30 minutes with a stranger

Anyway, that's not my wheelhouse. I've spent a lot of time, around a lot of pretty damaged folks, and this is just an observation that I've come up with, on my own.

I've just noticed that direct, realtime communication, has a lot more emotional connection (for both good and bad), than ones where there's a "handshake," so to speak.

It's not always bad. I think we've all been told to "Think about what you're going to say in response." "Count to ten", etc.

If we want to be angry, then the pause allows us to ramp it up, but if we want to be reasonable, it gives us the chance to defuse it, but, at the same time, maybe leach some of the emotional warmth from it.

I don't think this checks out at all. Slavery was only outlawed in the US ~160 years ago, and marital rape only ~40 years ago.

Some detrimental behaviors have significant money/power behind them, some detrimental behaviors are new - only enabled (or only enabled at scale) by modern advancements, and some otherwise-obviously-detrimental behaviors intentionally obfuscate their harms.

> That's why when people talk about stuff that's detrimental to "society", they are usually trying to claim that their personal preferences are more universal than they actually are.

I'd argue that pretty much regardless of what someone's belief is of which actions are detrimental, it includes at least some actions that are "rationally" in the acting person's/company's self-interest - i.e. "selfish" actions.

Since we're not oracles, it's true that any statement we make on what we believe to be true about the world is ultimately prone to human error/bias (and disagreement over terms/frameworks/etc.) but I don't think that necessarily makes it just a statement of personal preference. Disliking the taste of steak is different from arguing steak production to be a net-negative.

> Clearly, advertising is nowhere near detrimental to society, it's the opposite

If Pepsi doubles their marketing budget to push flyers through every door and take some market share, then Coke does the same to reclaim that market share, it's unclear to me what has really been gained for all that resource wastage.

Largely it seems to just be pouring resources into a zero-sum game. There are incidental secondary effects (maybe now more people drink sugary drinks, and people have spent more time reading about/trying out sugary drinks instead of something else) but it seems fairly questionable as to whether those are even beneficial in a lot of cases, and they're not in proportion to the resources spent either way.

I believe at least that marketing spend would optimally be a tiny fraction of what it is now, with resources directed towards more productive forms of competition (improving the product) rather than just repeatedly persuading the potential customer base with increasingly manipulative/invasive techniques.

> Many, many people benefit from advertising, which is why it's such a big industry.

I feel this is again conflating being profitable or in the rational self-interest of a company with being beneficial. Sneaking a JS crypto miner in the background of your website can be profitable, for instance.