I really want a study to show what percentage of online ads are downright deceptive (or at least highly misleading). I suspect it's well over 60-70%.
Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
91–100 of 537 posts
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prison provides food, water, clothing and shelter. We send people there to punish them.
You will notice 'being locked in cages' is not in my original list.
My point is that subsistence allocations of food, water, shelter, and clothing is not enough, and such are part of the punishment of prison.
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that correlation is accurate. But even if it is, there is a trade-off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20034507
I understand. I'm not saying that I accept that the correlation is accurate. I'm just saying that if it is, the tradeoff to stop making 3% of people less happy is totally worthwhile. But of course, still in the hypothetical, it wouldn't be necessary for ads to disappear to accomplish this. All that would be necessary is for advertising to adhere to the ideals the ad industry itself says it holds: rather than manipula…
I'd take issue with that. Go to https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_t... and look up some random brands you've heard of. The vast majority of ads are on the level. The ones that aren't are when the product itself is a scam most of the time.
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not say it works that way for me. I see most advertising as a visual noice and/or annoying interruption. I think majority of the time I am not even aware what is being advertised.
Same, but (unfortunately) I suspect we are in the minority. Whenever I visit my parents' house, there are at least two separate TVs on, regardless of whether someone is actually in the room watching. There's probably a 50% chance that there's an ad playing in that house at any given moment. I ask my dad, "Why do you pay $300/month+ to have ads shoved down your throat?" He responded with some non sequitur like, "How e…
People still look at me strangely when they say "hey have you seen that new ad for X" and I tell them I avoid advertisements. Likewise when I change the radio station the moment an ad break starts. I think the idea of ads as a negative influence has not penetrated very far in US society.
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#95One of the nicest things about been a techie is I rarely see/hear adverts.
I don’t listen to the radio (programming podcasts and music), watch broadcast tv (streaming and..other sources), ublock origin deals with the web.
So I see maybe a one or two per day (billboards near work).
I’m reminded how nice that is every time I touch a windows work PC that isn’t mine (I run fedora on a box I built myself), at least everyone is running ublock origin now after I suggested it.
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#96I view advertising as a form of pollution. In many cases, it erodes the human experience. It is abusive to families with children creating strife where there was none. I spend a lot of time managing expectations and sharing philosophical ideas, like "less is more". I don't mind teaching my children, but I don't like feeling people are trying to take advantage of us all the time. I explain it to them as if it is a gam…
The biggest driver of people wanting more is peer actions or non ad entertainment (people with fancy things in movies).
How did you think those fancy things got into the movies? Why were those peers seen performing those actions?
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happiness is the one thing we should be optimizing for. 3% is not negligible if there is no trade-off.
Again, I don't think the correlation holds in the first place. But if it did, there absolutely is a trade-off. It's more or less impossible to grow any endeavor beyond local scale without ads, unless you're lucky enough to be an industry with a strong viral or press component. Take a look at the S-1s of most companies that go public. 9/10 of the companies have been able to grow because of ads.
I don't think you understand what I mean by "there is no trade-off". Those endeavours are only useful if and to the extent they create happiness.
Also: Companies need ads to grow because their competitors also have ads. That doesn't mean they'd need ads in if ads didn't exist.
The one legitimate purpose ads serve – could easily be served through other mechanisms, e.g. by the press. Maybe the press would have to expand but advertising isn't free either. In any case, an independent press is much more suitable to actually inform people than the ad industry which at best informs people by accident while trying to convince people to buy $PRODUCT.
Ads are like military: It's mostly necessary because it exists.
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what do you think Netflix's ranking is if not advertising? 'movies we recommend based on other movies you've seen' and so on.
But if you already pay for Neflix's service and this is just another part of it. Advertising is supposed to sell, or upsell a product, which isn't what the ranking system does.
Well if we're really stretching the logic, watching something is what signals Netflix Corporate to keep it on the service, thus you are _technically_ funding that specific piece of content.
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that’s the current form of advertising. It tries to create demand where there has been none before. You could also imagine advertising that tries to address your actual needs. Unfortunately that probably would make a much smaller market.
Current? A German philosopher wrote in 1844: > every person speculates on creating a new need in another, so as to drive him to fresh sacrifice, to place him in a new dependence and to seduce him into a new mode of enjoyment and therefore economic ruin.
I was thinking about people Edward Bernays who took things to the next level.
Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence
#100Isn't this what you would expect? Advertising fundamentally is trying to convince you that you need something. If you're perfectly happy with your current situation then what else would you need? So the advertising has to convince you that you're not happy but that there is a product that you can buy that will increase your happiness. You're basically being negged by advertisers.
Humans enjoy things more based on their subjective interpretation of it.
Advertising makes you enjoy things more.