Live data from Hacker News

Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

jacek.zlydach.pl

641–650 of 657 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

for a fee. The services google provides are widely used because they are free.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#642
post #594

While I understand both the purpose (cultivate desire, entice, inform) and the necessity (forward movement, economy, business) of advertising, I'd still like to get about my life without it. Unhindered by it. The noise to signal ratio of the modern Internet is such that I, as a technical person, someone that finds it preferable to read instead of listen or watch; I still find myself on Youtube 99% of the time. Almost…

What I'd like to see is an HTMLx that addresses the core needs of the Web-using entities, and an ecosystem of Web extensions that expand on the capabilities of it. So, something like what smartphones with their apps and markets are doing. Basic call and message capabilities, but then there's TrueCaller and WhatsApp and the like.

"Please support our project by enabling advertising on this domain [OK] [Later] [Never]" "For Youtube Movies please install DRM/x264 package from the market [OK] [Later] [Never]" "You will need to enable storage, code, and gaming modules to use Itch [OK] [Later] [Never]"

Because browser extensions suck. Browsers suck. Mobile browsers suck. The experience of the Web sucks, for anyone that knows better. Shopping, gaming, streaming, syndication and publishing all suck big time.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#643

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…

Businesses are made of people, and people have ethics. If you're running one, consider the way you advertise. Are you aiming at making mutually beneficial transactions, or are you just trying to milk you users out of their hard-earned cash? Not all advertising is inherently harmful to individuals or society. Choose the ethical option. It may cost your company some lost profits, but then again, you may gain loyal customers who'll want to reward a honest business.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#644
post #265
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…

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…

I don't think that is true at all. Without advertising you would just have the information elsewhere. Let's take an example similar to your girlfriend's case: entertainment. In Paris you have plenty of events, of all kinds. And that did not start with the internet. And promoters can be very small and have a marketing budget of around 0. Now how did they get people without advertising? You had a collaborative newspaper every week showing all the events with a small comment. Everyone interested in going out had access to it, either because they bought it or read it at school/work/library/press stand. You also have informative stands for small theaters in the metro. No advertising does not mean no information. At last, the majority of ads budget is taken by huge corporations with famous products, like Unilever, and really don't bring anything to society, not even information.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#645
post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only people who still use/listen to/watch these things are dinosaurs who haven't moved on to streaming radio (or just buying your own music), cellphones, and streaming movies Or people like me who drive cars that predate the widespread availability of AUX jacks (which I've worked around by using one of those cassette adapters, but I know of at least some people who drive cars in that awkward phase where cars ha…

If you can't afford a newer car, that's understandable. If you have the means, though, cars that old are downright dangerous in a crash, and if you spend much time in your car it makes sense to upgrade to something newer that won't get you killed. People walk away from crashes in newer cars now that would have killed or severely maimed them in cars made 20 years ago.

> If you have the means, though

I don't, at least not comfortably (I probably could swing buying a newer car, but it'd definitely be painful). There are millions of Americans out there for whom that's probably out of the question entirely. And then there's the people who can't afford streaming radio (and/or a device + data plan to actually stream it) or buying music outright, or otherwise don't want to pay for those things, and at the same time don't feel like sailing the high seas for it (if your sails catch my drift).

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

for a fee. The services google provides are widely used because they are free.

No, they aren't. It's paid by advertisers, advertising makes products more expensive. Ultimately, you do pay. Advertising has no benefits.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#647
post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't afford a newer car, that's understandable. If you have the means, though, cars that old are downright dangerous in a crash, and if you spend much time in your car it makes sense to upgrade to something newer that won't get you killed. People walk away from crashes in newer cars now that would have killed or severely maimed them in cars made 20 years ago.

> If you have the means, though I don't, at least not comfortably (I probably could swing buying a newer car, but it'd definitely be painful). There are millions of Americans out there for whom that's probably out of the question entirely. And then there's the people who can't afford streaming radio (and/or a device + data plan to actually stream it) or buying music outright, or otherwise don't want to pay for those…

>I don't, at least not comfortably (I probably could swing buying a newer car, but it'd definitely be painful)

Remember also, older cars cost a lot: they might not cost much to buy, but they cost a lot to keep running, because of repair costs. If you do your own work and have the time, this might not be a big issue, but for a lot of people it definitely is, and it's why they trade up to a newer car every so often: the repair costs on the old car become greater than the value of the car, so it's cheaper to just sell it and buy something newer that isn't breaking down all the time. On top of that, don't forget the cost of having a breakdown, as this can affect your job.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for a fee. The services google provides are widely used because they are free.

No, they aren't. It's paid by advertisers, advertising makes products more expensive. Ultimately, you do pay. Advertising has no benefits.

I pay regardless whether I use it or not.

It's like a sales tax more efficiently allocated towards google services rather than military.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As I mentioned, all of their products were being marketed as being for "sensitive skin". Eg. a skin that turns red and/or itches after you shave with a very sharp razor: I would generally expect that almost everyone's skin behaves like this. So by saying "sensitive", they were attempting to manipulate me into thinking how my (and everybody else's) skin is sensitive so I need their "special" products.

If you expected that, you would most assuredly be mistaken. Skin sensitivity is a thing that people experience on a wide variety of levels. Some men can shave every day and experience no redness whatsoever. Some can't begin to think of doing that without redness/pain/etc.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't. It's paid by advertisers, advertising makes products more expensive. Ultimately, you do pay. Advertising has no benefits.

I pay regardless whether I use it or not. It's like a sales tax more efficiently allocated towards google services rather than military.

If you aren't happy with what your government go into politics, don't just hand money and thus power to some random capitalist that doesn't even remotely try to work for the common good.
Post reply on HN