5 ms·

Help me understand. The UK government basically said that parents are not responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children so the government need

Help me understand. The UK government basically said that parents are not responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children so the government needs to step in and do it for them? Does that not seem like an overreach? Its not like 4 year olds are driving to McDonald's by themselves and ordering burgers. The parents are the ones being targeted here.

Argonaut998 2y ago
The UK is so far gone with government overreach at this point. They don’t seem to mind.
widdershins 2y ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at. They banned certain advertisments at a particular time of day. They didn't ban parents from giving their children whatever thet want to give them.
forinti 2y ago
They're not prohibiting anyone from feeding these things to their children. A lot of people will continue to do so. The government would have to spend a lot of money on counter-campaigns to keep the public well informed and it probably wouldn't have the desired effect on children. Finally, and this is a very important point for me, children cannot enter into business deals/contracts; commercials are business proposals; hence there should be no ads targeting children.
majormajor 2y ago
It's more "we don't want corporations selling unhealthy junk to have direct access to influence super-impressional kids" - cause guess what, in that case? You can be a perfectly responsible parent dietary-decision-wise, but have your kids whine and complain constantly because the kids aren't informed about the problems of it and just want the tasty shit they saw all the ads for. Would you allow salespeople into your home to pitch your kids on stuff all day if they were in-person instead of on a screen? Why not complain about the overreach of irresponsible companies trying to convince kids who have no way of knowing better to start damaging their long-term health?
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  As a parent I don't let my children watch things I disagree with. They can probably count the number of food ads they've seen in 1 hand because I don't let them watch TV. They can watch shows and movies but they're either streamed or checked out of the library. But that's the way I choose to parent my child. If another parent wants their children to watch TV and be exposed to those ads then they should have every right. I'm not going to make a moral decision for them and I don't think the government should either.
  - frereubu 2y ago
    What about the (large, I would argue) slice of parents who want to let their kids watch TV but don't want them bombarded with ads for sugar-saturated foods? (I mean, we're on HN, so the obvious answer is watching things on a laptop / projector with Firefox + uBlock Origin, but y'know - everyone else).
    - phyzix5761 2y ago
      Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others. Thats how we get xenophobic and homophobic people voting to control women's bodies because they think others should do whatever they believe is moral and right.
      - jraph 2y ago
        > Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others I believe forbidding these ads is morally good, but it's not just morality. It's knowledge backed by studies: - children are easily influenced - burgers cause public health issues that harm the individuals, and cost greatly to the society in healthcare It's not a stance like "I believe women should not abort because God" (to take your example). It's a law aiming to reduce costs and and improve public health. This laws doesn't prevent parents from speaking about burgers to their children, and doesn't prevent TV from speaking about them neither. It's not a freedom of speech issue. There's an imbalance between the power of the big corporations and the power of the individuals and this law pushes the needle a bit towards the individuals. You the individual freedom defender should be happy with this :-)
jraph 2y ago
Children are totally targeted. They will ask their parents and put pressure to buy them stuff. Maybe even the parents who don't cave in can be relieved of this. In the longer term, stuff that enters your brain as a child shapes you and lasts long. See how well how many people in their 30s remember ads of their childhood. Why would someone defend such ads anyway? I don't believe they achieve anything good for anyone except the advertiser.
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  Its because I don't want the government, people who I've never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my behalf. Even if the majority of citizens agreed that forcing their morality on the minority is the right thing to do I still disagree because individual freedom is more important than majority opinion.
  - MiguelX413 2y ago
    What's the point of laws if not forcing morality?
    - phyzix5761 2y ago
      Protecting individual rights and freedoms
      - jraph 2y ago
        Not at the cost of harming people, usually. Its role is also to protect individuals themselves. Infinite individual freedom doesn't exist, it stops where others' individual freedom starts.
        phyzix5761 2y ago
        Absolutely. Individuals should have rights and freedoms as long as they don't harm another's.
mirsadm 2y ago
Do you have children? They're targeted with ads everywhere. You can be a responsible parent but these things cause unnecessary stress. Quite frankly if the government wants to ban all advertising I would be thrilled.
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  I do have children and I don't let them be exposed to things I disagree with. But thats my moral decision. Why should my morality be forced on others? Making the decision to not expose your children to certain ads is a moral decision. Let the parents choose if its important for them. They can choose exactly what kind of content their children watch with streaming and DVDs. Long gone are the days where kids just sat in front a television and had to watch live cable TV where the parents didn't know what was coming up next.
  - duckmysick 2y ago
    You, as an individual, can still play the adverts to your children. The regulation is targeting the advertisers.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Long gone are the days where kids just sat in front a television and had to watch live cable TV where the parents didn't know what was coming up next. I've seen streaming services auto-play whatever they want to push at viewers after whatever show/movie was playing ended. I imagine there are a lot of kids that end up watching things they (and their parents) didn't choose for themselves. When it comes to ads, parents and children don't get to choose what ads they see either.
dcre 2y ago
They should keep reaching and ban the rest of the ads.
snovymgodym 2y ago
That's a great way to frame the whole thing if you're a corporation trying to sell junk food I guess. In reality, this law is only about advertising, specifically about making it slightly harder to target children with advertising for junk food in a country that already has a serious problem with obesity.
rsynnott 2y ago
... No, that's not what it says at all. The level of reading comprehension on this website really is astonishingly low. It's about restrictions on advertising, not bans on products.
tonyedgecombe 2y ago
>The UK government basically said that parents are not responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children so the government needs to step in and do it for them? Stand outside any school gate in the UK and you will see that the majority of parents "aren't responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children". I'm fairly relaxed about it simply because this is a response to the behaviour of these corporations.

Argonaut998 2y ago

The UK is so far gone with government overreach at this point. They don’t seem to mind.

widdershins 2y ago

I'm not sure what you're getting at. They banned certain advertisments at a particular time of day. They didn't ban parents from giving their children whatever thet want to give them.

forinti 2y ago

They're not prohibiting anyone from feeding these things to their children. A lot of people will continue to do so. The government would have to spend a lot of money on counter-campaigns to keep the public well informed and it probably wouldn't have the desired effect on children. Finally, and this is a very important point for me, children cannot enter into business deals/contracts; commercials are business proposals; hence there should be no ads targeting children.

majormajor 2y ago

It's more "we don't want corporations selling unhealthy junk to have direct access to influence super-impressional kids" - cause guess what, in that case? You can be a perfectly responsible parent dietary-decision-wise, but have your kids whine and complain constantly because the kids aren't informed about the problems of it and just want the tasty shit they saw all the ads for. Would you allow salespeople into your home to pitch your kids on stuff all day if they were in-person instead of on a screen? Why not complain about the overreach of irresponsible companies trying to convince kids who have no way of knowing better to start damaging their long-term health?

phyzix5761 2y ago
As a parent I don't let my children watch things I disagree with. They can probably count the number of food ads they've seen in 1 hand because I don't let them watch TV. They can watch shows and movies but they're either streamed or checked out of the library. But that's the way I choose to parent my child. If another parent wants their children to watch TV and be exposed to those ads then they should have every right. I'm not going to make a moral decision for them and I don't think the government should either.
- frereubu 2y ago
  What about the (large, I would argue) slice of parents who want to let their kids watch TV but don't want them bombarded with ads for sugar-saturated foods? (I mean, we're on HN, so the obvious answer is watching things on a laptop / projector with Firefox + uBlock Origin, but y'know - everyone else).
  - phyzix5761 2y ago
    Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others. Thats how we get xenophobic and homophobic people voting to control women's bodies because they think others should do whatever they believe is moral and right.
    - jraph 2y ago
      > Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others I believe forbidding these ads is morally good, but it's not just morality. It's knowledge backed by studies: - children are easily influenced - burgers cause public health issues that harm the individuals, and cost greatly to the society in healthcare It's not a stance like "I believe women should not abort because God" (to take your example). It's a law aiming to reduce costs and and improve public health. This laws doesn't prevent parents from speaking about burgers to their children, and doesn't prevent TV from speaking about them neither. It's not a freedom of speech issue. There's an imbalance between the power of the big corporations and the power of the individuals and this law pushes the needle a bit towards the individuals. You the individual freedom defender should be happy with this :-)

jraph 2y ago

Children are totally targeted. They will ask their parents and put pressure to buy them stuff. Maybe even the parents who don't cave in can be relieved of this. In the longer term, stuff that enters your brain as a child shapes you and lasts long. See how well how many people in their 30s remember ads of their childhood. Why would someone defend such ads anyway? I don't believe they achieve anything good for anyone except the advertiser.

phyzix5761 2y ago
Its because I don't want the government, people who I've never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my behalf. Even if the majority of citizens agreed that forcing their morality on the minority is the right thing to do I still disagree because individual freedom is more important than majority opinion.
- MiguelX413 2y ago
  What's the point of laws if not forcing morality?
  - phyzix5761 2y ago
    Protecting individual rights and freedoms
    - jraph 2y ago
      Not at the cost of harming people, usually. Its role is also to protect individuals themselves. Infinite individual freedom doesn't exist, it stops where others' individual freedom starts.
      - phyzix5761 2y ago
        Absolutely. Individuals should have rights and freedoms as long as they don't harm another's.

mirsadm 2y ago

Do you have children? They're targeted with ads everywhere. You can be a responsible parent but these things cause unnecessary stress. Quite frankly if the government wants to ban all advertising I would be thrilled.

phyzix5761 2y ago
I do have children and I don't let them be exposed to things I disagree with. But thats my moral decision. Why should my morality be forced on others? Making the decision to not expose your children to certain ads is a moral decision. Let the parents choose if its important for them. They can choose exactly what kind of content their children watch with streaming and DVDs. Long gone are the days where kids just sat in front a television and had to watch live cable TV where the parents didn't know what was coming up next.
- duckmysick 2y ago
  You, as an individual, can still play the adverts to your children. The regulation is targeting the advertisers.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > Long gone are the days where kids just sat in front a television and had to watch live cable TV where the parents didn't know what was coming up next. I've seen streaming services auto-play whatever they want to push at viewers after whatever show/movie was playing ended. I imagine there are a lot of kids that end up watching things they (and their parents) didn't choose for themselves. When it comes to ads, parents and children don't get to choose what ads they see either.

dcre 2y ago

They should keep reaching and ban the rest of the ads.

snovymgodym 2y ago

That's a great way to frame the whole thing if you're a corporation trying to sell junk food I guess. In reality, this law is only about advertising, specifically about making it slightly harder to target children with advertising for junk food in a country that already has a serious problem with obesity.

rsynnott 2y ago

... No, that's not what it says at all. The level of reading comprehension on this website really is astonishingly low. It's about restrictions on advertising, not bans on products.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago

>The UK government basically said that parents are not responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children so the government needs to step in and do it for them? Stand outside any school gate in the UK and you will see that the majority of parents "aren't responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children". I'm fairly relaxed about it simply because this is a response to the behaviour of these corporations.