Advertising Is a Cancer on Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#241

Post by krumpet » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

zentiggr wrote: post #93

Aperocky wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define "Something useful" though? The advertisement money eventually makes it to Google, broadcasters, sites, TV-channels, sports events and people running those organization in term gets more money to spend on [Potentially useful stuff]. It's not like the money magically vanishes to never be seen again, and business to business transaction like this make the money flow faster instead of slower. Economy is…

> It's not like the money magically vanishes to never be seen again No, it remains in corporate budgets, which, without all the marketing spend, can be shifted to better wages, charity work, capital investments, better wages, safety and health initiatives, better wages...

At the expense of all those marketers who just lost their jobs. Oh, and all those Google employees because nobody is buying ads anymore.

I think Aperocky observation that following the money doesn't get at the root of the problem is spot on.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#242

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

Aperocky wrote: post #84

wpietri wrote: post #23

He doesn't quite say it by name, but most advertising is a classic arms race. Especially given how the internet now makes information easily available, a great deal of advertising is about manipulating consumers to pick company A's products over those from competitors B, C, and D. This forces those other companies to spend to get and keep customers. It's pure waste. For example, everybody on the planet is now familia…

How do you define "Something useful" though? The advertisement money eventually makes it to Google, broadcasters, sites, TV-channels, sports events and people running those organization in term gets more money to spend on [Potentially useful stuff]. It's not like the money magically vanishes to never be seen again, and business to business transaction like this make the money flow faster instead of slower. Economy is…

If Coke does not buy the large ad campaign, the available advertising resources can be used by the next-highest bidder, and that bidder might potentially be selling something with a higher social utility function value. Since the ad infrastructure does not get as much money from that transaction, less is then reinvested into ad infrastructure. If McDonald's stopped advertising on billboards, billboard advertising would be cheaper in the short run, and then there would be fewer billboards in the long run.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#243

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #170

oneil512 wrote: post #150

Without ads we wouldn't have a way to incentive free content creation. Simple as that.

The only reason we call it content is because it's just filler for the spaces between ads. I understand why ad tech and platform people call it that, but it kind of bugs me when people call themselves content creators.

Agreed. Thanks for articulating it so nicely; I've felt the same for a long time, but couldn't find words to describe it.

"Content" to me is like corporations calling people "human resources". It's a grouping word which removes all that makes elements of the group valuable in the first place.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#244

Post by rowanG077 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

homonculus1 wrote: post #179

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Refined sugar is incredibly toxic. It doesn't just rot your teeth, make you obese, and eventually turns you into a Type 2 diabetic, but it also raises the risk of heart disease, strokes, Alzheimer's, and many other conditions. The direct economic costs - health care costs, lost productivity caused by illness - are immense, and the soda and junk food industries make no contribution towards them. There are also les…

It hasn't done any of those things to me, however, so kindly get your hands off mine and out of my business please.

Fitting name.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#245

Post by Gibbon1 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

joshgel wrote: post #82

rifung wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, everybody on the planet is now familiar with soft drinks. If anybody has never tasted Coke, it's not by accident. But Coke's ad budget is enormous. If all soft drink companies stopped advertising tomorrow, society would not be worse off. And we'd have billions of dollars [1] to spend on something useful. Not that I disagree, but where do you draw the line? Sure, if Coke stopped advertising we'd have bi…

As a doctor, I'm all for banning soft drinks, recognizing that it probably will never happen. But, the health externalities associated with drinking such beverages should get priced in and be used to offset eventual health complications. This is not easy because no one likes taxes, but you get what you pay for.

I think not in terms of should, but as a bare minimum. You sell a product with little socially beneficial upside and significant negatives. Then you should be happy to only have to pay a Pigouvian tax instead of being banned outright.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#246

Post by jjulius » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #211

w-ll wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think the company that makes the best AR wouldn't put ads in it. The top 3 in the field Microsoft, Facebook, and Google to some extent, would never let you disable ads let alone override them with something you wish.

This is demonstrably not true today because Google wrote the operating system of my phone and I block all ads on it.

To your point, I was about to respond to OP as well, and point out that ad-blockers can be installed on Chrome. Then, I remembered that that's not likely to be the case in the near future[1].

https://www.wired.com/story/google-chrome-ad-blockers-extens...

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#247

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

dooglius wrote: post #185

joshgel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a doctor, I'm all for banning soft drinks, recognizing that it probably will never happen. But, the health externalities associated with drinking such beverages should get priced in and be used to offset eventual health complications. This is not easy because no one likes taxes, but you get what you pay for.

How is there an externality? It's not like smoking where it affects other people.

[deleted]

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#248

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #193

I wanted to mention that advertising kills the ecosystem for free and cheap stuff. People say things like "TV wouldn't exist without advertising," but TV would probably be better without it since networks would have to convince you to pay them, rather than just stop you from flipping through the channels. Certainly the news would be better because TV news tries to tease the viewer to watch past the commercial break w…

So how do over the air networks convince people to pay for them? Do you want them to encrypt the signals and sell a decryption box? So instead of having information that anyone can access for free, people who can’t afford a monthly subscription should lnt watch tv?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#249

Post by LeifCarrotson » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

blodovnik wrote: post #63

smt88 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What valuable things wouldn't exist without advertising?

Computers. And if you want to be pedantic, you'll say but they would exist for military etc!!!!! But if you're not being pedantic you'll agree that most stuff relating to computing exists in its current form in lockstep with yhe ability of companies to sell and therefore advertise their products. Not just computers but everything related to them too.

Companies would absolutely be able to sell stuff without advertising their products. Self education, word of mouth, and 3rd-party informational sources has been enough for a lot of products. Purely informational advertising - the kind you'll see in an extremely old newspaper - would probably not be considered cancerous by the author of this article.

Tune into the TV during a sporting event tonight and you won't see some new information about a product that solved a problem you didn't know how to solve. You'll see problems that you didn't know you had, solved in ways no rational person would expect: Your problem is not enough attractive women making eyes at you? Solution: Buy new car. Your problem is life doesn't consist of exciting parties with cool youths? Solution: Buy light beer. Your problem is you're not a professional race car driver? Solution: Buy chunky watch. And if you missed the message, the same three commercials will air during the next ad break in 6 minutes, and you'll see them when you look at your phone or computer, in the wad of glossy ads cocooned within the thin pages of your newspaper, and you'll hear about them on the radio until the host decides it's time to play another song.

That kind of advertising may be necessary for Budweiser to keep up with Coors, or for Ford to keep up with GM, but if it disappeared tomorrow, people would still know that beer and cars were a thing. People might make smarter choices on how much alcohol to drink and when to be content with their current transportation instead of buying a new car, and sales might go down a little, but that would not spell the end of society.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#250

Post by picometer » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

blodovnik wrote: post #8

This is a dogmatic viewpoint I think often seen in very technical people who are unwilling to see the interconnectedness of how our society works. I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. It's a childish and immature opinion really. Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loa…

On the contrary, I think the author addresses this via the "cancer" metaphor:

> It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them.

> Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest. It also became more effective. In the process, it grew to consume a significant amount of resources of every company on the planet.

I interpret the loose analogy as: if controlled advertising is like normal cell growth, then out-of-control resource-consuming advertising is like cancerous cell growth.

It's much easier to control advertising if its deployment has more friction, e.g. in a physical newspaper or billboard. On the internet, it's different. We haven't figured out how to control advertising on the internet yet, such that it doesn't have all the harmful side effects cited by the author.

I bet that if we do figure it out, it will be because we've made significant technological advancements in customerproduct matchmaking* combined with an unrelenting focus on preserving humane values.

* This will also probably entail us, as a society, somehow reframing the way that customerproduct matchmaking happens, putting more control into the customer's hands.

I think there is room for a bit of optimism here, but it means admitting that there are serious problems with the current system.