 3y ago

> There is talk from banning gambling companies from being shirt sponsors. The shirt sponsor ban is a pre-emptive measure so that when the goverment comes after the Premier League they can point to the fact that betting companies have been banned from sponsoring shirts. Betting promotion in the form of pitchside displays / TV ads before & during games will still be allowed.

globular-toast 3y ago

Advertising is evil and UK law doesn't go nearly far enough. There is no good reason for advertising. It's all bad. It's silly to single out specific examples when the whole lot needs to go. Fuck advertising.

m348e912 3y ago

It occurred to me (not recently) and maybe painfully obvious to others that pharmaceutical advertising on TV isn't really for the consumer. The whole "ask your Dr if this medication is right for you" is such a weird trope because that's not how prescription medication is supposed to be marketed. Large advertising spends have pilfered a tremendous amount of pharmaceutical influence in mainstream media. So much so that much of the salary of mainstream news personalities is funded by drug companies. It has become exceptionally difficult to criticize or challenge drug companies on major tv and print outlets.