YouTube pranksters expose how social ¥Þ¥¹¥³¥ß µðÂç¡Ê¤Ê¡Ës are µö¤¹ing adverts for vapes, knives, alcohol and ÅÒ»öing to children

• e-mail

YouTube pranksters ¡Ê¿ÍÌ¿¤Ê¤É¤ò¡ËÃ¥¤¦¡¤¼çÄ¥¤¹¤ë to have exposed how social ¥Þ¥¹¥³¥ß µðÂç¡Ê¤Ê¡Ës are µö¤¹ing adverts for vapes, knives, alcohol and ÅÒ»öing to children.

In their ºÇ¿·¤Î stunt, popular Æó¿ÍÁÈ Josh and Archie, who have 1.5million ¿®Êô¼Ôs, filmed µ¶¤Î ¹­¹ðs and paid to ÃÏ°Ì¡¤Ç¤Ì¿¤¹¤ë them on Instagram, TikTok and X.

¤Ë¤â¤«¤«¤ï¤é¤º a ¶Ø»ß¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ë on the À½ÉÊs ¸ºß advertised to teens, all ? ´Þ¤àing one by a µ¶¤Î ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤ called 'Stabby Stabby Choppy Choppy Kitchen Knives'?? passed at least one of the ÃÅ¡¦¹ËÎΡ¦¸øÌós' review ²áÄøs and went live.

Advertising data showed the YouTube Æó¿ÍÁÈ were able to reach tens of thousands of ½½Âå¤Î¾¯Ç¯¾¯½÷s, with many clicking through to websites to try and buy the over-18 À½ÉÊs.

Social ¥Þ¥¹¥³¥ß ÃÅ¡¦¹ËÎΡ¦¸øÌós make nearly ¡ ò9billion a year from advertising directed at children and ½½Âå¤Î¾¯Ç¯¾¯½÷s, ¤Ë¤è¤ì¤Ð a Harvard University ½Ï¹Í¤¹¤ë¡¿¹Íθ¤¹¤ë last year.

In their ºÇ¿·¤Î stunt, popular Æó¿ÍÁÈ Josh and Archie, who have 1.5million ¿®Êô¼Ôs, filmed µ¶¤Î ¹­¹ðs and paid to ÃÏ°Ì¡¤Ç¤Ì¿¤¹¤ë them on Instagram , TikTok and X

Co-host Archie Manners said their ºÇ¿·¤Î ¼Â¸³ was ÌÜŪ¡Ê¤È¤¹¤ë¡Ëd at finding out 'how much À®²Ì¡¿ÅØÎÏ ÃÅ¡¦¹ËÎΡ¦¸øÌós really make' in stopping young people from ¸ºß shown unhealthy adverts - 'It turns out not very much at all'.

The YouTubers ? who host the Mail's podcast 'Straight to the Comments!' ? »Ï¤á¤ë¡¤·è¤á¤ë up five companies with ĩȯŪ¤Ê ¸ª½ñ¤òÍ¿¤¨¤ës, such as vape ²ñ¼Ò¡¿·ø¤¤ 'HELF BARS', another for bongs called 'Flower ¥Þ¥ê¥Õ¥¡¥Ês for ¾¯¤·¤Îd(s)', and one for alcohol called 'Grape Juice'.

They then filmed adverts for each, where they showed off the À½ÉÊs in the style of children's television show presenters but with ĩȯŪ¤Ê tag lines such as 'the healthy Âå°Æ¡¿ÁªÂò»è to anti-depressants'.

After this, they then »î¤ß¤ë¡¿´ë¤Æ¤ëd to upload each on to Instagram, TikTok, and X, with the ¸«²ò¡Ê¤ò¤È¤ë¡Ëing age »Ï¤á¤ë¡¤·è¤á¤ë to 13-years-old and over, to see how many under-18s would be recommended the content.

Advertising data showed the YouTube Æó¿ÍÁÈ were able to reach tens of thousands of ½½Âå¤Î¾¯Ç¯¾¯½÷s, with many clicking through to websites to try and buy the over-18 À½ÉÊs

All five went up ¤¹¤°¤Ë on X, ¤Ë¤è¤ì¤Ð the YouTubers, while Instagram µö¤¹d them all on the ÃÅ¡¦¹ËÎΡ¦¸øÌó but after a longer review ²áÄø.

On TikTok, where all the À½ÉÊs are banned, four of the ¹­¹ðs were µñÀ䤹¤ëd.?

However one of the adverts - Helf ˸¤²¤ë¡¿Ë¡ÄÊÛ¸î»Î¶Ès, a µ¶¤Î vape company - passed the review checks.?

The ¹­¹ð cost ¡ò24 and received 12.2k ¸«²ò¡Ê¤ò¤È¤ë¡Ës before the YouTubers said they took it É餫¤¹¡¿·âÄƤ¹¤ë two days later.

Ï¢¹ç¤µ¤»¤ëd, the adverts ? which cost just ¡ò319 - were seen over 100,000 times ? and 85 per cent of these were Ϸǯ¤Î between 13 and 17.

On the ¥Ó¥Ç¥ª, co-host Josh Pieters says: 'So it looks like social ¥Þ¥¹¥³¥ß companies really are more ´Ø¿´d with their ºÐÆþ than spending money on, say, ¸½¼Â¤Ë vetting their adverts ? surprise, surprise.'

The adverts linked through to real websites, but they did not have live shops so no one could ¸½¼Â¤Ë buy the À½ÉÊs.

The adverts linked through to real websites, but they did not have live shops so no one could ¸½¼Â¤Ë buy the À½ÉÊs

Instagram says it ¶Ø»ß¡Ê¤¹¤ë¡Ës all the À½ÉÊs that were advertised by the YouTubers.?

It uses an algorithm ? and ¤¤¤Ä¤«s humans - to review and ´Æ»ë¤¹¤ë adverts when they go up on the ÃÅ¡¦¹ËÎΡ¦¸øÌó.

Advertisers are meant to be À©¸Â¤¹¤ëd if they don't ½¾¤¦, however it ¼ýÍƤ¹¤ë¡¿Ç§¤á¤ës: 'Our review ²áÄø may not ¡Ê°­»ö¡¤ÈëÌ©¤Ê¤É¤ò¡Ëȯ¸«¤¹¤ë all À¯ºö °ãÈ¿s, and ¹­¹ðs remain »ÙÇÛ¤¹¤ë to review and re-review and may be µñÀ䤹¤ëd for ¿¯³²¤¹¤ë¡¿°ãÈ¿¤¹¤ëing our À¯ºös at any time.'

TikTok said the ¥Ó¥Ç¥ª 'deliberately misrepresents the facts' and that its ¹­¹ð À¯ºös had been '»Ü¹Ô¤¹¤ëd Àµ³Î¤Ë'.

The tech µðÂç¡Ê¤Ê¡Ë said it does not µö¤¹ misinformation that could '°ÕÌ£¤¢¤ê¤²¤Ë ³²¡Ê¤òÍ¿¤¨¤ë¡Ë' »ÈÍѼÔs or society and À½ÉÊs that are 'µÄÏÀ¤ÎŪ¤Ë¤Ê¤ë, distasteful, violent, or dangerous', ´Þ¤àing Éð´ïs.

All adverts pass through '¿½Å¤Î levels of review' before ¸ºß ǧ²Ä¤¹¤ëd, though it Ψľ¤Ë ¼ýÍƤ¹¤ë¡¿Ç§¤á¤ës it 'won't catch every instance of violative content'.

X was ÀÜ¿¨¤¹¤ëd for comment.