Probably nothing. Most likely, a paid consultant to give ideas. And if it was a worker, they were just doing their job and at most got a “great job, keep up the good work,” praise email.
Drbreen@sh.itjust.works
on 05 May 02:59
nextcollapse
And tiktok is supposed to be our enemy?
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
on 05 May 03:07
nextcollapse
Big tech is our enemy. It doesn’t matter if it’s facebook or tiktok.
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 May 03:39
nextcollapse
TikTok absolutely does the same kind of thing and worse. Engagement is all that matters. Doesn’t matter what kind, what about, or how that engagement is generated.
Headofthebored@lemmy.world
on 05 May 03:59
collapse
I’m very skeptical that the Chinese government having your data as an American is worse than the American government and corporations (you know, the people with applicable jurisdiction) having it. Seems more likely to me that American interests just weren’t happy about a huge platform of Americans not being under their umbrella of control and censorship. Sure, you could argue that China of course has their own, but the two wouldn’t completely overlap, so there were windows where things could be freely and organically discussed and organized by Americans, without American government and corporate interference. Obviously that couldn’t be allowed to stand.
Drbreen@sh.itjust.works
on 05 May 04:24
nextcollapse
Yes there definitely would be an alterior agenda to the reasons for the push to hate on tiktok data fears. But that’s not to say that people are any safer (data wise) with US big tech.
That’s very nice and cute that you’re skeptical, but they’re literally doing the same thing, except with a goal of weakening America instead generating more money.
Your skepticism doesn’t matter- it’s an attack on you, stop excusing it.
wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
on 05 May 03:07
nextcollapse
Who the fuck comes up with this stuff?
captainjaneway@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 May 03:27
nextcollapse
The most generous assumption is that they use statistics to determine correlations like this (e.g., deleted selfies resulted in a high CTR for beauty ads so they made that a part of their algo). The least generous interpretation is exactly what you’re thinking: an asshole came up with it because it’s logical and effective.
Either way, ethics needs to be a bigger part of the programmers education. And we, as a society, need to make algorithms more transparent (at least social media algorithms). Reddit’s trending algorithm used to be open source during the good ole days.
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
on 05 May 06:38
nextcollapse
The kind of person whose past probably includes more than a few vivisected animals.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
on 05 May 08:29
nextcollapse
People who traded morals for money.
RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
on 05 May 09:09
nextcollapse
This is the sort of thing machine learning algorithms are pretty good at at.
Coupled with however many millions of interactions a day, you would have no problem correlating changes to your algorithm against increases in revenue.
But. It’s often not that impressive. Humans are equally good at noticing patterns.
All it takes is for one person at FB to see their wife or daughter delete a post, ask them “why did you delete that post” and take away from the response of “It made me look fat” to go “there’s a new targeted ad that’ll get me a bonus”.
In a similar vein, 80% of your banks anti-fraud systems isn’t deep learning models that detect fraudulent behaviour. Instead it’s “if the user is based in Russia, add 80 points, and if the account is at a branch in 10km of Heinersdorf Berlin, add another 50…. We’re pretty sure a Russian scammer goes on holiday every 6 months and opens a bunch of accounts there, we just don’t know which ones”.
I’d bet on it being algorithmic from Facebook because leaning into algorithms is part of that company’s culture. A bunch of manual tweaks require maintenance, though it wouldn’t surprise me if someone was thinking about this when deciding that deleted selfie should be a different signal to the algorithm than deleted picture of cat.
grumpasaurusrex@lemmy.world
on 06 May 00:49
collapse
Per Careless People, the recent memoir that this article pulls from & facebook has been trying to kill, this was one of the many unethical advertising schemes that ultimately traces back to Sheryl Sandberg. A woman who didn’t allow her own children to use fb because she knew she was making it a toxic capitalist hellscape.
Thus far, they’d basically be right. Any fines are simply chocked up to “cost of doing business” expenses and since no one wants to either make solid laws against this stuff OR hold them accountable for current ones, they’ll just keep at it.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 May 04:48
collapse
If a law has a fine, it was created to deter poor people.
A fine of €500 for speeding will only really affect poor people, 30 dayfines which value is dictated by the wealth of the individual is a better system.
azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
on 06 May 15:44
collapse
This can be hard to implement and avoidable through “creative accounting” (e.g. living off daddy money with no declared income) so as a hybrid/additional solution fines should turn into penalties over repeat offences.
Some countries use points licensing where your driver’s license will simply be taken away if you have too many recent infractions on record.
Companies should also be prevented from doing certain kinds of business if they repeatedly break the law. We have legal frameworks for this, we are just refusing to apply them due to politics and corruption.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 May 04:15
nextcollapse
they ARE above the law, at least it would seem so.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
on 05 May 06:28
nextcollapse
It’s so much bigger than this. It starts young. iPad kids. Strict gender roles. Sexualization of children. Learning from parents who have been conditioned by capitalism, sexism and more. We got little girls that want skincare products and teens talking about plastic surgery. It’s bad.
Agreed though. Punish people for ruining society. I think I read a while ago that France had required social media posts to flag when images have been altered. We need more laws like this too.
Little8Lost@lemmy.world
on 05 May 05:05
nextcollapse
As little kids we got like no genderbased education from our parents. When we moved our grandmother got a lot more control and dumped blue boyish stuff on my brother and forbid the girly things. Has never worn a dress since and now is still not willing to wear one
(it could be that us older sisters influenced that he wants to wear dresses too)
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
on 05 May 06:28
nextcollapse
I need context to understand your story. How old was your brother when you moved? How often was he wearing dresses before the move? How quickly did it stop? And how old is he now?
And mass sharing of images/videos which has made it so much easier to connect people, specifically in one case I saw today of someone on Telegram sharing child porn. How do you even put the cat back in the box?
People don’t want to hear it, but AI. Used intelligently and responsibly.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 06 May 02:48
nextcollapse
Unfortunately, the “used intelligently and responsibly” part is why people dislike AI - they don’t trust companies or people to use it that way (and for good reason based on the results so far).
Plus, it’s not gonna put everything back into Pandora’s Box. What we’re in is a societal and cultural arms race where AI is just another escalation that’s being used by both sides.
It’s funny you reference Pandora’s Box. I often use it to refer to the growth of AI and people’s resistance towards it. It’s not going anywhere. It’s not slowing down. We gotta make it work for us.
It’s hard to say if it’s one of those things that older gens say is different with newer gens even though it the same. I will say though, the convergence of sexualization of children and infantilization of adults have been narrowing the gap and maybe one is winning over the other.
Ah right, still in the north sea outside of Norway. Recently there was news of Sami villages being bribed to not put up a fuss when a “prominent person” wanted to go heliskiing, then his yacht arrived on site:
chellomere@lemmy.world
on 05 May 06:09
nextcollapse
Translation of article from behind paywall:
“The Facebook CEO’s enormous yacht has been anchored in a Norwegian fjord near the Swedish border.
Now DN can reveal that several Sami villages have been offered compensation for not saying no to a “prominent person” going on a luxury helicopter skiing trip in the mountains.
They wanted to buy our silence, says a representative of a Sami village.
At least three villages were contacted in March by a company that arranges helicopter skiing trips. The Sami villages have been offered compensation, ahead of a very secret group of tourists arriving to ski in the Swedish mountains in April. A Norwegian village team has also received a similar offer.
We understood that it was something special. The organizers were very keen for us to say yes, even though this is before the calving season when the ewes are pregnant and all the reindeer are very fragile after a tough winter, says a representative of a Sami village.
Helicopter skiing in untouched lands, known as heliskiing, has been criticized by reindeer owners for destroying nature and disturbing the reindeer – and the issue has been raised by the Norrbotten County Administrative Board to the government.
According to sources from several Sami villages, the plans for this particular April visit were somewhat out of the ordinary.
The Sami villages, which use helicopters in their reindeer husbandry, were offered six hours of helicopter use by the organizer – which corresponds to around 50,000 kronor.
On April 1, one of the largest private luxury yachts in existence arrived in Bodö, Norway – something that caused a stir in the Norwegian media.
It is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of the Facebook company Meta, who is one of the richest people in the world. He is one of the billionaires who has tried to approach US President Donald Trump by, among other things, donating money.
Zuckerberg’s luxury yacht is called Launchpad, and he bought it last year for $330 million. The boat is almost 120 meters long. There is room on board for 26 guests and 42 crew members.
“Among the distinctive features are a private outdoor owner’s deck with a jacuzzi, two certified helipads, a swimming pool with a moving floor and a spacious beach club,” the manufacturer writes on its website.
Zuckerberg’s smaller “supply ship” Wingman, which was included in the purchase of Launchpad, was also seen in Bodö. Wingman is also equipped with a helipad and helicopter.
Both ships then headed north and last week they arrived in a small coastal village, Drag, in northern Norway, where, according to information to DN, a house has been rented in order to, among other things, be able to cook for the guests from the boat.
There were several helicopters on site and a hell of a lot of people. A big operation, says a source to DN.
It is from there that the controversial extreme sports event is said to have taken place. Helicopters are said to have traveled across the border to Sweden to drop off guests in the Swedish mountains for skiing on the pristine top snow. According to several sources to DN, the yachts’ own helicopters were used. In addition, at least one more from a local entrepreneur.
We see them flying from here every day, a source in the Norwegian Drag told DN this weekend.
A businessman in the area who was asked early on to contribute to the event, tells DN that the plan was for the group to come with a large yacht with its own helicopters and that they hired a Swiss organizer as an intermediary:
It was the crème de la crème, no ordinary millionaires. They wanted a three-star chef up in the mountains and they would fly their own helicopters and bring their own guides. It felt so unnecessary. It didn’t make sense. We said no.
DN has not been able to confirm that Mark Zuckerberg himself was on board any of the ships.
A representative for a company that accepted said to DN before the visit:
– We have a duty of confidentiality when it comes to the customer. But honestly, I don’t know who is going to ski. That it is some prominent person possibly, if they can afford to pay for all that. But I have no idea who or what they are. We sell a flight service. We fly a helicopter – it is a logistical solution for this event.
There has been reluctance from Sami villages that you have been in contact with. What do you say about that?
– The Sami villages are very important customers for us too and we have constant contact with them. It is an ongoing dialogue that takes place continuously all the time.
The company does not want to comment on the fact that the event takes place in connection with the calving period.
One of the villages that has been offered compensation is Unna tjerusj Sami
Well, i’m Swiss and here it’s something most people do once or twice per season. But yeah, plebs from Zucks view: anything than the richest or most powerful people.
jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
on 05 May 04:06
nextcollapse
Saint Luigi deliver us from villains like Facebook
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
on 05 May 06:18
nextcollapse
I’m not sure if it’s possible to build a healthy social network.
Smaller communities can work, if they’re well moderated. The small size also helps norms become established.
Once the network gets really big, you have eternal September problems. You have too many bad actors in absolute numbers to deal with.
So yeah, the problem is us but we suck.
Maybe federation would work, since that can keep the moderation workload smaller and distributed.
misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 May 15:35
collapse
Even though Luigi Mangione didn’t actually commit any crime and his trial is a flimsy sham, I agree. He is the public face of whoever really did it, and they are an icon of justice.
Be aware that the companies would have paid Facebook handsomely to identify users in this way. The world we live in has a sickness with greed for money at its heart.
Teenagers should not be on social media. I rest my case.
andallthat@lemmy.world
on 05 May 08:14
nextcollapse
Not just teenagers. Facebook and quite a few others should outright be banned.
Not only they are scientifically proven to be a mental health catastrophe and a political threat to democracy, it’s also pretty clear now that both these things are part of their design, not bugs or unintended emerging properties.
ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
on 05 May 12:49
collapse
Facebook actively contributed to the genocide in Myanmar, and did basically nothing about it because they didnt want to hire more moderators that spoke the language, so that they could adequately remove pro-genocidal content
slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org
on 05 May 08:49
nextcollapse
No one should
Someone8765210932@lemmy.world
on 05 May 08:51
nextcollapse
Ok, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Arguing like this is kinda pointless.
I don’t think it will be possible to get them off social media (or the internet in general), so you need to find ways to make it work.
E.g. minors can not be advertised to, no algorithmic content, no doom-scrolling, and heightened data protection. I think teenager should get access to as much as possible to reduce the “risk” of them trying to go around it. “Their” version of social media might even be the superior one in the end.
If the world wasn’t on fire at the moment, people could calmly discuss possible solutions and propose laws in every country to actually protect their children from e.g. the stuff mentioned in the linked article. Sadly, this isn’t going to happen …
andallthat@lemmy.world
on 05 May 09:23
nextcollapse
The thing is that social media have an oversized influence that makes a calm discussion of possible solutions very hard to have.
When the US recognized the implications of letting a foreign power exert so much control over their people, they tried banning TikTok, or breaking it up so their US operation would be under US control.
Facebook should also be split and its EU operation purchased by a European company, that could then spend more time implementing the other changes you mention (doom-scrolling, data protection) and less time lobbying to get all these pesky EU regulations removed.
And yes, it does feel heartbreaking to count the US as a threat to national security, but China has never threatened to annex Greenland with military force, so what would have been paranoia and extreme anti-americanism last year is now the sensible, level-headed thing to do.
You can walk into any Walmart in America and buy a cheap smartphone for $30.
This approach is even less effective than “just don’t give them drugs”.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 05 May 13:21
collapse
Ok, but you also need a data plan to go along w/ it (or regular visits to top up; is that still a thing?), plus hide it from parents, or you’re going to have a bad time.
Drugs are a different story. You can often get drugs from friends (free to start), can buy them a little at a time, and you don’t need to stash any at home. For a phone to be useful, it needs to be readily accessible, which means you’ll have it with you everywhere.
It’s possible, but it’s going to take a fair amount of work to hide a phone from a parent who’s paying even a little bit of attention.
The real problem here is parents. Parents need to step up and do a better job. Full stop.
thatonecoder@lemmy.ca
on 05 May 13:37
nextcollapse
Prohibition never works; people will always find other bad — maybe even worse — things to do. The human pressure to have social interactions may lead to creating terrible IRL friendships, ones that can be much more dangerous.
Instead, I would strongly advise for honest, mature conversations about the risks that social media comes along with. This can lead to a highly positive impact, especially if you teach how to observe interactions between people through social media, even if not interacting, yourself.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 05 May 18:57
collapse
Prohibition works… temporarily. If you believe your child is not ready for SM, then prohibiting them from it until they are can work.
So yes, have a mature conversation with your kids, set boundaries, etc. That’s something that should happen between a parent and a child, not between a government and a child.
I actually agree with you, especially in the last sentence. Knowing the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, governments are definitely willing to manipulate children through control of information.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 May 00:33
collapse
Exactly! You may trust your government now, but another group will gain power, laws will change, etc. It’s best to not give your government too much power, especially when it comes to control of information.
Look, maybe it’s true that parents should be doing a better job here. The thing is, that’s an individual solution. This is a systemic problem. How kids (and adults) interact socially and consume media is fundamentally changed over the last thirty years and we’re going to have to find ways to adapt to that as a society.
Yeah, in any particular individual case you can probably come up with a list of things the parent could have done differently. The reality is that this is a problem for tens (hundreds?) of millions of parents.
You can hand wave away any problem that affects children with “parents should do a better job”. It didn’t work for obesity, it didn’t work for child traffic deaths, it didn’t work for fentanyl overdoses, it didn’t work for school shootings, it didn’t work for measles, and it’s not going to work for this either.
I’m just going to copy/paste what I wrote in a previous comment in a similar thread:
Everybody is so quick to blame the parents in these situations. Maybe there is some truth to that, but people also need to reckon with the fact that kids (and adults) are being constantly inundated by Skinner box apps, and “platforms” full of engagement bait designed to be as addictive and attractive as possible. All run by corporations with functionally no regard for the safety of their users.
Yeah, sure, if you’re giving advice to an individual parent, they should probably be keeping a closer eye on what their kids are doing.
But there are systemic problems here that can’t be fixed with individual action. By laying the blame solely at the feet of the parents here, you are in effect putting individual parents up against dozens of huge corporations, each with armies of expert advertisers, designers, and psychologists working to build these products. It’s hardly a fair fight.
raynethackery@lemmy.world
on 05 May 19:34
collapse
You don’t need a data plan if you can access wifi. There is public wifi and I don’t think most parents even know how to check the devices using their home wifi.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 May 00:32
collapse
It’s not hard, and parents can easily change the WiFi password if they don’t know how to check the leases if they suspect something is up.
I’m very much in the camp of no filters and building a relationship on trust, but occasionally verifying if that trust is misplaced.
raynethackery@lemmy.world
on 06 May 03:40
collapse
I’m a GenX that works with IT. I can tell you that none of my coworkers that are the same generation would know how to do any of that.
I agree that parents should be more involved with their children, but when do we hold a company responsible for the harm it causes?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 06 May 03:54
collapse
If they are knowingly doing something that can cause harm and not properly warning users of it, then they should be held accountable. However, users shouldn’t be prevented from using a service just because a government agency doesn’t like it. That’s a delicate balance that preserves individual freedom to choose while still providing some reasonable amount of protection.
One critical piece here is requiring companies to safeguard any data they collect, not allow them to sell/make it available to other entities w/o express permission and fair compensation, and to remove any data they have collected upon request. That alone helps mitigate the worst of it.
That's a fallacy. Teenagers are the victims here. So I'm obviously blaming greedy corporations, lack of good parenting and proper regulation from authorities.
So teens should be allowed to go anywhere adults make it dangerous because it’s the adults’ faults? I hope you don’t have kids.
misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 May 15:32
collapse
You will all make fine parents if you choose. Just slapping in some positivity and love here lol.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
on 05 May 15:02
nextcollapse
Humans should not be on social media.
Fixed.
misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 May 15:28
nextcollapse
They shouldn’t, but also PSA to any parents but modern parenting advice typically is to let your kids use social media if they choose, and guide them through the social and emotional difficulties with good communication. Don’t blanket ban it because they’ll just use it anyways without guidance, and be unprepared the moment they turn 18.
It’s a case of: 99.9% of kids are smoking cigarettes so yours will too. Better to show them how to use a weekly cigar without inhaling, than just ban it which won’t work.
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
on 05 May 19:15
nextcollapse
I hearby petition an amendment for an expansion of the child protective laws to widen the definition of abuse, neglect, and reckless abandonment of children to include:
I wish I could ban old people from it as well because when their mental processing ability declines, so does their ability to detect bullshit news from bots
hopesdead@startrek.website
on 05 May 06:44
nextcollapse
This type of advertising isn’t new. There is that famous (although the claims from the father have been questioned) New York Times article written by Charles Duhigg in 2012. A father of a teenage girl in Minnesota got upset for receiving coupons from Target for infant care related products. As the story goes, he later learned his daughter was in fact pregnant. It turns out Target was using some predictive algorithm to identify would-be mothers and straight up sending them coupons for infant care products. It seems ever since this article was published that they stopped doing this in such a direct manner. Again, there have people who questioned the validity of the claims for this specific story, but Target did confirm they were doing this.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works
on 05 May 07:44
nextcollapse
I think I read somewhere that that was apocryphal, but it strikes me as 100% plausible. It doesn’t even have to be a matter of “write a system that detects pregnant women via their purchase history and send them coupons for maternity stuff” I think Amazon’s Frequently Bought Together feature could get it done. The same algorithm that suggests a tacklebox and some lures when you have a fishing pole in your shopping cart might recommend diapers and formula to those who buy maternity pants.
My doctor’s office (allegedly) handed my info to a plastic surgery clinic so they could send me a “happy 40th birthday, now fix your sagging bullshit!”-email the literal day I turned 40.
Needless to say that put a damper on things.
People have been doing evil shit for money since the invention of money. These days it’s just automated.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com
on 05 May 11:36
nextcollapse
I’d call my former Dr’s office and flip my shit. Them giving out your info may have been a HIPAA violation. You should really follow up and harass the fuck out of them.
RedPostItNote@lemmy.world
on 05 May 14:00
collapse
Uh that’s new doctor time
Astertheprince@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 May 07:06
nextcollapse
I’m so glad I quit Facebook long ago and also started using uBlock Origin.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 May 07:16
nextcollapse
Happy I got AdNauseam after uBlock Origin. Deleted my facebook a year ago, shit is an AI slopfest built upon the greed and manipulation of every part of the chain. Defcon 31 has a good talk that brings this up. “Disenshittify or die” by Cory Doctrow, cann recommend to watch.
I support the use of AdNauseam. Not sure if there are any more extreme alternatives, I now choose to be actively hostile towards advertising/tracking rather than just passively blocking it.
My dad has been talking about wanting something like AdNauseam for years, i was very happy when i found it. The extra mile would probably be to expand it with a VPN and constantly spam clicks, clear cache, switch IP and obfuscate data. Now we just wait for someone with enough time to build it…
18_24_61_b_17_17_4@lemmy.world
on 05 May 19:28
nextcollapse
I stopped using mainstream social media in 2019 but my accounts are still active so I can snoop on random people I went to college with and holy shit every time I get on Facebook it’s so much worse on ways I don’t even understand. Most recently I got on to look at something and my feed was completely unrecognizable because it was all AI generated slop from pages I have never heard of and not any updates from people I know. It’s crazy what people will accept if it’s done slowly enough I guess. I legitimately don’t understand why anyone would use Facebook as it exists today. At least when I quit I could at least understand why people used it.
Goddam I had to read that headline 3 times before I understood the implication!
That is outright disgusting, and such practices ought to be outlawed.
Or as Trump would say, very cool and very legal way to make money.
Facebook… now even more toxic than previously known!
cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 May 14:32
nextcollapse
can’t believe a social network started by incels in college to rate girls sexually would do something like this.
TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
on 05 May 15:12
nextcollapse
even a scathing rant about surveillance capitalism becomes fodder for the machine, as you can clearly see with the ads on this page.
Ads? I can see no ads…
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
on 05 May 18:22
nextcollapse
lol, Jesus. It is like what a screen writer would come up with for a movie that contained a terrible company run by terrible people doing stuff so outlandishly terrible everyone watching would think “the absurdity of the terrible is how you know it is made up”.
raynethackery@lemmy.world
on 05 May 19:28
nextcollapse
Advertising targeted towards minors needs to be banned.
Oh they had roadside billboards in 1950. And they were a blight back then. Advertising is a cancer.
RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
on 06 May 13:50
collapse
Extremism is cancer.
Snowclone@lemmy.world
on 05 May 20:39
nextcollapse
No, it’s… it’s pretty bad.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 May 20:46
nextcollapse
Some level of advertising is a necessary evil when you’re in a capitalist system because otherwise people have no way to get their products out ti the market. There’s a balance to be struck.
Hell even in other systems advertising is still important for finding out about cool new things even if money no longer exists
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
on 05 May 20:50
nextcollapse
If money doesn’t exist how do you pay for the ads?
I know one example of advertising that I liked: the creators of Penny Arcade had only advertisements for computer games that they liked. And they made those ads in the same art style as their own comic.
Advertisements are good when they’re an honest endorsement. Any others are inherently deceptive and often invasive.
markovs_gun@lemmy.world
on 06 May 09:34
nextcollapse
This is one of those bizarre Lemmy echo chamber things. I’ve never seen this sentiment that advertising is evil and should be stopped at all costs anywhere else but on Lemmy it’s super common. Idk where it comes from. I get that advertising kind of sucks but it just seems like a weird thing to get so passionate about especially considering how many other things are wrong with the world. Sorry you’re getting downvoted to hell, you’re not crazy, Lemmy is.
RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
on 06 May 12:10
nextcollapse
fake Internet points don’t matter to me my words stand by themselves
This has been a huge public viewpoint for decades. I think it was Banksy who had the quote about if you force me to view your ad by putting it in a public space then it is mine to do with a I please.
Businesses have to survive, but advertising is insidious and invasive. Could it be regulated? Sure.
That famous Bansky quote is older than Lemmy and is posted all over the Internet. There are cities around that ban all advertisements. There are movements for a ban on ads in public spaces in many cities all around the world. That really has nothing to do with Lemmy
It’s the state of advertising tbh. If ads were still of the “Look, here’s a cool product” variety, or even the “Look, here’s people happily using a cool product” kind then the world would probably be a better place. Even targeting isn’t so bad, when it’s broad like “We want businesses to know about our B2B product.”
The evil in modern advertising is the overly specific targeting, the lying, the psychological tricks, and the way they seem to invade every possible space.
RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
on 06 May 15:31
nextcollapse
And I genuinely loved all that stuff as a kid, usually liking the ad (e.g., TMNT cartoon) more than the toys (e.g., TMNT action figures).
As your typical Lemmy user who loves Linux and hates advertisements, I sometimes have to remind myself about that when my son is watching today’s dumb kid shows. Teaching him about the systems in play rather than isolating him from it has been working well IMO.
The bonus is that he doesn’t watch full-on advertisements and commercial breaks like we were forced to in the 80s when it was live TV or no TV.
The bonus is that he doesn’t watch full-on advertisements and commercial breaks like we were forced to in the 80s when it was live TV or no TV.
I think the problem for modern youth is that there’s no way to tell what’s an ad anymore. Scrolling through TikTok or any social media will show you tons of advertisements which are not marked as advertisements.
The mainstream internet is driven by advertising. At least when I was a kid we could step out during the commercial breaks.
I think the problem for modern youth is that there’s no way to tell what’s an ad anymore.
Too true. Fortunately my kid is too young for full blown social media, so I have a few more years to keep teaching him.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
on 05 May 19:42
nextcollapse
Centralized social media is an advertisement platform that targets advertisements according to information & conduct users feed the platform, and some of those users are teenagers?
They’re advertising cosmetics to teenagers unlike ever before in the history of teen-centric media?
It’s mot that we hate teenage girls (and women) so much. It’s just money. Soulless, apathetic money making.
A teenager is in a vulnerable state. Some more than others. But self esteem, self worth, and existentialism are things that a teenager as, at the very least, a brush with.
An emotionally vulnerable person is more open to suggestion. Religion does this a lot. Advertising is no different.
A study published in a medical journal showed that Facebook (primarily) along with other social media was responsible for the rise in teenage suicide in girls. Let that sink in.
threaded - newest
Wonder how much of a bonus the sick fuck who pitched that got for the idea?
Probably nothing. Most likely, a paid consultant to give ideas. And if it was a worker, they were just doing their job and at most got a “great job, keep up the good work,” praise email.
And tiktok is supposed to be our enemy?
Big tech is our enemy. It doesn’t matter if it’s facebook or tiktok.
I agree!
Both can be enemies.
I agree. I’m addressing the obvious hypocrisy of big tech
both ARE enemies.
Por que no los dos?
TikTok absolutely does the same kind of thing and worse. Engagement is all that matters. Doesn’t matter what kind, what about, or how that engagement is generated.
I’m very skeptical that the Chinese government having your data as an American is worse than the American government and corporations (you know, the people with applicable jurisdiction) having it. Seems more likely to me that American interests just weren’t happy about a huge platform of Americans not being under their umbrella of control and censorship. Sure, you could argue that China of course has their own, but the two wouldn’t completely overlap, so there were windows where things could be freely and organically discussed and organized by Americans, without American government and corporate interference. Obviously that couldn’t be allowed to stand.
Yes there definitely would be an alterior agenda to the reasons for the push to hate on tiktok data fears. But that’s not to say that people are any safer (data wise) with US big tech.
That’s very nice and cute that you’re skeptical, but they’re literally doing the same thing, except with a goal of weakening America instead generating more money.
Your skepticism doesn’t matter- it’s an attack on you, stop excusing it.
Who the fuck comes up with this stuff?
The most generous assumption is that they use statistics to determine correlations like this (e.g., deleted selfies resulted in a high CTR for beauty ads so they made that a part of their algo). The least generous interpretation is exactly what you’re thinking: an asshole came up with it because it’s logical and effective.
Either way, ethics needs to be a bigger part of the programmers education. And we, as a society, need to make algorithms more transparent (at least social media algorithms). Reddit’s trending algorithm used to be open source during the good ole days.
Can you make the algorithm open source that determined it was ok for you to murder Tuvix tho
if (ugly) { kill_child(child_name); } else { ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) }JANEWAY DID WHAT SHE HAD TO DO
The kind of person whose past probably includes more than a few vivisected animals.
People who traded morals for money.
This is the sort of thing machine learning algorithms are pretty good at at.
Coupled with however many millions of interactions a day, you would have no problem correlating changes to your algorithm against increases in revenue.
But. It’s often not that impressive. Humans are equally good at noticing patterns.
All it takes is for one person at FB to see their wife or daughter delete a post, ask them “why did you delete that post” and take away from the response of “It made me look fat” to go “there’s a new targeted ad that’ll get me a bonus”.
In a similar vein, 80% of your banks anti-fraud systems isn’t deep learning models that detect fraudulent behaviour. Instead it’s “if the user is based in Russia, add 80 points, and if the account is at a branch in 10km of Heinersdorf Berlin, add another 50…. We’re pretty sure a Russian scammer goes on holiday every 6 months and opens a bunch of accounts there, we just don’t know which ones”.
I’d bet on it being algorithmic from Facebook because leaning into algorithms is part of that company’s culture. A bunch of manual tweaks require maintenance, though it wouldn’t surprise me if someone was thinking about this when deciding that deleted selfie should be a different signal to the algorithm than deleted picture of cat.
Per Careless People, the recent memoir that this article pulls from & facebook has been trying to kill, this was one of the many unethical advertising schemes that ultimately traces back to Sheryl Sandberg. A woman who didn’t allow her own children to use fb because she knew she was making it a toxic capitalist hellscape.
At some point we need to start criminalizing shit like this and actually holding people accountable.
💯 Big tech companies think they’re above the law.
Thus far, they’d basically be right. Any fines are simply chocked up to “cost of doing business” expenses and since no one wants to either make solid laws against this stuff OR hold them accountable for current ones, they’ll just keep at it.
If a law has a fine, it was created to deter poor people.
That depends on if it is a dayfine or not.
A fine of €500 for speeding will only really affect poor people, 30 dayfines which value is dictated by the wealth of the individual is a better system.
This can be hard to implement and avoidable through “creative accounting” (e.g. living off daddy money with no declared income) so as a hybrid/additional solution fines should turn into penalties over repeat offences.
Some countries use points licensing where your driver’s license will simply be taken away if you have too many recent infractions on record.
Companies should also be prevented from doing certain kinds of business if they repeatedly break the law. We have legal frameworks for this, we are just refusing to apply them due to politics and corruption.
they ARE above the law, at least it would seem so.
History has shown that they are.
.
Oh you mean fines? Sure here’s some money $$.
Meanwhile AD rev is $$$$$. Just the cost of doing business!
Hahahaa
It’s so much bigger than this. It starts young. iPad kids. Strict gender roles. Sexualization of children. Learning from parents who have been conditioned by capitalism, sexism and more. We got little girls that want skincare products and teens talking about plastic surgery. It’s bad.
Agreed though. Punish people for ruining society. I think I read a while ago that France had required social media posts to flag when images have been altered. We need more laws like this too.
As little kids we got like no genderbased education from our parents. When we moved our grandmother got a lot more control and dumped blue boyish stuff on my brother and forbid the girly things. Has never worn a dress since and now is still not willing to wear one
(it could be that us older sisters influenced that he wants to wear dresses too)
I need context to understand your story. How old was your brother when you moved? How often was he wearing dresses before the move? How quickly did it stop? And how old is he now?
Bummer. Happens to almost all men in the US. Maybe less now, but this new red pill generation is wild.
And mass sharing of images/videos which has made it so much easier to connect people, specifically in one case I saw today of someone on Telegram sharing child porn. How do you even put the cat back in the box?
People don’t want to hear it, but AI. Used intelligently and responsibly.
Unfortunately, the “used intelligently and responsibly” part is why people dislike AI - they don’t trust companies or people to use it that way (and for good reason based on the results so far).
Plus, it’s not gonna put everything back into Pandora’s Box. What we’re in is a societal and cultural arms race where AI is just another escalation that’s being used by both sides.
It’s funny you reference Pandora’s Box. I often use it to refer to the growth of AI and people’s resistance towards it. It’s not going anywhere. It’s not slowing down. We gotta make it work for us.
That does make sense, although I’m not sure we can trust it to work like that.
How did you see it
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/cac304c0-d3ec-4b22-9405-733ebca4d326.webp">
.
It’s hard to say if it’s one of those things that older gens say is different with newer gens even though it the same. I will say though, the convergence of sexualization of children and infantilization of adults have been narrowing the gap and maybe one is winning over the other.
It has always been this way. When you get old, 15 year olds and 19 year olds start to all look the same.
Similarly, to teenagers a 40 year old and a 60 year old look the same. Old.
Zuckerberg’s $330 million mega yacht may be tracked here: https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9857511
<img alt="" src="https://media1.tenor.com/m/QgIYHDiMR4EAAAAd/rocket-shi-rocket-bomb.gif">
My thoughts exactly.
Ah right, still in the north sea outside of Norway. Recently there was news of Sami villages being bribed to not put up a fuss when a “prominent person” wanted to go heliskiing, then his yacht arrived on site:
dn.se/…/samebyar-erbjods-ersattning-sedan-anlande…
Translation of article from behind paywall:
“The Facebook CEO’s enormous yacht has been anchored in a Norwegian fjord near the Swedish border.
Now DN can reveal that several Sami villages have been offered compensation for not saying no to a “prominent person” going on a luxury helicopter skiing trip in the mountains.
At least three villages were contacted in March by a company that arranges helicopter skiing trips. The Sami villages have been offered compensation, ahead of a very secret group of tourists arriving to ski in the Swedish mountains in April. A Norwegian village team has also received a similar offer.
Helicopter skiing in untouched lands, known as heliskiing, has been criticized by reindeer owners for destroying nature and disturbing the reindeer – and the issue has been raised by the Norrbotten County Administrative Board to the government.
According to sources from several Sami villages, the plans for this particular April visit were somewhat out of the ordinary.
The Sami villages, which use helicopters in their reindeer husbandry, were offered six hours of helicopter use by the organizer – which corresponds to around 50,000 kronor.
On April 1, one of the largest private luxury yachts in existence arrived in Bodö, Norway – something that caused a stir in the Norwegian media.
It is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of the Facebook company Meta, who is one of the richest people in the world. He is one of the billionaires who has tried to approach US President Donald Trump by, among other things, donating money.
Zuckerberg’s luxury yacht is called Launchpad, and he bought it last year for $330 million. The boat is almost 120 meters long. There is room on board for 26 guests and 42 crew members.
“Among the distinctive features are a private outdoor owner’s deck with a jacuzzi, two certified helipads, a swimming pool with a moving floor and a spacious beach club,” the manufacturer writes on its website.
Zuckerberg’s smaller “supply ship” Wingman, which was included in the purchase of Launchpad, was also seen in Bodö. Wingman is also equipped with a helipad and helicopter.
Both ships then headed north and last week they arrived in a small coastal village, Drag, in northern Norway, where, according to information to DN, a house has been rented in order to, among other things, be able to cook for the guests from the boat.
It is from there that the controversial extreme sports event is said to have taken place. Helicopters are said to have traveled across the border to Sweden to drop off guests in the Swedish mountains for skiing on the pristine top snow. According to several sources to DN, the yachts’ own helicopters were used. In addition, at least one more from a local entrepreneur.
A businessman in the area who was asked early on to contribute to the event, tells DN that the plan was for the group to come with a large yacht with its own helicopters and that they hired a Swiss organizer as an intermediary:
DN has not been able to confirm that Mark Zuckerberg himself was on board any of the ships.
A representative for a company that accepted said to DN before the visit:
– We have a duty of confidentiality when it comes to the customer. But honestly, I don’t know who is going to ski. That it is some prominent person possibly, if they can afford to pay for all that. But I have no idea who or what they are. We sell a flight service. We fly a helicopter – it is a logistical solution for this event.
There has been reluctance from Sami villages that you have been in contact with. What do you say about that?
– The Sami villages are very important customers for us too and we have constant contact with them. It is an ongoing dialogue that takes place continuously all the time.
The company does not want to comment on the fact that the event takes place in connection with the calving period.
One of the villages that has been offered compensation is Unna tjerusj Sami
Can’t go skiing with the plebs, no.
"Plebs" go skiing 👀
Well, i’m Swiss and here it’s something most people do once or twice per season. But yeah, plebs from Zucks view: anything than the richest or most powerful people.
Saint Luigi deliver us from villains like Facebook
Praise the king!
As if there would be no social networking without Zuckerberg.
Like any sin, the change starts with us. If we want a healthy social network, we can build a healthy social network.
Tom from Myspace never treated us like this.
If I could go back in time to the moment when ARPANET was created and show them what it would become, I would also beg them to stop their efforts.
“You will create the thing that will destroy us.”
I’m not sure if it’s possible to build a healthy social network.
Smaller communities can work, if they’re well moderated. The small size also helps norms become established.
Once the network gets really big, you have eternal September problems. You have too many bad actors in absolute numbers to deal with.
So yeah, the problem is us but we suck.
Maybe federation would work, since that can keep the moderation workload smaller and distributed.
Even though Luigi Mangione didn’t actually commit any crime and his trial is a flimsy sham, I agree. He is the public face of whoever really did it, and they are an icon of justice.
How did they come up with this idea? Did the algorithm suggest this pattern, or did someone in marketing come up with it?
Fucking hell. That is vile!
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
Be aware that the companies would have paid Facebook handsomely to identify users in this way. The world we live in has a sickness with greed for money at its heart.
Teenagers should not be on social media. I rest my case.
Not just teenagers. Facebook and quite a few others should outright be banned. Not only they are scientifically proven to be a mental health catastrophe and a political threat to democracy, it’s also pretty clear now that both these things are part of their design, not bugs or unintended emerging properties.
Facebook actively contributed to the genocide in Myanmar, and did basically nothing about it because they didnt want to hire more moderators that spoke the language, so that they could adequately remove pro-genocidal content
No one should
Ok, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Arguing like this is kinda pointless.
I don’t think it will be possible to get them off social media (or the internet in general), so you need to find ways to make it work.
E.g. minors can not be advertised to, no algorithmic content, no doom-scrolling, and heightened data protection. I think teenager should get access to as much as possible to reduce the “risk” of them trying to go around it. “Their” version of social media might even be the superior one in the end.
If the world wasn’t on fire at the moment, people could calmly discuss possible solutions and propose laws in every country to actually protect their children from e.g. the stuff mentioned in the linked article. Sadly, this isn’t going to happen …
The thing is that social media have an oversized influence that makes a calm discussion of possible solutions very hard to have. When the US recognized the implications of letting a foreign power exert so much control over their people, they tried banning TikTok, or breaking it up so their US operation would be under US control.
Facebook should also be split and its EU operation purchased by a European company, that could then spend more time implementing the other changes you mention (doom-scrolling, data protection) and less time lobbying to get all these pesky EU regulations removed.
And yes, it does feel heartbreaking to count the US as a threat to national security, but China has never threatened to annex Greenland with military force, so what would have been paranoia and extreme anti-americanism last year is now the sensible, level-headed thing to do.
How isn’t it possible? Just don’t give them phones, it’s not that complicated
You can walk into any Walmart in America and buy a cheap smartphone for $30.
This approach is even less effective than “just don’t give them drugs”.
Ok, but you also need a data plan to go along w/ it (or regular visits to top up; is that still a thing?), plus hide it from parents, or you’re going to have a bad time.
Drugs are a different story. You can often get drugs from friends (free to start), can buy them a little at a time, and you don’t need to stash any at home. For a phone to be useful, it needs to be readily accessible, which means you’ll have it with you everywhere.
It’s possible, but it’s going to take a fair amount of work to hide a phone from a parent who’s paying even a little bit of attention.
The real problem here is parents. Parents need to step up and do a better job. Full stop.
Prohibition never works; people will always find other bad — maybe even worse — things to do. The human pressure to have social interactions may lead to creating terrible IRL friendships, ones that can be much more dangerous.
Instead, I would strongly advise for honest, mature conversations about the risks that social media comes along with. This can lead to a highly positive impact, especially if you teach how to observe interactions between people through social media, even if not interacting, yourself.
Prohibition works… temporarily. If you believe your child is not ready for SM, then prohibiting them from it until they are can work.
So yes, have a mature conversation with your kids, set boundaries, etc. That’s something that should happen between a parent and a child, not between a government and a child.
I actually agree with you, especially in the last sentence. Knowing the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, governments are definitely willing to manipulate children through control of information.
Exactly! You may trust your government now, but another group will gain power, laws will change, etc. It’s best to not give your government too much power, especially when it comes to control of information.
Look, maybe it’s true that parents should be doing a better job here. The thing is, that’s an individual solution. This is a systemic problem. How kids (and adults) interact socially and consume media is fundamentally changed over the last thirty years and we’re going to have to find ways to adapt to that as a society.
Yeah, in any particular individual case you can probably come up with a list of things the parent could have done differently. The reality is that this is a problem for tens (hundreds?) of millions of parents.
You can hand wave away any problem that affects children with “parents should do a better job”. It didn’t work for obesity, it didn’t work for child traffic deaths, it didn’t work for fentanyl overdoses, it didn’t work for school shootings, it didn’t work for measles, and it’s not going to work for this either.
I’m just going to copy/paste what I wrote in a previous comment in a similar thread:
You don’t need a data plan if you can access wifi. There is public wifi and I don’t think most parents even know how to check the devices using their home wifi.
It’s not hard, and parents can easily change the WiFi password if they don’t know how to check the leases if they suspect something is up.
I’m very much in the camp of no filters and building a relationship on trust, but occasionally verifying if that trust is misplaced.
I’m a GenX that works with IT. I can tell you that none of my coworkers that are the same generation would know how to do any of that.
I agree that parents should be more involved with their children, but when do we hold a company responsible for the harm it causes?
If they are knowingly doing something that can cause harm and not properly warning users of it, then they should be held accountable. However, users shouldn’t be prevented from using a service just because a government agency doesn’t like it. That’s a delicate balance that preserves individual freedom to choose while still providing some reasonable amount of protection.
One critical piece here is requiring companies to safeguard any data they collect, not allow them to sell/make it available to other entities w/o express permission and fair compensation, and to remove any data they have collected upon request. That alone helps mitigate the worst of it.
Ok, when was the last time you saw a working payphone? 2010? It isn’t safe for teens to not have a phone because payphones don’t exist any more.
Ya!
Important to keep a semi-reasonable option in the major app stores, unless we want Social-Media-Tor dot Mirror or something to become the new hotness
That’s sounds like blaming teens for the actions of the adults behind Facebook.
That's a fallacy. Teenagers are the victims here. So I'm obviously blaming greedy corporations, lack of good parenting and proper regulation from authorities.
So teens should be allowed to go anywhere adults make it dangerous because it’s the adults’ faults? I hope you don’t have kids.
You will all make fine parents if you choose. Just slapping in some positivity and love here lol.
Fixed.
They shouldn’t, but also PSA to any parents but modern parenting advice typically is to let your kids use social media if they choose, and guide them through the social and emotional difficulties with good communication. Don’t blanket ban it because they’ll just use it anyways without guidance, and be unprepared the moment they turn 18.
It’s a case of: 99.9% of kids are smoking cigarettes so yours will too. Better to show them how to use a weekly cigar without inhaling, than just ban it which won’t work.
I hearby petition an amendment for an expansion of the child protective laws to widen the definition of abuse, neglect, and reckless abandonment of children to include:
“letting children browse without ad blockers”
I wish I could ban old people from it as well because when their mental processing ability declines, so does their ability to detect bullshit news from bots
This type of advertising isn’t new. There is that famous (although the claims from the father have been questioned) New York Times article written by Charles Duhigg in 2012. A father of a teenage girl in Minnesota got upset for receiving coupons from Target for infant care related products. As the story goes, he later learned his daughter was in fact pregnant. It turns out Target was using some predictive algorithm to identify would-be mothers and straight up sending them coupons for infant care products. It seems ever since this article was published that they stopped doing this in such a direct manner. Again, there have people who questioned the validity of the claims for this specific story, but Target did confirm they were doing this.
I think I read somewhere that that was apocryphal, but it strikes me as 100% plausible. It doesn’t even have to be a matter of “write a system that detects pregnant women via their purchase history and send them coupons for maternity stuff” I think Amazon’s Frequently Bought Together feature could get it done. The same algorithm that suggests a tacklebox and some lures when you have a fishing pole in your shopping cart might recommend diapers and formula to those who buy maternity pants.
My doctor’s office (allegedly) handed my info to a plastic surgery clinic so they could send me a “happy 40th birthday, now fix your sagging bullshit!”-email the literal day I turned 40.
Needless to say that put a damper on things.
People have been doing evil shit for money since the invention of money. These days it’s just automated.
Don’t normalize this
I’d call my former Dr’s office and flip my shit. Them giving out your info may have been a HIPAA violation. You should really follow up and harass the fuck out of them.
Uh that’s new doctor time
I’m so glad I quit Facebook long ago and also started using uBlock Origin.
That’s some cartoon villain level shit jfc
Happy I got AdNauseam after uBlock Origin. Deleted my facebook a year ago, shit is an AI slopfest built upon the greed and manipulation of every part of the chain. Defcon 31 has a good talk that brings this up. “Disenshittify or die” by Cory Doctrow, cann recommend to watch.
I support the use of AdNauseam. Not sure if there are any more extreme alternatives, I now choose to be actively hostile towards advertising/tracking rather than just passively blocking it.
My dad has been talking about wanting something like AdNauseam for years, i was very happy when i found it. The extra mile would probably be to expand it with a VPN and constantly spam clicks, clear cache, switch IP and obfuscate data. Now we just wait for someone with enough time to build it…
What’s AdNauseam?
I stopped using mainstream social media in 2019 but my accounts are still active so I can snoop on random people I went to college with and holy shit every time I get on Facebook it’s so much worse on ways I don’t even understand. Most recently I got on to look at something and my feed was completely unrecognizable because it was all AI generated slop from pages I have never heard of and not any updates from people I know. It’s crazy what people will accept if it’s done slowly enough I guess. I legitimately don’t understand why anyone would use Facebook as it exists today. At least when I quit I could at least understand why people used it.
Goddam I had to read that headline 3 times before I understood the implication!
That is outright disgusting, and such practices ought to be outlawed.
Or as Trump would say, very cool and very legal way to make money.
TIL teen girls still used Facebook.
Instagram too according to the article.
I get Instagram (lots of creative types there), Facebook is a bit surprising though.
Instagram is considered for old folks now???
Where were you for the last decade? I’d think tiktok is starting to wind down by now, but me and my shaking stick wouldn’t know that.
Not on Instagram and not keeping up with what preteens do, that’s for sure.
Just visited a university. Tour guide said they used Instagram, discord, slack in that order.
That’s 0% surprising. FB had always been about making girls feel bad. It’s in its sorce code
Facebook started as a Hot or Not website. Fucking creepy.
YouTube also started because the founders wanted to see the Janet Jackson nipple slip. (Which fuck them for that.)
Ya FB is,was and will forever be bad for society and woman especially
I mean,do you really think jackson didn’t want people to see
Ya FB is,was and will forever be bad for society and woman especially
I mean,do you really think janet jackson didn’t want people to see?
No, I don’t.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7c1e9883-e604-44dd-8f89-8052cb4f8522.jpeg">
It’s interesting how Justin Timberlake had a career after that incident; when was the last time anyone’s heard from Janet Jackson?
I don’t see how this is different from revenge porn.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/221f7ff1-8221-4ce9-8d6a-dfeb32b09d17.jpeg">
It was 100% planned, come on man open your mind
Wow, this seems like a lifetime ago…
Facebook… now even more toxic than previously known!
can’t believe a social network started by incels in college to rate girls sexually would do something like this.
Ads? I can see no ads…
lol, Jesus. It is like what a screen writer would come up with for a movie that contained a terrible company run by terrible people doing stuff so outlandishly terrible everyone watching would think “the absurdity of the terrible is how you know it is made up”.
Advertising targeted towards minors needs to be banned.
Advertising itself isn’t a bad thing.
They can put up signs inside their business windows. That’s plenty. Everything is a blight.
It’s not 1950 anymore.
Oh they had roadside billboards in 1950. And they were a blight back then. Advertising is a cancer.
Extremism is cancer.
No, it’s… it’s pretty bad.
Some level of advertising is a necessary evil when you’re in a capitalist system because otherwise people have no way to get their products out ti the market. There’s a balance to be struck.
Hell even in other systems advertising is still important for finding out about cool new things even if money no longer exists
If money doesn’t exist how do you pay for the ads?
Word of mouth is the most powerful type of advertisement that no one is against.
I know one example of advertising that I liked: the creators of Penny Arcade had only advertisements for computer games that they liked. And they made those ads in the same art style as their own comic.
Advertisements are good when they’re an honest endorsement. Any others are inherently deceptive and often invasive.
extremely incorrect buzzer sound
This is one of those bizarre Lemmy echo chamber things. I’ve never seen this sentiment that advertising is evil and should be stopped at all costs anywhere else but on Lemmy it’s super common. Idk where it comes from. I get that advertising kind of sucks but it just seems like a weird thing to get so passionate about especially considering how many other things are wrong with the world. Sorry you’re getting downvoted to hell, you’re not crazy, Lemmy is.
fake Internet points don’t matter to me my words stand by themselves
This has been a huge public viewpoint for decades. I think it was Banksy who had the quote about if you force me to view your ad by putting it in a public space then it is mine to do with a I please.
Businesses have to survive, but advertising is insidious and invasive. Could it be regulated? Sure.
That famous Bansky quote is older than Lemmy and is posted all over the Internet. There are cities around that ban all advertisements. There are movements for a ban on ads in public spaces in many cities all around the world. That really has nothing to do with Lemmy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3msdIczCtjA
For anyone that is downvoting this. Go ahead and try to run a business without advertising, let me know how that works out for you.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3msdIczCtjA
It’s the state of advertising tbh. If ads were still of the “Look, here’s a cool product” variety, or even the “Look, here’s people happily using a cool product” kind then the world would probably be a better place. Even targeting isn’t so bad, when it’s broad like “We want businesses to know about our B2B product.”
The evil in modern advertising is the overly specific targeting, the lying, the psychological tricks, and the way they seem to invade every possible space.
This I agree with
Psych tricks were there since Bernays "torches of freedom" to sucker women into nicotine addiction like the men.
All ads suck, but ads based on user rather than content go too far.
As with basically everything bad in the US, it’s another reminder that Reagan was a human shitstain.
Your classic 80s cartoons were toy commercials. Candy, toys, cereals started being marketed directly to children.
And I genuinely loved all that stuff as a kid, usually liking the ad (e.g., TMNT cartoon) more than the toys (e.g., TMNT action figures).
As your typical Lemmy user who loves Linux and hates advertisements, I sometimes have to remind myself about that when my son is watching today’s dumb kid shows. Teaching him about the systems in play rather than isolating him from it has been working well IMO.
The bonus is that he doesn’t watch full-on advertisements and commercial breaks like we were forced to in the 80s when it was live TV or no TV.
I think the problem for modern youth is that there’s no way to tell what’s an ad anymore. Scrolling through TikTok or any social media will show you tons of advertisements which are not marked as advertisements.
The mainstream internet is driven by advertising. At least when I was a kid we could step out during the commercial breaks.
Too true. Fortunately my kid is too young for full blown social media, so I have a few more years to keep teaching him.
Centralized social media is an advertisement platform that targets advertisements according to information & conduct users feed the platform, and some of those users are teenagers?
They’re advertising cosmetics to teenagers unlike ever before in the history of teen-centric media?
The book is very good. Reading it now. The writer starts off with a great story about a shark attack.
Did he choose electrocution over the shark attack?
This kind of shit should not be tolerated.
Just evil but you’ll never see anyone punished for it.
Based and marketing pilled
4chan is back online just so you know
Dystopian as fuck
Why do we as a species hate teenage girls so much?
We don’t hate them, it’s just that capitalism has found them to be an easy and vulnerable target for manipulation.
Capitalism can feed by double the negative emotions on them easily.
It’s mot that we hate teenage girls (and women) so much. It’s just money. Soulless, apathetic money making.
A teenager is in a vulnerable state. Some more than others. But self esteem, self worth, and existentialism are things that a teenager as, at the very least, a brush with.
An emotionally vulnerable person is more open to suggestion. Religion does this a lot. Advertising is no different.
Gross
Remember: someone went out of their way and put effort into programming this.
An entire team.
A study published in a medical journal showed that Facebook (primarily) along with other social media was responsible for the rise in teenage suicide in girls. Let that sink in.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6791504/
Added to idcaboutprivacy (which is open source). If there are any other similar links, feel free to add them or send them my way.