Advertising Is a Cancer on Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#431

Post by Zeklandia » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #415

There is one part of the anti-advertising rhetoric which has to do with the fact that we spend so much time online and advertising is very visible there - after all Google, an advertising company, is the largest and most important internet company. That's unfortunate of course. There is another part though that is not just fed up with advertising, but comes from a certain trends towards protecting "my safe space". It…

There is a difference, whose significance seems to be lost on you, between peer-to-peer, voluntary communication and centralized, forced distribution.

You are not forced to read pamphlets nor do they insert the content of the pamphlets into your newspapers and letters. Typically the only thing you are forced to do by someone distributing pamphlets is to tell them whether you'd like to take one. If advertisements had to ask whether you wanted to see them, the entire industry would collapse.

Pamphlets are also not magically distributed to everyone. People have to decide to help distribute them, which means other people have to cooperate with you to help you spread your message. It is also easier for others to interfere in your efforts, as, unlike online, people can see who and where the information is coming from, and they can also more easily and directly inhibit distribution. On the other hand, any individual can buy a Facebook ad and, with enough money, shove it in millions of people's faces with little to no oversight. Hence, it is easier to spread misinformation (like anti-vaccine propaganda) through Facebook than in real life.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#432

Post by Zeklandia » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #231

Modern advertising is propaganda and agitation. While commercial entities have advertised their wares for as long as there have been commerce[0], the modern mass hallucination inducing form became the norm only after the world wars. The essence of propaganda is to weave a story and engage the target population in an action that creates commitment to the story and creates secondary effect due to social proof as people…

You are not immune to propaganda. No one is.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#433

Post by makapuf » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #317

brokenkebab wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May we be allowed cake and ice cream or would you ban those as well? Maybe you can get a special license if it's a birthday? Absolutely reasonable question. How about coffee? Soda-prohibiters usually ignore it, because, I guess, they like it themselves, or expect a huge backlash. However, it's a very common way of excessive sugar consumption world-wide.

You don't have to drink coffee with sugar, and in fact, many people do drink it "black".

Even coffee with sugar has way less sugar than a similar volume of soda.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#434

Post by cameronbrown » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

cousin_it wrote: post #408

cameronbrown wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so reductionist. Someone could find this escape room via a search ad, have a blast and tell all of her friends and none of them may never choose to do the same. And an escape room experience isn't something you can easily bring people back for - you need to find new customers every single time. I suppose a good way that could make word of mouth work is to create two experiences and recommend the other in an…

Maybe there could be a middle ground: keep most of the internet ad-free, but allow users to do explicit "commercial searches" for e.g. vacuum cleaners, or hotels, or fun things to do in their area. Then the escape room would show up there.

I've actually thought about that model a lot recently. If Google does this then it's one more step towards their goal of getting somebody what they want. Ads usually only show when you're typing a phrase which correlates with a product. Whenever you type "vacuum cleaners", that's you signalling you're likely searching for a commercial product. If not, ignore the ad.

But let's be honest, search ads are not the problem here, toxic banner ads across the web are.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#435

Post by therealdrag0 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

Zeklandia wrote: post #418

dwild wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have agreed in the past but now that my SO has started an escape room, if your ideal world existed, she would be bankrupt right now. Most ads isn't about manipulation, it's just about getting your attention and reminding you that this product exists. Ads are the only way to reach her market. You could argue that search is a good one too (which is true), but sadly people have trouble paying to watch videos onl…

If you have to tell people they need something then they don't need it. Escape rooms are an entertainment luxury. When there is essential work that needs to be done (infrastructure, healthcare, education, &c.), it makes sense that it takes psychological manipulation to convince people that what they really need to do with their time and effort is temporary entertainment. If you want more customers, provide something…

But we live in a culture that can afford entertainment luxury, if people don't find this gals business, they will spend that time on Netflix or at a bar instead.. The zero-sum game you propose is not really close to what would happen without advertising imo.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#436

Post by buboard » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

Zeklandia wrote: post #431

buboard wrote: post #415

There is one part of the anti-advertising rhetoric which has to do with the fact that we spend so much time online and advertising is very visible there - after all Google, an advertising company, is the largest and most important internet company. That's unfortunate of course. There is another part though that is not just fed up with advertising, but comes from a certain trends towards protecting "my safe space". It…

There is a difference, whose significance seems to be lost on you, between peer-to-peer, voluntary communication and centralized, forced distribution. You are not forced to read pamphlets nor do they insert the content of the pamphlets into your newspapers and letters. Typically the only thing you are forced to do by someone distributing pamphlets is to tell them whether you'd like to take one. If advertisements had…

> If advertisements had to ask whether you wanted to see them, the entire industry would collapse.

Online ads - and most ads tbh - don't force you to do that either. They want to attract your attention but you re free to ignore them. I used pamphlets as the equivalent of advertising in older times, i m sure people would consider them just as pushy/spammy back then as we consider online ads now. They are not peer-to-peer by definition - there is no point preaching to the choir.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#437

Post by Zeklandia » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

ameister14 wrote: post #388

picometer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interpre…

Yeah, the problem with that is it's a completely flawed premise. "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." No, it isn't. It's an expansion of the idea that people are more likely to buy things they have heard of. If it was just to connect people with what they already want to buy, there would be no product development, no pr…

> It's been dishonest since the start. Criers lying about the effectiveness of some tonic, the attractiveness of some woman, the strength and wisdom of some leader.

If those are harmful practices, why would someone turn them into a business venture? To profit off of evil? Making something into a profitable business does not cleanse an activity of morality.

There is also a significant difference between saying you have found a magic bullet for all illnesses and saying you have discovered a specific treatment for specific diseases and had the treatment studied by independent experts to characterize its positive and negative effects in detail. Trying to convince people they need something (advertising) is manipulative, but informing people of something they might need is not.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#438

Post by Zeklandia » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #341

hinkley wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such thing has been proven. Brand recognition is higher even for brands whose ads piss you off. Over time you forget why you were so mad. I had a coworker who insisted you could just chose not to participate. My argument to him was the same I’ll make to you: the other side is using psychological warfare. It’s privatization of propaganda tactics. That requires something a bit more vigorous in response than taking y…

There's nothing stopping anyone from not buying the product. Just because you recognize their brands doesn't mean you have to buy it. I really don't get it. For example, I used to hate the Dodge ads: they really rubbed me the wrong way. It's very easy for me to not buy Dodge products. and as far as pyschological warfare goes. Just don't let it affect you. Only buy things you want or need and don't let yourself be man…

Why do I have to let a company consume my time and mental memory? Why does anyone? Why are we as a society accepting the continued robbery of our time, attention, and thinking?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#439

Post by cameronbrown » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #430

cameronbrown wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so reductionist. Someone could find this escape room via a search ad, have a blast and tell all of her friends and none of them may never choose to do the same. And an escape room experience isn't something you can easily bring people back for - you need to find new customers every single time. I suppose a good way that could make word of mouth work is to create two experiences and recommend the other in an…

>Someone could find this escape room via a search ad, have a blast and tell all of her friends and none of them may never choose to do the same. And they could ignore the ads, too, which most people probably will because it's not that common a thing to want to do. But at least word of mouth can be expected to be reasonably accurate. If this escape room were terrible, the word of mouth would be terrible, but the adver…

> Maybe that makes it a bad business model?

Maybe it is. But I'd argue having something is better than not having it.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#440

Post by kspacewalk2 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

skummetmaelk wrote: post #291

dwild wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have agreed in the past but now that my SO has started an escape room, if your ideal world existed, she would be bankrupt right now. Most ads isn't about manipulation, it's just about getting your attention and reminding you that this product exists. Ads are the only way to reach her market. You could argue that search is a good one too (which is true), but sadly people have trouble paying to watch videos onl…

If the current ad model of the popular search engine(s) was made extinct by law. I would be extremely surprised if search simply disappeared rather than move to a paid model. Who wouldn't pay to have any information in the world reachable in the 30 seconds it takes to craft a query and scan the first page of results? It is a huge competitive advantage.

My guess is that the vast majority of people wouldn't pay. Firstly, because it's notoriously difficult to get people to pay for something that used to be free. Lack of tracking and respect for privacy is not something most people would recognize as an obvious upgrade - hence the need for legislation in the first place. So the public will see it as paying for the exact thing that used to be free, and just won't do it. If Google won't find a loophole to bring marketing, paid results or some other monetization back in such a legislative environment, someone else will. You'll end up with something that's won't necessarily be better for consumers than the advertising model.