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

601–610 of 657 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#601

Post by Balgair »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #409
Balgair wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain medical products, various hygiene supplies, or other things that cannot be talked about in 'polite society' would fall into the realm of things that are very hard to spread by word of mouth. Additionally, things that are rarely used by a person but are widely used by society, like stump removal services, plumbers, etc.

All of those can do just fine with a general search engine. You just need to know that removing a stump is generally possible. That fact itself can be advertised by a the guild of stump removers if it is obscure enough. "Tired of hitting your toe on the stump in your backyard? Ask you doctor for an eye check!"

> the guild of stump removers

What?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#602

Post by necovek »

yoz-y wrote: post #547
necovek wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree with the proposition that "most ads [aren't] about manipulation" (especially if we are talking about "most exposure time" rather than majority of ads being created regardless of the number of times they've been viewed). Of course, I don't have data to prove my statement, but I doubt you have any to prove yours either. And without ads and that "great tutorial", maybe you'd be something of greater valu…

> Note that the original article does not complain about informative ads, but about manipulative ones. It’s funny because the title would suggest that “all ads are one of the worst things that happened to humanity”. So it’s a click bait headline = manipulative ad. Maybe without a different title nobody would read the article.

The entire article argues how advertising parallels cancer: as such, title is appropriate.

As I said in another comment, I am not a big fan of the analogy because it's unclear: you have to work backwards to reconfirm it.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#603

Post by necovek »

dwild wrote: post #589
necovek wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would disagree with the proposition that "most ads [aren't] about manipulation" (especially if we are talking about "most exposure time" rather than majority of ads being created regardless of the number of times they've been viewed). Of course, I don't have data to prove my statement, but I doubt you have any to prove yours either. And without ads and that "great tutorial", maybe you'd be something of greater valu…

> maybe you'd be something of greater value to society rather than the "developer you are today" I'm a pretty great value for my works actually. Could do more? I don't actually believe it. I learned what I'm doing since I was 8. There's no way anyone would have paid for theses learning experience for me except advertisers. You could certainly argue that I could have a more fun childhood if I didn't dedicate so much o…

I thought about being explicit: I am not questioning your work or your worthiness or your satisfaction with life. But nobody knows if different circumstances would have led to a life more valuable to society. I am surprised you don't think there was anything better you could have done in your life, but to each their own.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#604

Post by webninja »

hinkley wrote: post #33

Long, long ago, someone suggested their extremely simple fix for advertising: stop letting companies declare it as a business expense. The Law of Unintended Consequences always gets you in weird ways, and I'm not a lobbyist or a public policy person, nor do I know anyone highly placed in those fields. But one of the ways companies slowly fail is by choosing to sell harder instead of making their product better. If we…

Great idea, I think you’re on to something! How do we prevent it from hurting good advertising which informs, such as trailers for good movies which you might not have otherwise known about?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#605

Post by palerdot »

dooglius wrote: post #289
FussyZeus wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to? Coke as a company is responsible for some horrifying effects on the world. Health effects, economic depression in the developing world, ongoing environmental harm. And for what? Sugar water. Not space travel, not energy, not transportation, not safer aircraft or cars, not saving lives, no. For fucking. Sugar. Water. And they're far from the only company burning energy, effort, time and knowledge…

The parent comment said that externalities should be priced in, I am saying it's not an externality and is already "priced in" if it hurts only the drinker. That's orthogonal to Coke being good or bad.

This view is too myopic. In India, for example, Coke sucks millions of litres of fresh water when surrounding areas are suffering from drought or mostly barren. There has been cases where Coke was forced to move out of a location due to outrage from people ... Personally, I'm of the view that individuals should be responsible in their decisions and how banning advertising of toxic products or the product itself will lead to a better society ...

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#606

Post by TeMPOraL »

dwild wrote: post #582
TeMPOraL wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't scream. You talk to people. They talk to other people. If your message is worth it, it'll organically reach those who'd benefit from it. Also, you could post your message in places where people interested in the kind of problems you're solving come to look for solutions. Trade shows, product catalogs, storefronts, and their on-line equivalents. > don't pretend they'd survive without ads I don't see why Face…

> You might end up having to actually pay a little bit for it, though. How old are you? I'm from the 90's, I'm from the generation that was on MSN all the time. My parent would have never let me pay for anything online, with no access to credit cards... There's no ways they would have paid 5$ a month for a social networks, even if "all my friends were on it", which wouldn't be true, just like Runescape in the past.

Late 1980s. MSN didn't exist at the time. MSDN did, though, and didn't require advertising support, Microsoft was fine with offering it for free.

I didn't mention it in the article, but I do recognize what you said as about the only redeeming thing about advertising on the Internet. Free content is a huge boon not just for the less wealthy, but for kids. I do not have a good idea how we could get rid of ads on-line while not excluding these demographics at the same time. I was kind of hoping someone on HN would have some ideas, but nothing turned up so far.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#607

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

hinkley wrote: post #451
thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah that’s why it’s called warfare and not conversation. You’re tricking the person into doing something they don’t want to do by overcoming their defenses and reasoning to work against their own interests. You are either a zen monk or have a huge blind spot. Who else would offer this sort of advice?

I've never bought anything I don't want or need. For me, it's not difficult, that's why its so hard for me to understand why it's not he norm.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#608

Post by ameister14 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #429
ameister14 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are being a bit pedantic and misdirectional with that first quote. It's not an important thesis of the article that people already know about the products ahead of time. In no way have you demonstrated a "completely flawed premise". > It's been dishonest since the start How is it a rebuttal to the say that advertising was always dishonest and manipulative...?

Firstly, I don't think it's unnecessarily pedantic to say that the origins of advertising and what they are for are not what he says they are.

>How is it a rebuttal to the say that advertising was always dishonest and manipulative...?

Because if your argument is that advertising is becoming or has become dishonest and manipulative and it needs to be pulled back to what it was before, that is a lot weaker if advertising has always been dishonest and manipulative.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#610

Post by anoncake »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #384
anoncake wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why a strong central government is important. To make sure resources are allocated to useful purposes rather than garbage like advertising.

But then you wouldn't have services provided by companies like google.

If they're useful, they will be provided by other companies and organizations instead.
Post reply on HN