Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#351

Post by craftinator » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:27 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #345

craftinator wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people aren't going to see specs concerning screen size and mentally translate that to "Woah, this will make my life easier because it will be more readable than the dinky thing I currently use." This sentence really hurts my head, especially because I think you are right. In my mind, it is equivalent to being chased by a leopard, and not taking your knife out of your pocket because there's no one there to rem…

But what if you are encountering an alien life form from another planet? How will you know if it's basically like a leopard, in spite of being purple with green stripes, so stabby thing it is? Or maybe it's friendly and stabbing it would start an intergalactic war because it's actually a visiting diplomat. It's my job to give such clues to the clueless. (Not intended to call anyone stupid. I used to routinely ask for…

I think you took a personal opinion based on the way I see the world and turned it into a what-if hyperbole contest. But again, opinion, and not worth killing the conversation over, just a tactic used in poor taste.

I would prefer to make my own judgements. There's a better chance that I know enough about physics and biology and have a relevant understanding of the situation that I'm currently in, than the chance that someone else has all of those things and is paying as much attention to my situation as I am, has no agenda conflicting with mine, and chooses not to lie to me for any unknown number of reasons.

For what reason would I be unable to take a ruler, measure the screen of my current device, subtract that number from 7, and use the outcome to decide whether or not the device you are selling will have better visibility? It would take, maybe 4 seconds. I could even estimate it within an inch if no ruler was available. What clue can you offer that I could not deduce for myself given base information, and additionally make a better deduction, because you don't know that I'm colorblind and nearsighted. You simply aren't in a good position to offer me a clue.

Edit: I think that last sentence sums up why I dislike advertisements, but let me add an addendum: advertisements tend to offer me stories to distract me from the facts. I do not seek distraction. I want to understand the facts, and use the product to create my own story, for myself, because it will be more genuine than what is advertised to me, because it will be true, and be real, and be rewarding.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#352

Post by sonnyblarney » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:34 AM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #286

quickthrower2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good advice, but I find it ironic. Keep your money. Stick it in an index fund. It'll get invested in Google, Facebook, Apple who make money from ... advertising their own or other people's products. To really be minimalist I think it's better (if less lucrative on average) to start your own business that takes a small chunk of business away from the giants, that you have ethical control over. It's getting harder…

Weirdly 'keeping your money' might be bad for the economy! Your spending is someone else's income . It's sounds a little nutty to say you're depriving someone else but it's kind of true. If you see products and or services you like and they have some value to you - and you can reasonably afford - it's good to spend in many ways.

I should add, the related concept here besides 'consumer economy' which is kind of a fundamental of the US economic machine is 'velocity of money'. It's an intriguing economic concept for those unfamiliar. [1]

I'm party from a small town, my grandfather was notoriously thrifty (and a little wealthy) and he would never eat out. A dinner at the local diner would be a 'big thing' for him. Coffee shops and little such things are impossible to take hold in this small town because people are like this. They are not poor. Just thrifty. Which is fine ... but it means no secondary economy. The only thing that survives is the gas station / resto out by the highway for passers through.

The town is definitely large enough to accomodate 1 or 2 small places, but due to the culture, it's not going to happen.

It wasn't until later on in life (studying econ) did I realize the 'other side' of savings, and real value of money: When you buy something, you generally value it more than the money, ergo, you make a profit, we call this 'consumer surplus'. It increases the quality of your life by some nudge. Buying things that can improve your life, even if it's a coffee ... has many positive effects. Without consumption most of us would be out of jobs.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#353

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:35 AM UTC

craftinator wrote: post #351

DoreenMichele wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if you are encountering an alien life form from another planet? How will you know if it's basically like a leopard, in spite of being purple with green stripes, so stabby thing it is? Or maybe it's friendly and stabbing it would start an intergalactic war because it's actually a visiting diplomat. It's my job to give such clues to the clueless. (Not intended to call anyone stupid. I used to routinely ask for…

I think you took a personal opinion based on the way I see the world and turned it into a what-if hyperbole contest. But again, opinion, and not worth killing the conversation over, just a tactic used in poor taste. I would prefer to make my own judgements. There's a better chance that I know enough about physics and biology and have a relevant understanding of the situation that I'm currently in, than the chance tha…

[deleted]

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#354

Post by mrhappyunhappy » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:35 AM UTC

asdff wrote: post #306

lwb wrote: post #59

The biggest offender in my opinion is not the web, where you can install ad blockers and avoid certain websites, but television, where you're forced to sit through something before you can get to the content you're trying to watch. I find it especially offensive on paid services like Hulu. I'm paying for the thing, just let me watch it! It's also pretty bad for F2P mobile games, although the solution there is easy (p…

Cable TV used to be ad free when it first came out. The whole reason people were willing to pay for it was to not see ads like they got on the free broadcasts. Then once telecoms got their market share the ads trickled in, as was originally planned I'm sure.

I used to watch cable tv when it was ad free. Then ads came about and I was really baffled why anyone would pay to watch ads. That was the end of cable for me many many years ago.

Also, I’ll never forget the first day I saw and ad in the movie theatre. That was mostly the end of theatres for me except on some occasions.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#355

Post by nothal » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:40 AM UTC

borkt wrote: post #89

enlyth wrote: post #15

To me, it is worrying how much human effort we're investing into advertising as a whole. The top minds of our generations, backed by billions of dollars in funding, are working on increasingly manipulative ways to capture people's attention and use it to generate profit. We're constantly getting better at it; who knows what path this will lead us down. I suspect it might not be the one we had wished for.

I don't care how much education they have, the minds who are focused on developing ways to capture people's increasingly fractured attention are disqualified from being considered the top minds of our generation.

I think that's a nearsighted appraisal of people in these industries. Advertising is effective and so is the myth that money gives you actualization, to me it makes perfect sense that smart kids are going into a high paying industry while missing it's harmful effect.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#356

Post by HNLurker2 » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:42 AM UTC

deepakkarki wrote: post #346

Folks in this thread may find this interesting, a 4 part documentary on Edward Bernays and the history of advertising and PR as we know it today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 From the video description - "The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud's idea…

Fun fact: Bernays grandson is the co founder of Netflix. And you may think what brainwashing are all of these memes by Netflix? (Stephen Bernays Randolph his father)

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#357

Post by parallel » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:45 AM UTC

rogual wrote: post #128

WalterBright wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that subsistence allocations of food, water, shelter, and clothing is not enough, and such are part of the punishment of prison.

I wouldn't even consider prison to offer "shelter" since you're locked in there with violent people.

Words work because we agree what they mean in advance. You can't redefine "shelter" to suit your argument. Just make it with the standard definitions of words.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#358

Post by solitus » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:50 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #328

solitus wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And their own. These people are writing algorithms for the stock market because it pays incredibly well. Same for the engineers at FAANG selling ads online. Our society values money/material above all else and it's making us miserable. Money is your score at the game of life.

Money is your score at the game of life. Maybe the answer is to stop treating life as a game..

Yes, perhaps what I should have said is that somehow money gamifies life and that is pervert.

That being said, I cannot really think of a better system than money at our current scale.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#359

Post by dwaltrip » Wed, May 29, 2019, 3:54 AM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #172

munk-a wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The light side is of so little value that I think we should just throw it out with the bathwater and kill this modern experiment in advertising. Our society is paying huge costs to support this industry in terms of wealth, novel innovations, productivity and sanity. It's terrible.

> The light side is of so little value that I think we should just throw it out with the bathwater and kill this modern experiment in advertising. I don't think that's true at all. Where else would you learn about new services or products? Here are some examples from a 2010 model railroader. https://photos.app.goo.gl/RvRzECgs7MaTo7tP8 Some, especially the Kato model Amtrak one, have some aspects of an aspirational ad…

Humans learned about new things for thousands of years without the modern of advertisements.

I have no fear that the news of useful and interesting products will spread just fine even if advertising is massively reduced.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#360

Post by foldingmoney » Wed, May 29, 2019, 4:05 AM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #334

enlyth wrote: post #15

To me, it is worrying how much human effort we're investing into advertising as a whole. The top minds of our generations, backed by billions of dollars in funding, are working on increasingly manipulative ways to capture people's attention and use it to generate profit. We're constantly getting better at it; who knows what path this will lead us down. I suspect it might not be the one we had wished for.

It seems like a larger and larger percentage of our economy is being taken up by parasitic sectors that have a net negative value for society. Advertising, soda, highly processed food, credit cards, car dealerships, (most) sales people, etc. We'd probably be better of as a society paying these people to do nothing than to do what they do now; we'd be even better off if we paid them to do something actually productive…

It's not like there's some central planning committee that sits down and decides what to pay everyone.

Citizens decide where to spend their money -- at least the part that the government doesn't tax and spend for them -- and all of these industries you name exist and pay well because people value them and choose to spend their money on them.