Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 262 posts

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#101

Post by moduspol »

karllager wrote: post #80

As a kid, I grew up in a country with almost no advertising. Repeat after me: No ads in the streets, in the TV, in the radio, nowhere. One day we found a magazine (from another country), which contained ads. Two people smoking cigarettes in a strangely alien world, some kind of jungle - or a safari, maybe. This image was so strange in many ways: Why is it there in a magazine, that was about something completely diffe…

Advertising is a fact of life, though. Without it, there's no way to inform potential customers of a new brand or product.

I mean, imagine if it all disappeared tomorrow. Wouldn't people just stick to the megacorps and established brands they already know? Wouldn't this make it even that much tougher for a Netflix to compete with a Comcast, or an Uber/Lyft to compete with an entrenched taxi industry? How would Dollar Shave Club possibly compete with Gillette?

I don't like ads, either, but the alternative is worse. It just seems unrealistic. I know it could be done--I just don't think it'd bring about some post-materialist society. It'd just allow us to pat ourselves on the back while making it that much tougher to start a business and compete against existing businesses.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#102

Post by eapotapov »

I think the biggest problem is that the media got dissolved within social networks clickbait titles were existing before - just remember tabloids.

the thing is that when you see offline media you see: 1. the brand 2. you know how reliable is this media 3. you usually know the audience and think if you're part of it and trust the media

so in offline, they don't afraid that their reader will buy something else (well they afraid, but it's not a matter of click)

in facebook it's all just titles when reposted and people don't check where exactly it was published before clicking

so it's just like "national examiner" will have a version published in the design of nytimes or anything else - so they will not only have their audience but will try to get a slice of other media's audience

it could have been a quite complex thing to do for offline media as you need to actually print the edition, and pay money for it, but it's free for online, and you get money per view/per click

so i think it's definitely a war between media for this new spread audience on social, there should be a new way to re-establish reliability

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#103

Post by dsfyu404ed »

rosser wrote: post #43
astrobe_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing? That's kind of what HN and a few selected subreddits are for me.

That's not trustless, though. It's just ... call it "distributed" trust. The communities in question have, in whatever way, earned (or at least been granted) your trust.

It's all about knowing who you're getting your information from

HN is probably ok for highly specific technical discussions. Everything else is just going to reflect the people who make up the community.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#104

Post by shostack »

karllager wrote: post #80

As a kid, I grew up in a country with almost no advertising. Repeat after me: No ads in the streets, in the TV, in the radio, nowhere. One day we found a magazine (from another country), which contained ads. Two people smoking cigarettes in a strangely alien world, some kind of jungle - or a safari, maybe. This image was so strange in many ways: Why is it there in a magazine, that was about something completely diffe…

I had similar thinking about how alien that would be in a previous discussion around service culture in the US vs. Germany.

In the US, it is expected that employees in service businesses (think coffee shops, grocery stores, etc.) put on a smiling face and pretend to love their jobs. In Germany, I was told that is unheard of because it is thought of as inhumane to force someone to pretend they love their job like that. So as a result you get some less-than-enthusiastic responses from those employees.

I encountered this a bit in a coffee shop in Vienna and it was stark to say the least.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#105

Post by ickwabe »

xutopia wrote: post #96
hprotagonist wrote: post #9

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings. They're the kin…

Which book, article or letter is this from?

David Foster Wallace

This Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#106

Post by nerfhammer »

icebraining wrote: post #92
_wp3r wrote: post #35

I would be happy with just opinion free and divisive speech free headlines. If the big outlets could simply start with that, it might be attainable. Words matter. In the meantime. https://legiblenews.com/

There's no such thing as "opinion free". The events you choose to cover, the facts you choose to highlight, the people you interview, even the timing, are all based on opinion. Opinions and ideology are what guide us. A better policy, in my opinion, is to explicitly acknowledge one's opinions and ideologies, and to have some humility, recognizing at all times that one may be wrong.

There's a difference between at least attempting to be unbiased, and knowingly exaggerating.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#107

Post by AdeptusAquinas »

shostack wrote: post #100
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you don't click on an ad or think you ignore them doesn't mean you're not being manipulated by them. Subconscious influence/manipulation is more powerful and prevalent than most people realize. The most skillful forms of influence are invisible to the target.

Nor does it mean advertisers can't track your behavior after the fact. A conversion event post ad impression without a click is called a "view-through conversion" and is a cornerstone metric of most display advertising because the bulk of performance from display is likely to be view-through vs. click-based. Advertisers without "hard" conversion metrics can still measure uplift just as easily.

I would like to think that no, my spending tends to be largely on things that do not tend to be advertised (craft beer and bills, mainly). But no doubt you are right. Still, if its so passive that I can barely detect it happening, all power to them.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#108

Post by smokeyj »

rosser wrote: post #85
smokeyj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. It seems to have a religious "give until it hurts" type of mentality. Because giving doesn't really "count" unless it hurts. Otherwise you're just a rich dude donating money and that's not as edgy as a poet giving his last hot-pocket. Seems very Christian in nature.. But personally, if I w…

I don't read "give until it hurts" in "give over and over myriad petty, unsexy ways". That's your own bias creeping in, I think.

No, I just think it's paradoxical to free your mind of fixation only to fixate on something else (relentlessly helping others).

I don't think being happy, or contributing to society requires a fixation on giving - or for it to be uncomfortable. Bill Gates seems to be a pretty generous dude, but I don't think he makes being Jesus-like his identity. So in a certain sense, I think working smarter not harder is a healthier and more sustainable mentality.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#109

Post by abawany »

rosser wrote: post #52
aub3bhat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microprocessors, Internet, Green Revolution, T-Cell therapy, China & India over the last 2 decades ..... You know the stuff that actually required knowledge and power. Not some feel goodery truthiness.

This is so dismissive. You may not find those things valuable, but that doesn't make them valueless.

Exactly. One can hardly call the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) as inconsequential.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#110

Post by icebraining »

nerfhammer wrote: post #106
icebraining wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as "opinion free". The events you choose to cover, the facts you choose to highlight, the people you interview, even the timing, are all based on opinion. Opinions and ideology are what guide us. A better policy, in my opinion, is to explicitly acknowledge one's opinions and ideologies, and to have some humility, recognizing at all times that one may be wrong.

There's a difference between at least attempting to be unbiased, and knowingly exaggerating.

Hence the humility. But I don't know if the shrill voices aren't less dangerous than the supposedly "impartial" ones. At least you can usually tell what horse are they betting on.
Post reply on HN