700
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by dwazou@jlai.lu to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Susurrus@lemm.ee 156 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Facebook used to have a team dedicated to analyzing their apps' risks to children's and teenagers' health. The team concluded that there are indeed many serious health risks for both children and teenagers, especially teenage girls. Shortly after, it got disbanded, and all its recommendations completely ignored.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 84 points 3 months ago

They took all that data and used it to exploit the kids.

[-] parody@lemmings.world 15 points 3 months ago

But really, who wouldn’t? They’re not our kids! Well, nearly 100% of them aren’t. Little Johnny will forgive papa for it one day right?

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Ignored? Yeah I suppose so, but they sure as shit used the data for their own gain. That team really was the road of good intentions

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 48 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's how targeted advertising works yes. Not much of a reveal there?

I guess people need the obvious pointed out, and yeah fair enough.

Before I get dogpiled: I'm not defending them. I'm saying it's sad people actually think or thought the bar was higher than this. You can tell me Google, Xhitter, whatever did the same and I'd say the same thing. You're the product. You. Are. The. Product.

[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 57 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I am sure you already know, but the objection here is going after kids. literally profiling and then abusing their vulnerabilities for profit. this isnt your standard cereal box advertising, I think this is something much darker and more disgusting.

edit: added word

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago

I hear you, I'm saying this shouldn't have been news to anyone.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

It's still important to point out and put on the public record.

[-] rimu@piefed.social 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Even teenage girls?

You seem to be saying that teenage girls should have known FB was manipulating them and just closed the app.

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

No, I don’t think they meant the kids should have known better, but rather the adults should have known to keep them away from social media because it’s the ultimate cyber predator.

God knows what a hyper-specific ML model is going to do for them

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

Idealistically I'd say their millennial parents failed them for having that ignorance to begin with, so yes they should know better.

Realistically, you're not wrong in your rebuttal.

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

It's not just parents. Government and the education systems too.

[-] brandon@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I didn't see the testimony, but I did read her book.

When most people think "targeted advertising", I think they are thinking about something like: this user is a middle-class woman between 18 and 25 who enjoys bicycles, so we'll show her ad X.

According to Wynn-Williams, Facebook/Meta is doing things like detecting when a user uploads, then immediately removes a photo--detecting that as a moment of emotional vulnerability (that is, the user was feeling self-conscious about their appearance), then bombarding them with ads in that moment for beauty products.

I think the former is 'obvious' to most people, but the latter probably isn't--probably because Meta and other advertising companies have put a lot of effort in to keep this on the down low--which is why Wynn-Williams is speaking about it publically.

(not accusing you of defending them BTW, just my 2¢ that this goes beyond what most people would consider obvious, imo)

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

I was just venting really, I'm not actually surprised this isn't common knowledge. My bar for humanity already had tunnelled through the Mantel during covid, I think it's in the outer core by now.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying either.

[-] gruhuken@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 months ago

Book worth a read? Saw it on sale earlier and looked interesting

[-] brandon@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 months ago

I got it from the library, so I won't comment how much money it's worth.

Hard to say I enjoyed it, since the conduct described within is nearly without expection horrifying. I expect that most people on Lemmy would probably be unsurprised by it.

I found it to be a pretty quick read, and I'm glad it's out there. If you're interested in the topic I'd say to give it a shot.

[-] gashead76@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

It is absolutely baffling that people don't realize that people are the product. I've had some folks tell me that they understand and "don't care" because the service is "free" or whatever, but then they get angry and freaked out when the platform knows exactly what they're thinking, or at least seems to know.

There's definitely a deficit in understanding and education on what corporate social media really does.

[-] mPony@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

a) yes

b) what I find really concerning is that they may have already figured out how to change people's behaviour: what they think is funny, what they think is appropriate to say/do, where they want to travel to (if at all), how they feel about certain celebrities they like or dislike, what is believable or not believable, how they feel about certain politicians, who to vote for. Some people are probably more easy to sway on certain topics than others are. It's not a stretch to guess that they probably already know various paths to make individuals into something they currently are not.

[-] Petter1@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago
[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago

People downvoting you don't realize how much of a science advertising is.

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think that's true in general, but not why I was downdooted.

My guess was the downvotes are people assuming I don't think it's worse to manipulate children vs adults and that I was somehow okay with it apathetically.

I'm also an asshole occasionally when I see frustrating and disturbing things like this, so my kneejerk response is maybe where I fucked up.

I really need to get into the habit of letting a post stew in preview for a hot second before I let loose my mental vomit lol because I sometimes get my ass kicked for not communicating what I'm actually trying to say effectively.

Edit: Lemmy has been pretty kind to me for my clarifying edits when I do this to myself though, so thanks guys. Like this one :)

[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

wow! self-reflection is something we all need more of (especially me). agree or disagree, converstaions are always better when everyone considers things for a moment. nice comment. :-)

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Well, it's a smaller community. Eventually I'll recognize a lot of you, and I assume the same of me. So I try to keep it real.

That idiom really dates me, huh.

[-] Lfrith@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I wonder how prevalent adblocking is among the younger generations. Even among my peer group I'd see people browsing the web with no adblock and a bunch of ads on websites when I'd glance at a sea of laptops. It was eye opening that outside of the social media I use that many people are just not tech literate. Is ad acceptance trending upward as people get younger and younger?

[-] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I wonder how prevalent adblocking is among the younger generations

Speaking of advertising being a science like another person commented, it means it's data driven.

https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users

https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-july-global-statshot

Lots and lots: https://www.ecosia.org/search?q=how+prevalent+is+adblocking+by+generation

But more to the point:

Women in every generation block less ads however, which I found interesting.

[-] IllNess@infosec.pub 0 points 3 months ago

My theory is women, while they do look at porn, look at porn less. Men will seek out a particular type of porn or a specific video and will not stop until they find it. They are also less likely to go on websites that abuse popups like sports streaming channels.

Also I think women are also more likely to use social media which usually don't have ad blockers.

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

The difference is this is tracking and targeting minors.

And just because it is the status quo does not mean the general public is aware of it or the actual extent. It needs to be spelled out to them how and why.

Honestly I find it hard to believe any teens are on Facebook now, maybe IG is still cool? Nothing like before. Idk I don't think teens are on those platforms really

[-] Petter1@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

IG is like the most important place for teens right now…

[-] Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 3 months ago

Wake me up when something gets done about it other than a fine that amounts to about half a day's profit for them.

[-] jimbel@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

They need to be jailed and their companied closed

[-] Fingolfinz@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

There are no ethics in capitalism

[-] RickSorkin@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Stop de-regulating everything. Guardrails were put there for a reason.

[-] RickSorkin@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

I agree. That’s a good start at least.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Who are the 3 people downvoting? This is very true and I don't see it ever changing as long as humans are humans. Pretty much all religions say treat each other nicely and don't kill. But then why are there war profiteering companies around?

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago
[-] mPony@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

as if they don't have enough already.

[-] msage@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago

never

... and therein lies the problem

[-] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

What do they mean by targeted? Like targeted how and with what if they're talking about using the already targeted advertising data that shows a teen is receiving ads for emotional stuff?

[-] NightCrawlerProMax@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Don’t all social media and internet companies do that? It’s all a case of machine learning. I can’t open Insta these days without being blasted with reels of boobs, cleavage etc. My wife gets reels of cooking, dancing etc. It doesn’t have to do anything with our searches or viewing. They’re using our personal information to create a model and shoving targeted content based on that down our throats. This has the highest probability of increasing engagement on their platform.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
700 points (99.9% liked)

Technology

73037 readers
648 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS