5 ms·

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 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.

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.