After School: CASE 13
Targeted advertising and privacy
1: STORY
Two teens browse college content and later receive different loan ads. One starts wondering whether the platform knows what their family can afford. Another thinks a single scholarship search caused the entire campaign. The fictional receipts make several signals visible, but they do not open the platform’s complete decision process.
The ad-preferences page lists sneakers, college prep, and local events. Those are categories associated with the account, not a diary of every decision made about it. The advertiser’s transparency card is more specific about this campaign: ages 16–20, selected ZIP codes, and interest in college planning. That gives you a useful place to start separating demographic, location, and interest information.
The activity log adds scholarship searches and college-tour videos. Those actions could relate to the college-planning interest, but a sequence is not a complete explanation. The receipts do not say how strongly any action counted, what other signals existed, or why one teen saw a different version from another.
Build a map that shows the difference between a documented setting and a proposed connection. Draw solid lines for what the receipts state and label possible links as “may contribute.” The point is to make a complicated ad feel more inspectable without pretending that one screen reveals the whole system. No student needs to open or expose a personal account to complete this task.
2: EVIDENCE
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — Ad preferences page
NPW practice document. Listed interests: sneakers, college prep, local events.
What it establishes: Shows platform-assigned or user-selected interest categories.
Question while reading: Does it prove which category caused one ad?
SOURCE B — Advertiser transparency card
NPW practice document. “Advertiser targeted ages 16–20 in selected ZIP codes with interest in college planning.”
What it establishes: Shows audience settings disclosed for the campaign.
Question while reading: Which parts are location/demographic versus inferred interest?
SOURCE C — Recent activity log
NPW practice document. User searched scholarships and watched college-tour videos.
What it establishes: Shows recent behavior that could be related, not exact causal weight.
Question while reading: How would you explain the ad without pretending to know the algorithm?
Source B gives the clearest campaign-level evidence: its disclosed audience settings include ages, ZIP codes, and college-planning interest. Source A shows account categories, including college prep, but does not prove which category delivered this impression. The similarity between “college prep” and “college planning” is relevant, not proof of identical internal labels.
Source C documents behavior that might help explain the interest category. It cannot establish causation or an exact weight. None of A, B, or C demonstrates that the platform knows household income, that the ad offers a suitable loan, or that the two teens were treated differently for one identified reason.
3: PRACTICE
B directly discloses campaign settings. A and C show categories and activity, but neither reveals the exact delivery cause or every factor used.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Map likely data signals without claiming certainty. Include one clear claim or question, at least two source references, one statement of uncertainty/scope, the person or office with relevant authority, and one realistic next step.
My map begins with the campaign settings in B: age range 16–20, selected ZIP codes, and college-planning interest. A separately lists the account’s sneakers, college-prep, and local-events categories. C shows scholarship searches and college-tour viewing; I would connect those to the interest category with a dotted “possible relationship” line. I cannot identify the exact trigger or explain the other teen’s ad from these records. Next I would use the platform’s ad-information or privacy controls to inspect the explanation it provides. The advertiser can clarify its stated audience choices, while the platform controls the delivery system.
What evidence could distinguish one search triggering this ad from the advertiser selecting a broad audience?
A host-led explanation of recommendation feeds using TikTok and a computer-science interview. The older publication date makes it useful for comparing enduring mechanisms with changing platform features.
Which part of the explanation is supported by an expert interview, and what current platform documentation would help test it?
Create a paper feed from teacher-provided post cards. Change one engagement signal and explain why the next recommendations might change. Do not require students to reveal their personal feeds.
Make: A six-card feed map with two evidence-backed explanations.
Public PBS episode page. PBS lists CC and a transcript; playback and school-network access still need checking.
The FTC explains how advertising can blend into unboxings, influencer posts and games. Useful as evidence behind a classroom examination of creator recommendations.
What changes when a product appears in an ordinary-looking post instead of in a clearly marked ad?
Students annotate three clearly fictional creator cards for product, sponsor, intended audience and evidence. Redesign one card so its advertising relationship is clear.
Make: An annotated ad card and a revised disclosure.
Public readable article; no video is claimed for this item.
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
| Criterion | Beginning | Developing | Strong | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy & scope | Repeats claim. | Mostly accurate; scope incomplete. | Accurate and properly scoped. | Accurate, scoped, and explicit about uncertainty. |
| Evidence | Little or unrelated. | Relevant source, sometimes overstated. | Explains what sources establish. | Compares sources and limits. |
| Authority | Names actor without role. | Plausible authority. | Explains who decides and why. | Maps proposal, approval, implementation, review. |
| Communication | Vague or audience-mismatched. | Main point understandable. | Clear, specific, audience-aware. | Clear, accessible, precise, well-qualified. |
