A much easier legislation would be to ban digital ads targeting children. Remove the incentive to maximize how addictive the social media is and businesses are no longer going to spend resources...
A much easier legislation would be to ban digital ads targeting children. Remove the incentive to maximize how addictive the social media is and businesses are no longer going to spend resources on something they can't profit from.
YouTube kids doesn’t run any ads but it’s still clearly tuned to be addictive and encourage mindless viewing. It’s in the company’s DNA to design this way. I notice it even with text. Even sites...
YouTube kids doesn’t run any ads but it’s still clearly tuned to be addictive and encourage mindless viewing. It’s in the company’s DNA to design this way.
I notice it even with text. Even sites that don’t rely on traffic because they operate on subscriptions instead of ads still lean into annoying, clickbaity, “curiosity gap” headlines. A generation of UI designers, developers, and content producers have come up with an internet of predatory ad tech. They don’t know how to operate on any other sort of logic.
Is that sort of text marketing any different than headlines on newspapers or the newsies and other hawkers trying for attention? They're different in format and the current trend is the "click...
Is that sort of text marketing any different than headlines on newspapers or the newsies and other hawkers trying for attention? They're different in format and the current trend is the "click bait" style, but if I'm telling you to buy my paper because "Peacetime Draft Measure Passes!" Isn't telling you the headline effectively the same as click bait?
I am inclined to believe it's fashionable and as effective as other strategies but says more about the time frame than addictiveness or anything.
Generally I think of a good headline as a one sentence summary of the story that makes you want to learn more. Headless body in topless bar is the legendary example. The intent is to make you want...
Generally I think of a good headline as a one sentence summary of the story that makes you want to learn more. Headless body in topless bar is the legendary example. The intent is to make you want to go in and read an article. But clickbait style I view as a headline that intentionally withholds what the story is even about. Nobody would actually pay for that, but on the internet the business model is to get you to click so they can spam 8 different ads on the page. The “story” itself is usually just a one or two bullet point answer to a question and isn’t something worth reading. Hence why places like /r/savedyouaclick exist.
My point is less that the clickbait is bad (though it is annoying) but more that people write headlines like that even when it’s not congruent with the site’s business model. Subscription based publications don’t need to bait you to draw in traffic from lowest common denominator doomscrollers, they try to develop an audience relationship with true fans who will pay them every month. But writers have been trained to write this way so they can’t break the habit.
I won't argue there's plenty of junk out there. But the fact that it's become common when it isn't part of the business model is what suggests it's more of the common marketing fashion of the day...
I won't argue there's plenty of junk out there. But the fact that it's become common when it isn't part of the business model is what suggests it's more of the common marketing fashion of the day more than a well plotted addiction strategy. Or itself unique to the modern era. But maybe I'm just talking past myself here.
Has this ever been done? I wonder what happens when they come of age and suddenly everything is ads. I have a lot of friends who spent their childhood with a TV running in the background. As...
Has this ever been done? I wonder what happens when they come of age and suddenly everything is ads.
I have a lot of friends who spent their childhood with a TV running in the background. As adults, they find this relaxing and day it helps them concentrate. I did not grow up with this and have a really hard time in places like sports bars where there are TVs everywhere, I don't seem to be capable of ignoring them. Someone will be talking to me and I'll realize I've been starting at a commercial and didn't hear a word they said.
The closest thing I can think of is banning certain products on specific mediums (tobacco on television). The problem with advertisements compared with the content that surrounds them is that the...
The closest thing I can think of is banning certain products on specific mediums (tobacco on television). The problem with advertisements compared with the content that surrounds them is that the content is partially an artistic expression. It might be designed to improve engagement but the audience is in control. The audience is allowed to choose what they consume.
Advertisements employ dark patterns that are designed for the advertisers at the detriment of the consumer of the advertisement. Additionally the advertisements are not an artistic expression but rather something designed to influence, the relationship is adversarial instead of service-oriented.
Currently we view digital advertisements as annoying but normal. Most people won't change their behavior if they encounter it and will tune it out. If we transition to a place where it is stigmatized (like tobacco on TV or inappropriate content on public screens) then the value of an "impression" goes down.
Oh wow, this is exactly my experience too! It doesn’t even need to have the volume on, even just a TV screen on mute will pull my attention! I grew up in a household that had very limited...
Someone will be talking to me and I'll realize I've been starting at a commercial and didn't hear a word they said.
Oh wow, this is exactly my experience too! It doesn’t even need to have the volume on, even just a TV screen on mute will pull my attention!
I grew up in a household that had very limited TV-watching time early on (before I was in primary school) and then no TV for most of primary school and early high school, and then we had a TV again when I was in high school.
However, I never put the two together, and just assumed this was an unusual expression of hyperfocus because I know autism runs in my family (and therefore I probably have some level too, although I haven’t been diagnosed)
It’s cool to know that I’m not the only one who gets trapped by TV ads!
I don't often run into other people whose TV time was limited as a kid, so I guess we're a sample size of 2. I wonder how it will compare with modern kids who get up with Netflix and YouTube.
I don't often run into other people whose TV time was limited as a kid, so I guess we're a sample size of 2.
I wonder how it will compare with modern kids who get up with Netflix and YouTube.
You are absolutely right, we should also ban digital ads to adults. Think about all the negative progress the Internet has made in the past 30 years and you'll find that for many of them the...
You are absolutely right, we should also ban digital ads to adults. Think about all the negative progress the Internet has made in the past 30 years and you'll find that for many of them the driving force behind it all is digital advertising. But that's too radical of an idea and I think starting with banning it for children is a good stepping stone.
There are some regulations restricting ads targeted towards children in many countries, but I'm not aware of any outright bans. I could see it being effective though I'm not sure how objective the...
There are some regulations restricting ads targeted towards children in many countries, but I'm not aware of any outright bans. I could see it being effective though I'm not sure how objective the laws could be. Is the Lego Will Ferrell biopic advertisement targeted towards kids?
Personally I would say yes but I can see how a law banning the ads not being effective for those types of ads in the immediate. I also believe the side effects of the laws will be also useful....
Personally I would say yes but I can see how a law banning the ads not being effective for those types of ads in the immediate. I also believe the side effects of the laws will be also useful. Digital ads right now are just considered an annoyance but normal. If it was made illegal to target children, then it becomes something truly negative and harmful.
Once that is established in the public consciousness then people will start making better decisions (do I go see the movie that is blatantly something I consider harmful? Do I use a service that has psychologically destructive content?)
It's laudable but unfortunately I think there are too many ways to get around the spirit of this legislation. Proving a violation would be maddening, and they could just do something like creating...
It's laudable but unfortunately I think there are too many ways to get around the spirit of this legislation. Proving a violation would be maddening, and they could just do something like creating suggested-by-default accounts that post a chronologically ordered feed that is algorithmically optimized, or any one of a hundred other ways to dodge the letter of the requirement.
It feels like a piece of legislation made to combat Facebook in 2010.
Engagement maximization measures(which I take is the intended target) taken by effectively any sufficiently large corporation are ultimately several orders larger than the scope of this...
Engagement maximization measures(which I take is the intended target) taken by effectively any sufficiently large corporation are ultimately several orders larger than the scope of this legislation and so are unlikely to be measurably affected by it. And there are very smart people who will surely find any loopholes there are.
Instead effective measures would be any of denormalizing smartphone use, school reform emphasizing development of critical thinking, denormalizing tech illiteracy, denormalizing user hostile sw, robust social safety nets and likely more.
A much easier legislation would be to ban digital ads targeting children. Remove the incentive to maximize how addictive the social media is and businesses are no longer going to spend resources on something they can't profit from.
YouTube kids doesn’t run any ads but it’s still clearly tuned to be addictive and encourage mindless viewing. It’s in the company’s DNA to design this way.
I notice it even with text. Even sites that don’t rely on traffic because they operate on subscriptions instead of ads still lean into annoying, clickbaity, “curiosity gap” headlines. A generation of UI designers, developers, and content producers have come up with an internet of predatory ad tech. They don’t know how to operate on any other sort of logic.
Is that sort of text marketing any different than headlines on newspapers or the newsies and other hawkers trying for attention? They're different in format and the current trend is the "click bait" style, but if I'm telling you to buy my paper because "Peacetime Draft Measure Passes!" Isn't telling you the headline effectively the same as click bait?
I am inclined to believe it's fashionable and as effective as other strategies but says more about the time frame than addictiveness or anything.
Generally I think of a good headline as a one sentence summary of the story that makes you want to learn more. Headless body in topless bar is the legendary example. The intent is to make you want to go in and read an article. But clickbait style I view as a headline that intentionally withholds what the story is even about. Nobody would actually pay for that, but on the internet the business model is to get you to click so they can spam 8 different ads on the page. The “story” itself is usually just a one or two bullet point answer to a question and isn’t something worth reading. Hence why places like /r/savedyouaclick exist.
My point is less that the clickbait is bad (though it is annoying) but more that people write headlines like that even when it’s not congruent with the site’s business model. Subscription based publications don’t need to bait you to draw in traffic from lowest common denominator doomscrollers, they try to develop an audience relationship with true fans who will pay them every month. But writers have been trained to write this way so they can’t break the habit.
I won't argue there's plenty of junk out there. But the fact that it's become common when it isn't part of the business model is what suggests it's more of the common marketing fashion of the day more than a well plotted addiction strategy. Or itself unique to the modern era. But maybe I'm just talking past myself here.
Has this ever been done? I wonder what happens when they come of age and suddenly everything is ads.
I have a lot of friends who spent their childhood with a TV running in the background. As adults, they find this relaxing and day it helps them concentrate. I did not grow up with this and have a really hard time in places like sports bars where there are TVs everywhere, I don't seem to be capable of ignoring them. Someone will be talking to me and I'll realize I've been starting at a commercial and didn't hear a word they said.
The closest thing I can think of is banning certain products on specific mediums (tobacco on television). The problem with advertisements compared with the content that surrounds them is that the content is partially an artistic expression. It might be designed to improve engagement but the audience is in control. The audience is allowed to choose what they consume.
Advertisements employ dark patterns that are designed for the advertisers at the detriment of the consumer of the advertisement. Additionally the advertisements are not an artistic expression but rather something designed to influence, the relationship is adversarial instead of service-oriented.
Currently we view digital advertisements as annoying but normal. Most people won't change their behavior if they encounter it and will tune it out. If we transition to a place where it is stigmatized (like tobacco on TV or inappropriate content on public screens) then the value of an "impression" goes down.
Oh wow, this is exactly my experience too! It doesn’t even need to have the volume on, even just a TV screen on mute will pull my attention!
I grew up in a household that had very limited TV-watching time early on (before I was in primary school) and then no TV for most of primary school and early high school, and then we had a TV again when I was in high school.
However, I never put the two together, and just assumed this was an unusual expression of hyperfocus because I know autism runs in my family (and therefore I probably have some level too, although I haven’t been diagnosed)
It’s cool to know that I’m not the only one who gets trapped by TV ads!
I don't often run into other people whose TV time was limited as a kid, so I guess we're a sample size of 2.
I wonder how it will compare with modern kids who get up with Netflix and YouTube.
this should have been done in the days of television ads, and the 2nd best time is now
I think they would still have plenty of incentive to get kids hooked so they'd be easier to advertise to as adults.
You are absolutely right, we should also ban digital ads to adults. Think about all the negative progress the Internet has made in the past 30 years and you'll find that for many of them the driving force behind it all is digital advertising. But that's too radical of an idea and I think starting with banning it for children is a good stepping stone.
There are some regulations restricting ads targeted towards children in many countries, but I'm not aware of any outright bans. I could see it being effective though I'm not sure how objective the laws could be. Is the Lego Will Ferrell biopic advertisement targeted towards kids?
Personally I would say yes but I can see how a law banning the ads not being effective for those types of ads in the immediate. I also believe the side effects of the laws will be also useful. Digital ads right now are just considered an annoyance but normal. If it was made illegal to target children, then it becomes something truly negative and harmful.
Once that is established in the public consciousness then people will start making better decisions (do I go see the movie that is blatantly something I consider harmful? Do I use a service that has psychologically destructive content?)
It's laudable but unfortunately I think there are too many ways to get around the spirit of this legislation. Proving a violation would be maddening, and they could just do something like creating suggested-by-default accounts that post a chronologically ordered feed that is algorithmically optimized, or any one of a hundred other ways to dodge the letter of the requirement.
It feels like a piece of legislation made to combat Facebook in 2010.
Engagement maximization measures(which I take is the intended target) taken by effectively any sufficiently large corporation are ultimately several orders larger than the scope of this legislation and so are unlikely to be measurably affected by it. And there are very smart people who will surely find any loopholes there are.
Instead effective measures would be any of denormalizing smartphone use, school reform emphasizing development of critical thinking, denormalizing tech illiteracy, denormalizing user hostile sw, robust social safety nets and likely more.
Do legislation like this ever work? I always find it not enforceable, the kids are smart enough to fake their age.