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

Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

jacek.zlydach.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 657 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#391

Post by TeMPOraL »

davidivadavid wrote: post #373
TeMPOraL wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two scenarios aren't that different. Sure, poisoning rivers is worse. But my point is that "think of the jobs it supports" is a poor argument for a practice that hurts people at large.

Unless you think that only companies that produce 0 pollution are acceptable, all you have to do is provide the cost/benefit analysis of (no advertising, less employment) vs. (advertising, more employment). I don't think it's a poor argument, because I don't think "advertising" is hurting "people at large." I think that's a fantasy. Of course there's some shitty, lame advertising, and there's some "manipulative" crap…

> Of course there's some shitty, lame advertising, and there's some "manipulative" crap, and there's shady practices like ad tracking. No one is arguing those are good.

The argument I'm making in the article is that it's not some advertising that's manipulative and shady, but that it's almost all of it.

> I'm always baffled that on a website that's devoted to technology, hosted by the most ambitious startup accelerator in the world, that topic comes up almost monthly, and no one has had any idea how to kill all of those ad tech startups by offering a superior solution.

It comes up monthly because it's a problem, particularly on the Internet. But solutions are hard to find, because it's a hard problem. For one, it has prisonner's-dillema-like nature - if you show up with a way to do well without advertising, a competitor will take your method, add advertising to it, and proceed to do even better.

(Scott Alexander once wrote a very long essay specifically about such problems[0], and he didn't figure out anything actionable either. It's a hard problem, and arguably the root of all the big human-caused issues on this planet.)

I have no good solutions and I said that exact thing in the article. If I ever find one, I'll let the world know. Best I can think of now is individual and collective (i.e.: regulatory) ways of resisting and reducing the individual shady practices and negative consequences of those.

--

[0] - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#392

Post by SilasX »

n0mad01 wrote: post #308
scarface74 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Banning something unhealthy. That didn’t work out so well for alcohol or drugs. The last thing I want is more government power.

he also said "health ... associated ... should get priced in" - how about 6€ for a can of coke? people would drink it, but far less.

It still has the same problems, in that people can bootleg it. Just at a smaller scale. Remember, they have low-grade turf wars in NYC over cigarette sales due to the really high taxes.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#393

Post by cameronbrown »

homonculus1 wrote: post #268
mft_ wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it hasn't raised your risk?

Whatever marginal risk increase I suffer from my moderate consumption is well worth the guaranteed enjoyment I gain. A lot of HN users wish to "optimize" these facets of other people's lives through government regulation, but it's no less odious than going up to people in person and knocking their drink to the ground. It's not your choice.

Exactly. I'm more than happy for more labels saying how bad sugary drinks are - like a less extreme version of smoking warnings - but taking a choice away for someone because you think you know better is authoritarian, even if we're only talking about a drink.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#394

Post by rabidrat »

buboard wrote: post #359
rabidrat wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart dealers don't "advertise". They communicate their available goods to individuals who are already looking and who pass a basic smell test. While on vacation a few years ago, I went out at night to see if I could find some plant matter, and passed a guy on the street who looked like he might know the score. (Being present at a particular time/place to serve a market and dressing in a non-official manner is not ad…

Didnt he just advertise that white stuff to you? How else you call that?

If I call up a restaurant and ask "do you have fish today" and they say "no, today we have steak" I do not consider that advertising.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#395

Post by davidivadavid »

necovek wrote: post #301

I prefer to simply say "marketing today is immoral": it is using scientifically proven methods to manipulate us into doing something we would otherwise not be inclined to do. I don't mind informative advertising: "hey, we are making this thing which can help with this" is ok. But that's a rare breed of ads nowadays. One of the eye-openers for me was when I noticed in my early student (and shaving :)) days how all Niv…

Curious to know what's so problematic about the Nivea claim that it's for sensitive skin?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#396

Post by pas »

justforyou wrote: post #228
gambiting wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to judge a social impact of something before you ban it. The reason why soft drinks are under fire is because there is a lot of people who drink them literally every day. I know several people who drink 8-12 cans of diet coke every single day. On the other hand people usually don't eat cake or ice-cream everyday. I mean, I have no doubt that you could find someone who does, but it's not a widespread behaviou…

If we're basing this on anecdotal evidence, I've worked with entire departments who ate cake or ice-cream every day. That doesn't mean cake and cookies should be banned, nor should soda. It's nanny state nonsense, and one of the more steeply graded slippery slopes... If you're really concerned for people's wellbeing, ensuring access to healthcare goes a lot further than denying people snacks..

People with riskier lives should simply pay more into healthcare insurance.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#397

Post by kakwa_ »

robbrown451 wrote: post #112
mrob wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia provides more value to me than Google, and it doesn't rely on adverts. And static websites with mostly text are very cheap to host now, and there are lots of people willing to share their knowledge without adverts. That was how it was usually done before the rise of web advertising, and old-fashioned websites still exist. You don't even need search engines to find them; there are volunteer-run directory pro…

Are the "please donate" notices on Wikipedia not ads?

As the article itself mentions, ads are not inherently bad. When justified, it's a way for a company X to say "hey, I've this product Y that does Z", informing the market. However, things go south very rapidly in our world, and is far from this simple honest task of informing the market.

Wikipedia banner falls more or less in the honest category. It's even slightly better as the population "paying" for the product (through gifts) are already using it, and know its quality and its flaws.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#398

Post by cameronbrown »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #296
dwild wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I work at an organization that does almost no marketing; we mostly spread by word of mouth. We have no shortage of customers or work, and growth would be harmful to the quality of our product, so we're pretty content with our place in the market. The good old survival bias. You did it thus it's possible for all! Sadly the truth is, word of mouth doesn't always work, you are just lucky.

The primary reason word of mouth doesn't always work is because of advertising. If you don't scream, nobody will hear you over everyone else's screams. But if people stopped screaming, then they could actually hear conversations.

So in your world where advertising went away and Facebook/Google/YouTube/etc are gone (don't pretend they'd survive without ads), where exactly do you do the screaming? In real world public spaces? That's an even more toxic form of advertising and far more wasteful.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#399

Post by davidivadavid »

gatherhunterer wrote: post #319

Most comments are referring to a claim that the author did not make: that all advertising and the practice of business marketing should be abolished unconditionally.

That's probably because the author uses loaded language, and bases the whole article on an analogy with cancer, which has a slight tendency to evoke the worst kind of crap people can think of and want to entirely get rid of at all costs.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#400

Post by buboard »

rabidrat wrote: post #394
buboard wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didnt he just advertise that white stuff to you? How else you call that?

If I call up a restaurant and ask "do you have fish today" and they say "no, today we have steak" I do not consider that advertising.

That's because it's like targeted advertising: Now that they know you 're looking for food, they can make the advertisement relevant. It would sound worse if they said "No but would you like a pair of sandals"
Post reply on HN