> 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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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?
>...users' emotional and mental health and wellbeing
What about the emotional health and wellbeing of internet users who have to put up with Pinterest's '6 million domains and counting, so you'll never be able to block them all -Ha! Ha!' pollution of our search results.
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.
While I like the idea, I don’t think Pinterest fully understand what they’ve done. They now has to defend every ad on the site. Everyone has a valid reason as to why some ad should be banned.
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.
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?
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.
Read: income for these ads are 0.001% (or even more likely these ads significantly drive down user retention) so it is safe to throw them away loudly for free advertisement in popular media.
46 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadThis 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.
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.
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.
It just doesn't make sense on a risk vs. reward basis.
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 means a system not operating as it should.
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...
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.
https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/...
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.
What about their physical well being? Morbid Obesity is no joke.
Which is what a large fraction of the advertising in this space looks like to me.
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
I'm not the one who carries the burden of proof, but I appreciate the sources. Thank you.
> 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...
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.
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.
You'll note, as mentioned in tfa, that things like weight-loss pills and before/after imagery were already against the site's policy.
Though I agree with others that their statement was kind of overly-political. Are they going to ban skinny models from all ads next?
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.
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?
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.
How about no.
Just like Walmart selling cheaper diabetes meds.