Advertising Is a Cancer on Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#341

Post by thorwasdfasdf » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #288

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a better way. Just have consumers stop buying products that are advertised. it's so easy. i can only imagine that consumers love the advertisements, otehrwise, why would they buy the product?

No such thing has been proven. Brand recognition is higher even for brands whose ads piss you off. Over time you forget why you were so mad. I had a coworker who insisted you could just chose not to participate. My argument to him was the same I’ll make to you: the other side is using psychological warfare. It’s privatization of propaganda tactics. That requires something a bit more vigorous in response than taking y…

There's nothing stopping anyone from not buying the product. Just because you recognize their brands doesn't mean you have to buy it. I really don't get it. For example, I used to hate the Dodge ads: they really rubbed me the wrong way. It's very easy for me to not buy Dodge products.

and as far as pyschological warfare goes. Just don't let it affect you. Only buy things you want or need and don't let yourself be manipulated so easily.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#342

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:18 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#343

Post by anoncake » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:19 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.

Those are outweighed by the things that don't exist because due to advertising, resources are allocated to less valuable things instead.

> Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loathing advertising and at the same time depending on it for income is deeply hypocritical.

The classic non-argument of conservatives defending the status quo. People who don't depend on advertising for their income just get criticized for selfishly demanding the stop of a practice that doesn't benefit them instead.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#344

Post by buboard » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:19 PM UTC

gatherhunterer wrote: post #312

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.

Many of the blog posts found on Hacker News are ads in disguise. They are targeting people who block ads.

How else will you grab the attention of people already locked into their networks and very resistant to change? Small startups dont have enormous budgets to pay google for it

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#345

Post by cameronbrown » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #324

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that necessarily so? Maybe some products inherently can't be sustained by word of mouth, and in a world without widespread commercial advertising they wouldn't exist at all.

>Maybe some products inherently can't be sustained by word of mouth, and in a world without widespread commercial advertising they wouldn't exist at all. Maybe those products shouldn't exist, then. Just because someone has an idea or wants to sell yet another iteration on an existing product or service, doesn't mean they deserve to. Maybe advertising allows markets to be far more diverse and saturated than they shoul…

Don't be so reductionist. Someone could find this escape room via a search ad, have a blast and tell all of her friends and none of them may never choose to do the same. And an escape room experience isn't something you can easily bring people back for - you need to find new customers every single time.

I suppose a good way that could make word of mouth work is to create two experiences and recommend the other in an email afterwards.

Advertising has made the internet a bit shit, yes. But let's not pretend it has it's upsides because it really does. That's why people pay for it. Now I'll grant that old school banner ads aren't worth much and we'd probably be better off without them. Most of what they're funding is garbage, not independent bloggers like I'd want to be funding.

Disclaimer: Small Google Ads customer.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#346

Post by asark » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

dzader wrote: post #83

aqme28 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

excited to see the new search engine you build then!

Plenty of otherwise-viable business models can't compete with free-but-spying. Hell, open protocols with free implementations aren't having much success. Just not enough incentive to use them, which lowers incentive to work on them, causing a feedback loop that keeps them from improving much.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#347

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

anoncake wrote: post #331

scarface74 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Banning something unhealthy. That didn’t work out so well for alcohol or drugs. The last thing I want is more government power.

A government does not gain power by exercising it.

The more laws you pass where the government can decide to punish people for their own choices that don’t hurt anyone else. The more tools you give them. There is long history of public officials not applying laws equally.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#348

Post by skummetmaelk » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

sgeisler wrote: post #310

lotsofpulp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would bet excess sugar (and carbohydrate) consumption is the second largest externality via taxpayer spending on people’s healthcare due to obesity and diabetes. The biggest externality is destabilization of the environment from pollution.

That's only a problem if healthcare is taxpayer-funded. Otherwise it's your and your insurer's problem to price this in somehow, maybe even offering cheaper plans for people living healthy (e.g. meeting weight goals).

The whole idea behind insurance is that the unlucky ones who require more care than average have their costs covered by those who require less than average. Taxpayer funding systems are literally the same thing.

Yes you can get cheaper premiums by living healthy, but how far do you want to go? Are you going to let your insurance company log everything you eat and how many steps you walk every day? Seems much easier to just factor in the external cost of goods into their price.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#349

Post by raz32dust » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:21 PM UTC

Advertising is not a bad thing in itself. Think of newspaper advertisements (paper edition). I think I owe a lot of my success to a newspaper ad I saw which led me to apply to join for advanced math and science classes. We have had it for centuries, and there will always be some form of advertising around. A "ban" on advertising is neither practical nor fruitful. What is bad is specific, targeted advertising based on user behavior or deep knowlege about the user. This is somewhat vague, of course - if I buy a car magazine, I expect to see car ads which the publishers have posted because they know that the people who buy the magazine are car enthusiasts. It is a question of precision - I am ok with ads targeted at IPs from, say Queens area in New York, but not ads that use my precise location or street. Age should be completely out of bounds except for general statistics like - readers of this newspaper tend to be 20-30 year olds.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#350

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

aeternus wrote: post #322

CamperBob2 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem with this argument is: what do you do when someone who can't pay shows up at the ER. They will die without treatment. They can be saved, but not for free. What action, if any, do you recommend?

Leave it up to the hospital. They are best equipped to assess the cost and likelihood of being able to save the person. They also are most responsible for the repercussions in terms of positive/negative publicity and reputation.

Won't this lead to a situation where some hospitals are known for doing free work, while others aren't? The former will quickly go bankrupt if they aren't subsidized by a charity or religious organization, which has serious drawbacks in itself.

As for the rest, the doctors, nurses, and paramedics are now going to be required to do something that's against their training and likely their nature, by letting people die on the sidewalk out front. Do you suppose this policy will be workable in the long run?