221–230 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax ad revenue as a vice like at alcohol and tobacco levels, or higher.
Limit advertising budgets to some percentage of reported (and taxed) income. Solve multiple problems at once :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate ads, but this is not a winning argument. Instead of winning people over to the sympathetic cause (nobody really LIKES ads besides google and meta employees) you alienate people
Ads can be likeable under the right conditions. Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? Which is also ideal for advertisers. Who wants to pay to advertise to an audience that doesn't want their product? Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When I was a child, the conspiracy theory among kids was that Coca-Cola inserted subliminal ads by interlacing a can of Coke within TV series or movies. I cannot believe reality surpasses all those fantasies. Reader: Yeah, that happened... Narrator: It did: https://www.businessinsider.com/subliminal-ads-2011-5
No, the idea that you can insert a single frame into standard video formats and have it subliminally influence you is an urban legend. You can try it with any video editing software. A single frame at 30 or 60 fps is extremely visible. It's not passing by your conscious awareness undetected. The flash is obvious and you can easily read a word of text or recognize a logo or someone's face.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221...
This reads like a tragic story. Once you've collected enough data on every internet user out there to group them into different advertising cohorts, the remaining ungrouped users, by process of elimination (due to privacy or targeted advertising laws), are children; and now they can be targeted just as easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monsanto isn’t forcing anyone to buy their product. Farmers use it because they’re better than uncopyeighted seeds.
They are forced in the sense that it's a prisoner's dilemma type of thing: Farmers would be better off if none of them used exploitative seeds. However since they are competing with farmers who are using those seeds then have to do so as well in order to stay competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the idea that you can insert a single frame into standard video formats and have it subliminally influence you is an urban legend. You can try it with any video editing software. A single frame at 30 or 60 fps is extremely visible. It's not passing by your conscious awareness undetected. The flash is obvious and you can easily read a word of text or recognize a logo or someone's face.
Yes, scientific source "Beyond Vicary’s fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice" [1]. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221...
Like I said, test it yourself in a video editor. You'll immediately see how implausible it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads can be likeable under the right conditions. Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? Which is also ideal for advertisers. Who wants to pay to advertise to an audience that doesn't want their product? Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are l…
There’s a subtle error in your beliefs about the motivations of FB and Google. They are incentivized not to give users useful ads, but effective ones. The goal isn’t to improve your life. For example, something you buy because its marketed very well, but then never use, is a success for FB or Google and a loss for you. You should frame them less positively as a consequence. I also want to point out that it’s not skit…
I'll grant you that understandings can be faulty. One may learn that there was no benefit. But that's outside of the ad itself. Invalidating your hypotheseses is an important part of the scientific method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads can be likeable under the right conditions. Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? Which is also ideal for advertisers. Who wants to pay to advertise to an audience that doesn't want their product? Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are l…
There’s a subtle error in your beliefs about the motivations of FB and Google. They are incentivized not to give users useful ads, but effective ones. The goal isn’t to improve your life. For example, something you buy because its marketed very well, but then never use, is a success for FB or Google and a loss for you. You should frame them less positively as a consequence. I also want to point out that it’s not skit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a subtle error in your beliefs about the motivations of FB and Google. They are incentivized not to give users useful ads, but effective ones. The goal isn’t to improve your life. For example, something you buy because its marketed very well, but then never use, is a success for FB or Google and a loss for you. You should frame them less positively as a consequence. I also want to point out that it’s not skit…
Nobody would buy something without an understanding of it being beneficial. I'll grant you that understandings can be faulty. One may learn that there was no benefit. But that's outside of the ad itself. Invalidating your hypotheseses is an important part of the scientific method.
The advertisements create the misunderstanding. "Lucky Charms are part of a complete breakfast" etc. No normal person under normal circumstances would think that marshmallows or cookies are part of a healthy meal if you asked them directly to think about it.