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

Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

jacek.zlydach.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 657 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#371

Post by ziddoap »

_petronius wrote: post #286
ziddoap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with arguing your viewpoint is that no one can prove something wouldn't have been invented without Google. So, no matter what is listed, you can just say "someone else might have invented that". And regarding your second point, what would the practical difference be to the consumer if the innovation happened because of their ability to scale out, or "true innovation"? You don't need to like Google to admi…

You may be assuming you know my viewpoint without me having presented it in full, but anyway I wasn't looking to argue in bad faith, I guess I just see a strong difference between "successful company that has made money and cool products" and "added incalculable value to the world." That's a very strong statement! The parent comment was looking to weigh the problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills brought ab…

I didn't think you were trying to argue in bad faith, and you are correct that I had assumed you presented your full position in your initial post - my apologies.

And I agree, "incalculable" makes it quite a strong statement, and I probably wouldn't have chosen that word myself.

I think it's important to consider that Google is not the sole inventor, proponent, or user of advertisement. You probably aren't claiming that either, but the way your statement reads("problems of the ad-supported economy and the ills [...] against the value of Google") leads one to believe that you put those two things on equal footing. Google certainly evolved advertising, and is certainly a major player, but they aren't solely responsible. So, to weigh "Googles Good" vs. "Advertisements Ills" is hard to reconcile.

"haigiographies" is a new word for me, cheers!

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#372

Post by kspacewalk2 »

anoncake wrote: post #325
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.

If a product can't be sustained by word of mouth, it's because it doesn't fill a need that wasn't artificially created by advertising. These products shouldn't exist.

It can easily be a matter of timing/bootstrapping. Great idea, great service, not enough word of mouth initially, business burns through cash and fails. Who's better off? Established incumbents, of course. This would create a completely artificial disadvantage for new businesses.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#373

Post by davidivadavid »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #333
davidivadavid wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So replace something with something that's completely different. Would your opinion be different? I guess so.

The two scenarios aren't that different. Sure, poisoning rivers is worse. But my point is that "think of the jobs it supports" is a poor argument for a practice that hurts people at large.

Unless you think that only companies that produce 0 pollution are acceptable, all you have to do is provide the cost/benefit analysis of (no advertising, less employment) vs. (advertising, more employment).

I don't think it's a poor argument, because I don't think "advertising" is hurting "people at large." I think that's a fantasy.

Of course there's some shitty, lame advertising, and there's some "manipulative" crap, and there's shady practices like ad tracking. No one is arguing those are good. Ad people are constantly mocking shitty advertising themselves. But no one is offering better solutions.

I'm always baffled that on a website that's devoted to technology, hosted by the most ambitious startup accelerator in the world, that topic comes up almost monthly, and no one has had any idea how to kill all of those ad tech startups by offering a superior solution. That's a huge opportunity to make billions and make the world a better place that I would support 100%.

Unfortunately, it seems like people are more interested in infantile hot takes and engineering vs. marketing culture war screeds. I'd rather we talked about the above.

Can someone who thinks advertising should disappear explain how they intend their new fangled startup to grow and reach its target market with no form of "advertising" or "marketing", bearing in mind things like opportunity cost and cash flow management? Feel free to include/exclude whatever you want from those labels and explain why.

Edit: double negative.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#374

Post by buboard »

c3534l wrote: post #193

I wanted to mention that advertising kills the ecosystem for free and cheap stuff. People say things like "TV wouldn't exist without advertising," but TV would probably be better without it since networks would have to convince you to pay them, rather than just stop you from flipping through the channels. Certainly the news would be better because TV news tries to tease the viewer to watch past the commercial break w…

> Advertising isn't free, its costs are just hidden.

I'm pretty sure its net effect is positive in the economy. The alternative - banning advertising would slow down the economy and make everyone poorer.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#375

Post by perfunctory »

joekrill wrote: post #278

This discussion always makes me think of one of my favorite NewRadio scenes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhrnMbhMgmw It makes a really important point, though: where do you draw the line at what is considered "advertising"? It's a pervasive part of humanity. > Real world advertising is not about informing, it's about convincing. That's life, though, isn't it? Me convincing my employer I'm the best person for the…

> Me convincing my employer I'm the best person for the job

To do that I presume you would actually have to believe that you are the best person for the job. Otherwise you would fill emotional distress, as normal people do when they lie. Professional marketers on the other hand don't have to believe in what they sell.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#376

Post by Balgair »

anoncake wrote: post #325
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.

If a product can't be sustained by word of mouth, it's because it doesn't fill a need that wasn't artificially created by advertising. These products shouldn't exist.

Certain medical products, various hygiene supplies, or other things that cannot be talked about in 'polite society' would fall into the realm of things that are very hard to spread by word of mouth. Additionally, things that are rarely used by a person but are widely used by society, like stump removal services, plumbers, etc.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#377

Post by TeMPOraL »

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.

Blatant ads get flagged with impunity. There's a standard here - you can promote your stuff as long as it's genuinely useful and relevant in context. If this was the standard for advertising in general, we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

See also: https://xkcd.com/810/.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#378

Post by buboard »

bluetwo wrote: post #16

I would say the theft of attention and concentration is a cancer on society, but I agree overall. To those who say there is no other model, you are not correct.

The internet is not ready to give up on ads/it depends on it. Subscriptions can be scammy - and they need a lot of advertising themselves ironically : paywalls - “support us on patreon” - “please call between 1 and 2pm australia time to cancel your subscription”.

We could try micropayments, probably in the form of crypropayments, probably unaccounted for tax purposes (which is the main obstacle to their acceptance. They can be accounted for via alternative means, eg. by correlating traffic statistics). Until then ads are the most democratic to monetize small websites in the absence of VC money. Unless you can suggest better ways - i d love to try them.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#379

Post by ameister14 »

Fnoord wrote: post #295
dwild wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have agreed in the past but now that my SO has started an escape room, if your ideal world existed, she would be bankrupt right now. Most ads isn't about manipulation, it's just about getting your attention and reminding you that this product exists. Ads are the only way to reach her market. You could argue that search is a good one too (which is true), but sadly people have trouble paying to watch videos onl…

> I would have agreed in the past but now that my SO has started an escape room, if your ideal world existed, she would be bankrupt right now. In the old days, if her product -in this case escape room- would be good, she'd get enough customers by word of mouth alone.

What old days are you talking about, exactly? That's a pretty nebulous term. Before advertising? That's a few thousand years ago, so maybe?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#380

Post by alexashka »

paulcole wrote: post #127
perfunctory wrote: post #109

Compulsory quote "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we w…

Maybe I'm misinterpreting but didn't the movie show that everything Tyler does and says is 100% wrong?

No. The movie shows a very real problem that many people experience. It goes on to show a partial solution of getting in touch with your primal emotions (beating the shit out of each other). It then turns into a cult and cults have a tendency to go off the rails.

It's a multi-layered story that resists simplistic interpretations, which is why it is so beloved by so many.

Post reply on HN