Hacker News Reader

Comment by dillondoyle | Hacker News Reader

There is a ton of evidence that they targeted kids. Including lawsuits which they settled.

Just focused on advertising alone here is NyTimes summary with link to MA lawsuit.

They fired the first ad company who suggested reasonable adult oriented ads and directed the new one to run youth focused ads and youth targeting. Cartoon network, kids websites, teen magazines.

I don't believe you can brush aside those decisions by just calling the company 'terrible.'

True you can never look into someone's brain and know their intent. But the evidence is pretty clear.

If we give everyone a pass like this because of terrible management or incompetence we'd never hold anyone accountable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsui...

View on HN

Genuinely question, but how much of that is Juul wanting to advertise to kids versus Juul wanting to advertise to an older Gen Z/Millennial crowd (half of Gen Z is over 18)? I think it's really dumb to advertise to Gen Z no matter how old the age range is right now, but I'm not sure if it's malicious or just stupid.

It's malicious.

Millenials (myself among them) grew up before state-wide indoor smoking bans, and those of us who didn't smoke weren't interested in picking up anything resembling it.

A lot of Zoomers, however, grew up in a cigarette free world, where they also didn't see addiction or substantial anti-smoking messages. The older folks (Millenials) were set in their ways, but the Zoomers were the addressable audience. It was intentional. It was evil.

I think this is a great way of framing it because it kills the root of the arguments pro-vaping people make all the time as an excuse for this behavior: that it is better than combustable tobacco.

They are advertising to consumers who do not smoke.

An earnestly posted, semi-anonymous comment from an HN user claiming to have an insider account should be regarded more highly than a NYT reporter's account, unless/until independent evidence suggests otherwise.

Can we please stop perpetuating the idea that the NYT is a reputable source?

A flippant dismissal of OP's firsthand account requires something a bit more substantial than "I found an article printed in an outlet that has been on a decade-long mission to demonize the tech industry, or any other industry remotely worthy of the term."

They have, at this point, shown they're willing to print nearly anything if it damages their cultural opponents. Any facts they report should prompt corroboration from reputable sources.

The NYT has its problems, but I think you've overcorrected a few hundred degrees too far here.

"Hey can we make it a habit to get a second data point before running with the NYT's account of things?"

"Whoa hey bring it down several notches, extremist."

My only hope is that the NYT grows even larger and more "successful", so that more of you can have the experience of having your field, your work, or you personally written about with their signature erroneous confidence.

I should listen to the whitewashing of an insider (who at least financially benefited from Juul’s rise, at worst was personally involved in some of the very shady campaigns), instead of looking at cold hard evidence like the fact that they paid schools in order to talk to school children directly about their “health benefits”? I should take their word that their marketing was highly incompetent and couldn’t achieve anything, yet somehow accidentally trumped all competition and got millions of kids hooked on their product, opening up a whole new market segment, which would be any marketing team’s wet dream? Fuck no.

It's insane to think that some of you value the words of a person

- who has no relevant experience in anything being discussed,

- works for an outlet which has shown countless times that it cannot reliably and accurately report on nearly any field and

- whose primary experience has been in taking dictation from the FDA

over one of your peers, who

- has worked in the relevant industry, and the relevant company

- puts his name next to his words, and

- has given you a first person account of what he's seen and done, including acknowledging his own blind spots

If your instincts are to invest immovable faith in the belief that the latter is absolutely lying, based on facts related to you by the former, you are epistemically ruined beyond hope.

I need exactly nothing from the former to see that the latter narrative doesn’t add up. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this kind of feigning innocence from “earnest” insiders. Well let’s be charitable and say they simply believe this “our marketing team was so incompetent their evil plans amounted to nothing, all the objectives were achieved through dumb luck” bullshit. Doesn’t change a thing. And no, whether they’re my peer or not adds zero credibility.

This comes from someone who is deeply skeptical of and disagrees with a lot of NYT narratives. I just don’t start a thinly veiled crusade against them whenever they are mentioned.

1. It's not veiled at all.

2. So your opinion is based on even less knowledge than what that article contains?

> stop perpetuating the idea that the NYT is a reputable source

no?

Read the settlement and sources cited if you think the NyTimes rigorous reporting standards aren't up to par as an anonymous hacker news er who may or may not be telling the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com