Investigative journalism

Ever see those ads on youtube: 'what will you look like when you're older?', 'what would you look like as a cartoon?'?
I figure this ad space must be pretty expensive. How do these novelty things make money? Surely not *that* many people would click on them, and even if they did, how are they making money off these things?
Well, it turns out that to make a cartoon of yourself, or whatever, you have to download the software, which then collects data on your internet browsing habits. This data is then sold to other companies, who use it to tell other companies how to best market there product. The apps also feature ads, which other companies pay for. These apps are *not* adware, or any other *bad* software, stress their parent companies, because the user downloads the software consensually and all the information concerning what the software does is available to the user. Never mind that it's marketed to small children, who we don't normally tend to assume have the same knowledge of contract law and the way it operates. Yet more examples of how difficult it is for guardians to monitor their protectorate's use of the internet I suppose.
I considered sending this 'story lead' to Breakfast - the BBC breakfast 'news' show - considering how much they seem to love fear-mongering re children's internet activities. Did anyone see the one the other day with the video that's being shown in schools to kids about avoiding paedophiles on the net? There was the usual 'Well isn't talking to kids about paedophiles corrupting them/is this really necessary?' type guff, as if speaking about paedophiles was almost as bad as committing acts of paedophilia - made particularly ironic by the fact that they were talking about paedophiles on breakfast TV, which is hardly post watershed - I guess in a sense this is breaking the fourth wall... like next week they'll show some bestial porn while Bill Turnbull just tuts - much like the Mail showing a picture of a 15 year old Charlotte Church talking about how she's 'filling out' right next to an article villifying 'paedophiles'. Anyway, they're wittering on about how old kids should be before we start telling them not to talk to strangers, and I'm wondering why they're running with this. You may have noticed that I am an increasingly cynical sod - or perhaps a slightly better informed one, whatevs - "All romantics meet the same fate: cynical and drunk someday, and boring someone in some dark cafe." Then this guy comes on, sat on their orange sofa, and he's talking about it - why? - well, he says, what they can do is use this button that we have yadadada and all websites should have this yadadada all you do is download the browser AHA! That was what it was all about! You have to download and use a specific browser. Now as Google have demonstrated, having lots of people use your browser is very profitable in any number of ways. So this is why! The browser company sit there going 'How can we compete with Google et al?' and then they twig: we put spurious resources into the browser which no other bgrowser has, and then claim them as fundamental and necessary on a level which is undeniable. Their PR then plonk Mr Expert on the orange sofa et voila! News is made. Brilliant.


In other news, Chet Baker is brilliant.