Advertising Is a Cancer on Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#111

Post by solipsism » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

joshgel wrote: post #82

rifung wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, everybody on the planet is now familiar with soft drinks. If anybody has never tasted Coke, it's not by accident. But Coke's ad budget is enormous. If all soft drink companies stopped advertising tomorrow, society would not be worse off. And we'd have billions of dollars [1] to spend on something useful. Not that I disagree, but where do you draw the line? Sure, if Coke stopped advertising we'd have bi…

As a doctor, I'm all for banning soft drinks, recognizing that it probably will never happen. But, the health externalities associated with drinking such beverages should get priced in and be used to offset eventual health complications. This is not easy because no one likes taxes, but you get what you pay for.

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?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#112

Post by robbrown451 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #73

starpilot wrote: post #2

We get rid of it, Google/Facebook/etc. shut down. While social media is of arguable benefits, Google has provided incalculable value to the world. Ads are the magic money fountain that give them the power to organize all of human knowledge, a phenomenal resource anyone can tap.

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?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#113

Post by yellowapple » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #40

GauntletWizard wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to take away all of the coke tomorrow, the first thing I'd spend all that extra money (and more!) on would be to try to invent a new cola.

Nobody's talking about taking away soda. People would still buy soda if there weren't ads for it.

Exactly. I drink energy drinks pretty regularly. With the sole exception of Monster, I've yet to see any ads for any of them (and the Monster "ads" are more sponsorships for various motorsports events that postdate me actually starting to drink the stuff).

Of course, the packaging itself is technically advertising, but still.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#114

Post by dymk » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

mrob wrote: post #73

starpilot wrote: post #2

We get rid of it, Google/Facebook/etc. shut down. While social media is of arguable benefits, Google has provided incalculable value to the world. Ads are the magic money fountain that give them the power to organize all of human knowledge, a phenomenal resource anyone can tap.

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…

Wikipedia almost goes under every year if their banners are to be believed. They have to beg for money to stay open. That's not a ringing endorsement of an "ad-less" model.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#115

Post by zentiggr » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

ribosometronome wrote: post #51

jniedrauer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? They're a net negative to society (soft drinks themselves, that is)

Couldn't the same be said of any luxury?

Not a luxury when it's a net negative to your health to drink it.

Lawmakers have slowly banned advertising for more and more obviously addictive and harmful things.

They just can't make headway against the most pervasive and least obviously harmful things.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#116

Post by _virtu » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

magashna wrote: post #32

t34543 wrote: post #22

If you stop watching ads for awhile and go back to it you’ll see how mind numbing it all really is. I aggressively block ads - no exceptions.

I went and visited my parents who still have cable. I sat and watched for a little while and was dumbstruck by the ads every few minutes. It was unbearable. I don't know how anyone can deal with it unless you don't know better

It pains me so much. Every time I visit the in-laws I find myself thinking this. Their living room is centered around a tv, that is on no matter the time even if no one is watching. During get togethers, you'll hear adverts blasting. It just feels offensive knowing that this has become their norm.

To be fair to the in-laws, my parents do the same as well. It's mind numbing.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#117

Post by chipperyman573 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

megaman821 wrote: post #72

wpietri wrote: 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…

You don't think they have ever tried that. They stopped ad spend in certain locations and in those locations sales went down. People don't have time to research every single choice in their lives. At some point you just go with brand trust. When I see Uncle Floyd's Cola and CocaCola, I just go with what I know. Advertising establishes brand trust.

That's part of the problem imo, these companies have done nothing to earn trust (and often are significantly worse than companies that actually try to earn trust by being trustworthy), because they can just rely on the ads to build it for them.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#118

Post by autoexec » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

blodovnik wrote: post #8

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…

> I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising.

There aren't many things that can only exist because of advertising. Most of the things people things think depend on advertising already existed in some form before advertising took over and would continue to exist in some form if ads went away.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#119

Post by _virtu » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

starik36 wrote: post #78

aqme28 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced that there's no other possible business model for a search engine.

What do you suggest?

Maybe something like brave's model where you charge up a crypto currency and can pay for micro transactions to search.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#120

Post by solipsism » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #45

GauntletWizard wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were to take away all of the coke tomorrow, the first thing I'd spend all that extra money (and more!) on would be to try to invent a new cola.

They aren't saying get rid of coke. They are saying get rid of coke advertising. Everyone already knows about coke and is indoctrinating the rising generations without the need for additional advertisement.

You realize you could make an equally damning article about Coke, don't you?

The meta question is about how we decide what gets banned.