When it comes to putting things in their body, it's ok (eating cereal from Kellog). When it comes to socialization media, it's ok. (dressing up as Disney characters) When it's FB, hold the bar door.
FB is garbage for known reasons. This story feels like some witch hunt material stretched thin - "Zuck is bad and we have to keep the eyeballs on the demonization of FB!"
Spain just barred cereal makers from advertising to kids. For a reason
Man, what an uncharitable take. I bet they also like that the kid is learning how to prepare food for themselves independently. Or that they have time to do something like make themselves breakfast before dropping off at school and going to work. Further, I bet a lot of these parents also aren't as nutritionally educated as the people in this thread seem to be (for a lot of consumers "healthy" and "fat free" are interchangeable).
My parents would only buy the relatively plain ones -- Weetabix, Shredded Wheat and so on.
The first time we went to the USA I was 12. We bought colourful cereal for the novelty of it, but the next morning I could barely eat it. It was insanely sweet! (Presumably with HFCS, which I wouldn't have experienced before.) Unsurprisingly, there was no pressure from my parents to finish the bowl, or the rest of the box.
Around the world, from what I've noticed, you can also find the plain old' actual cereals. You know, wheat, corn, etc. based stuff that's not full of sugar.
A kid can definitely learn how to prepare their own food using that :-)
We get home. My mom sees I selected the cookie cereal and yells at us. We should both know better!
She wanted to see Fruit Loops, our commonly purchased cereal.
I was only like, eight, but read all the little words in the white box and their amounts. They were practically the same.
Didn’t matter. Into the trash the box went.
In her head it was no better than Chips A’hoy crushed up in a bowl. Cookies! For breakfast!
The Fruit Loops however, we’re clearly some healthy option, because, you know, FRUIT.
My mom is not dumb at all, but seemingly never put an ounce of thought into this.
So I’m torn that everyone should know they’re all sugar, and I have a clear example of people just not ever really considering it.
Although this article says it's less useful than I thought, and might be replaced with something else. (Though it's a food industry publication.)
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/health/has-traffic-light-health-...
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's okay. There aren't many people out there celebrating the fact that nutritional equivalent of sugar and sawdust is marketed and sold to children who don't understand the impact of nutrition on their health and well-being. There are plenty of people and groups that are against advertising to children, and who are against the proliferation of junk food.
Yes, I would.
If we change `lure` to `manipulate into wanting`, then yes I would say that. I would also expand this to _any_ marketing. I am currently wrestling with if I would go as far to say that _all communication_ is _manipulation_ but I feel that's a step too far for some reason while I definitely feel that _marketing_ is _manipulation_.
Now, there’s certainly a case that Facebook’s products are harmful, but is it Facebook’s intent to harm people? I don’t personally think so, but others may disagree. “Lure” is the type of language you use if you want to equate Facebook with pedophiles and fairytale villains in your readers’ minds.
Offering something desirable (a product that people want to use) - check
To trap someone (can't move to another platform, all your friends and data are in a walled garden) - check
And do harm to them (use data to target further manipulation/advertising) - check
(And that's not even considering the more psychological harms of Facebook, which they may not intend but they certainly know about, have enflamed, and have done nothing to combat)
For the purposes of this discussion, is it really different from knowing that their products are harmful and still making sure as many people as possible use them?
Facebook aims to maximize engagement. Engagement is maximized by showing content that makes people angry and scared. [0] Is it harmful to make people scared and angry to maximize the amount of ads that pass their eyeballs? I know Facebook has internal research that shows them how Facebook affects people mentally (not great!), so ignorance isn’t a defense for them here.
[0] This is a WaPo article reposted on MSN, no paywall bypass needed https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/five-points-for-an...
Telling you about a new song you'd want to hear? Good. Telling you that I've got a can of beer for you, just after you've left an AA meeting? Bad.
Who would distinguish that? The receiver? The giver? Something/someone else? T
“Targeting” is more neutral. You might target someone with an ad because you believe in your product and expect it will improve their life. But it would be a bit weird to say you’re luring someone to use your beneficial product.
In Facebook’s case, they apparently know of harmful effects on youth, so “lure” seems appropriate.
Just because our social institutions have failed to protect us from various other bad actors doesn't mean we should abandon hope on trying to do something about the one in front of us today.
Surely not defeatism, when I think it's a reasonable thing for companies to plan around demographics. I don't think it's a good idea to empower social institutions to decide that you can't be considered a consumer until your 18th birthday.
It's whataboutism for sure, but in the sense that FB is literally less impactful than existing brands so the question comes to the forefront. Why? Well because Zuckman bad.
Can we just talk about an issue as its own issue? Maybe `b` and `c` are really hard to solve, but `a` is easy to solve.
Many arguments against action are usually framed in this comparison structure - I think it is a weak argument unless you explain why `b` and `c` out prioritize `a` for shared resources.