We shouldn't have to have ads everywhere. Ad-free societies can exist. Granted, the only one I've seen do it successfully was North Korea, and if that's what's required to get rid of ads, maybe it's not worth it... But man, videos of people just walking around in the city are crazy. Not an ad up anywhere, not a billboard on the skyline, not a logo on a building. Just that aspect of a complete lack of ads seems very peaceful.
> Ad-free societies can exist. Granted, the only one I've seen do it successfully was North Korea,
I don't think you could call North Korea ad free when it's wall to wall propaganda. Just because there's only one "product" allowed to advertise, that doesn't mean people aren't being constantly manipulated by advertising.
It's crazy the extent to which targeted ads have been normalized as "a part of life"... to the point where we have people defending targeting children, with "Well they get targeted with ads elsewhere, too." We are in one of the more terrible universes in the multiverse.
The crazier twist is that a good majority of the people on this site depend on targeted ads for their livelihoods, with a reasonable portion directly contributing to the number of ads.
It is crazy that mobile devices have some fucked up ad ID. An operating system you can trust would shield you from receiving any ad in everyway possible and treat it as the malware that it is.
iOS allows blocking ad ID [1] and advertisers hate it [2].
> If you choose Ask App Not to Track, the app developer can’t access the system advertising identifier (IDFA), which is often used to track. The app is also not permitted to track your activity using other information that identifies you or your device, like your email address.
No one is teaching kids how to handle ads. There's no class at every level of schooling devoted to how advertisers are manipulating you. The schools themselves are often directly responsible for shoving ads at children far too young to have any defenses against it. Meanwhile ad companies pay for experiments on children to learn how to most effectively influence them. Fun fact, children as young as three can recognize brands https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/even-3-year-old-k...
Reality: ads are a fundamental of US commerce that kids will see.
(Assuming >= 8 yo or so) With this reality, I think reducing ads, but also getting them to understand ads, is a better approach than a silly dream of never letting them see an ad.
It's pretty easy to approach this positively, to help them learn. You make a game of pointing out the manipulation, have them identify it, and they learn to see them for what they are. You can do the same for news, where they (very) quickly learn to identify half truths, lying by omission, etc. Kids are pretty great at this sort of thing.
I personally think kids should know that people are often trying to trick them. But, that's something they'll eventually figure out it, with your help or not.
Right, it should have been "teaching everyone how to handle ads" would be more appropriate. Adults including those on this site get taken by ads more than they would probably like to admit (if they are even aware there's something to admit).
This is just another step of "think of the children"
honestly, as a parent, you should be having these conversations with your kids. it is a very sad reality that your kids have a greater than zero chance of being involved in a school shooting.
seriously, this place sometimes thinking everything in the world is the happy path. you have to be prepared for and have an ability to handle exceptions. we can't catch/throw our way through life. teaching kids to learn when someone is trying to manipulate them is not a bad thing. this place seems to think things are someone else's problems, but at some point, you have to realize there is no EU style legislation that will protect you from everything.
How about we have a Purge Day against marketers, advertisers, sales teams, greedy shareholders, and anyone who actively enshittifies every single aspect of life? How about we normalize that instead? Because as brutal as it is, maybe sociopaths wouldn't sociopath if there were real risks to their life and limb incited by their being pieces of shit. :)