[HN Gopher] UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers
___________________________________________________________________
UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers
Author : ivewonyoung
Score : 283 points
Date : 2024-12-08 19:51 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.france24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.france24.com)
| mentalgear wrote:
| I hope other countries take action soon. It's deeply
| irresponsible how we allow advertisements and Big Sugar/Fast Food
| companies to exploit colorful cartoon characters and misleading
| health claims to hook people--especially children--on excessive
| sugar and fat consumption. This not only fosters unhealthy eating
| habits but also conditions them to crave specific branded flavors
| from an early age.
| whycome wrote:
| Are adults not allowed to like colourful cartoon characters?
| Fruit flavours?
| daseiner1 wrote:
| Parent commenter didn't write anything to the contrary;
| obviously the median child gets more excited by those two
| things than the median adult.
|
| I really loathe these sort of "gotcha" comments.
| whycome wrote:
| > Parent commenter didn't write anything to the contrary;
|
| Did I imply that? Are "colorful cartoon characters" the
| part that's "deeply irresponsible" or just the misleading
| health claims? If you prevent the latter then you don't
| have anything to attach the former to.
|
| > I really loathe these sort of "gotcha" comments.
|
| I don't get what part of my comment was the 'gotcha'
| pixxel wrote:
| > I don't get what part of my comment was the 'gotcha
|
| Watching day-time cartoons will do that.
| akira2501 wrote:
| You're telling me this ad appeals to you in your demographic?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJmM2CSn2ao
| whycome wrote:
| Isn't the issue there the claims of "fruit flavours" easily
| misinterpreted as having actual fruit and including vitamin
| c prominently when it's just fortified.
| meesles wrote:
| You've moved the goalpost! No, the issue is that fruit
| flavors and cartoon characters are abused to appeal to
| children. That is what the original comment said and
| which you only half replied to! The video provided to you
| was an example of such - cartoons and 'fruit flavors' to
| hook kids on wanting sugary cereals for breakfast.
| whycome wrote:
| Moved goalpoast?
|
| > No, the issue is that fruit flavors and cartoon
| characters are abused to appeal to children. That is what
| the original comment said
|
| That's not what they said. They said:
|
| > It's deeply irresponsible how we allow advertisements
| and Big Sugar/Fast Food companies to exploit colorful
| cartoon characters and misleading health claims to hook
| people
|
| I don't think the cartoon characters is the part of the
| problem to address. And I think that aspect becomes
| irrelevant when addressing the actual problem. (And
| 'Fruit flavours' was my addition and question not theirs)
|
| What part of my comment "only half replied"? I asked two
| questions in relation to the comment. I mentioned
| "colourful cartoon characters" and "fruit flavours"
| because those are examples of things that "appeal to
| kids" even though they have wider audiences. Canada (and
| other countries?) want to ban flavours from e-cigarettes
| because of the appeal to youth (and limiting it to just
| mint, menthol and tobacco). Why should an adult be
| limited to mint as a flavour for an age-controlled
| product? Why shouldn't an advertiser be allowed to use
| colorful cartoon characters?
|
| Moved goalpost? Aren't we saying the same thing here? The
| video, and similar breakfast cereals, are perfect
| examples of the actual problem. It uses the combination
| of cartoons and false health claims. The false health
| claims are the parts that are problematic - that's the
| part to eliminate. The informational part of that video
| (and the box information design!) is meant to appeal to
| (read: mislead) adults, not kids.
|
| Allowing false health claims for unhealthy products is an
| issue. Miseducating parents and adults about what's
| healthy is an issue. Suppressing how terrible excess
| sugar is for children and adults is an issue. Allowing
| lines like "how about fruit flavours"? (in video) and
| showing pictures of fruit is an issue. Allowing producers
| to hide how unhealthy something is by saying it's
| "healthy when part of a balanced breakfast" is an issue.
| Even now, nutrition information or prominent labels for
| cereals can include the values (eg protein) when one
| consumes it with milk!
|
| Change that and what does that video or other ads for
| cereals become?
| akira2501 wrote:
| The purpose of the commercial is to create demand where
| there otherwise would not have been. Do you think that
| demand comes from the parents or the children? Which
| parts of the commercial do you think are most important
| for fomenting this demand?
| hecticjeff wrote:
| I don't think this goes far enough. Kids see adverts for this
| stuff in so many other places, TV is just one small step. Take a
| kid into a supermarket and there's junk food advertised
| everywhere.
| Dinux wrote:
| It's a first step. The larger point here is awareness.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| When you think about it none of the ads are for healthy food.
| When did you ever see an advert for Broccoli on the television?
|
| Probably best to ban all food advertising.
| lijok wrote:
| Baffling to me how advertising to those without a stable source
| of above living-cost income is allowed in the first place. Let
| alone advertising to children.
| zabzonk wrote:
| How do you select for "those without a stable source of above
| living-cost income?
| lijok wrote:
| No idea. That's for the advertising firms to figure out.
| chrisjj wrote:
| Ration TVs, obviously :)
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Sell your cereal to free school breakfast programs so those
| kids are literally spoon fed your stuff by the government.
| When they complain to their parents they want it at home,
| make sure you can trade food stamps for your cereal.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| They still get stuff though. Daytime advertising for toys is
| basically aimed at kids' birthday / christmas wishlists, pocket
| money, etc. If you add it up, that's hundreds of whatever your
| currency is per year across birthdays, gift giving holidays,
| and family / extended family.
| jsheard wrote:
| Can we do gambling ads next? We banned tobacco ads and then
| seemingly forgot the lesson that it's actually bad to let
| advertisers shove addictive and self-destructive products in the
| publics face, including to former addicts at risk of relapse.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| >Can we do gambling ads next?
|
| As long as we ban ads for stock trading platforms (i.e.
| gambling for the professional classes) at the same time.
| jsheard wrote:
| I don't disagree, but stock trading ads are in some ways
| already more strictly regulated than gambling ads here.
| Gambling ads are required to have a vague "please gamble
| responsibly" statement, but ads for CFD trading platforms are
| required to have a prominent warning stating the exact
| percentage of their accounts which lose money (often >75%).
| The gambling ads don't have to tell you the real odds of
| coming out ahead.
|
| e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_zuudkSnY
| stego-tech wrote:
| I think a fair and reasonable advertisement policy is to ban
| all advertisements during "children's programming hours", or
| 0800 to 1600 when school is not in session. During "Prime
| Time" hours of 0500-0800 and 1600-2300, adverts should be
| limited to luxury goods (e.g., fashion), government PSAs, and
| non-addictive goods or services (NO drugs, NO tobacco, NO
| gambling, and NO stock trading, to name but a few). Between
| 2300 and 0400, allow "free reign" on subscription channels
| but still bar "vice" or addiction ads.
|
| We've got a century of data showing laissez-faire approaches
| to advertising results in maximum harm to a society, and
| ample recent data from the internet age showing how dark
| patterns in psychology are exploited by advertisers to drive
| outcomes.
|
| We have to do better, and the UK's step is at least an
| attempt to stem the harm. I can't fault entities from at
| least _trying_ to do better.
| chgs wrote:
| Daytime tv is all about brainwashing wealthy retired
| people.
|
| Still not as bad as those weird country which advertise
| prescription medicine
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| I wonder what proportion of children are still watching
| mainstream TV? My son (4) mainly watches Disney+ and
| Netflix.
| fn-mote wrote:
| Choosing streaming services will be correlated to income.
| Netflix (medium $) and Disney+ (high $$). The less
| wealthy are watching YouTube with ads included.
| lmm wrote:
| Children are the people least able to destroy their own
| lives through spending, so that feels pretty backwards. I
| think it's generally accepted that people who grow up
| around e.g. alcohol tend to have a healthier relationship
| with it than people who are suddenly exposed to it as an
| adult.
| BehindBlueEyes wrote:
| But they are among the most impressionable and it is
| effective to target the parents via kids nagging them.
| BehindBlueEyes wrote:
| Add to your list to ban medical advertisement to the vice
| and addiction bar.
|
| Do you feel like your knee itches sometime? You may have
| BSitis, ask your doctor if our product is right for you...
|
| Replace all these with a generic, if you feel sick, go see
| a doctor, that's what they are for if needed.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Wait until you hear about how CFD trading is legal in large
| parts of the world.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Is the payout on a CFD the same as a future or forward?
| datavirtue wrote:
| Irrelevant. Stocks are a share of a company. The have book
| value and intrinsic value. Freedom to buy and sell is
| essential.
|
| Of course, crypto speculation is something different
| altogether. Maybe you were thinking about all the poor
| schleps buying Bitcoin for $100k?
|
| Even then, your chances of winning are around 50/50 and no
| one is forcing you to cash out.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| There is an important difference. With stocks, the punter
| wins on average. With gambling, the punter loses on average.
|
| You can still lose all your money on stocks, with a
| combination of bad choices and bad luck. But it is much
| easier to lose it on the horses.
| shric wrote:
| The punter does not win on average with stocks due to fees
| and spread.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| IIRC average stock market returns have historically been
| around 7% per year. Index funds charge around 1% per
| year.
|
| My stock ISAs have gone up pretty much every year (after
| inflation and fees).
| rfrey wrote:
| Putting your money into an index fund is the exact
| opposite of what is being advertised, e.g. trading
| platforms optimized for day trading, complete with
| blinkenlighten and "learn to trade" mini courses teaching
| technical indicators and other voodoo nonsense.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| There is a reason they spend loads of money on ads trying
| to get you into day trading. ;0)
| lmm wrote:
| > Index funds charge around 1% per year.
|
| You're getting ripped off, you should be paying a small
| fraction of that.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Vanguard UK charge 0.06% to 0.6% per year on their index
| funds: https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/what-we-
| offer/all-product...
|
| Plus a 0.15% account fee:
| https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/what-we-offer/fees-
| explai...
|
| Most others charge more.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| 1% is quite extreme, the S&P 500 fund I use (FXAIX)
| charges .015% per year which is almost 70 times less
| expensive than 1%.
| shric wrote:
| Indeed, I am mostly in ASX:IVV (another S&P 500 ETF) and
| it charges 0.04% per year.
| eviks wrote:
| > Index funds
|
| That's not what the ads for the stock trading platforms
| want you to do
| shric wrote:
| I was very careful with my words. I said:
|
| > The punter does not win on average with stocks due to
| fees and spread.
|
| Literally 100% of my investing is the stock market. I
| have so much faith in the stock market that I rent
| because I don't want to waste the opportunity cost on
| equity in property.
|
| A punter is informal slang for a person who gambles. I
| buy and hold a diversified portfolio of index funds over
| decades. I am very much not a punter.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| It seems there is more than one definition of 'punter'. I
| meant it as 'customer/client'. But other sources define
| it as 'a person who gambles, places a bet, or makes a
| risky investment'.
| shric wrote:
| I'm only familiar with the latter definition. My mistake
| I guess.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >My mistake I guess.
|
| Not really. There just seems to be more than one meaning,
| and we were each aware of different ones. The meaning
| might vary by country (I am in the UK).
| shric wrote:
| It was a mistake because I got downvoted by issuing a
| correct statement (if punter is interpreted as a
| gambler).
|
| I am from the UK but moved to Australia about 35 years
| ago
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >It was a mistake because I got downvoted by issuing a
| correct statement (if punter is interpreted as a
| gambler).
|
| I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
|
| https://xkcd.com/386/
|
| ;o)
| jonplackett wrote:
| The warnings for gambling ads are particularly infuriating.
|
| Like what would anyone think of a smoking warning of "when the
| fun stops, stop"
| manojlds wrote:
| It's interesting that one of the tax free investment/savings
| choices in the UK is basically a lottery.
| thom wrote:
| You're not risking any capital though, if you mean Premium
| Bonds.
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| Even better, pay that money into a pension and buy a
| lottery ticket.
| hinkley wrote:
| Pensions sort of already are a lottery. Can't collect if
| you're dead. Live to 95 and they help a lot. Though
| inflation will still getcha in the end.
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| Yes if you choose annuity but you can also buy those with
| regular cash so it's as relevant here as price of tea.
|
| Pensions are more tax efficient and offer a better option
| of investments (companies) than what is effectively fiat
| interest going into a lottery pool.
|
| If you have cash in premium bonds you might die young
| then pay inheritance tax.
|
| Better give your kids cash earlier to live off or invest
| to avoid this, and so they can over-stuff their pensions
| ;). Not many people think that far ahead (60 year
| horizon)
| hinkley wrote:
| Some young adults in my life have grandparents who just
| hit this point, and are trying to set up gifting money to
| the grandkids in the form of brokerage accounts.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > Pensions sort of already are a lottery
|
| Annuities maybe, but those aren't the only kind of
| pensions
| kgwgk wrote:
| That seems the definition of pension. You may be thinking
| of something else. pension a
| regular income paid by a government or a financial
| organization to someone who no longer works, usually
| because of their age or health
| petesergeant wrote:
| The first line of the Wikipedia article on pensions is
| more accurate than wherever you've pulled that from:
|
| > A pension (/'penS@n/; from Latin pensio 'payment') is a
| fund into which amounts are paid regularly during an
| individual's working career, and from which periodic
| payments are made to support the person's retirement from
| work.
|
| A pension is a financial instrument. There's no need to
| purchase an annuity, which means a pension organised
| correctly can be passed on to your children or spouse,
| and there's no lottery or gamble angle.
| kgwgk wrote:
| > wherever you've pulled that from
|
| A dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary
| /english/dictiona...
|
| The wikipedia definition is strange. A pension is not a
| fund. A pension fund is a fund! (There is also a
| wikipedia page for that!)
|
| Apart from that how is "regular income paid by to someone
| who no longer works" different from "periodic payments
| made to support the person's retirement from work"
| anyway?
| petesergeant wrote:
| Because you missed the original distinction, which is
| that an annuity -- a product purchased using your pension
| savings where all the value is lost when you die -- is
| not the same as other pensions, where for example you
| have stocks and shares paying dividends, in a pension
| wrapper, and those pass on to your estate when you die.
|
| The word pension is overloaded. A SIPP is a pension, the
| state pension is a pension, and people refer to their
| annuity as pensions too.
|
| > A pension is not a fund. A pension fund is a fund!
|
| The word fund is being used in two different ways here. A
| pension is a fund, but is not a Pension Fund.
| kgwgk wrote:
| The wikipedia page you mention says that "The common use
| of the term pension is to describe the payments a person
| receives upon retirement, usually under predetermined
| legal or contractual terms."
|
| I'm familiar with retirement accounts and pension plans
| in a number of countries but not in the UK. I see that in
| the UK "pension" is often used a short-hand for "pension
| scheme" (it seems a relatively new development which I've
| not seen reflected in dictionaries).
|
| For what it's worth, the wikipedia page for
| Personal_pension is redirected to
| Personal_pension_scheme: "A personal pension scheme
| (PPS), sometimes called a personal pension plan (PPP), is
| ..."
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| By this reasoning, isn't buying equities also gambling?
| Hint: It is not.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Why not?
| hgomersall wrote:
| Indeed, premium bonds are just a slightly more
| "entertaining" way of allocating interest. Just as
| arbitrary as the MPC, but potentially a much higher rate
| (probably not though).
| derriz wrote:
| I'm pretty sure all gambling winnings are tax free in the UK?
|
| Thank the power of the horse racing/gaming/gambling lobby.
|
| Many years ago when I lived there, I had an IG Index account
| - who market themselves as a "financial spread betting"
| service. At the time, you could buy/sell futures and options
| with them but it was presented in a way that emphasized that
| you were "spread betting" - but the mechanics were the exact
| same and expiries all lined up with the obvious counterparts
| in the liquid futures space.
|
| So because you were NOT investing but gambling, "winnings"
| were tax free.
|
| I just googled and they're still going - presumably still
| offering the same betting "service".
|
| It's funny to see the efforts that scam and pure gambling
| services go to to try and present themselves as staid and
| serious "investment" business while IG Index offered access
| to well-regulated financial markets but kept reminding you
| that you were betting.
| ahoka wrote:
| No gambling taxes? Must be a money laundering heaven.
| justincormack wrote:
| there are taxes, but they are largely on the earnings of
| the gaming companies
| thanksgiving wrote:
| It makes sense though if I think about it.
|
| In theory, all the money wagered is money that has
| already paid income tax at some point so why tax it
| again?
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Because gambling is so terrible for your society!
| funnybeam wrote:
| That's true of anything you pay money for
| technion wrote:
| As an Australian this is the first I've ever heard of
| paying taxes on gambling winnings.
| duiker101 wrote:
| For those unaware, this comment is referring to premium bonds
| in the UK[1]. It is a very interesting system, I agree! But
| there are quite a few parts of the system that make it way
| more fair than a lottery.
|
| Most obviously, it doesn't cost to enter. So the most you can
| "lose" is a missed interest income from putting the money in
| another source.
|
| After that, it's definitely the fact that the algorithm is
| designed to both pay a certain percentage of people and
| always have specific return. [1]
|
| You are also limited to how much you can enter to 50k.
|
| With all that in mind, at the end of the day it feels like
| many small wins over time, with the super random chance of
| occasionally having a big-ish payout.
|
| It's definitely designed to feel like a lottery, but in
| reality is way more akin to normal savings than a lottery.
|
| [1] https://www.nsandi.com/products/premium-bonds
| teruakohatu wrote:
| In New Zealand this scheme was called "Bonus Bonds" and was
| wound up on 26 February 2024. Interest was charged on
| "wins" just like any other income. Apparently the average
| return was a paltry 1.5%.
| julianz wrote:
| Everyone knew someone's uncle who swore blind that he
| made heaps on the bonus bonds and had all his money
| "invested" in there, but I received some around my 10th
| birthday and they never struck a single prize. In 40
| years.
| penguin_booze wrote:
| Tax man: Did you earn your daily bread by working your arse
| off? Gimme some of that money.
|
| Also tax man: Oh did you get that money by luck? Good for
| you, man.
|
| Also tax man: Did you get inherit money by having been born
| into a wealthy family? Gimme some of that money.
|
| Also tax man: Were you born into the royal family? Good for
| you, man. Pardon me, I mean, your highness.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| The business is probably owned by some rich and influential
| chap who eagerly shares with the right people in the
| parliament.
| ashconnor wrote:
| Considering Labour's connection to gambling companies [0]
| probably not.
|
| [0]
| https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/28/tory...
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Indeed. It has been heavily covered in Private Eye, as well.
| Labour is deeply in hock to the gambling industry. So much
| for "gambling is the curse of the working class".
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| I'd vote lib dem in every election to get British
| paternalism out of your politics, luckily my country voted
| with guns to refuse to recognize the authority of your
| tyrannical monarchy
|
| The lib dems are the only party in the UN that cares about
| personal freedom, and yall don't like them. Y'all also
| didn't like labor when it was actually living up to its
| name (Corbyn years). Get off your high horse you
| authoritarian despots and let the poor have their gambling.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| >luckily my country voted with guns to refuse to
| recognize the authority of your tyrannical monarchy
|
| And how is that going?
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| USD is making every other country look and feel poor with
| how strong it is right now, vs... brexit, so it's going
| great!
|
| The UK is the sick man of Europe.
| fakedang wrote:
| Funny how you can buy British politicians for dirt cheap. In
| India or the US, it would take at least $100k-200k to get a
| single politician's attention at the bare minimum, while in
| the UK you can influence party positions for 25k quid.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I don't have enough experience about India to comment on
| that but in the US the amount of money it takes to
| influence a politician is quite low.
| fakedang wrote:
| Don't you need to donate at least $100k to influence
| senators or influence party positions in the US? Sure,
| you could "buy" a politician for cheaper, but you're not
| guaranteeing they will toe your line.
|
| India is ridiculously expensive - bribes often amount to
| 50 lakh rupees to 1 crore + rupees, which amounts to
| roughly $50k-100k per politician. Not to mention bribery
| at the lower rungs of the ladder where everyone from the
| politician's toilet janitor all the way to the
| politician's chief of staff will demand their pound of
| flesh, usually in the tune of tens of lakhs of rupees
| (~$10k).
| thanksgiving wrote:
| That's not a good thing. From what I understand, a lot of
| "cheaper" bribes in India are for things that the
| government employees must do as a part of their jobs so
| like a bribe for these government employees to do their
| job basically which still filters up to the highest
| levels of government.
|
| Why would you agree to stick your neck out for something
| illegal on the cheap when you can wring the ordinary
| people to do your job?
|
| All this is based on second hand information so please
| correct me where I am wrong. Also probably things are
| different in different parts of the country?
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| This is exactly how it works.
| fakedang wrote:
| I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing - bribery is
| bad, full stop. I wanted to draw a comparison between how
| expensive it is in India vs the UK, which means that a
| relatively smaller pool of individuals can actually
| afford to bribe in India vs the UK, which makes projects
| more concentrated in the hands of a few (which is still a
| lot in a bit country like India).
|
| On the other hand, I was a member of the Treasury group
| and the Leaders group of the Tory party until recently,
| with just a "paltry" donation of PS50k, which got me the
| ear of a sitting PM and regular meetings with the
| Chancellor. Good luck trying to get that kind of access
| in India or the US with the PM.
|
| The cheaper bribes were a tangent, but just to show that
| doing business in India is actually more expensive than
| in the UK (where there are no such bribes).
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| How much do you estimate it would take to get a
| politician to flip their view on abortion, gun control,
| illegal immigration, health care? Seems like if it were
| "quite low" you'd see politicians flipping views all the
| time as one side or the other channelled money to them.
|
| What we actually see is a lot of stasis, refusal to
| compromise, and politicians locked in with their party,
| which suggests it is pretty hard to influence
| politicians.
|
| Where money is effective is using it to get politicians
| who agree with your view elected.
| devilbunny wrote:
| Those are all hot-button issues that can make someone
| lose their seat. Unless you have enough money that they
| never have to work again, not going to happen. Almost
| nobody outside of HN notices the DMCA, but it's there.
| arp242 wrote:
| "Buying a politician to vote in a certain way" is not
| really how it works most of the time. It's more "buying
| time with a politician so you can give the best possible
| explanation for your case without any counter-argument".
| Turns out, that is surprisingly effective, especially
| when there isn't really an organised counter-movement
| with similar funds to get politicians ears.
| addicted wrote:
| You don't buy politicians to change their views on the
| circus items.
|
| The only reason all those "issues" are issues is because
| they're intended to distract the public from the actual
| stuff politicians are being bought for. Transferring
| wealth to their buyers.
|
| 80% of the politicians on both sides of the spectrum have
| the same beliefs about all those issues.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| This is an interesting observation. Why do you think it is
| so much lower in UK Vs US? My guess: There are much less
| private donations in the national UK political system.
| kd5bjo wrote:
| US congressional districts being an order of magnitude
| larger than UK constituencies probably has something to
| do with it. Also, there are significantly more MPs than
| representatives, so you have to swing more legislators to
| your side in the UK vs the US to get your pet policies
| adopted.
|
| (Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_con
| gressional_ap... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitu
| encies_of_the_Parliame... )
| fakedang wrote:
| But you can get a seat at the table for negotiations if
| the Tories are in power and you're a part of the Leaders
| group or the Treasury group of donors. All for PS50k.
|
| Leaders group puts you in touch with the Tory party
| leader (who is often the PM if the Tories are in power).
| Treasury group invites you to meetings with the
| Chancellor of the Exchequer.
| willcipriano wrote:
| US politians are routinely bought for numbers similar to
| the UK ones.
|
| They will often vote in a way that their constituents do
| not want for ~10k in campaign contributions.
|
| They didn't have to worry about the voters finding out
| about it (this is changing with alternative media) beacuse
| the same people bought ads on the major networks.
| SanjayMehta wrote:
| In India one doesn't just bribe a politician, one hires an
| expensive lawyer who "handles" the case.
|
| The real bribery starts at the bottom of the pyramid.
|
| Say you want a water connection. The rate is set on the
| size of the property, and each layer in the pyramid knows
| exactly how many square feet were approved and what their
| individual percentage will be.
|
| And again, you can't just bribe the fellow directly: you
| need to go through a trusted agent who acts as a cut-out
| between the briber and the bribed. This started after the
| Lok Ayukta started conducting raids. Who says our babus
| aren't flexible and innovative?
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| SK presidents wife cost one Dior bag worth 2200$ USD. Not
| even Gucci, Chanel, or Louis Vuitton!
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| It's interesting that the UK has banned gambling ads online,
| but not on TV. Combined with the fact that they regulate
| cryptocurrencies as gambling, that's why you get no UK crypto
| ads online. For example, the PayPal UK front page doesn't even
| mention that you can buy crypto there.
| zakki wrote:
| Do you have the link that regulate crypto as gambling in UK?
| I tried Google it but no luck.
| exe34 wrote:
| wait if crypto is gambling, then they don't tax the
| proceeds, right? but I'm pretty sure they tax it as capital
| gains..... so it's gambling for advertising purposes but
| capital investment for tax purposes...
|
| I suppose the law is an ass.
| frereubu wrote:
| This isn't true. OP may be confusing things like this -
| https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/licensees-and-
| business... - as saying that crypto is regulated as
| gambling, but it's not.
| rgblambda wrote:
| Maybe this is blurring the line between online and TV, but TV
| streaming services definitely have gambling ads. A gambling
| ad literally just came on the Channel 4 player in front of me
| as I started typing this.
| thenickdude wrote:
| You can buy crypto on PayPal?? Our New Zealand version
| doesn't mention it either.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Not in New Zealand. The USA, the UK, and Luxembourg only.
| andrepd wrote:
| I'm not in the UK, but yeah it's nothing short of fucking
| disgusting how plastered TV is with these incessant gambling
| ads. "Gamble on slots on your phone while you're in the metro,
| the hairdresser, the dentist!" they shout, at kids and adults
| alike, 2 times every minute on every commercial break.
| Disgusting.
| dzonga wrote:
| i was going to comment on this. gambling ads of all kinds, sky-
| bet, sky vegas casino + whatever in their hydra form. in
| depressed places like luton - you see how gambling has
| destroyed the little that remained.
|
| ban gambling companies from sponsoring sports teams, from being
| associated with sports teams etc.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| It is very noticeable that the gambling shops are clustered
| around the poorest parts of every town.
|
| I grew up near a gambling shop. You would see the punters
| desparately trying to eek out every last puff on their roll-
| up cigarettes, while the gambling shop owner would drive up
| in his Rolls Royce.
| b800h wrote:
| Or massive vaping ads on the side of school buses.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| I wonder if a prohibition to have gambling ads on TV would
| affect the Premier League teams that have gambling sponsorships
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Let's just ban all ads!
| thanksgiving wrote:
| A good start would be a ban on ads based on who is viewing
| the ad vs what the content surrounding the ad is...
|
| So, Casper mattress wants to have an ad spot in a podcast or
| a YouTube video in the video itself? That's ok.
|
| YouTube wants to include an ad about a mattress in a video
| about home renovation? Also ok.
|
| Stack overflow wants to show an ad for GitHub? Is ok to me.
|
| YouTube wants to show an ad about Casper mattress based on
| whether someone has clicked on an ad about mattresses before?
| Banned!
|
| This alone would be a great start.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Or... just get rid of them all.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I was joking, but I think you make my point better.
| benatkin wrote:
| Sarcasm I hope...
| Winblows11 wrote:
| What about adverts on YouTube and TikTok and other online
| platforms? I doubt kids/teenagers watch much TV at all these
| days.
| xxs wrote:
| "This government is taking action now to end the targeting of
| junk food ads at kids, across both TV and _online_. ",
|
| it's a quote from the article, it's very likely they'd ban ads
| targeted at children.
| chgs wrote:
| I expect a lot of pushback from the new u.s administration
| about any online regulations.
| xxs wrote:
| The regulation would apply to the UK. UK brands and goods
| sold in the UK, by established/registered companies the UK.
| Not possible to sell any retail goods of the sorts w/o a
| registration in the UK, so stopping them advertising won't
| be hard.
|
| I don't think US administration would be able to do
| anything, much like GDPR.
| chgs wrote:
| Tarrifs and other threats
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| What about Mr Beast video sponsored by McDonalds (for the
| sake of specificity, a new McMuffin available in every
| country on earth)?
|
| > I don't think US administration would be able to do
| anything, much like GDPR.
|
| We live in a different world to the mid-late 2010s. For
| better or worse, I'm fairly confident Musk and Zuckerberg
| will have input on US trade policy on these issues.
| ben_w wrote:
| > For better or worse, I'm fairly confident Musk and
| Zuckerberg will have input on US trade policy on these
| issues.
|
| Input, yes.
|
| May even be able to get the US to threaten a trade war or
| to leave NATO if they can't rake in the advertising
| dollars.
|
| But I think the former would be seen as Trump being Trump
| and the latter as a bluff, and in both cases it would be
| reason to more permanently disentangle the UK economy
| from the US economy and defence relationship than to dry
| away the crocodile tears of multibillonaires.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| The US has more leverage over the UK then perhaps any
| other country. Largely because of the shared political
| culture.
|
| They could throw hand grenades into British politics by
| declassifying embarrassing events involving British
| soldiers in Iraq, investigating tax issues with labour
| party donors (many of whom conduct business in the US) or
| recognising Northern Ireland as part of the Republic of
| Ireland.
|
| Attacking the British economy would be a political
| mistake, because a well advised politician would use it
| as a scapegoat for any economic problem in the UK.
| Similar with defence - e.g the withdrawal of intelligence
| cooperation could allow a terrorist attack to be blamed
| on Trump rather than MI5/MI6 funding stress.
| ben_w wrote:
| Seems plausible, though I still think the US threatening
| to do that, let alone actually doing that, is more likely
| to cause a separation between the US and UK than to be
| taken seriously (in the sense of getting the UK to change
| course).
|
| The UK did just go through having Boris Johnson as Prime
| Minister, after all, who spent his time in office
| demonstrating that being completely shameless is a viable
| solution to almost all blackmail -- he only fell when
| there were photos of him partying in the same period he
| was on TV telling people they couldn't do that or visit
| dying relatives because COVID lockdown, everything else
| wrong was basically ignored.
| xxs wrote:
| McDonalds is likely to be responsible for the contents in
| that regard I'd presume (esp since they do own the
| trademark). This is what I meant by corporations
| registered in the UK.
|
| In a similar vein gambling content targeted at kids would
| have a similar approach. Keep in mind the businesses
| still need to be able to sell in the UK.
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| For Youtube often the content is an ad too. Will Google need
| to stop serving huge swaths of content to the UK at certain
| times? Hope so!
| dartos wrote:
| I got news for you.
|
| Kids entertainment has almost always been ads.
|
| Disney movies are marketing for toys. Same with TV shows
| and cartoons.
| xxs wrote:
| >content to the UK at certain times? Hope so!
|
| We have no idea how/where it'd end up (with). If I
| understand anything about regulations (which is doubtful of
| course), the advertisers, themselves, would be on the hook.
| pkaye wrote:
| According to this link Food and Beverage ads are already
| prohibited on YouTube kids. I don't know if this is a US
| specific policy but I presume its similar elsewhere.
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6168681?hl=en#zipp.
| ..
| crowcroft wrote:
| It baffles me that more countries haven't put legislation in
| place to severely limit what ads can be served to under 18 year
| olds (or at least under 16).
|
| I worked in an ad agency a number of years ago, and Phillip
| Morris approached us with a deliberate plan to launch big
| budget ad campaigns on social media platforms specifically
| because they could get in front of younger demos more easily
| (traditional media having existing regulations in my country).
|
| The original idea was to build a large database of prospects to
| sell direct to even after regulation eventually cracks down on
| them. Amazingly no regulation has come yet, and Meta has done
| little to no self-regulation.
|
| You can blame parents, but even then one under appreciated
| problem with digital ads is the lack of shared experience. With
| TV advertising, you know what your kid is seeing, everyone can
| see a verify what ad ran at what time on what channel etc. If a
| parent and a kid are scrolling social media their experience is
| entirely different, and you can't go back and see what someone
| else has seen.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Probably because being tracked across all platforms is a bad
| idea in a democractic/liberal type of country, and not worth
| the "think of the children" argument. At some point parents
| have to take some responsibility.
| crowcroft wrote:
| First, I'm not sure being tracked across all platforms is
| actually a requirement here. On device age verification and
| device attestation and/or simply assuming anonymous users
| are under 18 from an ad safety perspective would allow a
| level of anonymity across platforms. It might also help
| solve a large chunk of ad fraud.
|
| Second, I think you really need strong evidence to say that
| the upside you're asserting is truly worth sacrificing kids
| safety.
| ben_w wrote:
| > At some point parents have to take some responsibility
|
| By voting for the party that promises to enforce bans
| against it?
|
| There's more than one way to be responsible, and it's not
| good to be a "helicopter parent" even if you have enough
| free time to actually pair-browse the internet with your
| kid, and even if you did that doesn't stop them seeing
| inappropriate content or ads it just means there's a
| witness who knows they saw inappropriate content or ads.
| Fnoord wrote:
| My kid recently got a second hand iPad tablet. On it, she
| uses YouTube Kids. I made an account for her. Now, they ask
| _me_ for consent, since she cannot legally give it. They
| throw ads at her about toys, but this is illegal in my
| country to target children with ads. Ads are supposed to
| target parents, not kids. Now, if it were one ad at start,
| I'd hate it, but they go further: in a 10-minute movie, the
| thing quits like 3 times to show my kid an ad. She barely has
| the attention span to watch the bloody vid! You know why they
| do it? Not because it is legal; because they get away with
| it. Law is irrelevant if it isn't uphold.
| crowcroft wrote:
| That's the other thing as well, we need to spend more time
| upholding laws that already exist instead of getting
| distracted with these weird news publisher content
| regulations like Canada has.
| troyvit wrote:
| And Programmatic advertising makes this extremely
| difficult. Once you add a giant, automated ad exchange to
| advertising you've created opaque supply chains that help
| make it trivial to obfuscate who actually makes money
| from an ad. This article on ad fraud goes into more
| detail: https://xenoss.io/blog/programmatic-ad-fraud-
| detection
| crowcroft wrote:
| Agree on issues with programmatic. Compared to the number
| of dollars, and in particular number of dollars being
| spent on ads served to under 18s, programmatic is a
| rounding error compared to Google, Meta, TikTok etc.
|
| https://www.emarketer.com/uploads/pdf/US_Ad_Spending_2023
| .pd...
| troyvit wrote:
| Whoah good point. Man for how small that market is they
| sure spend a lot of time screwing it up. Given their
| closed systems, do Google, Meta and TikTok have tighter
| controls over ads served to kids that they just aren't
| applying, or is it something else?
| crowcroft wrote:
| Over the years it's hard to grok just how small
| 'traditional' media has become. Messing up programmatic
| and letting a ton of scam tech vendors take most of the
| money out of the system is a large part of that problem.
|
| My experience is that the big vendors are better than
| scummy programmatic platforms in terms of 'safety' but
| even then not by much.
|
| Even YouTube's 'for kids' product consistently has
| scandals break out about it which says where the
| company's priorities are.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| You have the power to stop this: disable the app if you
| believe the ads are harming your child, or opt to pay for
| YT or another kids video service that doesn't serve ads.
|
| One issue is that YT is possibly violating the law. A
| separate issue is that parents are allowing children to
| continue consuming harmful ad content on an app.
| crowcroft wrote:
| Not sure if YT for kids falls in this category exactly
| but the social nature of a lot of these products means
| that cutting your kid off also has negative effects in
| their social circle when all their friends are on the
| networks. That's why collective action is needed, not
| just the action of individual parents.
| Ntrails wrote:
| If we all stand around and wait for the collective action
| to start, it never will. imo start by making informed
| choices and sharing your reasons when asked.
|
| Shrugging at brainworms being inserted into your child
| and shrugging with a "well that's just the world we live
| in" is mind boggling to me. Heck, when i grew up there
| were kids without TV at home. They survived pretty well,
| despite a bit of social disconnect.
| autoexec wrote:
| I don't know if apple will allow you to do it on an ipad,
| but even very young kids can learn to use something like
| newpipe or yt-dlp which can download videos and removes
| youtube's ads. If nothing else you could download ad-free
| videos and copy them to a device so there's a massive
| library of safe media you've vetted and wont have to worry
| about.
| bko wrote:
| If your child watches a lot of YouTube, or any at all really,
| you should really invest in YouTube premium. It's incredible
| how much people use YouTube but because there is a free option,
| few bother to fork over $14 a month to remove ads, especially
| when it vastly improves the experience for your children. In a
| case like this I think the obvious solution is self-regulation.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| Well I didn't understand how -besides the cereals maybe- are
| unhealthy
|
| > Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola,
| muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals.
|
| until I re-read and saw this:
|
| > But the new restrictions will not apply to healthier options
| such as natural porridge oats and unsweetened yoghurt.
|
| So I think it's not clear in the first sentence but "ready-to-
| eat" is meant to apply to all the items in the list and not just
| the cereals.
| deskr wrote:
| It's very strange they say porridge oats are banned, then go on
| saying "natural porridge oats" are not.
|
| In my mind porridge oats are natural and you don't have to say
| that. If you have something else you need to say so.
| dmart wrote:
| I'm assuming they mean stuff like Quaker oatmeal packets
| which are half sugar.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| My kids love natural porridge, however there is a constant
| battle about how much honey they are allowed to drown them
| in. :)
| chrisjj wrote:
| I am amazed honey is not on this list of "junk" foods.
| datavirtue wrote:
| It's on mine. Refined sugar with water, pure and simple.
| It doesn't get a pass.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Are any other toppings on the list? If it's just
| standalone foods I'm not surprised.
| fy20 wrote:
| The highly processed stuff found in supermarkets
| definately should be. If you haven't ever tried real
| honey, go find some and thank me later.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Unfortunately you're probably right. When "oats" may refer
| to those sugar packs it kinda shows how bad our food habits
| and norms have fallen.
| beejiu wrote:
| They are not banned. They are on "the list" (as the article
| says) meaning they must be scored using the "NPM model". Only
| scores exceeding 4 are "banned", which will include sweetened
| oats.
| deskr wrote:
| >must be scored using the "NPM model". Only scores
| exceeding 4 are "banned", which will include sweetened oats
|
| Thanks. Do you have a link to "the list" and this NPM model
| scoring system?
| aembleton wrote:
| https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cdac7e5
| 274...
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Its the cereal industry being bastards again.
|
| Breakfast cereals contain a colossal amount of sugar, and are a
| great way to keep your diabetes on its toes. They haven't been
| healthy for years, moreover the toys they put in them have been
| shit as well.
| Cumpiler69 wrote:
| _> moreover the toys they put in them have been shit as well_
|
| That's what pisses me the fuck off. Even Kinder toys have
| been shit for decades.
| razakel wrote:
| If they didn't fortify breakfast cereals then they'd be about
| as nutritious as the box they came in.
| beejiu wrote:
| There's a lot of misinformation going around about how the
| legislation works.
|
| All porridge oats are "in scope" of the regulation, which means
| they need to be scored using the "Nutrient Profile Model" score
| before being advertised.
|
| The result is that porridge oats are not banned, but golden
| syrup instant porridge oats will be.
|
| Here's the scoring model:
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-prof...
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Do you think this is worth posting as a top-level comment?
| There's already lots of speculation in this thread (confusion
| even), and I appreciate you bringing an authoritative
| reference to the discussion.
| JBits wrote:
| I'm a bit confused as I thought muesli was healthy.
| kyriakos wrote:
| It's healthy from the point of having fiber if you have no
| fruit and vegetables in your diet but at the same time it's
| 30% or more sugar.
| dageshi wrote:
| Good thing they made this move once daytime tv was basically
| irrelevant to anyone under 40 or it might've had some impact.
| gwerbret wrote:
| Direct quote from the article which I'm sure you read: "This
| government is taking action now to end the targeting of junk
| food ads at kids, across both TV and online."
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Because when kids go on the internet they always end up in
| regulated age appropriate areas.
| tomp wrote:
| Wow, what's wrong with burgers?
|
| I mean, certainly you can get bad meat, and maybe it's easier to
| conceal in a burger than in a steak, but ... how about literally
| _all other processed meat_ that is invariably processed more than
| burgers? Salami, sausages, hot dogs, ...
|
| I personally love burger, and consider it one of the finest
| foods.
|
| Fortunately, there's a very easy way to know the _quality_ of a
| burger - if they ask you, how well you want it done, it 's high
| quality! Shitty burger places like McDonalds and Burger King
| don't want to risk selling you a medium-done burger... Funny
| enough, UK is one of the better places for high-quality burger,
| much better than e.g. Switzerland or Slovenia! My favourite in
| London is (was? 2019) Honest Burger...
| Karellen wrote:
| > Also on the banned list are products _such as_ chickpea or
| lentil-based crisps, seaweed-based snacks and Bombay mix as
| well as energy drinks, hamburgers and chicken nuggets.
|
| The foods mentioned in the article are not an exhaustive list
| of all the foods for which the government has banned
| advertising. It's possible they've also banned ads for salami,
| sausages and hot dogs, but the article didn't mention it.
|
| Probably because, compared to burgers, there aren't that many
| ads for salami, sausages and hot-dogs during daytime TV, so
| it's not seen as much of a problem, or as worth mentioning.
|
| But because you mention it - how many daytime ads do you see
| for high quality burgers, like Honest Burger, as compared to
| ads for McDonalds and Burger King?
| cma wrote:
| McDonald's burgers are 100% beef. What's the problem? If the
| bun and other parts of the burger are ultra processed,
| whatever that means, well, that's the same for their chicken
| sandwiches, right? If the problem is the salt or seasonings,
| why not ban ads for salty burgers over a threshold or burgers
| with the specific problematic seasonings?
| nradov wrote:
| Salt is not particularly a problem unless someone has a
| genetic predisposition to hypertension or doesn't drink
| enough water.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| There is nothing wrong with most foods as part of a mixed diet.
| The problem is, a burger/box of chicken is ~PS2-4 and fucking
| fast. A meal with vegetables either takes preparation, or is
| >PS6
|
| The issue here is that the UK is obese as fuck. Partly because
| of education, partly because of price, party because of
| supermarkets.
|
| If we want to avoid spending billions upon billions tackling
| diabetes and other related conditions, the UK needs to tackle
| its diet. This is
| Krutonium wrote:
| In Canada, it's outright illegal to sell a burger medium done.
| If you get caught, your restaurant _will_ be closed for a
| couple weeks minimum, along with a hefty fine. It must be fully
| cooked, or not served.
| dylan604 wrote:
| seriously? No medium well, just straight up well done? So,
| hockey pucks? Ahh, now it makes sense. It's a law endowed by
| Canada's love of hockey
| dboreham wrote:
| It's perfectly possible to cook a burger such that it's not
| dry but also not raw.
| dboreham wrote:
| Same in UK. Family members keep asking me when we travel
| there "will my burger be done right". Uhhh..there's only one
| kind of doneness for a burger in these parts.
| akira2501 wrote:
| It's ground beef. The rule is you must cook it to the proper
| internal temperature. This is reasonable food safety. This
| simply precludes medium as an option.
|
| If they grind their own meat or use something like ground
| chuck or ground round you can get it medium.
| cma wrote:
| Why is ground chuck safer than other ground beef?
| evgen wrote:
| Bacteria contaminates the exposed surface of foods. Pre-
| ground meat has a _lot_ of surface area exposed so the
| potential for contamination is high. If you get your meat
| as a chunk of chuck roast or larger primal cut, follow
| good food safety practices in how you maintain your
| workspace, and then grind the chuck and turn it into
| patties to be grilled the probability for serving a
| contaminated product is low.
|
| The problem is that this is more expensive and time
| consuming so almost no one actually does this in a
| commercial setting. If you tell me you do this when I
| come over to your home cook-out I will possibly trust you
| to serve me a burger with some pink in it, but if your
| restaurant tries to sell a $6 burger that you let someone
| order medium-rare bad things are going to eventually
| happen...
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| For added safety, you can even sear the outside of the
| cut, then trim the seared part before grinding the rest.
| canucker2016 wrote:
| There are small burger restaurant chains in Canada that
| grind their meat on the premises. Burger's Priest (they
| used to tout this, but since the franchising push, this
| link is the only mention about grinding their own meat -
| https://www.recipeunlimited.com/en/franchising/burger-
| priest...) and Holy Chuck Burgers -
| https://holychuckburgers.com/.
|
| Some meat sellers mechanically tenderize (blading) their
| cuts of beef. This may cause E.coli on the surface of the
| beef to enter the interior of the beef. Costco was linked
| to E.coli cases in 2012 due to this practice. See
| https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-
| you...
| tomp wrote:
| That doesn't make sense. It's beef.
|
| If you can serve a steak medium, then you can also grind the
| steak, cook it medium and serve it.
| cma wrote:
| Then you get bacteria in the ground part, potentially,
| whereas a steak will be cooked on all the exposed surfaces.
| tomp wrote:
| Um, it's beef. It can be eaten raw. Ever heard of
| carpaccio?!?
|
| Only two reasons to ever cook beef: (1) taste (2) quality
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| The exterior of a cut can be seared and then trimmed off
| to get a safe chunk of raw beef.
| ilyin wrote:
| A whole steak doesn't contain pathogens deep within, only
| on the surface, which is why ground beef is different
| situation entirely.
| pshc wrote:
| The burgers they show on TV are pure junk food, let's be real.
| EasyMark wrote:
| Hamburgers on whole wheat are a staple in my life. The war on
| saturated fat and red meat is ridiculous
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| I could see supporting with this, but it does seem like an abuse
| of the 'for the children' argument for this.
|
| Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until they
| get a job.
|
| Also some chicken nuggets are bad, but some average a gram of
| protein per 10 calories, which is a pretty good ratio, and
| especially for frozen food. Can't help but think this is too
| broad.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| more so in the past, there was a lot more food advertising
| directed at kids, because the thought was that kids could annoy
| their parents enough to drag the whole family to an
| establishment. and some marketing tricks work a lot better on
| children because of their social settings and general
| impulsiveness (e.g. "All the cool kids have Lunchables")
| chgs wrote:
| The milky bar kid is strong and tough
|
| The red car and the blue car had a race
|
| Turn the milk chocolatey
|
| Keep hunger locked up tip lunch
|
| I have tried to avoid adverts for 20 years, but the adverts
| of my childhood (not just ones aimed at kids - autoglass
| repair and replace, safe style do buy one get one free, dfs
| sale ends Sunday, ronseal quick drying wood stain does
| exactly what it says on the tin)
|
| The brainwashing is sickening.
| WWLink wrote:
| HEAD ON! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!!!!!
| laurieg wrote:
| I still remember phone numbers from radio ads I heard as a
| kid. I don't have any phone number memorized apart from my
| own
| robertlagrant wrote:
| All red wants to do is stuff his face! Overeating bad,
| according to that ad. Other than Milky Ways.
| ben_w wrote:
| > autoglass repair and replace, safe style do buy one get
| one free, dfs sale ends Sunday, ronseal quick drying wood
| stain does exactly what it says on the tin
|
| A golem carved out of butter playing a trombone, an
| animated blue telephone, a puppy stealing toilet paper,
| Boddingtons.
|
| Same vibes, different details.
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| This is not systems thinking though. It take a lot of will for
| parents to fight kids desire for junk food from social pressure
| alone. Should parents be perfect citizens that make 10000
| correct micro decisions a month correctly every time? Or can
| society help a bit by blocking some of the predators?
|
| It is like "just say no". Thay'll do it for drug addicition.
| Simple.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| I don't think this is true in practice; it feels sufficiently
| obvious that children's tastes influence what they get fed that
| I'm not going to bother to find a citation
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| I don't believe you have children of your own; is this an
| armchair opinion or your own lived experience?
|
| Anyway while on paper this is true, in practice kids will ask
| for this and may get it as a treat, or they may get it from
| somewhere else. And as a one-off, that's fine, but they do get
| influenced by ads to want more of it at any time. Same with
| fast food chains, somehow the ones that aren't available where
| I live got an almost mythical status with the teenager here. A
| Taco Bell did open here but honestly it was mediocre and
| overpriced.
| xxs wrote:
| Teens and so would be given money to buy food themselves,
| e.g. before/after going to football training, swimming,
| dancing etc.
|
| Indeed, it's unrealistic to expect all kids would be served
| food and observed while eating.
| worble wrote:
| >Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until they
| get a job.
|
| Damn, someone better ring up the cereal companies and tell them
| to stop advertising, I bet they'll feel foolish realizing
| they've wasted all that money!
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| So.. then.. why are we advertising to them _at all_?
| WD-42 wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| If true why do cereal companies spend billions on advertising
| directly to children? For the fun of it?
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| I think its so children are open to eating it after the
| parents have bought it. If the food doesn't look appealing
| the parent will have to work harder but its the parents
| making the food choices not the child. Most of the time
| children don't even go to the grocery store with their
| parents.
| WD-42 wrote:
| Tell me you have never had kids without telling me you've
| never had kids.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| I have children
| NicuCalcea wrote:
| So parents buy unhealthy food for their children without
| any prompting, and the kids need to have their minds opened
| to it by advertising, otherwise they wouldn't it?
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| I'm sure the cartoons and colors help the kids get
| motivated to eat the cereal
| WD-42 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the massive amounts of sugar is all the
| motivation they need.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| How do they know it has sugar just by looking at the food
| or the packaging?
| autoexec wrote:
| the rainbow colored marshmallows tip them off.
| someotherperson wrote:
| Through my own experiences I feel that if the parents allow
| them to have cereal as a starter, then the choice between
| Frosted Flakes and Cinnamon Toast Crunch will be up to the
| kid.
|
| Personally I came from a family that never had cereal for
| breakfast, so that advertising never affected me -- it's not
| like I'd ever have it.
| ojagodzinski wrote:
| cool but nobody watches TV this days.
| anticorporate wrote:
| I mean, that's objectively disproved by the advertising
| industry who is profiting from these ads.
|
| Maybe you and I aren't, but lots of people are.
| Eumenes wrote:
| this is exactly the type of policy you'd expect from a governing
| body that is completely out of touch with the working class. I
| can imagine the cambridge, UCL, and oxford graduates patting
| eachother on the back after the meeting, congratulating
| themselves on solving childhood obesity.
| userbinator wrote:
| It's what you'd expect of a country that's rapidly diving into
| Orwellian dystopia.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Do you actually live in the UK or is this based on Musk
| tweets?
| Argonaut998 wrote:
| NTA but I went to London for new years two years ago and it
| was worse than Musk's tweets.
|
| "See it. Say it. Sort it"
|
| Ugh
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I live in the UK. It is far from perfect and the laws
| restricting the right to peaceful protest (enacted by the
| last government) had a very unwelcome authoritarian edge.
| But I don't see it "rapidly diving into Orwellian
| dystopia".
|
| Also London, is very different to the rest of the UK, in
| many ways.
|
| >"See it. Say it. Sort it"
|
| You know that the UK has a long history of terrorists
| placing bombs on public transport?
| pixxel wrote:
| > I live in the UK
|
| Do you live in all of the UK?
| Woeps wrote:
| Uhm... the country we're talking about is the UK. Not some US
| state...
| jsyang00 wrote:
| Yes, it's the ads. After all, we know how economical and fast it
| is for people to access healthy meals. I look forward to the
| speedy eradication of all obesity problems
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| The perfect. Enemy of the good.
| jackjeff wrote:
| If only I ever watched ads on live TV I would have noticed...
| amelius wrote:
| Can we have one or several months without ads of any kind?
|
| Perhaps then we can appreciate a world without ads more.
|
| It might also reduce the environmental burden of overconsumption.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Move to the UK and only watch the BBC, and yes
| b800h wrote:
| That's not ad-free. You have to put up with ads for a load of
| BBC programmes which will almost inevitably contain a slew of
| progressive messaging.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| The BBC is ad free in the UK.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Not whole UK, as they've been banning VPNs from iPlayer.
| aembleton wrote:
| Plenty of guests on shows promoting a new film or book. We
| still have billboards advertising stuff.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It is amazing when you visit a city that has banned billboards
| especially when coming from one that does not.
|
| It's the same (opposite) feeling you get when watching an ad
| free streaming service and the switch to live TV or Prime.
| Which is just like switching to a browser with out uBO.
|
| If society went 30 days with a universal uBO experience, I
| think all wars would end, cats & dogs sleeping together,
| shields would become plow. You know, basically peace on earth.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Every once in a while I end up with a browser without
| adblocker. It baffles me how anyone would want to use the WWW
| like that. I cannot fathom, they're missing out, but at the
| end: those people plus the ones paying for services (which is
| sometimes me) are financing the platforms.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Well, allegedly funding their platforms. Not all ads
| convert.
| alecco wrote:
| IMHO the only way they'll pay attention if enough of us turn it
| all off.
| jasonlfunk wrote:
| I just hope that the US can ban ads for pharmaceuticals.
| dboreham wrote:
| Never happen. There's a place called Canada though...
| nxm wrote:
| Same was said of tobacco... and I don't see any ads on TV for
| tobacco.
| bdzr wrote:
| Why?
| zabzonk wrote:
| I hear crumpets are also frowned on - my favourite breakfast
| food!
| steviedotboston wrote:
| what about sausage rolls and meal deals?
| paulpauper wrote:
| future headline: A UK man was found dead in his flat after his TV
| broke. apparently he had starved to death after not being
| reminded of the existence of food by the ads.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| Good that they are trying but " ...aired after the 9:00 pm"
| running ads after 9 pm is even worst. If you need to consume
| sugar you might as well do it in day time.
| xxs wrote:
| It's about kids, ads targeted at kids (according to the
| article)
| wrboyce wrote:
| A lot of the regulations around what is and isn't allowed on TV
| in the UK change at 2100, we call it the "watershed" which is
| regulated by OfCom (the communications ombudsman).
|
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-st...
| contingencies wrote:
| The significant background that the UK just delivered a _House of
| Lords_ enquiry in to the food system[0] which recommended a
| "complete ban" on junk food advertising and that the government
| ban junk food vendors from regulatory feedback. You can bet the
| consumer packaged goods (CPG) AKA 'junk food industry' - the
| likes of _Mondelez_ , etc. - are actively resisting these changes
| with all manner of false reports, shoddy advertising doublespeak
| and back-channel arrangements. Given this background, the ban is
| relatively light touch. Expect further developments.
|
| [0]
| https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldmfdo...
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| What about alcohol? Or other carb heavy or sugar heavy products?
| Why these?
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| As referenced by beejiu elsewhere on this thread[1], it applies
| to all foods products based on their nutritional content; there
| are no exemptions. Alcohol, however, does appear not to be
| covered by these new rules, but there are existing restrictions
| about advertising alcohol - [2] is one document on the topic,
| although I can't immediately tell if it's out of date.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42360734
|
| [2]:
| https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/d3683dc1-189e-413c-86...
| rsynnott wrote:
| Advertising alcohol to children is, of course, already illegal.
| JSDevOps wrote:
| This will make zero difference these days.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Help me understand. The UK government basically said that parents
| are not responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their
| children so the government needs to step in and do it for them?
|
| Does that not seem like an overreach? Its not like 4 year olds
| are driving to McDonald's by themselves and ordering burgers. The
| parents are the ones being targeted here.
| Argonaut998 wrote:
| The UK is so far gone with government overreach at this point.
| They don't seem to mind.
| widdershins wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're getting at. They banned certain
| advertisments at a particular time of day. They didn't ban
| parents from giving their children whatever thet want to give
| them.
| forinti wrote:
| They're not prohibiting anyone from feeding these things to
| their children. A lot of people will continue to do so.
|
| The government would have to spend a lot of money on counter-
| campaigns to keep the public well informed and it probably
| wouldn't have the desired effect on children.
|
| Finally, and this is a very important point for me, children
| cannot enter into business deals/contracts; commercials are
| business proposals; hence there should be no ads targeting
| children.
| majormajor wrote:
| It's more "we don't want corporations selling unhealthy junk to
| have direct access to influence super-impressional kids" -
| cause guess what, in that case? You can be a perfectly
| responsible parent dietary-decision-wise, but have your kids
| whine and complain constantly because the kids _aren 't_
| informed about the problems of it and just want the tasty shit
| they saw all the ads for.
|
| Would you allow salespeople into your home to pitch your kids
| on stuff all day if they were in-person instead of on a screen?
|
| Why not complain about the overreach of irresponsible companies
| trying to convince kids who have no way of knowing better to
| start damaging their long-term health?
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| As a parent I don't let my children watch things I disagree
| with. They can probably count the number of food ads they've
| seen in 1 hand because I don't let them watch TV. They can
| watch shows and movies but they're either streamed or checked
| out of the library.
|
| But that's the way I choose to parent my child. If another
| parent wants their children to watch TV and be exposed to
| those ads then they should have every right. I'm not going to
| make a moral decision for them and I don't think the
| government should either.
| frereubu wrote:
| What about the (large, I would argue) slice of parents who
| want to let their kids watch TV but don't want them
| bombarded with ads for sugar-saturated foods?
|
| (I mean, we're on HN, so the obvious answer is watching
| things on a laptop / projector with Firefox + uBlock
| Origin, but y'know - everyone else).
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve
| forcing their morality on others. Thats how we get
| xenophobic and homophobic people voting to control
| women's bodies because they think others should do
| whatever they believe is moral and right.
| jraph wrote:
| > Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve
| forcing their morality on others
|
| I believe forbidding these ads is morally good, but it's
| not just morality. It's knowledge backed by studies:
|
| - children are easily influenced
|
| - burgers cause public health issues that harm the
| individuals, and cost greatly to the society in
| healthcare
|
| It's not a stance like "I believe women should not abort
| because God" (to take your example). It's a law aiming to
| reduce costs and and improve public health.
|
| This laws doesn't prevent parents from speaking about
| burgers to their children, and doesn't prevent TV from
| speaking about them neither. It's not a freedom of speech
| issue.
|
| There's an imbalance between the power of the big
| corporations and the power of the individuals and this
| law pushes the needle a bit towards the individuals. You
| the individual freedom defender should be happy with this
| :-)
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Although I never made an argument regarding free speech
| we can say that this does prevent free speech because it
| prevents companies from speaking about their products
| through advertisements. Remember that business owners are
| people too. Often times they're citizens of the countries
| in which they're doing business.
|
| I think most people tend to forget that and view
| companies as soulless abstract entities. In the US 99.9%
| (99.8% in the UK) of businesses are small businesses run
| by very few individuals who are just trying to make ends
| meet. If you remove the ability to advertise these
| products it doesn't hurt the big companies. They're
| established and have recognizable brands. But small
| businesses can't afford to lose their main way of finding
| customers. Eventually, they go out of business. This only
| helps the large corporations become even larger.
|
| > There's an imbalance between the power of the big
| corporations and the power of the individuals...
|
| Where is the imbalance of power in the scenario of
| burgers being advertised? All advertisement is designed
| to persuade the viewer to purchase the product or
| service. Marketing is a normal part of running a
| business. Children may be influenced by the commercials
| but so are adults. Should we ban all advertising now?
|
| > - burgers cause public health issues that harm the
| individuals, and cost greatly to the society in
| healthcare
|
| While burgers may not be the healthiest food, if you're a
| low income individual who can't access more expensive,
| healthier foods, burgers are nutrient and calorically
| rich and they're cheap.
|
| A burger to someone living below the poverty line without
| access to food is a life saver. Its all about context and
| perspective.
| pacoWebConsult wrote:
| Case in point for why socialized medicine leads to
| government overreach in many other facets of our lives.
|
| Milton Friedman had a great point during this talk [1],
| same argument from 50 years ago.
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWIrbS0dXRM
| themk wrote:
| I'm the same. My children are practically never exposed to
| these ads. But, all their peers are.
|
| My kids have never had any fast food, and have never seen
| an ad, but they talk about KFC and McDonald's constantly.
| It all comes from their friends at school.
| jraph wrote:
| Children are totally targeted. They will ask their parents and
| put pressure to buy them stuff. Maybe even the parents who
| don't cave in can be relieved of this.
|
| In the longer term, stuff that enters your brain as a child
| shapes you and lasts long. See how well how many people in
| their 30s remember ads of their childhood.
|
| Why would someone defend such ads anyway? I don't believe they
| achieve anything good for anyone except the advertiser.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Its because I don't want the government, people who I've
| never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of
| individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my
| behalf.
|
| Even if the majority of citizens agreed that forcing their
| morality on the minority is the right thing to do I still
| disagree because individual freedom is more important than
| majority opinion.
| MiguelX413 wrote:
| What's the point of laws if not forcing morality?
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Protecting individual rights and freedoms
| jraph wrote:
| Not at the cost of harming people, usually. Its role is
| also to protect individuals themselves.
|
| Infinite individual freedom doesn't exist, it stops where
| others' individual freedom starts.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Absolutely. Individuals should have rights and freedoms
| as long as they don't harm another's.
| alex_lav wrote:
| > Not at the cost of harming people,
|
| What defines harm? Or more specifically, who?
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| > I still disagree because individual freedom is more
| important than majority opinion.
|
| this read suspiciously like a stereotypical US opinion
| regarding individual rights vs rights of the majority.
|
| so i went and looked through your comment history and i now
| i suspect even more strongly that you are US based.
|
| > Its because I don't want the government, people who I've
| never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of
| individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my
| behalf.
|
| it's not your government doing this. you can relax.
|
| also, we in the UK value the balance between individual
| rights and collective societal rights more strongly than
| you do. it's our thing. if you don't like it, it doesnt
| matter, you don't live here.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Just because someone doesn't live in a particular region
| doesn't mean they can't have opinions on broader
| implications of these reforms.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| sure, except there are no broader implications for you
| right now.
|
| worry about that when it comes around pal. you're just
| wasting energy right now spreading FUD.
|
| what im basically saying here is, yes, you're entitled to
| have an opinion.
|
| but i'm also entitled to have an opinion that your
| opinion is meaningless and irrelevant to the subject at
| hand.
|
| which is what i am expressing.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > this read suspiciously like a stereotypical US opinion
| regarding individual rights vs rights of the majority.
|
| Good. Majorities shouldn't be able to steamroller
| minorities.
| devinrf wrote:
| > "we in the UK value the balance between individual
| rights and collective societal rights more strongly than
| you do"
|
| isn't this also the place where you can go to jail for
| what you say online? orwell's probably rolling in his
| grave somewhere in London
| jraph wrote:
| > Its because I don't want the government, people who I've
| never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of
| individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my
| behalf.
|
| But without the law, they are doing the moral decision of
| allowing the hurtful ads. There's no neutral state. The
| government has to pick a side anyway. So let's pick the
| side favorable to the citizens?
|
| > individual freedom is more important than majority
| opinion
|
| Isn't this a contradiction? If the majority wants
| something, you are hurting the individual freedom of the
| greatest number of people.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| > But without the law, they are doing the moral decision
| of allowing the hurtful ads. There's no neutral state.
| The government has to pick a side anyway. So let's pick
| the side favorable to the citizens?
|
| The idea of the government 'picking a side' is
| problematic because it assumes a one-size-fits-all
| solution that may not align with everyone's values.
| Allowing ads isn't endorsing them; it's respecting
| freedom of speech and trusting individuals to make their
| own choices. Once the government starts deciding which
| speech is acceptable, it opens the door for abuse and
| subjective enforcement, which can harm citizens more than
| it helps.
|
| The free market should decide whether they want to be
| exposed to ads or not by voting with their dollars. If an
| ad campaign doesn't produce the results a company wants
| they pull the ads and try something else.
|
| > Isn't this a contradiction? If the majority wants
| something, you are hurting the individual freedom of the
| greatest number of people.
|
| Individual freedom means the freedom to do, say, or think
| whatever you please as long as you don't harm another or
| their property. The will of the majority to force the
| minority to behave a certain way is not freedom. The
| majority is free to act however they want as long as it
| doesn't harm others but they shouldn't be allowed to
| force others to behave a certain way.
|
| Majority opinion can lead to tyranny if it infringes on
| the rights of individuals. History offers countless
| examples of majorities oppressing minorities. The role of
| a just society is to protect each person's right to life,
| liberty, and property, even when the majority disagrees.
|
| The focus should be on safeguarding universal rights
| rather than catering to the fluctuating preferences of a
| majority.
| bdzr wrote:
| Don't forget that this emboldens the government to define
| what is and isn't healthy. Something that's worked out
| super well in the US.
| alex_lav wrote:
| Shame I had to scroll this far to get to this comment. I
| have absolutely no idea why, in 2024, people still think we
| should let the government decide what is good/what we can
| see/what others can say.
| mirsadm wrote:
| Do you have children? They're targeted with ads _everywhere_.
| You can be a responsible parent but these things cause
| unnecessary stress. Quite frankly if the government wants to
| ban all advertising I would be thrilled.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| I do have children and I don't let them be exposed to things
| I disagree with. But thats my moral decision. Why should my
| morality be forced on others? Making the decision to not
| expose your children to certain ads is a moral decision. Let
| the parents choose if its important for them. They can choose
| exactly what kind of content their children watch with
| streaming and DVDs. Long gone are the days where kids just
| sat in front a television and had to watch live cable TV
| where the parents didn't know what was coming up next.
| duckmysick wrote:
| You, as an individual, can still play the adverts to your
| children. The regulation is targeting the advertisers.
| dcre wrote:
| They should keep reaching and ban the rest of the ads.
| snovymgodym wrote:
| That's a great way to frame the whole thing if you're a
| corporation trying to sell junk food I guess.
|
| In reality, this law is only about advertising, specifically
| about making it slightly harder to target children with
| advertising for junk food in a country that already has a
| serious problem with obesity.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >The UK government basically said that parents are not
| responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children
| so the government needs to step in and do it for them?
|
| Stand outside any school gate in the UK and you will see that
| the majority of parents "aren't responsible enough to make
| dietary decisions for their children".
|
| I'm fairly relaxed about it simply because this is a response
| to the behaviour of these corporations.
| rsynnott wrote:
| ... No, that's not what it says at all.
|
| The level of reading comprehension on this website really is
| astonishingly low. It's about restrictions on advertising, not
| bans on products.
| pessimizer wrote:
| What a useless, idle government. This is just pretending to work.
| Next, they'll raise the price of alcohol 10%, and make the
| penalties for "knife crime" 10% longer. Western governments have
| ceased to function for anything other than graft.
|
| There's a good paper (more than one, actually) on this that I
| wish I could recall offhand; but outside of graft, Western
| governments can only manage to _govern_ (and not particularly
| well) during sudden emergencies, like natural disasters. Other
| than that, they 're running worthless lifestyle campaigns to
| justify their continued existence to a faddish public, like this.
|
| The reduction of sales for cereals, muffins, and burgers will be
| non-existent. British children will remain fat. We will remain in
| thrall to a useless politics of trendy middle-class aesthetics,
| cheered on by celebrities.
| narrator wrote:
| Is there a name for an ideology that says all social and economic
| problems can be solved through mass psychology? You could call it
| psychohistory perhaps, but there's got to be a newer term. Seems
| like it's the dominant ideology of a variety of technocrats.
|
| Yes there are psychological aspects to governance but more and
| more it's becoming the only solution to all problems. Obesity is
| skyrocketing? It's the psychology. People don't like unlimited
| immigration? Get out the mass psychology. People perceive that
| inflation is out of control. Get out the mass psychology. Market
| is down. Employ mass psychology. People don't give a crap about a
| war that they have no stake in. Mass psychology. I guess
| propaganda works and it's very cheap, lol.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I think it's traditionally called advertising.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Public Relations - Edward Bernays [0]
|
| Propaganda - Edward Bernays in 1928 [1]
|
| Public opinion - Walter Lippmann 1947 [2]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Relations_(book)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
| ausbah wrote:
| something involving ppl following whatever the political or
| media firestorm of the moment is, and most ppl more likely to
| just follow whatever the party line is?
| ajb wrote:
| The recent fashionable term is "nudge theory"
| switch007 wrote:
| See also
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_Insights_Team as
| an implementation
| pandoro wrote:
| On this subject I highly recommend the documentary "the Century
| of the Self" (produced by Adam Curtis for the BBC). It explores
| how Sigmund Freud's theories about the unconscious mind were
| used by his nephew Edward Bernays to create modern public
| relations and consumer culture. The documentary shows how
| corporations and governments learned to manipulate mass desires
| using psychological techniques, transforming democracy from
| meeting people's needs to managing their wants through
| consumption and marketing.
|
| The entire doc is on Youtube: https://youtu.be/GFwDc17WZ-A
| mym1990 wrote:
| Psychohistory is already a study of the past and why it
| happened the way it did, so maybe it could help answer your
| question, but it isn't the ideology you're seeking.
|
| There is a reason that advertising and media influence is
| _everywhere_ , it is a cheap and has a decent return on
| investment, whether that is actual revenue or just a shift in
| people's perspective.
| Angostura wrote:
| You may be thinking of Nudge Theory
| rsynnott wrote:
| ... I mean, in this case, it's a problem being _caused_ by mass
| psychology (that's what advertising is).
| quotemstr wrote:
| What's TV? Some kind of primitive multicast YouTube?
|
| Anything TV related is irrelevant nowadays
| democritas wrote:
| wish we wouldn't keep demonizing fat though, if you decrease one
| form of energy intake (sugar) you have to increase another form
| of energy intake, no problem with this being fat, as long as it's
| naturally occurring in the environment and thus among our
| adaptations.
| aembleton wrote:
| > if you decrease one form of energy intake (sugar) you have to
| increase another form of energy intake
|
| We have an obesity problem in the UK. We need to reduce overall
| calorific intake.
| jamesu wrote:
| One thing I noticed is during UK Daytime TV is there are a
| comical amount of funeral and life insurance ads, it's incredibly
| depressing.
| eterm wrote:
| That's the demographics of who watches daytime TV.
|
| Also note that advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals is
| already banned, which would likely be another large advertiser
| were that not the case.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Plus adverts for stair lifts and laxatives showing the
| healthiest looking old people you have ever seen.
| ch0wn wrote:
| A good move but it's still mad to me that we're banning junk food
| ads while fossil fuel ads are still allowed which are creating
| damage many orders of magnitudes greater than a muffin ever
| could.
| aembleton wrote:
| Fossil fuels are being tackled by phasing out new ICE car sales
| by 2035. 22% of new cars this year have to be zero emissions
| (EVs).
| dnissley wrote:
| What is a fossil fuel ad? I don't think I've ever seen an ad
| for e.g. a gas station. Car ads maybe?
| emrah wrote:
| So UK doesn't have freedom of speech any more? If the products
| are bad for people/kids/etc, why not ban the products instead of
| just the ads?
| Retric wrote:
| UK never had freedom of speech the way we think of it in the
| US.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...
| I highlighted the explicit loophole here:
|
| "Article 10 - Freedom of expression
|
| Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
| shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
| impart information and ideas without interference by public
| authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not
| prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
| television or cinema enterprises.
|
| The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties
| and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
| conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law
| and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
| national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for
| the prevention of disorder or crime, _for the protection of
| health or morals,_ for the protection of the reputation or
| rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
| received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and
| impartiality of the judiciary."
| rfrey wrote:
| Is it legal in the US to directly market cigarettes to
| children? Why not?
| Retric wrote:
| An interesting wrinkle in the cigarettes example is it's
| illegal sell them to kids.
|
| So advertising to kids is actively trying to conduct an
| illegal transaction.
| NicuCalcea wrote:
| As far as I know, the US bans all tobacco advertising on
| TV. And obviously adults can still smoke.
| Retric wrote:
| Radio and TV has long had more limited free speech
| protections because it's a shared and thus finite
| resource. Thus the fines for curse words, nudity, etc.
|
| Banning in magazines targeting kids is a separate
| question.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| All these laws make me want to step outside and take a
| long, smooth drag on a Marlboro Light.
| Funes- wrote:
| What about no ads, at all? Have you ever thought of that? Just
| stop and consider the ramifications of such a ban. Most junk on
| TV and the Internet would not exist once people were forced to
| pay directly for consuming (eugh) it. YouTube would go back to
| what it was almost twenty years ago, for one. Imagine a Google
| with no ad-ridden, SEO-tweaked, LLM-generated sites in the
| results, not a single mainstream media outlet to be seen... one
| can only dream. Now, for junk food (the actual subject of this
| thread), I wager its sales would be severely diminished, or
| heavily diversified between other, less successful brands, at
| least.
| tim333 wrote:
| Glad they got that through - the argument's been going on for
| ages. Here's a 2006 "Total ban for junk food ads around kids'
| shows" article
| https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/nov/17/health.food
|
| But I don't think they did sugary breakfast cereals because
| Kelloggs et al made a fuss.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Given so many kids watch the state-funded CBeebies, which doesn't
| need ads, or YouTube or Netflix, which presumably this won't
| cover, this is probably just another chance for TV companies to
| stop broadcasting kids' content at all.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-09 23:02 UTC)