This reads like a tragic story. Once you've collected enough data on every internet user out there to group them into different advertising cohorts, the remaining ungrouped users, by process of elimination (due to privacy or targeted advertising laws), are children; and now they can be targeted just as easily.
Google has yet to experience significant penalties due to their Jedi Blue price-fixing scheme ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue ). Perhaps this story covers some other set of claims that will be broken out of the larger Jedi Blue case.
Edit: this is actually a recent campaign, the story says 2023 but some other outlets said it executed this year in 2024.
> “We’ll also be taking additional action to reinforce with sales representatives that they must not help advertisers or agencies run campaigns attempting to work around our policies.”
Useful would be a chronology of when:
* Individuals learned/knew about the rule violations.
* Individuals were arguably rewarded.
* Individuals were disciplined.
That might give a sense of how bad the infection is, and whether their immune system is on top of it.
The problem, at least in some countries, is that the laws regarding targeting children and teenagers are VERY strict, to the point where it almost doesn't make sense to do 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.
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.
> The project disregarded Google’s rules that prohibit personalising and targeting ads to under-18s, including serving ads based on demographics. It also has policies against the circumvention of its own guidelines, or “proxy targeting”.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
Wait... Nintendo and Disney targets children, including those too young to know what Ads are.
Why are these different ethics?
(They are not, both of those companies have created literal fanatics by adulthood. Even I cannot avoid beating each Zelda game despite not enjoying a single Zelda game since WW)
The Instagram campaign deliberately targeted a group of users labelled as “unknown” in its advertising system, which Google knew skewed towards under-18s, these people said. Meanwhile, documents seen by the FT suggest steps were taken to ensure the true intent of the campaign was disguised.
The project disregarded Google’s rules that prohibit personalising and targeting ads to under-18s, including serving ads based on demographics. It also has policies against the circumvention of its own guidelines, or “proxy targeting”.
…However, Google did not deny using the “unknown” loophole, adding: “We’ll also be taking additional action to reinforce with sales representatives that they must not help advertisers or agencies run campaigns attempting to work around our policies.”
Yup, those crafty sales reps orchestrated a multimillion dollar agreement between a chief competitor. While also adapting the code to find the gaps and target the desired under 18s.
As always with these massive corporate failures/crimes it turns out no one in any important position knew anything and it was a small group of low-level bad actors causing all the trouble. How sad that all these companies are plagued with this while the leadership is just trying to virtuously do good business!
Funnily enough, this is one case where contextual advertising would actually work better than what we have now.
With contextual advertising, you could very easily target children with very specific interests and/or in specific age groups by targeting the ads at the videos they most often watch.
When I was a child, the conspiracy theory among kids was that Coca-Cola inserted subliminal ads by interlacing a can of Coke within TV series or movies. I cannot believe reality surpasses all those fantasies without scrutiny.
Even political propaganda between left and right wings, 1984, and other similar scenarios sound like satire.
When will governments wake up and put a stop to this? Their inaction is simply a sign of complicity. Absolutely disgraceful and criminal behavior.
Everyone working at these companies: you're partly to blame, whether you're directly involved or not. Reconsider the behavior you're supporting, and quit.
In case anyone replies with "well all companies are bad in some way"... scale is also a factor here. Even if Google does the same things as a small family owned business, they have significantly greater ability to inflict harm.
And I'm not sure I buy that all companies are bad. A lot of companies are earnest and customer-focused when they're smaller and desperate for more users. And I've worked at many companies which were bumbling but not really manipulative or malicious.
> Everyone working at these companies: you're partly to blame, whether you're directly involved or not. Reconsider the behavior you're supporting, and quit.
I used to think like this, until I got married and started a family.
I’m no longer so quick to judge folks for not doing what I believe to be the most ideal (or even ethical) thing in these types of circumstances.
For many of us who have families, our top priority is making sure we can continue to take care of our households and not risking that in any way unless absolutely necessary.
I honestly don't think our current "implementation" of government has the required momentum to do anything to stop this or enable the will of the people to be enacted on such large corporations. Our government is a highly-reactive machine that's no longer driven by humans, but rather the internal algorithms and processes (bureaucracy).
Just look at the sheer number of "congressional" and "senate" hearings we've seen into everything from AI, to border crossings, to privacy breaches, to antisemitism in universities, to data breaches, etc. Pretty much 0 effect happens anywhere in response, despite us all (including the media) seeing the internals and the problems. You would think some of these problems are pretty easy to solve or at least get consensus on, but you'd be wrong. We've co-evolved our public discourse and media with government such that nothing can happen. If I wasn't so anti-left, I'd say the amount of partisanship in existence is precisely because it disarms us against this government automaton.
Isn't putting ads on children's programming, as has been done since the dawn of television, "targeting children"? This seems like bullshit targeting of the competition to me.
Not allowing advertising to children I think isn't the correct route for society.
Instead we should prevent children having money. Until you're 16, you may not handle money. You may not buy things for money. You may not sell things. You may not enter into contracts to exchange money.
Your parents however can do all of those things on your behalf.
At that point, advertising to children no longer is relevant - the children cannot buy the advertised things.
Since I got kids I realized how they are the weakest link in the chain and are targeted by everyone. From tobacco (at the end nobody starts smoking at 30), to "free" cartoons (peppa pig backpack is not free, though), school book sellers. Heck, even the school this year pressured to put my kid in their social media.
There is a whole world of people making their living out of your kids.
Sorry for the rant. This is just another two. Does not surprise me.
Yes. And as parent one must fight against multiple multibillion dollar industries. Starting with food ending with toys, games, influencers and everything in between.
I was neutral when I started working in cellphone industry and kids were small. Now when I see how teens siting in the corner watching worthless stupid YouTube videos on the phone for hours I don’t feel well. Luckily I quit that industry and think it’s a cousin of big tobacco at the end despite advertisements telling some other things.
Also sugary sweets are aimed at children, for whom a dose of sugar probably hits much harder. As someone who managed to quit sugar, it was like a drug addiction.
Nothing will change as long as C-suite roles keep breaking the law and walking away scott free. Also goes for the investors promoting this behavior at startup level.
[+] [-] smcin|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] adamors|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] a2128|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] choppaface|1 year ago|reply
Edit: this is actually a recent campaign, the story says 2023 but some other outlets said it executed this year in 2024.
After all, Google fought very hard and farted out a cashier's check to the US Gov to avoid a jury trial in one of their ad monopoly cases https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-ad-tech-virginia...
[+] [-] burningChrome|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] neilv|1 year ago|reply
Useful would be a chronology of when:
* Individuals learned/knew about the rule violations.
* Individuals were arguably rewarded.
* Individuals were disciplined.
That might give a sense of how bad the infection is, and whether their immune system is on top of it.
[+] [-] TekMol|1 year ago|reply
I am surprised that this is something that has to be kept secret. What is the main problem with it?
[+] [-] mrweasel|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Xen9|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tgv|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] esperent|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dgellow|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tacocataco|1 year ago|reply
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
– Banksy
[+] [-] dwighttk|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] resource_waste|1 year ago|reply
Why are these different ethics?
(They are not, both of those companies have created literal fanatics by adulthood. Even I cannot avoid beating each Zelda game despite not enjoying a single Zelda game since WW)
[+] [-] 0cf8612b2e1e|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] LiquidSky|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] alex_suzuki|1 year ago|reply
I read the article, but it didn’t go into the content of those documents. Would be interesting to know.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] edpichler|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] meiraleal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] miki123211|1 year ago|reply
With contextual advertising, you could very easily target children with very specific interests and/or in specific age groups by targeting the ads at the videos they most often watch.
[+] [-] achempion|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|1 year ago|reply
https://on.ft.com/3WyKE85
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wslh|1 year ago|reply
Even political propaganda between left and right wings, 1984, and other similar scenarios sound like satire.
[+] [-] imiric|1 year ago|reply
This is not surprising. Google has a history violating the privacy of and targetting ads to not only teenagers, but children:
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/23/business/youtube-ads-kids...
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/business/media/youtube-ki...
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/business/media/google-you...
- https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/google-youtube...
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/17/technology/youtube-google...
When will governments wake up and put a stop to this? Their inaction is simply a sign of complicity. Absolutely disgraceful and criminal behavior.
Everyone working at these companies: you're partly to blame, whether you're directly involved or not. Reconsider the behavior you're supporting, and quit.
[+] [-] rendaw|1 year ago|reply
And I'm not sure I buy that all companies are bad. A lot of companies are earnest and customer-focused when they're smaller and desperate for more users. And I've worked at many companies which were bumbling but not really manipulative or malicious.
[+] [-] volleygman180|1 year ago|reply
When I was growing up at least, it was all for candy, toys, and sugary cereal, and often had kids or cartoon characters featured in the commercial.
[+] [-] jay-barronville|1 year ago|reply
I used to think like this, until I got married and started a family.
I’m no longer so quick to judge folks for not doing what I believe to be the most ideal (or even ethical) thing in these types of circumstances.
For many of us who have families, our top priority is making sure we can continue to take care of our households and not risking that in any way unless absolutely necessary.
[+] [-] lupire|1 year ago|reply
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." is not "I'm sorry."
[+] [-] zo1|1 year ago|reply
Just look at the sheer number of "congressional" and "senate" hearings we've seen into everything from AI, to border crossings, to privacy breaches, to antisemitism in universities, to data breaches, etc. Pretty much 0 effect happens anywhere in response, despite us all (including the media) seeing the internals and the problems. You would think some of these problems are pretty easy to solve or at least get consensus on, but you'd be wrong. We've co-evolved our public discourse and media with government such that nothing can happen. If I wasn't so anti-left, I'd say the amount of partisanship in existence is precisely because it disarms us against this government automaton.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throw12347825|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moffkalast|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mattmcknight|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] londons_explore|1 year ago|reply
Instead we should prevent children having money. Until you're 16, you may not handle money. You may not buy things for money. You may not sell things. You may not enter into contracts to exchange money.
Your parents however can do all of those things on your behalf.
At that point, advertising to children no longer is relevant - the children cannot buy the advertised things.
[+] [-] xlii|1 year ago|reply
What a dirtbags.
[+] [-] fergonco|1 year ago|reply
There is a whole world of people making their living out of your kids.
Sorry for the rant. This is just another two. Does not surprise me.
[+] [-] lnsru|1 year ago|reply
I was neutral when I started working in cellphone industry and kids were small. Now when I see how teens siting in the corner watching worthless stupid YouTube videos on the phone for hours I don’t feel well. Luckily I quit that industry and think it’s a cousin of big tobacco at the end despite advertisements telling some other things.
[+] [-] Unbefleckt|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] leosanchez|1 year ago|reply
Wow
[+] [-] pickledoyster|1 year ago|reply
These two control around half of the online ad industry, though
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aeurielesn|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jl6|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] andrepd|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] slimjimgrin|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]