Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need legal controls on web advertising

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 171 posts

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#141

Post by stevesearer »

rolph wrote: post #137
stevesearer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be interested in knowing what qualifies as advertising in this hypothetical. Web banners? Sponsored content? Trade shows? Sales rep stopping by and buying lunch and talking about a product? Clothing with logos? Hacker News? There are lots of ways to capture people’s attention to build awareness of your business that probably technically fall under advertising but would be quite difficult to regulate in any meanin…

I dont know why it continues, but when someone says or does something that says "im not interested in ads" the response is to hook around that and force it upon them. This is how you create hostility toward your product, not desirability.

Can you elaborate more?

I am uncertain if you are saying that I was engaging in the behavior you are describing or if you are describing behavior you have observed regularly in discussions like these.

My question was meant more to think about what constitutes an advertisement for the purposes of a hypothetical "50% tax on all advertising revenue" proposed by the parent comment.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#142

Post by rolph »

stevesearer wrote: post #141
rolph wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont know why it continues, but when someone says or does something that says "im not interested in ads" the response is to hook around that and force it upon them. This is how you create hostility toward your product, not desirability.

Can you elaborate more? I am uncertain if you are saying that I was engaging in the behavior you are describing or if you are describing behavior you have observed regularly in discussions like these. My question was meant more to think about what constitutes an advertisement for the purposes of a hypothetical "50% tax on all advertising revenue" proposed by the parent comment.

no not you but digital advertising in general.

i think this is a misfire on my part and should be a reply to [Marcus] up thread.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#143

Post by rolph »

rolph wrote: post #142
stevesearer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate more? I am uncertain if you are saying that I was engaging in the behavior you are describing or if you are describing behavior you have observed regularly in discussions like these. My question was meant more to think about what constitutes an advertisement for the purposes of a hypothetical "50% tax on all advertising revenue" proposed by the parent comment.

no not you but digital advertising in general. i think this is a misfire on my part and should be a reply to [Marcus] up thread.

as far as the elaboration part i could if you like but in general, a yes means yes , and no means nothing i want to hear so ill act like i heard yes, attitude does not make new customers, but rather anticustomers. This creates a vector toward hostility rather than adoption.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#144

Post by throwaway2245 »

grishka wrote: post #125
stevesearer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be interested in knowing what qualifies as advertising in this hypothetical. Web banners? Sponsored content? Trade shows? Sales rep stopping by and buying lunch and talking about a product? Clothing with logos? Hacker News? There are lots of ways to capture people’s attention to build awareness of your business that probably technically fall under advertising but would be quite difficult to regulate in any meanin…

I think it's pretty clear. Advertising is when someone pays to pass to you any information you didn't intentionally ask for. Banners and sponsored content obviously are advertising. Your friend telling you about some cool product is not advertising because he wasn't paid for that.

> Your friend telling you about some cool product is not advertising because he wasn't paid for that.

I often get told unpaid by my friend about cool product because:

a) my friend wants to be viewed as a trustworthy influencer (trustworthy to ad execs) and hopes or expects to be paid later,

b) my friend is unconsciously parroting marketing speak from advertising they have seen,

neither of which are particularly helpful to me.

Stopping these cases would be an additional benefit of banning (or heavily taxing) paid advertising, I would expect it to be somewhat self-regulated.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#145

Post by 6510 »

nimih wrote: post #104
megaman821 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I am sure millions of less fortunate people in this world are glad you have no say in deciding these things. Millions of people using Whatsapp to stay in contact with their friends and family for free, many who couldn't afford to pay for the service, but shut it down because snarf21 saw an ad he didn't like.

If only there were a way to redistribute resources and provide services to the less fortunate without relying on the whims and benevolence of predatory multinational corporations.

Its one of those things that we can have by simply wanting it. Ironically the predatory corporations would thrive under such new deal.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#146

Post by throwaway2245 »

megaman821 wrote: post #73
marcus_holmes wrote: post #46

I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.

Taking away that "free stuff" is not without consequence either. Now people without means can't read the news, watch tv, connect with friends and family online, play casual games, etc. Are ads more evil than taking away free access for those without the means to pay?

> can't read the news

Alternative potential consequence: it allows indie news publishers to become more competitive and visible against billionaire-backed business with huge advertising powers.

> [can't] connect with friends and family online

same - if Facebook goes under, that's a positive network effect to smaller competitors. (there are plenty of free ways to connect that don't depend on advertising)

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#147

Post by throwaway2245 »

jasode wrote: post #38
lordnacho wrote: post #33

If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find m…

>humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? [...] How can the free market work if everyone is so easily affected by suggestion? I'm (genuinely) surprised that someone with your financial background knowledge would write those sentences about "free market". I think you already know that the "free" in "free market" mean…

"For classical economists such as Adam Smith, the term free market does not necessarily refer to a market free from government interference, but rather free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities."

so this usage is at least 250 years old - and canonical.

I suspect the 'free from government interference' definition is a modern conservative creation, attempting to claim the ground of what an ideal market looks like in the public's imagination.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#148

Post by DoubleGlazing »

What we have today isn't really advertising in my opinion.

To me advertising should be fairly passive and loosely targetted. Basically putting car ads on a motoring website or serving local interest ads based on your location.

What the web has given us is a form of "thought manipulation". It has gone beyond just trying to make us aware of a product in to manipulating us to make irrational decisions. The idea of the likes of Google and other ad brokers constantly researching web users actions in order to get inside their heads really bothers me. It's more than creepy, its disturbing.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#149

Post by horsawlarway »

Jakobeha wrote: post #140
marcus_holmes wrote: post #46

I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.

Advertising itself is good. Knowing about different products that can help you is actually really good. Sure you can get this information from friends and word-of-mouth, but it's not always accurate, and there is nothing wrong with using advertisements too. Plus, there are some advertisements that are genuinely works of art. Even personalized ads are good if they're done in a way that ensures your privacy is safe. It…

> Advertising itself is good

I used to think roughly the same - I'm really not that convinced anymore.

I'd actually say your last point really drives home just how BAD advertising is right now. It's so bad that there's evolutionary pressure to learn to ignore advertisements.

Ads are like a form of social parasite - They've hijacked a human instinct to share things we like and turned it into a profit motivated, manipulative, abusive channel to suck money out of people.

Just like animals ridden with parasites are less fit - consumers who are most susceptible or surrounded by ads are less fit. Their decisions are influenced by ads to no longer objectively consider whether a product is useful to them. Like a mouse infected with toxoplasma is drawn to the small of cat urine - even though it means getting eaten far more often. Good for the parasite, bad for the mouse. Ads are good for the company, bad for the person.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#150

Post by marcus_holmes »

rolph wrote: post #143
rolph wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no not you but digital advertising in general. i think this is a misfire on my part and should be a reply to [Marcus] up thread.

as far as the elaboration part i could if you like but in general, a yes means yes , and no means nothing i want to hear so ill act like i heard yes, attitude does not make new customers, but rather anticustomers. This creates a vector toward hostility rather than adoption.

I've heard this so often in marketing talks - "it takes 5 touches to make a sale, so that's 4 'no's' you've got to get through to get a 'yes'". Makes me sick. But it clearly works, even though we hate it.

So I think the goal is to make it not work. Like any other antisocial behaviour that we'd like to tone down in our society - tax the shit out of it.

Post reply on HN