So this was about ads for Instagram on YouTube, targeting people under 18?
I am surprised that this is something that has to be kept secret. What is the main problem with it?
I am surprised that this is something that has to be kept secret. What is the main problem with it?
By having an "unknown" category, you could argue that you had no way of knowing that you where targeting children, so you can't be responsible. The other party could also easily argue that they put those under 18 in that group to protect their privacy and age.
If you however DO know that these are primarily children and teenagers, then you have to follow the rather strict laws. In Denmark for instance, that means that you cannot encourage purchasing or even advertise certain products. Take the stupid product that is Prime (the drink), health professionals argues that it's harmful to children, but their are also the only ones who really buy it in any meaningful volume. If you knew that you where targeting Prime ads to those under 16 in Denmark, you would be breaking the law.
If advertising companies where to follow the laws online (technically they have to, but tries to avoid it), you could effectively reduce the number of ads you see on social media by stating that you're only 16, because you couldn't be targeted in the same way.
That's not how it works!
I believe one can observe the targeting by only observing the children. I ALSO believe this applies to all children in a social network where X between 1 out of 100 000 & 9 out of 10 have access to sites that are the works of the corporate.
The entirely new mechanics seems to be that most humans' will run on metaphorical stimulants & steroids on the metaphorical Wheel of Status. Humane behaviour (e.g. honor, respect, sincere curiosity) will become subject of learned helplessness. Before the child realizes that their toys are not the real things and the real things may be much more interesting; or before the child realizes they don't need to use the toys to satisfy X desires, they will have learned that status, EG pretty videos of using the toys, gets them what they want EG toys & attention from companies, parents & peers alike.
Regardless—I've observed, to one example, a young girl I know wanting to buy horse toys to make YouTube horse videos with play & interest in horses being a side motive. The adults are proud of her basically being an instrument of marketing. On one hand, making your own video's at young age is of course something to be proud of and encouragement for children sounds healthy.
Yet this behaviour also has no principles outside "status games." Even knowing that girls of young age are particularly prone to socialization & conformity, one can compare this to "cool new toy everyone has" trope to notice that this dark evolution would be closer to "being a popular advertisement like everyone else" which partly the South Park movie Cred portrays aptly.
> My mind would be the source.
In the coming flood of AI slop and faked "scientific" studies I'd say there is no better source. Real science always starts with anecdata of n=1, so trust what you see. And I'll just add; regardless of the truth of your observation, regardless of any supporting work, these kind of observations are worthwhile as discussion in themselves so do investigate more and write about it, please.
FWIW my interest was piqued by your claim that "learned helplessness" eclipses humane interpersonal behaviours.
That sounds hard to evaluate, especially in children, but I think you may be on to something and that ubiquitous AV technology is the cause of a reward "short circuit". Once kids get AI servants that simulate their achievements for them I think child mental health will implode. (which of course is Jonathan Haidt's thesis)
I wonder if that's a valid craving after all, a craving for social contact, sadly a craving being answered not by real life interaction, but by a mobile client hitting some API endpoint called something like /post/{$ID}/reaction/heart , ending on your phone pinging with the notification "$friend liked your post"...
Absolutely. It makes me think about the things in life that don't need "validation".
Maybe it's a cliche but my dad would say about Korea and other wars "no pics, no words, you had to be there". So that was a teenage trope in the 80s and 90s too for my generation, if you were trying to be cool just say "you had to be there". It draws a circle around a personal or group experience that explicitly does not or cannot be shared. I think maybe it somehow earns more respect and interest than a photo, and I think with ubiquitous AI image manipulation the currency of "pics or it didn't happen" and "for the Gram" is going to vanish in a puff of incredulity. Now you can just text-prompt for a picture of you and some celebrity you "randomly met" in front of Buckingham Palace or the Taj Mahal! You can probably rent some bots to "auto-like" you on social media, right? So who is fooling who now?
sounds like a partial retroactive justification to me. sure, you wouldn't get the full experience via a photo or verbal anecdote, but it's not like camera smartphones were ubiquitous in the 80s either.
Oh I'm not "justifying" it, because I don't need to. This isn't that conversation. I'm just remarking on a difference of culture over time for those who are interested. As you say, there were no cellphones back then, so a quite different world.
Very interesting mindset. Thanks for sharing.
No? I didn't think so either.