31–40 of 57 posts
Hey HN! I want to hear the arguments as to why this is or isn't a positive development for society. Not whether or not it's the right business decision, or whether or not they should have the right to do it. Any thoughts?
you take the red pill, you read Marx, Althusser, and Adorno and your eyes are forever opened. you take the blue pill, you agree with the posts up voted above mine and go back to sleep. your choice, kid
Hey HN! I want to hear the arguments as to why this is or isn't a positive development for society. Not whether or not it's the right business decision, or whether or not they should have the right to do it. Any thoughts?
I think you can work up a good lather of doomsaying from just that quote, but it's all been said before -- so it's not really a new development. It reminds me indirectly of David Foster Wallace's essay E unibus pluram: television and U.S. Fiction:
It's true that there's something sad about the fact that young lion David Leavitt's sole descriptions of certain story characters is that their T-shirts have certain brand names on them. But the fact is that, for most of the educated young readership for whom Leavitt writes, members of a generation raised and nourished on messages equating what one consumes with who one is, Leavitt's descriptions do the job. In our post-'50, inseparable-from-TV association pool, brand loyalty is synecdochic of identity, character.
This seems like a natural way to monetize instagram for accounts that I follow. I would take this over ads any day. If I like a business enough to follow them on instagram, then I won't mind being able to purchase something from the account. For instance, I follow King Arthur Flour for their scrumptious baking recipes. It'd be great to be able to go straight to their online store to purchase some of their harder to f…
Wow, blocking ads (which are inherently unethical) doesn't kill every company on the internet but forces them to come up with better and more inovative business ideas. Who'd have thought?
What is the argument here?
Wow, blocking ads (which are inherently unethical) doesn't kill every company on the internet but forces them to come up with better and more inovative business ideas. Who'd have thought?
> which are inherently unethical What is the argument here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation you describe would require building and maintaining what's basically an etsy competitor. That's a hugely more complex undertaking compared to "here's a buy button that links to a URL". As much as I'd love IG's UX to become the baseline level of ecommerce quality, I can see why they went the route they did.
Regardless of complexity, if the opportunity is there then they ought have gone after it. Perhaps, though unlikely, they just didn't see it. Alternatively it could be seen as a sign that IG are becoming complacent. A competitor may just swoop in, out-execute, and take the chocolates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which are inherently unethical What is the argument here?
The usual arguments against advertising on the internet are about privacy, security and intrusiveness. These are all valid but even if none of those things were true, ads are still inherently manipulative. I consider manipulation to be unethical.
Packaging is designed to make you want to buy one thing more than another. Would as many people buy Red Bull if it was in a standard stubby can instead of the slimline can? No they wouldn't. Is it therefore unethical for Red Bull to sell their beverage in a slimline can?
Is it unethical for a salesperson to talk to you? For a shop to have a sign? For me to suggest eating a kebab for lunch? What if when I finish talking to you I tell you to have a nice day?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The usual arguments against advertising on the internet are about privacy, security and intrusiveness. These are all valid but even if none of those things were true, ads are still inherently manipulative. I consider manipulation to be unethical.
Everyone and everything is manipulative. Life is all about perception. Packaging is designed to make you want to buy one thing more than another. Would as many people buy Red Bull if it was in a standard stubby can instead of the slimline can? No they wouldn't. Is it therefore unethical for Red Bull to sell their beverage in a slimline can? Is it unethical for a salesperson to talk to you? For a shop to have a sign?…
Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". There's even bigger reasons to oppose them than mere convenience, though.
For one, it messes with buyer's rationale, the greatest aspect of markets, so that you cannot be sure that a product winning in the marketplace is doing so out of quality or out of better advertising. The possibility to make up for deficiencies in quality with proper advertisement encourages a company to spend money into selling product instead of improving product.
And if one person is impervious to advertising and getting some content "for free", that still means that some other poor sap who is less educated, more vulnerable to advertising, is buying enough extra to make up for the content the first got for free. An exploitative arrangement to be sure. It's basically simulated peer-pressure.
It exists on a spectrum with free speech, but all your examples have an easy answer: It's unethical for you to suggest someone have kebab for lunch if you are getting paid for it and not disclosing it.