Pinterest bans weight loss ads in first for major social networks(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Pinterest bans weight loss ads in first for major social networks
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/02/bye-bye-bmi-pinterest-bans-weight-loss-ads-in-first-for-major-social-networks
46 comments
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. A choice can be made to remove something, seen to be, having a negative impact on people without having to remove everything that is seen to have such an impact. One step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
Heart disease killed twice the people as COVID in 2020, I really doubt helping people feel okay being fat is "the right direction".
https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/...
https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/...
And do you think that scummy and often fraudulent weight loss pill ads are going to solve that problem?
We are dealing with COVID by methods that have been tested for efficacy with significant scientific rigor. If the same rigor were applied to products shilled by weight loss ads, I don't think anyone would have an issue with them.
It's not, though. Nobody goes to jail if their weight loss pills don't work, or put people in the hospital, or are just placebo sugar capsules.
We are dealing with COVID by methods that have been tested for efficacy with significant scientific rigor. If the same rigor were applied to products shilled by weight loss ads, I don't think anyone would have an issue with them.
It's not, though. Nobody goes to jail if their weight loss pills don't work, or put people in the hospital, or are just placebo sugar capsules.
[deleted]
It's entirely possible to draw an arbitrary line, right through a gray area.
For instance, tobacco products are illegal to sell to someone under the age of 21. It's not because people magically become responsible on their 21st birthday, it's an arbitrary line drawn in a way to balance personal freedom, public welfare, and the need for cigarette manufacturers to make billions of dollars.
As an outside observer looking in, online ads for weight loss products seem to be 70% scummy, 25% outright fraudulent, with maybe 5% of them selling something of value. I don't believe beauty and fashion products have a similar ratio.
For instance, tobacco products are illegal to sell to someone under the age of 21. It's not because people magically become responsible on their 21st birthday, it's an arbitrary line drawn in a way to balance personal freedom, public welfare, and the need for cigarette manufacturers to make billions of dollars.
As an outside observer looking in, online ads for weight loss products seem to be 70% scummy, 25% outright fraudulent, with maybe 5% of them selling something of value. I don't believe beauty and fashion products have a similar ratio.
Arbitrary also means wide open to corruption. I imagine there is a lot of money to be made in influencing Pinterest management in their arbitrary decisions now.
It seems to me that getting rid of one bad thing (scammy slimming ads) can be positive - without them needing to be 100% consistent all the time or policing every possible bad thing. Claims to the contrary seem like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
I think what vkou is sharing is the core of a very common dilemma.
You can allow "any legal ads" and you'll be derided as mercenary but at least you'll be entirely consistent.
Or you can try to set out _some_ kind of boundaries about ads on your platform and get enmeshed in endless debate over whether a) which boundaries should exist b) how far out they should be drawn c) what side of that boundary a given data point is on d) whether boundary enforcement is subject to some kind of internal conspiracy or moral corruption.
There's no winning move, because this is the Internet and you can't please everyone.
I think what vkou is sharing is the core of a very common dilemma.
You can allow "any legal ads" and you'll be derided as mercenary but at least you'll be entirely consistent.
Or you can try to set out _some_ kind of boundaries about ads on your platform and get enmeshed in endless debate over whether a) which boundaries should exist b) how far out they should be drawn c) what side of that boundary a given data point is on d) whether boundary enforcement is subject to some kind of internal conspiracy or moral corruption.
There's no winning move, because this is the Internet and you can't please everyone.
I would be absolutely shocked if there was a secret deal between Pinterest management and a special interest group to get scam ads on the platform.
It just doesn't make sense on a risk vs. reward basis.
It just doesn't make sense on a risk vs. reward basis.
Of course every company already makes judgement calls about which ads to accept and which to reject. There is no fundamental difference between rejecting crypto scam ads that promise immense profits and diet scam ads that promise effortless weight loss. Nothing fundamentally changed here.
It's not arbitrary to make decisions between shades of grey. Businesses make judgement calls all the time, it's unavoidable. The decisions are only arbitrary in the sense that you can't identify the exact boundary between OK and not-OK, but that's true for all judgement calls so there is no reason to presume a sudden increase in corruption.
It's not arbitrary to make decisions between shades of grey. Businesses make judgement calls all the time, it's unavoidable. The decisions are only arbitrary in the sense that you can't identify the exact boundary between OK and not-OK, but that's true for all judgement calls so there is no reason to presume a sudden increase in corruption.
Corruption? by "influencing Pinterest management in their arbitrary decisions", do you perhaps just mean a meeting between a business and a customer?
Is that how you'd describe the behavior of the VP of Netflix who accepted kickbacks to approve contracts?
Corruption means a system not operating as it should.
Corruption means a system not operating as it should.
No, corruption is far more narrowly defined than the words you are using. It generally requires kickbacks quid pro quo preferential treatment.
Also, Pinterest is not 'supposed' to be some 100% agnostic, eyes-shut-to-ad content ad network. There isn't some social, legal, or ethical requirement for them to be one. They have always discriminated with what advertisements they allow - for example, you cannot advertise pornography, you cannot advertise fraud and scams on it...
Also, Pinterest is not 'supposed' to be some 100% agnostic, eyes-shut-to-ad content ad network. There isn't some social, legal, or ethical requirement for them to be one. They have always discriminated with what advertisements they allow - for example, you cannot advertise pornography, you cannot advertise fraud and scams on it...
So my corrupted file system was taking bribes? Just kidding but I like my definition just fine. It does require a degree of good faith interpretation of course.
The Netflix case I cited did involve kickbacks. He was convicted in a federal court: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv...
Why is everyone so eager to pick fights in defense of Pinterest? I honestly don't know the difference between them and Instagram and snapchat. Is it some kind of beloved people's social network? When I make vague comments on Amazon threads, I get the opposite, hordes of triggered people thinking I'm an Amazon-defender to challenge.
The Netflix case I cited did involve kickbacks. He was convicted in a federal court: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv...
Why is everyone so eager to pick fights in defense of Pinterest? I honestly don't know the difference between them and Instagram and snapchat. Is it some kind of beloved people's social network? When I make vague comments on Amazon threads, I get the opposite, hordes of triggered people thinking I'm an Amazon-defender to challenge.
While I dislike concepts like "body shaming", and don't believe obesity is due to "body type", I fully agree with the decision. Weight loss products are ALWAYS a scam and with the false hopes provided actually prevent the users from searching a working, healthy and long term solution.
And I could go further than that: the entire internet fitness industry is a scam. I know it's a strong claim and I don't offer proof but the discussion is huge. "Unrealistic body standards" is a real thing - "influencers" are using steroids, plastic surgery, makeup, lighting, photoshop, dehydration, etc, while selling weight gainers, weight loss pills, horrible workout programs, etc.
Source: my personal experience. I'm in my 40s, maintain six pack with enough strength to do handstand pushups and have done so for years.
And I could go further than that: the entire internet fitness industry is a scam. I know it's a strong claim and I don't offer proof but the discussion is huge. "Unrealistic body standards" is a real thing - "influencers" are using steroids, plastic surgery, makeup, lighting, photoshop, dehydration, etc, while selling weight gainers, weight loss pills, horrible workout programs, etc.
Source: my personal experience. I'm in my 40s, maintain six pack with enough strength to do handstand pushups and have done so for years.
> Sarah Bromma, Pinterest’s head of policy, said in an interview that the rule change prioritised Pinterest users’ “emotional and mental health and wellbeing, especially those directly impacted by eating disorders or diet culture or body shaming”
What about their physical well being? Morbid Obesity is no joke.
What about their physical well being? Morbid Obesity is no joke.
Pinterest isn't condoning morbid obesity. They're stopping adverts for things that are pretty much always a scam.
Besides, unregulated weight loss pills bought over the internet aren't a solution for weight loss. For a start you have no idea what's in them. They can range from ineffective fake medicine to actively harmful and dangerous amphetamines. If someone wants to lose weight there are better, safer ways to go about it. Banning adverts is a good start to prompting people to seek better solutions.
Besides, unregulated weight loss pills bought over the internet aren't a solution for weight loss. For a start you have no idea what's in them. They can range from ineffective fake medicine to actively harmful and dangerous amphetamines. If someone wants to lose weight there are better, safer ways to go about it. Banning adverts is a good start to prompting people to seek better solutions.
If that's the case, why don't they say that? There are a lot of words in this which are lifted from the fat-acceptance movement talking points.
You'll note, as mentioned in tfa, that things like weight-loss pills and before/after imagery were already against the site's policy.
You'll note, as mentioned in tfa, that things like weight-loss pills and before/after imagery were already against the site's policy.
I would think it's more the fact that targeting diet ads to obese people is just creepy and obnoxious, because pretty much all ad targeting tends to be creepy and obnoxious.
Though I agree with others that their statement was kind of overly-political. Are they going to ban skinny models from all ads next?
Though I agree with others that their statement was kind of overly-political. Are they going to ban skinny models from all ads next?
If they ban Coca Cola ads, we'll know they are serious.
It's no joke, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to be cured by "one weird old trick Discovered By <zipcode> mom that doctor's don't want you to know about".
Which is what a large fraction of the advertising in this space looks like to me.
Which is what a large fraction of the advertising in this space looks like to me.
Weight loss adds dont lead to weight loss. They dont improve anyone physical well being.
>...users' emotional and mental health and wellbeing
Your search engine should be fixing that problem. It’s what they do. Or at least what they used to do. Google seems way more interested in serving up ads than good search results nowadays.
I used to use uMatrix before it was abandoned by its developer. I had to block literally dozens of pinterest<dot><some TLD> domains but still more kept showing up in search results. I think Pinterest have literally registered every single TLD out there.
Of course none of that answers the question as to why they're showing up in search results in the first place --even when completely irrelevant to what I'm searching for. In fact Pinterest is such a vacuous waste of space it practically makes Quora look useful.
I'm sure any other business would get blacklisted by the search engines for such search result spamming.
Of course none of that answers the question as to why they're showing up in search results in the first place --even when completely irrelevant to what I'm searching for. In fact Pinterest is such a vacuous waste of space it practically makes Quora look useful.
I'm sure any other business would get blacklisted by the search engines for such search result spamming.
It isn't, but I don't think weight loss advertising is necessarily the answer to that.
Random people or ads telling fat people they should feel bad and go on a diet does not work.
Do you have data to back that up, or is it conjecture?
Do you have evidence of the contrary?
A 5 s search leads to this page from the US gov: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/truth-behind-weight-lo...
Note that this page warns against weight loss ads — not weight loss, which they argue is a more complicated topic than an ad will convey.
Further: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459
A 5 s search leads to this page from the US gov: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/truth-behind-weight-lo...
Note that this page warns against weight loss ads — not weight loss, which they argue is a more complicated topic than an ad will convey.
Further: https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459
> Do you have evidence of the contrary?
I'm not the one who carries the burden of proof, but I appreciate the sources. Thank you.
I'm not the one who carries the burden of proof, but I appreciate the sources. Thank you.
It's hardly conclusive, but here you go:
> Among patients whose PCPs discussed weight loss, 20.1% achieved ≥ 10% weight loss if they did not perceive judgment by their PCP as compared to 13.5% who perceived judgment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917...
> Among patients whose PCPs discussed weight loss, 20.1% achieved ≥ 10% weight loss if they did not perceive judgment by their PCP as compared to 13.5% who perceived judgment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917...
Shaming leads to stress overeating and to unvillingness to go to public which lowers physical activity is what I remember reading.
Yes, it also presents goals that seem out of reach - and likely are out of reach. "Don't be a fat slob. Look like a model." If the focus is on building a sustainable, healthy lifestyle, people are more likely to see that as attainable.
Most sustainable ways to be healthy are not as easy to monetize as quick "fixes" like pills and shakes. Don't drink sugar or artificially sweetened products (I haven't kept up on the more recent artificial sweeteners, so maybe they're not as bad - idk). Eat more vegetables and less processed food. Get some exercise - even if it's just walking.
It's good for people to understand that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes and that your goal should be whatever size/shape is healthy for you. This is more of a range than an exact size/shape.
So, yeah, shaming, presenting unrealistic goals, selling bs products/fixes, it's mostly all bad, and it's good for people to push back against these ads and the POV's they create.
Most sustainable ways to be healthy are not as easy to monetize as quick "fixes" like pills and shakes. Don't drink sugar or artificially sweetened products (I haven't kept up on the more recent artificial sweeteners, so maybe they're not as bad - idk). Eat more vegetables and less processed food. Get some exercise - even if it's just walking.
It's good for people to understand that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes and that your goal should be whatever size/shape is healthy for you. This is more of a range than an exact size/shape.
So, yeah, shaming, presenting unrealistic goals, selling bs products/fixes, it's mostly all bad, and it's good for people to push back against these ads and the POV's they create.
Then why are people paying to run these ads to begin with?
There will always be people happy to sell things that don't work.
Most ads are scams, as they sell you an image of something you cannot reach with the product. Cigarettes don’t turn you into a cool Cowboy. Just banning the worst offenders is not enough.
Pinterest and 'major social network' in the same title..
How about no.
How about no.
Guessing you aren't female? Pinterest is huuuuge with women in their 30s and later (not sure about the younger ones)
Does anyone know what footprint does Pinterest have in the "social" sphere (considering the title calls it a "major social network")?
I always thought it was just a scam to get people into their walled garden by overtaking every conceivable Google image search (to the point that "-site:pinterest.com" is my default when looking for images). I just can't imagine who are the actual users and what they get out of it?
I always thought it was just a scam to get people into their walled garden by overtaking every conceivable Google image search (to the point that "-site:pinterest.com" is my default when looking for images). I just can't imagine who are the actual users and what they get out of it?
They show lots of desserts, it seems like the tobacco companies banning advertising for the nicotine patch on their cigarettes TV channel.
Protecting your market.
Just like Walmart selling cheaper diabetes meds.
Just like Walmart selling cheaper diabetes meds.
This must mean they will be banning all makeup ads too, right? Think about how obsessive people can get over editing and filtering their photos and even more harmful practices like cheek or lip injections.