Privacy

Obama Will Regulate Targeted Advertising to Students Because Markets Are Scary!

|

Obama
White House

President Obama announced new consumer protection regulations aimed at protecting kids from corporations—evil, greedy corporations—that use students' data to try to sell them things they might actually want.

This is a terrifying prospect that requires immediate government intervention.

Obama touted his Student Digital Privacy Act during a speech at the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday, where he attempted to assuage concerns that cumbersome federal legislation would hamper the market's ability to produce new education technologies. His law would be based on a similar one approved in the state of California, according to POLITICO:

Once it takes effect next January, the California law will bar education technology companies from selling student data or using that data to create profiles of students or to target them with advertising. It specifically protects a long list of data that private companies might have access to through their work with schools, including students' grades, medical records, test scores, photos, text messages, food purchases, political affiliations, voice recordings and disciplinary records.

A federal version of the California law would vastly expand the narrow student privacy protections now on the books.

"This is a really big deal," said James Steyer, the CEO of Common Sense Media, a national advocacy group which helped write the California law and plans to promote similar bills in state legislatures nationwide.

(Anybody interested in learning what sort of kid-focused content raises the ire of this Common Sense Media advocacy group should check out its website. Hint: violent video games and entertainment.)

The president promised that his legislation wouldn't get in the way of innovation—as long as said innovation is for strictly educational purposes. But data mining should not be used "to market to our children," he vowed.

Because we can't let corporations have too much power over our kids. That's what sweeping federal legislation is for.

Watch the announcement below.

Advertisement

NEXT: VID: Digital Platforms Breathe New Life Into Comics Industry

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I feel safe that Obama is tackling this non-problem.

    1. He’s best at non-problems, which he uses to craft non-solutions.

      1. One day we won’t miss him doing none of this.

      2. Well, to his credit he did come up with a totally awesome non-plan to address the totally non-problem of community college costs recently. So, consistency – or something.

        1. Do the Democrats do anything but try to buy votes anymore? I mean, I get that they want to be in power, but don’t they need some sort, I dunno, policy to justify electing them?

          1. It’s just desperation. Obama is in his lame duck phase, and it’s not like we couldn’t see shit like this coming what with the glaring stupidity of him and his administration. Pandering to easy constituencies is all they have left and pretty much all they know.

            Get ready for a cavalcade of moronic “ideas” like this and the community college thing coming down the pike.

          2. They don’t need no stinking policy beyond, “Free Shit!!”

          3. “Do the Democrats do anything but try to buy votes anymore?”

            They also make a lot of purely symbolic stands.

            1. Provided they don’t interfere with the vote-buying, I guess, though I suspect they’re part of the same.

          4. I have a laugh every time some lefty notes that Republicans or Libertarians are largely employed white males, clearly showing that the opposition is at root driven by racism and sexism. Never occurs to them that it’s ’cause we’re the only ones left not getting offered free shit from the Dems (unless we happen to be bank executives).

      3. He’s best at non-problems, which he uses to craft non-solutions.

        And in the process creates real problems. It’s like a perpetual motion machine for growing government!

      4. He’s best at non-problems, which he uses to craft non-solutions actual problems which require even more heart palpitations.

        FIFY

    2. I feel safe that Obama is tackling this non-problem.

      Don’t worry, it’ll be a problem when he gets through with it.

        1. Hahahaahahahahahahahahhahaah…SARCASM at its FINEST.

    3. Is it a non-problem? The collection of detailed information about persons without their knowledge or consent seems like a kind of stalking to me, a violation of their property or privacy rights.

      1. When you’re in my house, I’m allowed to videotape you. When you’re on their website, they’re allowed to record what you click on and do as they please with the info.

        The internet is not public property. Don’t like it, stay off it.

  2. http://www.thenation.com/artic…..ng-started

    ^ The Nation interviews Bill de Blasio. You know part of you wants to read it, even if you’ll hate yourself afterwards.

    1. Ugh I could only make it partway before I choked on the smug. God, what a couple of assholes.

    2. Not on your life!

    3. “Alterman: So the de Blasio mayoralty is an investment in the future of the progressive movement?

      de Blasio: Absolutely. But, to be fair, I see it as two things: I see it as that, and as an investment in a generation of folks who will be in government. I’m very proud of this year, and certainly the team that made it possible, because we said?I’ve been very open about it?we said, with great, humble deference to the New Deal, that we were going to try and do something here and now and local that remembered the core principles of the New Deal: the speed, the experimentation, the boldness. And between pre-K and after-school [programs] and the affordable-housing plan and the municipal ID and paid sick leave, I think we are living out that vision.”

      I hate these people more than words can describe.

      1. Translating de Blasio’s comment into into New York speak:

        I want to be a one termer.

        1. I think he’s going to do something that will do more than just drive out the middle class, but piss off regular NYers – something like a plastic bag ban. And at the point he’ll find out that NY is more than just Manhattan elites.

          1. That and banning 32-ounce sodas is a sure way for the DUMBocrat higher ups to end theirr careers short.

      2. we are living out that vision

        Too bad his vision is a boot boldly and speedily stamping on my face – forever.

      3. He just may single handed bring New York back to the ’70s. Rampant crime, poverty, corruption. Ah, the good old days.

  3. If Obama keeps cranking out stupid ideas at this pace, I might have to stop calling him lazy.

  4. Selling data to advertisers is what allows so many digital services to be offered free, or nearly so, to end users. End users aren’t the customer, they are the product. The poor benefit the most from this. Imagine an internet in which you had to pay for an email account, or to use Facebook, or any number of apps, from things as simple as a loan calculator to a scheduling service. Most of these things would be luxuries for the relatively well off.

    So naturally, yet another well-intentioned progressive policy will end up hurting the poor the most, and in this case poor students already suffering from an inept educational system.

    1. You know, at this point, after seeing how progressive policy ends up hurting the poor again and again and again, without fail, every single time, I’m actually starting to wonder if that isn’t actually the explicit point, even if it’s one they aim for subconsciously.

      It’s not like they don’t hold the poor in contempt, it’s just a patronizing contempt. And it’s not like the progressive movement doesn’t have a history of wanting to eliminate undesirables.

      But after this long, after how every single thing they propose actually hurts the less well off, you have to start wondering why they have such a perfect negative track record. It’s getting a bit much for coincidence.

      1. The advocates of the poor benefit from having more poor people, don’t they? The incentives are not to cure poverty, I’ll say that much.

        1. Ding, ding, ding. The left wants to put an end to poverty like Al Sharpton wants to end racism.

      2. What do you expect them to do, Epi, make themselves irrelevant? Or entrench themselves among the vulnerable?

        1. So both you and Warty are saying they purposely stand on the backs of the poor that they help create/maintain in order to promote their own egos, fortunes, and careers. Sounds exactly like what someone who projects on their enemies a contempt and hatred for the poor would do.

          Actually, if you think about it, they project exploitation of the poor on their opponents just about more than anything else. It actually explains a lot.

          1. I don’t think I think that they purposely do. I think they really think they’re helping. But if there was a grand conspiracy to keep the underclass poor, stupid and voting for their oppressors, it wouldn’t look much different from what they do now.

            1. I’m starting to disagree with you at this point. For them to do this for so long, with every single thing they do ending up being harmful, and with this as obvious as it is, I have to wonder if anyone could see this and not have some inkling that what they do is harmful. Just denying the evidence in front of them is sort of malicious in its own right.

              If all your actions are malicious, is it really possible for your intentions over time to not actually be actively malicious?

              1. They could also just be merely stupid and arrogant.

              2. They’re working within a rigid framework. The poor need help. Help means government. Therefore the poor need government. If that doesn’t produce results, it just means they didn’t government hard enough.

                As SugarFree said, they’re more stupid than malicious. Probably.

                1. I really lean toward the stupid side of the argument.

                  If you can neither intuitively grasp that generous welfare benefits are a moral hazard or understand it once the evidence that they are is shown to you, you probably aren’t some evil genius engaged in a decades-long malevolent plan.

                  1. I’m not saying it’s a malevolent plan so much as a semi-subconscious “stupid poors, here’s some bread and circuses you idiots, meanwhile I will grandstand about how much I help you” type of thing. They know it doesn’t help but they don’t care because it helps them, whether it’s a political career or a job at a non-profit or just feeling morally narcissistic.

                  2. “Stupid” just never seemed to make sense to me. Sure, bureaucratic incompetence is always an issue. But we’re not talking about stupid people here. You could make the argument that intelligence is largely based on your environment, so that while politicians may be very good lawyers or business people, it may not translate to leadership. There also may be the same kind of disconnect that you see in business, where higher ups just don’t understand what’s going on in the trenches.

                    But the reason I hesitate to say that it’s stupidity, in addition to the fact that they do benefit from it, is that they can’t claim ignorance. There are mountains of empirical as well as theoretical data that they not only HAVE to have encountered at some point, but they actually respond to. Liberal economists and politicians flat out dismiss the idea that progressive policies hurt the poor. So they would have to have considered it. And even if they don’t see it themselves, you’d think someone who was so committed to the poor would have at least looked into it.

                    1. What you are missing is that progressives believe the empirical and theoretical data is produced in monocle factories and funded by tophat-clad evildoers, so the data can be discounted. Hence they can ignore all those studies–they were probably funded by the Kochtopus.

                    2. Is “theoretical data” data that you’re pretty sure exists, but you don’t actually have yet?

                    3. I see this argment implicitly a lot, based on the supposition that intellectuals (smart people, in their minds)=leftists. After you win the argument, they basically go “well, I’m sure there’s someone out there who could refute your arguments…”

                2. I think you said that rather well. Meaning it’s what I woulda said.

                  1. That was a reference to Warty’s 2:18 comment, btw…

              3. If all your actions are malicious, is it really possible for your intentions over time to not actually be actively malicious?

                Alternate possibility:

                I don’t think politicians ever stop to notice the effects of their policy. They tell their constituents what the bill is designed to do, which involves giving someone something for nothing. Voters, applaud and masturbate vigorously. The bill gets passed and then promptly forgotten about because obviously, if it passed, it must be working.

                On to the next issue that needs “solving”.

            2. no, they purposely do. Their entire existence depends on the perpetuation of a permanent underclass. Think of it this way: a non-profit organizes to solve a problem. If the problem is, in fact, solved, what would those folks do tomorrow.

              1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

                Progressives don’t look at results. Only intentions. Or at least they can’t separate the two. I believe that they really do feel that they are helping the poor, not keeping them down. Because they get so angry when you suggest otherwise. They feel that you are insulting their intentions when you criticize the results of their policies.

                1. Progressives don’t look at results. Only intentions. Or at least they can’t separate the two.

                  I have a buddy who is diving head first into buddhism. He sounds so stereotypically progressive that it blows my mind. It’s all about intention and emotion to him now. Reality to him is what is contained between his two ears, and the physical world of results and consequences is merely a manifestation of intentions and feelings. There is no right and wrong besides what makes you feel good and bad. (Oh, and harming Gaia… but that’s so *obviously* wrong that nobody would feel good about having anything but wind-powered electricity)

                  This is how I imagine most progressives are approaching life. Whether they are able to describe it as well as my friend, they feel their way through life, only internalizing intentions and emotions. Results are (in their minds) derived from intentions, and therefore bad results are because of bad intentions. When the bad results are due to good intentions, there must be a destructive force (wreckers, kulaks, obstructionists, etc) secretly corrupting their good ideas.

                  1. I think Buddhism is the last refuge of the supremely self-indulgent. Either that or the pinnacle of narcissism.

                    1. I think Buddhism is the last refuge of the supremely self-indulgent. Either that or the pinnacle of narcissism.

                      I think it’s the equivalent of Catholic confessional for pampered moral relativists.

                    2. (I’m speaking of the Californian variants of Buddhism. The Far East variants may be a bit more grounded in reality for all I know)

                    3. I’m not really surprised that Californians completely miss the point of real Buddhism.

                    4. I am suspicious of all westerners who purport to practice ‘eastern’ religions, because it’s usually an insult to the ‘easterners.’

                      They think they’re being multicultural; in reality it’s the spiritual equivalent of doing blackface.

                2. I think there’s a lot of truth in what you guys are saying. I’ve tried pondering the liberal/progressive mindset and I think it’s a mix of guilt, self righteousness, elitism, laziness and consequently mental dysfunction.

                  I think, depending on the individual, some or all of that come into play. As insulting or simplistic as some might see this, I think liberals are essentially mentally lazy people (about certain areas) who have bought into concepts/perceptions they were given early on and are too emotionally tied to and are too scared of being wrong to think about and so…they won’t think about their perceptions and prescriptions. Which explains how they can keep proposing the same failed policies over and over and not laugh. They believe because they need to believe.

                  They operate on a very simplistic level. Consider the type of political messaging that resounds on them a la Obama: Hope, Believe, Forward, Dream, etc.

                  They are protecting their egos from the reality that they have been the bad guys, backing the wrong ideas for God knows how long. So they summarily reject all data which would disprove their beliefs. And they must (example Tony and others like him) play childish “games of argumentation” so that they may continue to believe the simplicity that “the other guy is wrong and bad and I’m the good guy and so I’m right”.

                3. ” I believe that they really do feel that they are helping the poor, not keeping them down. Because they get so angry when you suggest otherwise. They feel that you are insulting their intentions when you criticize the results of their policies.”

                  I disagree. Do you get angry when someone insults you with an obviously ridiculous charge? No, you laugh at them. But if someone makes a criticism that hits too close to home, you react much more strongly. It’s a defense mechanism, because deep down they know the truth.

        2. The INCOMPETENT Pinocchiobama IS irrelevant. PERIOD. What a DUMBocrat SCUMBAG he truly is.

      3. I’m actually starting to wonder if that isn’t actually the explicit point,

        in the case of Obama, I have contended for years that it is precisely the point. But people insist on blaming stupid ideas with foreseeable consequences as resulting from bad advice or inadequate polling. No, they are the intended results.

        1. Yes, the intended results being Government control of the horizontal and the vertical from cradle to grave.

          1. I don’t think it’s conspiratorial. I think it’s akin to a narcissist who sabotages their own relationships in order to spend their whole live figuring out what’s wrong, fixing their partners, finding themselves, etc. It’s not that they actually sadistically derive joy from hurting their partners or even themselves; it’s that the trouble they create and the drive to fix it give meaning to their lives, such that without it, they would be miserable.

      4. I think morons like Tony have explicitly said they hate the poor. Slippage reveals the mask.

        1. For most it isn’t an explicit hatred. It’s a subconscious disgust. There is a reason that most liberals are upper class, upper-middle class, or dirt poor. The upper echelons want to do everything they can to keep the poor in their tidy little boxes (ghettos) where they can be poor and dirty and unsuccessful while keeping out of sight and out of mind.

          Income mobility is really bad for the classist elites and wannabe elites, because no matter how much money you have, you can never really wash the poor out of a man. This is why income inequality is such a big sticking point for the progs. They have theirs, and don’t want the unwashed masses getting any ideas.

    2. It also allows me to get a discount when I buy a new Kindle.

      I’ll take the discount in exchange for seeing an ad on my home screen when I turn it off or on.

    3. Exactly. The data has value. Currently that value is up for grabs. Governmental regulation will allow cronies to extract that value at the expense of everyone else. This is the root of all regulation.

      Expect fees for everything in the coming years, which the poor won’t pay leading to governmental subsidies for them. Those subsidies get taken from incoming tax dollars, funnelling straight into crony pockets.

      Middle class gets stripped some more, cronies get rich, and the poor masses votes are bought.

  5. Gosh, I felt so manipulated by Coca-Cola and McDonald’s growing up. It’s heartening to know that kids will now grow up learning to think for themselves.

  6. WTF? This is an issue? Kids get advertised to all of the time. So what? So do the rest of us. Not like they have any money, anyway.

    I suspect they just don’t want the competition in influencing children. A similar law should be passed limiting what parents can do.

    1. Kids should only learn what their teachers teach them in school, duh. Everything else is propaganda.

    2. “Didn’t you have ads in the 20th century?”

      “Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!”

      1. +1 Futurama reference.

  7. Has he run any of his ideas by anyone from the industries to be regulated to gauge any sort of unintended consequence? His policies sound like they originate around a dinner table with a group of “there ought to be a law” busybodies.

    1. Has any progressive ever considered the unintended consequences of anything ever?

      1. They don’t consider anything beyond their good intentions.

      2. Has any progressive politician ever considered the unintended consequences of anything ever?

        FTFY. Let’s be fair now.

    2. Has he run any of his ideas by anyone from the industries to be regulated to gauge any sort of unintended consequence?

      Congratulations, you’ve just identified one of the primary drivers of regulatory capture. It’s amazing how little people understand that idiotic regulation makes the costs of capturing the regulatory process relatively lower.

    3. His policies sound like they originate around a dinner table with a group of “there ought to be a law” busybodies.

      That is called a cabinet meeting.

  8. “President Obama announced new consumer protection regulations aimed at protecting kids from corporations?evil, greedy corporations?that use students’ data to try to sell them things they might actually want.”

    If those algorithms are anything like the ones picking ads for me, those kids are never gonna see an ad for anything of interest.

    1. It amazes me that advertising is a major industry to begin with.

      1. Me too. To my mind, it seems like the only real purpose of advertising is to let people know that a particular product exists. And maybe something to do with establishing or maintaining a brand.

        But I’m a terrible consumer, so what do I know?

        1. I go out of my way to avoid ads, and seeing an ad makes me less likely to buy that product because my mind has just associated them with “just tried to sell me shit”.

        2. Yeah, a perfect for me would be holding a picture of pants on the screen with a list of the materials, intended uses, what makes them different/better than others, and where to buy them. Sam Elliot narration optional.

          1. Everything that man tells you is a lie.

            1. Nonsense. Coors is delicious and refreshing.

              1. Coors is delicious and refreshing.

                I just threw up a little.

            2. “Beef… It’s What’s For Dinner”

              I’m having chicken tonight, you liar!

        3. the only real purpose of advertising is to let people know that a particular product exists

          Half that, and half stopping you forgetting. That’s all it is.

        4. I am enjoying the Subaru dog commercials.

          One, because they’re silly and full of dogs and 2, because I’m easily amused.

      2. I highly recommend reading Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley. I’m not sure you’ll like his politics but he has a few good insights on advertising and propaganda.

        1. I didn’t really care for Brave New World. Just wasn’t a fan of his writing.

          1. BNW Revisted is, iirc, non fiction.

          2. I know what you mean. It has an odd, stilted quality to it. But BNWR is a non-fiction book containing Huxley’s observations about life and society and how his predictions played out.

            1. I’ll look into it. I’ve got a backlog of non-fiction to get through. It’s daunting.

  9. “It specifically protects a long list of data that private companies might have access to through their work with schools, including students’ grades, medical records, test scores, photos, text messages, food purchases, political affiliations, voice recordings and disciplinary records.”

    It’s a good thing that data isn’t going to companies. It’s the sort of information that should only be available to responsible parties, like the IRS.

    1. Yeah, how about we just have schools not track these things?

      With the exception of medical records (and I call BS on the idea private companies are accessing that information), why does government need any of this?

      1. Yeah, I don’t know how a private company could access your medical records. Isn’t that already incredibly illegal?

      2. Government needs access to medical records?

        Grades, test scores and disciplinary records seem relevant to schools.

    2. That information has been protected since 1974, under FERPA. Not sure why this is a big deal, either for Obama or for the folks here. Back then it was called the ‘Buckley Amendment’, after you-know-who’s brother, who wrote it. But universities try to be very conscientious about following it. For example, I have to click-agree to follow it before I’m allowed to post grades in the online grading system here.

      FERPA restricts all ‘student education records maintained by the University’, which includes everything on that list. None of it can be divulged without student permission, not even to parents (if student is over 18 years of age).

      1. I thought so. Does FERPA cover aggregate data? Is that what this proposal is about?

        1. It doesn’t cover de-identified/anonymized aggregate data, but that data is often already public, often in a ‘fact book’ on the university’s front page. But most of the things in that list (students’ grades, medical records, test scores, photos, text messages, food purchases, political affiliations, voice recordings and disciplinary records) are useless in the aggregate.

  10. I see no reason to be concerned = why would anyone in ‘marketing’ care about the behaviors or interests of people in the 18-22 demographic?

  11. You know, why stop with blocking certain kinds of advertising? Shouldn’t kids be shielded entirely from all market forces? We could move them all to special education camps, where they would be completely shut off from the outside world until the age of majority. In these camps, no money, no possessions, communal everything. And no interfering parents, corporations, or other unworthy busybodies.

    1. Pro, I thought Snowpiercer was good. Brave New World meets Grapes of Wrath on a train. In a foolish attempt to combat global warming the worlds governments cause a global freezing. The remants of humanity live on a constantly moving train governed by a technocratic authority. The poor live in the back, the wealthy in the front, and the poor revolt to try to meet their ruler. Lots of action.

      1. Worth seeing then. Wife and I almost watched it this weekend but the premise seemed really stupid to me.

        1. That first sentence was intended as a question (so read with an ending ?)

          1. If say yes, if you like sci if with some action.

            1. I’d say

      2. Okay, I’ll give it a shot.

      3. I wouldn’t say “lots of action.” I just watched this weekend, and was surprised at how little action there was. The ideas are big and strange as they need to be for sci-fi, but they are still pretty stupid.

        Tilda Swinton is a lot of fun to watch, that’s about it.

        1. Is she the one with the weird glasses? Kind of a different look than evil snow queen.

  12. I don’t like the idea of school related data about kids being sold to advertisers or anyone who hasn’t got a good reason to need it.
    That said, it would seem that requiring public schools to put that in contracts they have with companies who might have access to that data would do the job.

  13. “It specifically protects a long list of data that private companies might have access to through their work with schools, including students’ grades, medical records, test scores, photos, text messages, food purchases, political affiliations, voice recordings and disciplinary records.”

    Maybe I’m wrong. But, if this is actually the problem he says it is, shouldn’t the law apply to the schools themselves? The best way to keep those evil corporations from getting that information is for the schools to not have it. Someone please tell me how having information on students photos, text messages, food purchases, political affiliations, and voice recordings helps educate students. I can kind of see some basic medical information on allergies and current medications for medical records. But, the rest of the data has absolutely nothing to do with education and schools just shouldn’t have it.

    1. I could be wrong, but I think its the software and other tech is that tracking this data and sending it back to the companies that make said tech, not the schools themselves.

      1. Who buys the software? Who signs the contract?

        It seems to me that some school administrators are ignorant bastards that need to be tarred and feathered. Of course, there are many reasons for thinking that.

        1. Sure, but it’s not necessary that the information ever pass through the schools themselves. And as I said above, this will almost certainly raise the cost of said technology, hurting poor schools and kids the most by potentially depriving them of valuable new technology.

          1. Every transaction has a buyer and a seller. According to progressive ideology, only the seller has any moral responsibility for the terms of the transaction. All buyers are powerless to affect the terms, so laws must be written to thwart evil sellers.

            I am beyond fed up with the progressive mindset.

            1. Corporations have the power to force you to buy their products!

              They manipulate you with advertizing tricks, and you literally have no choice!

              Only government can save us, because government is us! It’s the collective will of the people!

  14. What kind of data, or rather where from? Wouldn’t FERPA cover the ‘important’ student data?

  15. my roomate’s half-sister makes $69 hourly on the laptop . She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her check was $15722 just working on the laptop for a few hours. why not look here………..
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  16. Hint: violent video games and entertainment.

    For what it’s worth, to date, the most reviling and disturbing commercials I’ve seen on television are the anti-drug commercials that show some kid about suck a man’s dick in return for drug money.

    1. Jeez, and I thought all the anti-smoking propaganda commercials were beyond the pale. That is sick.

      1. It’s all implied, but it’s still revolting. It goes up to showing the man and kid sitting on a bed together, the man asking ‘Are you ready?’, and the narration saying something like “Do you really want to find out what you’d be willing to do once you’re addicted?”

        1. How old is the kid? Hell, even underage I could think of worse things to do to get crack money…. But if I convert it to hetero maybe it would be some older woman on the bed and in that case eew.

          1. IIRC, the kid looks about 15 or 16. And the kid’s a boy.

            1. Oh I get it. I just find it… odd… that they have to play the homo angle – would it have been any more acceptable if the sexes were opposite?

              1. Oh I get it. I just find it… odd… that they have to play the homo angle – would it have been any more acceptable if the sexes were opposite?

                If it were a woman and a girl, it would celebrated as an off-broadway play and straight-white-cis-men could be fired for criticizing it.

    2. The twisted thing about those PSAs and the drug war in general is that once some kid tries pot, he realizes that he’s been fed a bunch of lies. This can result in losing respect for the law in general, which can be a really bad thing if the kid doesn’t have a strong moral footing to start with. Society needs laws, but for laws to be respected they must be worthy of respect.

      1. I try to tell that to people when I explain the government’s monopoly on violence. It’s not necessarily wrong that government is allowed to use violence against certain people, the problem is that it becomes misused.

        You want the ability to use violence to stop murders, thieves, etc. The problem is that ‘the law is the law’ and violence is used also against people selling raw milk and kids with lemonade stands. There’s no differentiation. A murder and a family selling raw milk are both breaking the law.

        1. “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.”
          Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse Dune, Missionaria Protectiva

      2. for laws to be respected they must be worthy of respect.

        respect is an earned commodity, be it for people, for institutions, or for laws/rules/policies. The kid trying pot analogy can be applied to so many other things.

    3. Less Than Zero wasn’t a commercial.

      1. I don’t wanna sound like a queer or nothin but who wouldn’t wanna fuck young Robert Downey Jr?

    4. For what it’s worth, to date, the most reviling and disturbing commercials I’ve seen on television are the anti-drug commercials that show some kid about suck a man’s dick in return for drug money.

      Well, clicking the link they are, “also concerned about gender stereotypes in the media and the impact these narrow?and often negative?definitions of boys’ and girls’ roles, can have on kids’ sense of identity and their interactions with peers”.

      I’m not entirely clear on whether that’s getting rid of scenes of kids performing sexual favors for adults or just being more accepting of a wider array of sexual partners and behaviors.

  17. “Obama touted his Student Digital Privacy Act?”

    So I can actually have digital privacy just by signing up for free college! YAY!

  18. The Life of Julia included higher education.

    1. Julia becomes a Web Designer, gets caught selling school electronic data to corporations, stares at 20 year mandatory minimum and takes a plea for 3 years in federal prison, sharing a cell with convicted murderer. Obama should make a commercial like that.

  19. What a fucking clown.

  20. Because we can’t let corporations have too much power…

    Yes, we really need to curb those armed korporations from kicking in your door at 3 AM, tossing flash bang grenades into your baby’s crib, shooting your dog, bitch slapping your wife, hauling off your screaming kids and locking you in a rape cage for not watching their marketing pitch…only to find out later they’ve raided the wrong home.

    KURB TEH KORPORATE POWERZ!

    1. I really don’t get this whole corporate power thing. If you don’t want to work for a corporation, they can’t force you to. If you don’t want to purchase goods and services from a corporation, they can’t force you to. Advertizing is not force. I mean, yeah I understand the emotionally appealing arguments that come from a profound ignorance of economics, the zero sum game and all that, but come on. Corporations don’t have power. All interactions with them are voluntary. Sure if you want product X then perhaps a corporation is the only place to get it, but there is no force involved.

      1. The immediate retort to this argument is the example of internet providers and cable TV.

        1. Government sanctioned cartels are an example of corporate power? That’s dumb.

        2. Are you arguing that or pointing out the absurdity of those making such an argument?

          1. I’m not arguing it. But that’s typically the response.

            I’ve been in discussions where if people aren’t getting what they need/want, whatever it may be, that’s a “market failure.” And the obvious solution is that government needs to step in and do what needs to be done.

            According to these people, the purpose of government is provide the services that are necessities but are not profitable to provide – such as roads.

            1. Got it.

              I’ve been in discussions where if people aren’t getting what they need/want, whatever it may be, that’s a “market failure.”

              I want a mansion on the slopes of Vail. I’m not getting what I want. MARKET FAILURZ!

        3. that example is driven by and solely by govt policy. My city has multiple careers but each has a defined territory, kinda like mob families. They did not set that up on their own.

          1. careers = carriers

      2. Indeed. Power = the ability to apply force. Corporations, in and of themselves, have no legal ability to force you to do anything against your will. That being the case, any bad outcome you have, in dealings with a corporation, is due to your own stupidity.

        Save us from ourselves, oh blessed government.

        1. I’m in the process of retaking IRB training for human subjects research. You have to read carefully to get the answers right, and you can’t do certain kinds of research without passing the exams. and so I have learned that the US Government’s (which mandates this training) view of power is very different from yours.

          In their view any uneven social status is power. Pregnant women, the handicapped, the poor, gays all have reduced decision-making abilities, and therefore require special consideration in soliciting ‘informed consent’ to make sure they are not subject to undue influence because of their status.

          Given that worldview, of course advertising is force. QED…

          Sigh…
          And I have 13 more modules to take.

          1. There is some reasonable distinction to be made between power and force. Power does exist in many social relationships. When someone sees another person as an authority figure (one without the legal ability to use violence, like a professor or “expert”), or that someone has the ability to make significant changes to their life, for example.

            But any of this has more to do with individual psychology than membership in any special class. And definitely shouldn’t justify a law. Basically what that does is criminalize trying to convince or persuade people.

            1. You’ve given me something to think about. Power being the ability to compel you do something you don’t wish to and force is not giving you an option?

    2. I do get the argument that corporations have power through influencing the government. But it hurts my head when progressives say the government needs more power to control the corporations that control it. That’s just idiotic.

      1. I try explaining the feedback loops between corporations and government, but it never really sinks in.

        People don’t like lobbyists influencing government. So why exactly are corporations lobbying the government? Because government controls regulations, laws, and resources pertaining to particular industries.

        If you government no longer controls those things, then corporations will no longer have a reason to lobby.

    3. Yes, we really need to curb those armed korporations from kicking in your door at 3 AM, tossing flash bang grenades into your baby’s crib, shooting your dog, bitch slapping your wife, hauling off your screaming kids and locking you in a rape cage for not watching their marketing pitch…only to find out later they’ve raided the wrong home.

      Diversify it out over some targeting systems and APCs and you’ve got a handful of US Defense contractors.

      1. I wonder if these new restrictions are going to apply to all the Army, Navy, and Air Force commercials that are all over the TV.

  21. You have to wonder about the mentality of people who consider themselves so weak-willed and gullible that they fear that they won’t be able to resist the temptation to buy products just because they get ads for them.

    I do understand the concern about people making profiles of me based on my personal data, but the idea that they will use it to try to send me advertising is absolutely the least worrisome aspect of that issue. It’s a heck of a lot more worrying that the NSA is collecting this data, because they can actually do something really horrible to me. Not just try to SELL ME something.

  22. Honestly you didn’t get this one right. This has to do with consent for sharing information. If PARENTS (on behalf of their child, a minor) consent to information being shared than have at it, but the STATE should not be empowered to authorize consent for commercial sharing of information from a minor without parental consent. Obama is correct.
    Jared Polis

    1. Pinocchiobama is NEVER correct. Time to come out of your 6-year Pinocchiobama-induced COMA and see how the INCOMPETENT scumbag has turned this once-great nation into a raging SH*THOLE of despair and divisiveness. Now go wait for your welfare check to come in, Libtard freeloader.

  23. They ought to expand this to cover everyone.

    What business are grades, medical records, test scores, photos, text messages, food purchases, political affiliations, voice recordings and disciplinary records of anyone to any business?

  24. I think I like the way that is rolling down dude.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  25. This is the most INCOMPETENT, spineless, limp-wristed PresiDEBT in history. What a lame duck piece of sh*t he truly is. F*CK YOU, Pinocchiobama, you scumbag SOB. And take your TRANNY “wife” (the adam’s apple don’t lie, folks…)and let him, er, I mean ‘her’ do what he, er, I mean ‘she’ does best — climbing the Empire State Building and swatting wayward aircraft.

  26. It’s the INCOMPETENT (Pinocchiobaama ) leading the Illiterate (his brain dead “voters”)….from behind, as usual. Worst PresiDEBT ever.

  27. The reason these companies have data about students is that schools give it to them — and they shouldn’t. If the school even makes an account in the student’s name on a company’s server, it violates the student’s privacy. That’s what ought to be prohibited. Rather than regulating these businesses, don’t let schools give out any personal data about students, except to those students and their parents.

    See http://gnu.org/philosophy/surv…..racy.html.

  28. So he is truly anti market, anti capitalist, anti individual choice. Who were the ” maroons,” as bugs bunny would say, that voted for this idiot?? We already knew he considered the Bill of Rights to be be a hinderence to his methods of governing. That should have been enough to send him to the political trash bin.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.