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

211–220 of 262 posts

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#211

Post by freshhawk »

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #189
freshhawk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which craft beers? Most of them are manufactured by huge corporate breweries. Do you own a car? What kind? Is it an older honda civic or something similar? In North America your choice of cars is almost certainly the result of advertising, both on you and on the people who's opinion about you you care about.

NZer here. Our craft beer is still mostly owned by small companies, with some notable recent exceptions. But for whatever reason I don't see ads for beer, either NZ or otherwise, online. I own a BMW, but have no interest in cars and so don't see car ads online (nor would they be effective - the BMW was chosen by my wife). I take your point, and I am not arguing I am the exception, however your specific examples proba…

I have a weakness for BMW myself. But when you look at what you get for what it costs it is the very definition of a status purchase, which is an advertising based choice by definition.

I think that makes my point well actually, you may actually be an exception but because of your social/personal circle you were effected.

Now that you mention it, a big part of it for me is the issue of liberty. I would massively prefer to make a choice based on having a gun to my head rather than being manipulated into it without my knowledge. In one case I'm aware of the manipulation and have a chance to do something to fix the situation, in the other I simply lose some liberty without noticing a little at a time.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#212

Post by smsm42 »

threatofrain wrote: post #201
jancsika wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had to work a shit job like grocery store clerk, I'd much prefer an ineffectual dolt of a boss telling me to smile than I would a German realist boss telling me a smile isn't a requirement of my employment.

Or you'll have an American realist Walmart boss telling you to "cheer" up. I see it as unvalued emotional labor, and degrading to those who do it as they are non-negotiably expected to do it. Some people are into this, and some aren't -- but if you are poor and working retail, then you must smile and sometimes sing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOkQJm_UGM4

I have hard time to see how being nice to people is "degrading". Is it somehow assumed that only assholes are real decent people and anyone who is nice to the clients is automatically degrading themselves?

Yes, I get it - working as a clerk in a store like Walmart is not the most luxurious job in the world. But I, as a client, is not at fault that the clerk is not a billionaire hedge fund manager (neither am I btw). On the contrary, the money that I bring in are partially paying his - admittedly, far from luxurious, but still nonzero - salary. He is not forced to work this job, he could leave at any moment (he'd have to give up the salary of course). So is it really too much to expect some nice disposition towards customers which pay your living? I really don't understand how it's unreasonable and "degrading" to expect that. Singing maybe going too far (OTOH, the video looks like a dreaded "teambuilding exercise", that's the whole other story), but a nice smile?

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#213

Post by smsm42 »

> This is not your fault — it is by design.

Here's where I disagree. It is your fault. You don't have to watch youtube videos. If you do and the result is not to your liking - it's your fault. Nobody stood with a gun to your temple, nobody injected you with mind-suppressing drugs. You just like silly Youtube videos. Own it and stop blaming somebody else, or install site-blocking extension into your browser. Your life is your responsibility, and so is your time, whatever you do with it, including wasting it on silly youtube videos.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#214

Post by stass »

hkmurakami wrote: post #72
_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/

The Economist, while not devoid of biases, is as close as we have to this.

Wall Street Journal is still very good as well. I wonder if the fact that their articles are not available for free is one of the reasons?

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#215

Post by smsm42 »

laretluval wrote: post #10

The narrative that information distribution was more accurate in the past because of "traditional journalism" has always struck me as self-serving. > Journalism — the historical counter to propaganda — has become the biggest casualty in this algorithmic war for our attention. Is the best solution really to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow som…

> to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow some standards

The members of the said elite would certainly like that. Even after they basically spent all their inherited trust capital on silly politicking.

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing?

That'd not be easy - you'd have to trust somebody. You're not going to go to every place where something of note is happening and verify it, and people that would go there might lie or be mistaken about what is happening, or their reports might be distorted, edited and selectively suppressed to make it fit an agenda. But we could raise the standards of who we trust and how easily we trust. That'd require some work and giving up on so much tasty outrage and righteous indignation, that I'm not sure it would be very attractive proposition.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#216

Post by smsm42 »

matt4077 wrote: post #68
laretluval wrote: post #10

The narrative that information distribution was more accurate in the past because of "traditional journalism" has always struck me as self-serving. > Journalism — the historical counter to propaganda — has become the biggest casualty in this algorithmic war for our attention. Is the best solution really to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow som…

> Is there a trustless way to implement journalistic standards such as sourcing? No, there isn't. But people really misunderstand how journalists deal with sources. Here's a recent compilation of behind-the-scenes stories from journalists, that also happens to better communicate the actual work they do than I've seen before: https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/scoops-fahrenthold-greg... In short, an "anonymous sourc…

> In short, an "anonymous source" isn't just a reporter making something up.

Is there really any difference who made it up if at the end the story came out false? If you look well enough, it's not hard to find people willing to say what you want to hear, and lying by proxy is not much better than lying outright.

> It's also rare for these sources to lie. These sources are real people, after all.

Implying real people do not lie? They do, all the time. Even more often, they are misinformed, mistaken, confuse their wishes for real fact, exaggerate their knowledge, etc.

> I can point to any number of anonymously-sourced stories that were later proven right by official announcements.

I can also point to any number that were proven false. E.g. CNN reporting Comey expected to refute Trumps words about not investigating him, and Comey confirming Trumps words. Or the same Comey calling NYT reporting "almost completely wrong" (I guess they got Trump's name correctly?) Not to mention that hilarious Fusion GPS "dossier". There's a ton of this stuff around, all the time. It's a free market - if there's demand, there's supply, and man, is there the demand.

> There may be some that can't (yet) be judged, such as the persistence rumours that X or Y may resign

That's a nice one because eventually everybody resigns (or gets fired, but that is usually also framed as "resigned", see Spicer), or dies. Since the former case is much more frequent, one can always bet on the rumor that X or Y may resign - eventually it will become true. It's just not true yet...

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#217

Post by smsm42 »

smacktoward wrote: post #13
laretluval wrote: post #10

The narrative that information distribution was more accurate in the past because of "traditional journalism" has always struck me as self-serving. > Journalism — the historical counter to propaganda — has become the biggest casualty in this algorithmic war for our attention. Is the best solution really to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow som…

> Is the best solution really to fight propaganda by leaving our information distribution to a selected elite that we have to trust to follow some standards? Compared to leaving our information distribution to anybody who's out to make a quick buck?

That's how food is distributed, basically, in every Western country. So far seems to work pretty well.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#218

Post by smsm42 »

boomzilla wrote: post #187
Dangeranger wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an educated guess but it is most likely Cuba. [0] [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/how-do-...

Well then the OP ignores the biggest advertiser of them all: the communist party.

Most of that CP did, at least where I grew up, was not advertisement but slogans. Like "in God we trust" in US. Nobody really takes it as an ad for God.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#219

Post by smsm42 »

visarga wrote: post #209
moduspol wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Without it, there's no way to inform potential customers of a new brand or product. What about word of mouth, observing other people, searching for a product online?

Word of mouth is not enough for a 300-million market. Yet less observing other people, especially as many things aren't very observable. And to search for a product online, you need to know it exists and you want it. Nobody searched for iPhones before Apple started advertising them.

Re: How Fear and Outrage Are Sold for Profit

#220

Post by apexalpha »

smsm42 wrote: post #210
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…

> Image a day in your life without coming across an ad I have had such days. I read a lot of stuff online, and I have adblockers. My entertainment is supplied by books and TV, where I watch either channels like Netflix or recorded shows, where I can skip through commercials. It's not exactly not encountering ads - and I surely encounter billboards when I drive around (though I don't think I can recall any of them, th…

>(though I don't think I can recall any of them, the mind filters them out by now),

Oh no no no. That is not how that works. Coca cola doesn't put up signs, ads, billboards, coaters and napkin holders with their logo on it to get you to stop and think about coca cola.

No. What they do it place their logo next to something that seems happy. Next to someone smiling or put it up in situations where people are happy. Relaxing on a beach? Coca cola flag. Sitting in a cafe with friends? Coca cola coasters sitting on the table.

Slowly but surely, your mind will associate Coca cola with happiness and relaxing.

And when that moment comes when you feel down. Your mind will think. I don't want to feel down. I want to feel happy.

I want happy. I want cola.

There is no such thing as 'filtering' out ads. They are not hoping you can recall them. They are designed to infiltrate your subconscious.

Post reply on HN