5 ms·

"We're sorry." This is not surprising. Google has a history violating the privacy of and targetting ads to not only teenagers, but children: - https://www.nyt

• throw12347825 2y ago
  [flagged]
• londons_explore 2y ago
  Not allowing advertising to children I think isn't the correct route for society. Instead we should prevent children having money. Until you're 16, you may not handle money. You may not buy things for money. You may not sell things. You may not enter into contracts to exchange money. Your parents however can do all of those things on your behalf. At that point, advertising to children no longer is relevant - the children cannot buy the advertised things.
  • throw12347825 2y ago
    Yep, drawing red lines around age of consent has worked so well in the past, I think this is the way. I'm so glad we have simple and effective solutions like this. Otherwise can you imagine the kinds of problems we'd have with kids vaping, buying lootboxes and scrolling social media designed to hijack their not-yet-fully-developed-brains?
    • throw12347825 2y ago
      ... And by "age of consent" I meant "minimum legal age recognized to make decisions pertaining to topic X". Is there a proper term for that, so I don't sound so stupid in future?
      • azornathogron 2y ago
        You perhaps want the term "age of majority". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
  • pacija 2y ago
    I guess you don't have children.
  • tgv 2y ago
    But e.g. getting children hooked on instagram will pay off later.
  • cnity 2y ago
    I think this is exactly the opposite of how it should be. Teach children to engage in trade and sensible use of money and currency early, but shield them from the immense leverage that corporate advertising has on the developing mind. I want well rounded children who are good independent critical thinkers, not brain-hijacked and inept with money.
    • pndy 2y ago
      Speaking of the corporate advertising, I just saw an ad today that basically grooms kids into credit card concept. This bank has a prepaid card and app that's being managed by parents. The ad story is "charming": busy parents forgot to pack his son properly for a summer camp, so he calls them and says he misses item x that is crucial. So they both leave their jobs and in a rush through city they're trying to save their boy. While he just orders stuff online with a help of a card, app and smartphone. And with "plastic money" little guy saves the day on his own. Sure, its 21st century, we're living in the 20s and you can't avoid technology in banking, finances and pocket money for your kids but this barely teaches any responsibility - that ad deep between the lines sells the idea that money are magically "there". Just go for the limit, next month daddy and mommy will charge the card again.
      • cnity 2y ago
        I have seen an ad for that, and I felt mixed about it. I think such a "children's learning" type card which actually allows real purchases is a good idea for financial responsibility, but you'd have to be really cognisant of perverse incentives set up by a financial institution that can profit in this space.
  • stephenr 2y ago
    Ah yes, why let children learn about money and responsibility, much better to treat them like pets so that advertising scumbags don't have a reason to target them. The mental gymnastics people will do to avoid having to admit that daddy Google is a creepy advertising company never ceases to astound me.
  • HenryBemis 2y ago
    There are so many things wrong with your post!! In your spirit, we should be able to sell heroin to kids, just not give them money, only the first free dose (that's that all the blinking and sounds on the ads do to their brains). I had a colleague once that said exactly that (and he effing meant it) "if selling heroin to kids was legal, I would be outside a school right now - it's their parents' problem" (yes he has kids)(at the time he was a IT contractor making GBP 1200 per day - and that was 8 years ago)(there are scum and scum.. and then there was him). Anyway.. we (should) protect kids as much as possible from as many possible risks and threats (old and new). (also, go see a therapist, you need help)
  • GuB-42 2y ago
    It is already the case, more or less. Parents manage their children assets, including money, and children abilities to enter into contract is very limited. They can manipulate money, but only if they parents let them, and they usually do, because it would be crazy not to. It changes nothing to the situation with ads. Ads for children actually target the parents, manipulating children so that they can in turn manipulate their parents. It can be terrible, for example by advertising for something fashionable to wear at school, too expensive for the child allowance, they expect their parents to buy it, because if they don't their kids may get bullied. Not giving children access to money won't solve this problem, quite the opposite actually, if it was their money, they could realize how overpriced the thing is and how much they could do by spending it elsewhere.
    • netsharc 2y ago
      I remember when I was a kid (a long time ago now...), Dr. Martens shoes were the fashion, that my school forbade them. We had uniforms, but the rule with shoes was just that they had to be black. I think the ban was on the technicality that the stiching was yellow, so they're not black shoes. And a student tried to loophole the loophole by coloring the yellow stitching black. I wonder if some brands give out free stuff to "child influencers" so other kids would moan to their parents about buying the items...
      • agmater 2y ago
        > I wonder if some brands give out free stuff to "child influencers" so other kids would moan to their parents about buying the items... See Ryan's World on Youtube for example, it's a huge industry.
      • lupire 2y ago
        They are called brand ambassadors and they go back to to before Internet. The best looking person at your college didn't pay for their iBook.
  • x3ro 2y ago
    Ah yes, don’t give children _any_ responsibility with money until they are 16, and then just throw them into cold water and expect them to know how to manage spending.. Sorry for being sarcastic here, and I know how to raise children is a divisive topic, but this sounds like a recipe for disaster. Let’s give children responsibility and agency as early as possible, so they can learn to make decisions.
  • lm28469 2y ago
    You can still get brainwashed by ads without spending a cent
  • pfdietz 2y ago
    Having ads targeted at children can be seen as a good thing: it trains the children in what advertising is like, about how they can be manipulated and exploited. It's good for them to get this experience while young when the stakes are low. Of course, this might also train children to be the exploiters and manipulators. Maybe their parents would think that's a good thing too, at least in the long run.
    • thfuran 2y ago
      Wouldn't it be better to remove exploitation and manipulation than to subject children to it in the hopes that it somehow makes them resistant to more of it later?
      • pfdietz 2y ago
        I don't see how that would work.
        • thfuran 2y ago
          If the reason that you think it's good to allow advertising to children, despite it being bad in and of itself, is that it prepares them to be subjected to ads as an adult, wouldn't it be better to instead remove the ads for adults as well?
          • pfdietz 2y ago
            Ads serve a useful function, particularly if one can filter out deception.
      • Nasrudith 2y ago
        To be frank thus sounds like a replay of purity idealism about shielding kids from anything even remotely connected to sex. Not being capable of manipulation or exploitation or dealing with them would be rightfully classified as a severe social disability.
    • ndriscoll 2y ago
  • jtc331 2y ago
    That just means advertisers need to manipulate children into pressuring parents. Not a good social dynamic.
• rendaw 2y ago
  In case anyone replies with "well all companies are bad in some way"... scale is also a factor here. Even if Google does the same things as a small family owned business, they have significantly greater ability to inflict harm. And I'm not sure I buy that all companies are bad. A lot of companies are earnest and customer-focused when they're smaller and desperate for more users. And I've worked at many companies which were bumbling but not really manipulative or malicious.
  • BiteCode_dev 2y ago
    It's like saying all gov are bad in some way. But Spain gov and North Korea gov are definitely not bad in the same way.
  • pyrale 2y ago
    > In case anyone replies with "well all companies are bad in some way"... scale is also a factor here. Even disregarding scale, plenty of large companies providing critical service struggle to find good people to do their job. Sure, they don't pay as well. But if the rebuttal is that you can't find a honest company that pays equivalent salaries, maybe we should call that wage-gap corruption money.
    • o_1 2y ago
      remind me, why was "do no evil" scrubbed from the mission statement?
    • brightlancer 2y ago
      There's always going to be a lot of money/profit in amoral behavior that's legal -- while being moral means passing on that behavior and money. It's possible to run a business morally and successfully, but rarely as successfully as someone who runs one amorally. IME, most people in the US will happily take a job with the extra money at an amoral company, even if the lesser paying job at a moral company would still be enough for a comfortable life. (Folks in the US are very price conscious; I don't know how that compares to other cultures/ societies.)
• moffkalast 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • whywhywhywhy 2y ago
    Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle where if we lose we give up our privacy. The setting could have just been a browser toggle, but because of government incompetence every publisher gets to skirt the guidelines and trick or frustrate people into clicking accept. You can be against the problem and against incompetents forcing bad solutions at a government level or using it to build income streams through fines.
    • immibis 2y ago
      You are free to enable Do-Not-Track and then sue a company for not respecting it, which will create precedent that companies must default to "reject all" if this header is present, if you win.
      • Y_Y 2y ago
        Seems sensible, which makes me wonder why it hasn't already happened
        • troupo 2y ago
          When Do Not Track was introduced, the industry immediately used it to fingerprint and track users. In the end Safari ended up removing it. As to why no one sued, it's really hard to prove that a company doesn't respect the header.
        • pyrale 2y ago
          It's almost as if companies implementing these systems have a vested interest in making the most adversarial implementation and/or flouting the law.
    • troupo 2y ago
      > Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle Please show me where exactly EU laws mandate the cookie dialog puzzle. > The setting could have just been a browser toggle, Yes, it could've, and browsers have now had 6 years to implement it. Instead, the industry decided that obnoxious cookie banners are the way to go. > against incompetents forcing bad solutions Which solution is forced by EU laws, and can you quote me the exact wording that forces this solution?
• lupire 2y ago
  Why are you quoting "We're sorry."? Who apologized? "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." is not "I'm sorry."
  • alex7734 2y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiL2AjOtjZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiL2AjOtjZI
• jay-barronville 2y ago
  > Everyone working at these companies: you're partly to blame, whether you're directly involved or not. Reconsider the behavior you're supporting, and quit. I used to think like this, until I got married and started a family. I’m no longer so quick to judge folks for not doing what I believe to be the most ideal (or even ethical) thing in these types of circumstances. For many of us who have families, our top priority is making sure we can continue to take care of our households and not risking that in any way unless absolutely necessary.
  • kayodelycaon 2y ago
    This is also true of people with chronic medical conditions or disabilities. I don’t know if the next company’s insurance will cover my doctors or my medication. Getting a job while having an obvious disability puts you at a disadvantage, regardless of discrimination being illegal.
  • ndriscoll 2y ago
    There are tons of tech jobs out there. That excuse doesn't work so well when you're in one of the most lucrative careers there is. Creating a dystopia where everyone is spied upon 24/7 is also not something someone with kids should want to do.
    • dartos 2y ago
      There _were_ tons of tech jobs. Much harder to jump ship nowadays since layoffs have flood the market with high skilled job seekers and borrowing money is no longer free for tech firms. Life is complicated, employees can be just as much locked in to their jobs at Google as most people are to their products.
      • jay-barronville 2y ago
        Exactly. I was about to respond with something similar, but you did it for me! Not only are folks getting laid off left and right, salaries have gone down significantly and it’s very difficult to secure a new job in this market (no matter your skills, experience, etc.).
• mattmcknight 2y ago
  Isn't putting ads on children's programming, as has been done since the dawn of television, "targeting children"? This seems like bullshit targeting of the competition to me.
• volleygman180 2y ago
  Are commercials during saturday morning cartoons not ads targeted at children? When I was growing up at least, it was all for candy, toys, and sugary cereal, and often had kids or cartoon characters featured in the commercial.
  • fedeb95 2y ago
    it's a matter of threshold. There's a point up to which targeted advertising doesn't cause harm, after that, it does. Ads on smartphones cross that threshold. Doesn't matter if TV also does: if it does, it should be limited too, otherwise, it doesn't matter. Why smartphones and related software cross that threshold? They're specifically designed to increase use time, i.e. to be addictive. It's a drug.
    • signatoremo 2y ago
      What are the thresholds for tv and the web? Does FCC have any specific guidelines? How about other countries?
    • ndriscoll 2y ago
      The fact that companies making sugary cereals haven't gone out of business and the current obesity crisis suggest to me that those TV commercials are also quite harmful. Something causes people to switch off their brains and feed their kids cookies and marshmallows for breakfast as long as the TV says it's okay and normal.
      • fedeb95 2y ago
        Maybe also TV. But that doesn't mean that targeted web advertising doesn't also, or that it's more harmful, or at the same level. Let's cut both. On another note, obesity isn't widespread everywhere there are TV commercials.
  • pyrale 2y ago
    There's a difference between placing a sports shoes ad in front of a gym, and getting to know the history and habits of every person that ever entered that gym, and showing each a different ad. I mean, 30 years ago, we were horrified by the extent to which Stasi spied on their own people. Now, we'd call them amateurs.
• zo1 2y ago
  I honestly don't think our current "implementation" of government has the required momentum to do anything to stop this or enable the will of the people to be enacted on such large corporations. Our government is a highly-reactive machine that's no longer driven by humans, but rather the internal algorithms and processes (bureaucracy). Just look at the sheer number of "congressional" and "senate" hearings we've seen into everything from AI, to border crossings, to privacy breaches, to antisemitism in universities, to data breaches, etc. Pretty much 0 effect happens anywhere in response, despite us all (including the media) seeing the internals and the problems. You would think some of these problems are pretty easy to solve or at least get consensus on, but you'd be wrong. We've co-evolved our public discourse and media with government such that nothing can happen. If I wasn't so anti-left, I'd say the amount of partisanship in existence is precisely because it disarms us against this government automaton.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]