Facebook advertisers target children interested in smoking, alcohol, weight loss
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
In the report it states the ads were not run. I’m pretty anti-Facebook anything, but this feels like an attack aimed to generate anti-Facebook headlines off the back of their flawed methodology.
I find the idea that any company is going to ‘exploit’ the capability to purchase advertising in $5 batches to target 13 - 17 olds with products such as cigarettes, vapes and gambling a little far fetched. Particularly for any company licences to sell said products. Maybe middlemen / affiliates, but even then the cost associated with creating facebook advertising accounts for such small budgets doesn’t seem cost effective.
It seems like their methodology has been deliberately chosen ($5, non-branded, trademarkless adverts) to avoid automated filters by flying low.
If they did run, they’d likely to be flagged by human users, escalated for moderation and removed.
It comes off very calculated.
Relying on viewers to flag (presumably teenagers interested in smoking or gambling) doesn't sound like a good idea.
This does just sound like the interests ("gambling", "cigarettes & vaping") should have age appropriate flags so they can't be combined with the specific age groups.
This is a complete non-story. The appropriate forum for it is a bug report to Facebook, not international news. It should make you skeptical about other news about Facebook, because it indicates the media does not have a basic “is this bullshit” filter for stories they publish about Facebook.
If this was actual commercial activity, with real vape vendors selling vapes to children, and Facebook kept it up after finding out about it, that would be a story.
They might maybe possibly kind of sometimes take it down, or they might not. But one or two small news stories come out and they apologize and say there's nothing that can be done, then a big story drops and they instantly ban everyone who sold vapes to kids, filter out new ones, and the problem vanishes for a few weeks until people forget.
"The organisation then tested it out by getting a number of ads mentioning winning prizes, or cocktails, or asking teens if they were “summer ready” approved for advertising to those targeted demographics."
So it sounds like they could go further than just identify who the target audience based on under 18s who are interested in alcohol.
Remember when Facebook conducted an experiment to manipulate teenagers' emotions?
Remember when Facebook paid users a paltry sum to install a malicious spying VPN?
And of course, the recent leak of millions of people's personal data is just the icing on the cake.
This isn't even the full list of scandals Facebook has had in recent years. One after another, scandal after scandal comes out and nobody is punished and their stock price continues to soar.
Facebook is too big to fail. They're part of our digital infrastructure now and need to be regulated as such.
"They 'trust me'. Dumb Fucks"
Just don't let politicians run it. That could be even worse I'm afraid.
Zuck is essentially Blofeld in a hoodie.
Everyone, including Microsofts shareholders have reason to be thankful to us today.
(Although I should say I have problems turning my pitchfork and torch towards MS again if they stop behaving.)
They probably just think they are speaking up against injustice.
Just like we thought. We were right. I don't know enough about reddit to say much about those folks.
The open source community turning pitchforks on Microsoft of the 1990's and the subsequent anti-trust case was one of the worst things that ever happened to computing. Here are the results:
1) Instead of Microsoft's preferred model of personal computer first computing, we ended up with cloud first computing with all the resultant loss of privacy and control
2) Changed the tech sector from where the biggest companies sold software or hardware to end users to one where the biggest companies give away software/services to users so they can monetize them with advertising
3) Convinced all the tech companies that they desperately needed to spend money lobbying Washington in order to preserve their business.
I would argue that the average computer (which was likely a PC) user of the 1990's had a lot more privacy and control over their computing than the average computer(which is likely a phone) does now.
1) Cloud computing didn't really gain as much traction until folks started running into storage limits, which realistically was helped along by smartphones. Computing, for the average person, has changed.
2) Again, computing has changed. Some folks no longer pirate programs because free is available. Not all have ads: I'd also argue that programs are probably more available to more people because of this. I don't pay cash for many things on my phone, and I simply wouldn't. Television ads are generally more annoying and product placement in movies/shows slightly more devious.
3). Isn't this just large businesses, though? It isn't special to tech companies, nor do all of them lobby.
I'd also like to add that computing in the 90's was a bit different and not as widespread: Many folks I knew simply didn't have one at home. A computer at a library, school, friend's house, or internet cafe doesn't have a lot of privacy or control either. I don't think the "control" has the same meaning for the average person as it would with most folks reading this comment here on HN, and I'm not sure it bothers most folks.
Linux adoption on the desktop is small but rapidly rising now. If Microsoft had gotten their way back then I doubt that could have happened.
Your argument seems to take for granted that Microsoft wouldn't have come up with the same or maybe even sleazier tactics. I wouldn't take that for granted.
We’re at the point where I don’t understand why Facebook isn’t banned in multiple countries. Well, I know why, politicians are heavy Facebook users and are buying ads on Facebook.
Actual conversation that went on in my room at a summer camp two decades ago:
-At what age did you try vodka for the first time?
-Ten.
-Yes, ten appears to be a good age to have this experience.
A preteen alcoholic is a sad sight, believe me.
Remember in all of Europe Kids will often have some drinks with meals by then I can certainly remember having a small glass of Cider with Sunday lunch at that age.