Where is the line between paid advertising and child exploitation with AFF?

[Deleted member 29185]

I don't intend to offend the AFF management, but they have (possibly unintentionally) offended me.

I am not a paid subscription member, not do I intend to become one and to be perfectly honest, I don't mind most of the advertising that appears on AFF.

Occasionally, I find the "over the top" dating services (I've another suitable name for them) to be "ho hum", but hey, each to their own....right? Well, no. Not when it comes to child exploitation! To be honest, I believe the site management do have control over the garbage that is advertised. Most of it is very pertinent...even travel related....and the cough that isn't (dating sites) I can live with, but to my absolute disgust, AFF management, whether their intention or not, is party to child exploitation and I urge them to renegotiate the terms with their advertisers. AFF is a busy site and attractive to advertisers, so why then do they put up with photo-shopped rubbish like this photo below? An obvious fake and something that I believe should not even be legal in a society like Australia. For it to be blatantly advertised on a site like AFF tells me all the so called moderation is only occurring for the member posters whilst advertisers have free rein to assault our integrity. AFF........do something to control your obviously moral less money men!

 

[samh004]

I'm not speaking in any capacity for AFF but generally ads on a website aren't pre-screened but rather when an ad that doesn't work is found it is blocked.

I'm sure this ad wasn't specifically chosen, it just somehow matches certain keywords lately.

It's members like yourself bringing this to peoples attention that is good.

 

[ChasingDaylight]

I've been seeing it a lot lately, all over. TheAge, FlyerTalk, here, and probably elsewhere too. It's what happens with Google adverts sometimes - I'd suggest you look into how the advertisements are generated and delivered before making ignorant and sweeping statements.

 

[puppysparkes]

The use of a "shopped" image isn't going to breach any advertising standards in Australia. However, if the product is sold/distributed in Australia, any implied claims made solely by the advertiser may draw interest of a regulation agency. There are plenty of well known products on the market which skirt TGA regulations, this could be one of them. As Sam mentioned you've raised it and it will likely be reviewed/blocked. But to call it child exploitation, unlikely according to just about every legal definition out there.


Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly

 

[Comoman]

When I logged in from Thailand recently the ad I was served was a scantily clad young Thai girl with a message in Thai. Took 3 clicks to close the ad.

 

[markis10]

The ads are googles work, if you find something that does not seem right pop a PM to admin and the particular advertiser can be banned.

 

[admin]

That advert came in via the Google network. Like most websites which rely on advertising revenue, we "back-fill" unsold inventory with Google Ads. We therefore don't select (or pre-screen) the advertiser. But we can block a specific Google advertiser from appearing on AFF.

While I'm pretty sure Google have their own screening procedures so that they do comply with the law, some ads may "cross the line" as to what is acceptable. If you find an adv. that you believe is unacceptable, send me the URL of the advertising company. If necessary, I will block it from AFF.

BTW: I think this problem is more of an issue at this time of the year when "legitimate" companies reduce their advertising spend. 2-nd tier advertisers then take up the available advertising spots.

 

[markis10]

It's probably worth noting that content is also customised by google based on data that your browser sends them, and you can even indicate your own preferences for content:

Ads Settings

 

[drron]

I have also seen this ad on many other sites.Last was facebook.
What intrigues me is that since I revealed that I was loosing weight on a post on AFF my facebook ads have nearly all been for weight loss pills and potions.
Scary.

 

[RooFlyer]

I have also seen this ad on many other sites.Last was facebook.
What intrigues me is that since I revealed that I was loosing weight on a post on AFF my facebook ads have nearly all been for weight loss pills and potions.
Scary.

Tries but fails to remove self satisfied smirk from face resulting from my virulent opposition to FacePimple on the grounds of lack of data/identity security. (Sorry drron )

 

[drron]

I agree with you but a couple of younger rels insist on communicating by FB.Apparently emails are too much trouble.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I'm sure this ad wasn't specifically chosen, it just somehow matches certain keywords lately

It's probably worth noting that content is also customised by google based on data that your browser sends them,

Given you have both met me, I think you most probably know that "steroi_ alternatives" and/or "beefed up young boys" does not make my search engine. I'm not sure why I've taken such a dislike to this particular ad, but I find it particularly repulsive.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

to call it child exploitation, unlikely according to just about every legal definition out there.

How is it not exploiting children? The guy in the pic is obviously fairly young and who knows where they got his photo from and they are directly targeting impressionable young pre-pubescent/pubescent guys who can be extremely self conscious about their bodies and what is/should be seen as normal and to make it worse, they're doing it with dubious products with a photo-shopped lie. It's wrong from every angle, in my books, regardless of "legal definition".

 

[samh004]

The boy in the pic was a young body builder who's been featured in various documentaries I think. From Eastern Europe perhaps? I'm sure I saw something on 60 Mins some time ago.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The boy in the pic was a young body builder who's been featured in various documentaries I think. From Eastern Europe perhaps? I'm sure I saw something on 60 Mins some time ago.

So you're suggesting it's real? :shock:

Now that'd be no steroi_ alternative and more child abuse rather than child exploitation, however exploitation fits with the target demographic!

 

[under the radar]

Welcome to the www.internet! .... even what I typed allows others to search www.internet and opens a myriad of 'options' !!! :shock:

 

[samh004]

So you're suggesting it's real? :shock:

Now that'd be no steroi_ alternative and more child abuse rather than child exploitation, however exploitation fits with the target demographic!

I though it was http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sandrak but maybe not?

 

[puppysparkes]

How is it not exploiting children? The guy in the pic is obviously fairly young and who knows where they got his photo from and they are directly targeting impressionable young pre-pubescent/pubescent guys who can be extremely self conscious about their bodies and what is/should be seen as normal and to make it worse, they're doing it with dubious products with a photo-shopped lie. It's wrong from every angle, in my books, regardless of "legal definition".

Checking if the photo is a stock image is a great place to start, try tineye reverse image search.

I think your beef is with ethics in marketing not with the of moderation on AFF. I agree that ethics in marketing is almost non-existent in some demographics. Children should be taught what marketing does as an industry. They find or create real or perceived problems, then manufacture and promote a solution for profit.

How often have you complained to ACMA about other forms of advertising that bombard impressionable children on a regular basis? Consider morning/afternoon/weekend television including music videos etc. "Impressionable young pre-pubescent/pubescent" children shouldn't be on the internet unsupervised anyway.

Back to your OP, it's unlikely that children would be reading the material here on AFF where you first saw the ad. Mods have provided an appropriate response to your OP.

 

[Rick93]

Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense ... what is classified as 'appropriate'.

Up until a few months ago, I worked for a high profile private hospital in Sydney, where they had a 'young adult' mental health unit ...

Having inpatients with eating disorders and depression ( among other conditions ), you would think 'management' would have seen the issue with allowing all the womens' glossies ( magazines ) in there ... ( not to mention the unrestricted WiFi access for their laptops in their rooms )

Nope, they said it was up to the young people themselves, to draw their own conclusions etc.

Just waiting for my opportunity to 'give evidence'. For that workplace, it's only a matter of time ...

 

[puppysparkes]

Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense ... what is classified as 'appropriate'.

Up until a few months ago, I worked for a high profile private hospital in Sydney, where they had a 'young adult' mental health unit ...

Having inpatients with eating disorders and depression ( among other conditions ), you would think 'management' would have seen the issue with allowing all the womens' glossies ( magazines ) in there ... ( not to mention the unrestricted WiFi access for their laptops in their rooms )

Nope, they said it was up to the young people themselves, to draw their own conclusions etc.

Just waiting for my opportunity to 'give evidence'. For that workplace, it's only a matter of time ...

Did management have a clinical or non clinical background? Hopefully you keep/kept contemporaneous notes in line with AHPRA standards either in the medical records itself, or in a diary with numbered pages, and copies of any emails or meeting minutes that raised the issue. It may all help if you needed to make a submission to a coronial or HCCC inquiry.