5 ms·

Why do "normal" people care about tracking suddenly when it concerns children?

SLWW 3y ago
Further more, why did this ever have to be written of as some sort of revelation? Of course advertisers, not just on Youtube, but pretty much everywhere track children's interests as well as adults. Someone said recently, "the antichrist has already arrived, and he works, in a suit and tie, in advertising" which while hyperbolic is surprisingly fitting. Mass tracking (which is a form of surveillance) for the uses of taking advantage of weaknesses in a human being (impulse control, gotchas, perceived "need", etc.) to reap monetary rewards at the expense of the individual, whether adult or adolescent, whether intelligent, or mentally handicapped... which may result in a percieved or otherwise degredation of QoL. It is immoral, not just unethical. Most "tracking" scripts aren't age gated, most advertisers don't care, every day I grow to hate them and their institutions more and more. I would say that at this point, not having adblockers, and blocking tracking scripts is a form of enabling these parasites. Which, i believe (with strong conviction) that there is an argument to say that enabling such behavior without contest is unethical at the very least bordering on immoral.
User23 3y ago
Because normal people want to protect children from being exploited. Adults on the other hand are more or less catch as catch can. And in the USA at least tracking children under 13 is illegal.
- bruce343434 3y ago
  But why, what argument can you make in favor of protecting children that doesn't hold up for adults (why wouldn't it)?
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    Because children can not give informed consent. It is that simple.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      What percentage of internet users give informed consent to be tracked?
      - Spoiled_toast 3y ago
        It’s common nomenclature that a website costs money to run and maintain. If you’re not paying a premium to use the website then you are going to receive ads to offset the price. This much is well known to the public. It’s implied consent, The real concern is determining how much or if you are being tracked through these ads. People are more aware that ads do track them but not what or how much. A larger concern is the malaise people may give when they hear this information; to put simply they don’t care. The frog is aware that the pot is getting hotter and they’re willingly asking for the man to go higher.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
HWR_14 3y ago
In this case, it's because Google agreed to try to limit tracking children in a government settlement.

SLWW 3y ago

Further more, why did this ever have to be written of as some sort of revelation? Of course advertisers, not just on Youtube, but pretty much everywhere track children's interests as well as adults. Someone said recently, "the antichrist has already arrived, and he works, in a suit and tie, in advertising" which while hyperbolic is surprisingly fitting. Mass tracking (which is a form of surveillance) for the uses of taking advantage of weaknesses in a human being (impulse control, gotchas, perceived "need", etc.) to reap monetary rewards at the expense of the individual, whether adult or adolescent, whether intelligent, or mentally handicapped... which may result in a percieved or otherwise degredation of QoL. It is immoral, not just unethical. Most "tracking" scripts aren't age gated, most advertisers don't care, every day I grow to hate them and their institutions more and more. I would say that at this point, not having adblockers, and blocking tracking scripts is a form of enabling these parasites. Which, i believe (with strong conviction) that there is an argument to say that enabling such behavior without contest is unethical at the very least bordering on immoral.

User23 3y ago

Because normal people want to protect children from being exploited. Adults on the other hand are more or less catch as catch can. And in the USA at least tracking children under 13 is illegal.

bruce343434 3y ago
But why, what argument can you make in favor of protecting children that doesn't hold up for adults (why wouldn't it)?
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  Because children can not give informed consent. It is that simple.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    What percentage of internet users give informed consent to be tracked?
    - Spoiled_toast 3y ago
      It’s common nomenclature that a website costs money to run and maintain. If you’re not paying a premium to use the website then you are going to receive ads to offset the price. This much is well known to the public. It’s implied consent, The real concern is determining how much or if you are being tracked through these ads. People are more aware that ads do track them but not what or how much. A larger concern is the malaise people may give when they hear this information; to put simply they don’t care. The frog is aware that the pot is getting hotter and they’re willingly asking for the man to go higher.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

HWR_14 3y ago

In this case, it's because Google agreed to try to limit tracking children in a government settlement.