Hacker News Reader

Comment by robin_reala | Hacker News Reader

I don’t think any ad company should be able to target people based on their age. I think ad companies should be able to target based on their context. If the context is primarily younger people then you’ll hit your market, but won’t exclude the odd older person that is also interested.

View on HN

Why is using age to approximate context worse than using some other factor to approximate it?

What about recreational drugs (incl tobacco and alcohol), gambling, adult entertainment, etc? Surely those should not be targeted at minors.

vice advertising is typically regulated in a different manner, excluding minors for example

Generally, targeting minors is treated differently in discrimination cases as a whole.

> What about recreational drugs (incl tobacco and alcohol)

Alcohol and tobacco advertising is banned or massively regulated in most countries. Facebook circumvents rules in various places due to their media platform being newer than the rules or because Facebook just sort of ignores the rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marke... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_advertising https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/28/1/67

Facebook's ad policies prohibit all tobacco advertising, and alcohol advertising targeting users under 18

When it comes to ads, HNers will make up anything and believe anything, while refusing to do the most basic research.

What’s made up?

It’s not hard to find good sources stating Facebook still advertise tobacco, though you appear not to have noticed the links stating this fact. Here are some more recent links.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/17/british-ame...

https://www.independent.co.uk/health_and_wellbeing/big-tobac...

The headline and byline from your links:

“British American Tobacco circumventing ad ban”

“Smoking giants are flouting rules set by Facebook and Instagram”

As always, regardless of the digital or print medium, Big Tobacco (& others) have always tried to flout the rules. Same goes for Alcohol and Gambling ad bans.

What is incorrect about those statements? FB are paying influencers to advertise tobacco on Facebook and Instagram.

Yes, it’s proving hard to enforce a ban, but are we supposed to be sympathetic to Facebook?

The article states that they moved of the ads platform. If people pose with a cigarette and it's allowed by content guidelines of the platform and country, would you expect to have it censored? If I post a picture that I am smoking you think they should delete it cause I'm advertising it?

It rather changes the equation if you are paid by a tobacco company to hold a cigarette in a photo.

‘On Instagram, Big Tobacco’s influencers post glamorised images of vape products with hashtags such as #idareyoutotryit and captions such as “feeling Vype AF”.’ (From my link).

Fair point. I know they have 'paid partnership' annotation in posts. I didn't notice they are circumventing that.

While technically what you say appears to be true, Facebook's actions still violate the spirit of avoiding that type of advertising in my opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/28/facebook-...

That’s why I included the last link. Facebook have said the right things but kept doing what they want - this has been the pattern with other things they have done too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/health_and_wellbeing/big-tobac...

Why? I understand the argument for restricting access to things needed to function (housing, banking, etc). But I made a flashy twitch shooter. Why is it wrong for me to advertise by age?

Ads cost money, why is it in the public good that I spend money to bother people with ads they'll never take part in?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com