• @11111one11111@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    123 hours 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?

  • @djsp@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    223 days ago

    /s Meanwhile, in some Signal group: “Should we suicide her or do you guys figure she might have some ICE-worthy tattoos?”

  • @Susurrus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    208
    edit-2
    5 days 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.

      • @parody@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        275 days 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?

        • @desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          03 days ago

          and the ones that are their kids they can prevent from accessing their platform to a better degree than most broke technically illiterate parents could dream of doing.

          • @parody@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            23 days ago

            True!!

            OK now they can try climate change (dangit indoor skiing etc. nvm but still that’s not as fun so they take the L)

    • @sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      When the news about that came out, around a decade ago now, I deleted my Facebook profile and tried to tell all my friends/family using FB that … this is pure fucking evil and they should also get off FB.

      They all gaslit me, pretended that news wasn’t real, and acted like I was a paranoid delusional maniac.

      Nowadays we have basically the same kind of conclusions regarding TikTok and other platforms that focus on short form video content… well, actually even worse conclusions… and they come from actual peer reviewed scientific journals…

      But you’ll still get people saying ‘brainrot isn’t real’… when uh, yes thats a clumsy term, but it is basically confirmed at this point that TikTok is as addictive as a drug, ruins your motivation and attention span, fills your with mis and disinformatiin, ruins and warps your self image and self esteem, promotes wildly irresponsible and often illegal financial mindsets/strategies… etc etc…

    • @primemagnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      514 days ago

      Not ignored. They weaponized that info internally. And had a road map of potential liabilities and damages that may be involved.

  • @NightCrawlerProMax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    153 days 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.

    • @orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      213 days ago

      No, it’s not normal. Almost no internet companies around the world try to do anything similar to what Meta did and does. Even if you focus on social media companies, I believe that only a small minority try to do that kind of thing.

      For example, here we are on social media. Do you see any targeted advertising? Is it being done by the Lemmy instance? And how many instances are there? Then we could look at Mastodon, or discussion forums, or comment boards, or you name it. Of course you would expect some targeted advertising, like you might find computer advertisements if you’re on a computer tech forum, but that’s different from targeting users who are in a weak state of mind, precisely because it’s targeting their overtly expressed general interests and not their temporary vulnerabilities.

      Finally, I think you should go back and read the article. You ranted about companies trying to shove things down your throats, but the article was about how to misuse targeted advertising.

      • @desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        63 days ago

        Lemmy is far from normal, it is not profitable as a social media platform and is reliant on donations and generosity.

        Google AdSense does similar things to meta, as does amazon. This is far from a misuse, of the technology as that implies that this isn’t accomplishing the intended goal, which, aside from laws trying to differentiate children from adults, it does.

        • @Paper_Phrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 days ago

          Yeah, sorry, but while still going too far, these companies get dwarved by meta when it comes to these practices. I work with certain advertising platforms and know it inside out (don’t judge me lol). No way can we target based on emotional state or anything even closely resmlembling that.

        • @aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 days ago

          Neither google (at least for the first decade or so) or Amazon have such detailed data about you as facebook

    • @CalipherJones@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      123 days ago

      Meta purposely pits extreme sides of every issue you could think of, gender, race, class, religion, even vegan, against each other. Every hate comment is great news for Meta. Hate comments mean that person is engaging so they will feed them more of that content and further drag them into their hateful beliefs. And why do they do that? To show them shirt and knicknack advertisements while they’re frothing at the mouth.

      Fuck Mark Zuckerberg. He’s one of the worst humans on the planet and deserves terrible things to happen to him.

        • @Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 days ago

          I can’t speak to “emotional state”, but the thottening is a real thing (I’ve spent weeks trying to stop having all these ass models from cluttering up my feed, it’s impossible)

    • @Djinn_Indigo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Worth noting by the way that instagram is owned by Meta - the very company the post is calling out.

    • Higgs boson
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Well sure, but it is more than that. Advertising ,broadly, is literally there expressly to manipulate your emotional state. Social media just gives them more info about your state so they are much more effective at it.

  • @gamer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    73 days ago

    I pirated her book (because fuck her, she was a Facebook exec) and learned that she had a gnarly near-death experience as a child when she got attacked by a shark at the beach.

    I didn’t finish the book due to a combination of laziness and my general revulsion at anything Zuck adjacent, but if you have the stomach for it there’s a cool shark attack story in it for you at least.

  • Lovable Sidekick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    To the business world humans are ultimately just conduits to money. But somehow people think privatizing everything is the best way government can serve the public.

  • Sixty
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62
    edit-2
    5 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75
      edit-2
      5 days 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

      • Sixty
        link
        fedilink
        English
        175 days ago

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

          • @tischbier@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            23 days ago

            Yes! SO many people would never ever believe this kind of evil action without hard proof. It absolutely needs to be said and reported on! Any reaction less than this is dismissive and enabling.

        • @answersplease77@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          I agree it’s not surprising to know that tech billionare ghouls sell their souls for cash, but they not only target kids, they prey on their worst feelings. One example she mentioned is if a 13 yr old girl posted a selfie then deleted it and they concluded that she is suicidal or insecure about her weight for example, then it’s $$$ time for the Zuck bombarding her IP with diet and makeup products. Which is a lower low than just targeting kids… She said it’s so bad that she has almost never seen any of facebook higher ups let their kids use it because they know how hurtful it is

          +cashing in on ethnic cleansing

          +cashing in, aiding and selling data to oppressive governments, and even selling them AI tech to help them commit worse oppression and survalliance

        • Rimu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11
          edit-2
          5 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            145 days 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

          • Sixty
            link
            fedilink
            English
            75 days 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.

            • Sixty
              link
              fedilink
              English
              85 days ago

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

    • brandon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32
      edit-2
      5 days 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)

        • brandon
          link
          fedilink
          English
          195 days 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.

      • Sixty
        link
        fedilink
        English
        65 days 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.

    • Jonathan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      225 days 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        135 days 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.

    • @Lfrith@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      15
      edit-2
      5 days 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?

      • Sixty
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        5 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          55 days 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. :-)

          • Sixty
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 days 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.

    • @asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 days 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

    • @AwkwardBroccolli@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 days ago

      Any structure which has hierarchy in it with control structures away from people suffers from the same issue. People must own things.

    • /home/pineapplelover
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 days 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?

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 days ago

        There is always 1-3 random downvotes, even on non controvertial things like cat photos. This is always how Lemmy has been. Any downvotes 5 or less can just be ignored (its probably bots)

        • @RickSorkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -15 days ago

          Elaborate with an example of how exactly that would work for a country of 340 million people.

          • Fingolfinz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 days ago

            What difference would population make? Decentralization can exist in a planned economy to adapt to locales

            • @RickSorkin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -25 days ago

              So your solution is to hand everything over to the government and allow them to control the labor, the profit, and the wealth of over 340 million people without first having any understanding whatsoever about how a system such as that would be stressed under the weight of such a population?

              I’ll add that there exists no government on the planet that could be trusted to do something like that without exploiting the populace- as none have done so to date.

              You clearly haven’t thought this through.

              • Fingolfinz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                25 days ago

                Your condescending tone shows you already know it all and have your mind made up so I don’t really see where this debate can go anymore that is constructive. Take that how you will, I don’t really care

                • @RickSorkin@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -7
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  Theirs is no condescension in my tone because there Is no “tone” in written word.

                  I simply asked you a question you refused to answer, and then I refuted your reasoning for not answering.

                  And it’s not a debate unless you participate.

                  Next time, answer a question when asked. Take it as a prompt for you to sell your idea on someone who is looking to you for an answer.

          • @4am@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -45 days ago

            Seems to be working fora country of over a billion, just sayin’

      • @Tetragrade@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33 days ago

        Organisations aren’t entitled to use automated systems to alter people’s behaviour (i.e. here they’re using an algorithm to maximise the number of ad clicks). It should only be allowed if it’s in the interests of the people affected, and with their (informed) agreement