221–230 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
explain what pressing needs this BMW adv addresses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8UPg6hyDBg
You've confused an individual instance with the general category to an extraordinary extent here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so it must be worth it. ...To someone . That doesn't mean it's worth it to society . No one actually likes muggings, and they still exist everywhere, but that doesn't mean that our society would be worse off without muggings. No one actually likes the flu, and it still exists everywhere, but that doesn't mean that our society would be worse off without the flu. The idea that "it's still around/common, therefore it…
I don't see it as subscribing to free-market ideology - more like "every bad thing has a certain prevalence, and that prevalence is a policy choice." The flu exists because we don't aggressively isolate/contact trace people who get the flu, but it isn't that prevalent and results in few deaths because of how much we invest in vaccination, hygiene, and medical care. The muggings continue because we don't spend the ins…
> people seem happy to complain but pretty hesitant to pay actual money to reduce them.
First, you have to look at this in the context of the actual economic situation of the average American, which has been, more or less, getting steadily worse in a relative sense for roughly 40-50 years.
Second, you can't actually say this with any degree of rigor because in the vast majority of cases, there isn't an option to pay money to reduce the ads. Sure, I could subscribe to YouTube Premium to reduce the number of ads on YouTube—but it wouldn't eliminate sponsored segments of videos, most of it (all of it? I don't actually know the economics off the top of my head) goes to Google rather than to the creators of the videos you watch, and it doesn't do anything about ads outside of YouTube.
Even if you were to subscribe to every single service that has an option to do so to remove ads, you would still be seeing intrusive online ads constantly (assuming you weren't using an adblocker). You would still have your personal data sold and sold again to try to squeeze every last drop of profit out of you for people already more wealthy than God.
And, as can be seen on places like Netflix and Amazon Prime, there's zero guarantee that subscribing will actually keep the ads away permanently.
Given all that, why would most people give up another $9.99 a month just to reduce the number of ads on Yet Another Website?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a survey. There is nothing under test. Its like saying you are p-hacking an election. I don't understand what you mean.
This is the entire point of our dialogue. You claimed my statement that most people [ who don't have children ] claim they aren't having children because of economic reasons was false. Your evidence was a study that showed a negligible majority of people [ who actively don't plan to ever have kids, age 18-49 ] are simply doings so out of personal choice, and then seemed confused about why this was an inappropriate sa…
You weren't happy with the population it sampled from. You thought the buckets should be sized differently. You called this p-hacking.
I provided another survey from a larger population with a similar response to the first one I shared. You didn't acknowledge it.
You still haven't provided a source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've confused an individual instance with the general category to an extraordinary extent here.
you know, I was just making a point, not compiling an exhaustive list of the ads that are not about pressing needs
The first comment (now) quibbles about the definition of advertising. The second comment (now) quibbles about the use of the word cancer. (there is benign cancer). Advertising (whether it uses tracking or not) can be defined as the intention of convincing someone rather than providing information. Intent is to convince. PROPOGANDA. The intent is for the target/prey/victim to be unable to distinguish the truth value.…
This is pointless moralizing pretending to be clarifying or demarcating.
If I write an essay about climate change to convince you to vote/protest/purchase/boycott then I will use information to create an opinion in you.
All communication exists to alter the experiences of your interlocutors. You can't hide behind "good intentions" to demarcate. Labelling persuasion as propaganda, is itself propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you mean the US Supreme Court, they could just stop being insane and change that ruling, because, as I pointed out, corporations aren't people. They are fictions. It's like claiming it is a free speech issue that people in the Wheel of Time books aren't allowed to name the evil threatening the world. Why not in the same way it's determined for product information on the packaging? No, it just requires the state to…
> If you mean the US Supreme Court, they could just stop being insane and change that ruling, because, as I pointed out, corporations aren't people. They are fictions. It's like claiming it is a free speech issue that people in the Wheel of Time books aren't allowed to name the evil threatening the world. This seems odd. A corporation in this sense is a group of people deciding what to do. Should a group of people no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's something you dreamt up for no good reason. There are a lot of constraints on corporate communication, especially for publicly traded corporations. This does not mean "the government control[s] all communications coming from corporations". It's common all over the world to regulate content in advertising. In many places corporations manage to self-regulate, in some the state steps in instead. Ads aimed at…
The discussion is about eliminating ads entirely, as a concept, not restricting bad ones. Bad or deliberately misleading/lying ones already largely get punished. So I'm not sure what the issue is?
I thought that was a rather clear argument in what I wrote but apparently I was mistaken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations aren't people, they have no right to speech. You can go ahead with a career in Warhol simulacras if you want.
Does the YouTuber who’d like to tell you about today’s sponsor have a right to speech?
Corporations shouldn't have a right to exploit them for deceitful promotion of their products, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A corporation is a group of people with very specific legal ramifications . If you're going to claim it's "the people making up the corporation" deciding what to do or say, then why can't I sue[0] the individuals who make up the corporation if I think that what they do or say is harmful to society? And conversely, if the group of people thinks that what they're doing and saying is so valuable and normal, why are they…
I think because you're separate people it's hard to know quite what to reply to, but I don't really understand the idea that a corporation should not be allowed to speak. I'm not speaking specifically about the US, so I don't have particular large biases for or against Supreme Court decisions. I'm more talking practically - what does it mean for a corporation to be silent? A corporation is already held to a higher st…
Advertising as contrasted to information is deceitful, manipulative. It's what happens when two brands use the same factory but make people think one product is boring and for poor people and the other one is for sexy, richer people. The proliferation of this kind of mass communication comes from the project to invent and spread desires people otherwise wouldn't have, to satisfy the amount of productivity we've developed over the last century or so. Make people want stuff they don't need and rationally can't defend being in demand of, basically.
There are two major things missing: 1) No one actually likes this stuff , and it still exists everywhere , so it must be worth it. I feel like the article is a broad list of the author's least favorite aspects of today's information/social/economic environment. But those are just the cost of consuming all our favorite content for ~free, right? It's like saying "I think this price is oppressive, and although I am will…