Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

Maybe something like this: When the one displaying the picture (or whatever), the one providing the picture, and the one viewing the picture are three different parties, and money flows from the person providing the picture to the one showing it.

It's not perfect but I think this definition would include e.g. billboards, newspaper ads and most internet ads, while excluding non-advertising integrations of third-party data (e.g. when a navigation company buys maps from a mapping company to show to their client, it does not fall under this definition because money flows the other way).

One critical possibility was unmentioned. There seems to be a very strong argument that it's advertising that is driving declines in fertility rates. The entire point of the modern advertising machine is to generate endless desires and wants that one might not otherwise have, always chasing the next product - basically to create consumerist societies. The most common reason middle class+ people say they aren't having children is because they don't have enough money, but it's simply untrue.

In most of every society, certainly including the US, there are plenty of people having children with far less than the incomes of these people that claim to be unable to afford it. So what they really mean is that they would rather spend their money on other things. But this is extremely unnatural. Our bodies and minds are heavily evolved to wanting to procreate - it takes a very strong force to fight back against the biological clock and it seems that advertising is just that force.

I think evidence for this is widespread. Many places like Thailand have low education, low income, and low fertility (on par with Japan now). The classic explanations for declining fertility would predict high fertility in such a place. But what Thailand has is an exceptionally high degree of consumerism. And vice versa this also explains why religion often correlates strongly with fertility.

There are varying views on sexuality, education, equality of the sexes, and so on - but most tend to offer a life purpose that supplants any meaningful role consumerism could have. Another bit of evidence is that fertility rates among the extremely rich are also extremely high. Again when one has billions of dollars you can't really be a consumerist because at that point there is basically nothing one could not buy, so you need to look elsewhere for meaning and fulfillment.

It's very similar to sponsoring a TV show: instead of charging for the TV show; all costs are paid for by the advertisers and the show is shown free.

Advertising industry has been considered malignant long before the advent of the internet. Originally published in 1976, "Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture" by Stuart Ewen is an interesting read.

> Like cancer, I think it's possible to split ads into two categories: Benign and malignant.

I think you mean tumors because all cancer is malignant. There’s no benign cancer.

> you know that things have gone sideways. You can feel it.

What you’re feeling is your totally subjective value system bumping up against things that don’t jibe with it.

> these things are acceptable, and these things are not

You’re just taking those values and applying them to everything and everyone else. Febreeze gives me migraines, airlines are often totally shit companies, and toothpaste is a million of the same product full of a bunch of worthless gimmicks. Pharmaceutical ads depend on the pharmaceutical, and what you consider ‘vice’ ads are mostly for products used responsibly by many millions of people even if abused by many. Just because they make you uncomfortable doesn’t mean they should make everyone else uncomfortable.