Advertising Is a Cancer on Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#561

Post by joekrill » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 10:06 AM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #375

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.

They don't have to believe it. But I think many do (Whether they are lying to themselves is another thing). Most sales/marketing folks I've worked with actually do believe their product is superior and the best.

I don't think it's really as black-and-white as your suggesting, though. In the "employee/employer" context: there are plenty of employees who do think they are the best person for a job. In most cases that's probably just not true, given the size of a candidate pool. Are they lying to themselves?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#562

Post by antisemiotic » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 10:29 AM UTC

e_proxus wrote: post #560

davidivadavid wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy applies to literally anything that can grow. Great. Startups are a cancer. Technology is a cancer.

That's like calling a growing baby a cancer. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

On the internet, you can never be sure if your interlocutor isn't just a particularly pretentious teratoma.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#563

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 11:05 AM UTC

traviscj wrote: post #541

waterhouse wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I got my driver's license at age 17 (or possibly the learner's permit? I forget), we learned that the car insurance company would reduce the premium for me if we regularly submitted them some kind of proof that I was getting good grades. It's possible this was some kind of "public-service program to encourage desired behavior", but I suspect that at least part of why they did it was because straight-A students a…

I’m much more cynical: 1. It was probably a tax write off. 2. It was probably also both a community service project AND a reflection of lower expected insurance payout. 3. Maybe the straight-A students are correlated with insurance payers that would rather pay the repair known 1-off payment (or skip doing anything at all) vs the unknown recurring increase in insurance payments? (Source: drove a dented-up pickup for o…

1. What would a tax deduction have to do with an insurer charging lower premiums to its customer?

2. The lower expected payout is exactly what an insurance company is trying to determine, and they’re very good at doing that assuming they have lots of data.

3. Most vehicle insurance cost are liability related, meaning the damage their insured to others, and namely healthcare costs. A collision with another person or their property will not be fixed without the insurance company getting involved, and a reduction in those is what the insurance company is betting on.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#564

Post by yoz-y » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 11:18 AM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #557

yoz-y wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to see the outrage if google and Facebook were added to the internet bill of everyone around.

That's only because the current business model is very closed source (proprietary) a danger RMS warned about decades ago. The original GPLv3 was meant to address that, and websites such as Wikipedia and I suppose OpenAI don't work that way. If we were used to no advertising and paying for services, we'd be outraged by if there was advertising. Ironically, that way is more efficient. The ideal model for data is a Patr…

Podcast hosts (at least those I listen to) are often asked to provide a paid version of their content without ads. The answer is always the same: ads bring way more money in that a subscription would.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#565

Post by brokenkebab » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 11:24 AM UTC

magduf wrote: post #486

brokenkebab wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the message in my comment. Soda don't have to be too sweet either.

Yes, it does. You don't get to choose how much sugar is in a can or fountain drink when you buy it, it's pre-made. You could buy reduced-sweetness soda I suppose, but I don't know where you're going to find that. Even the boutique brands are very sweet. You can also buy artificially-sweetened soda, but lots of studies are now showing that crap isn't any healthier for you.

No, it doesn't, not sure where you live, but I see low-calorie soda drinks in every supermarket I visit. You also, believe it, or not, are free to not buy any soda at all, in the same way you may decide not to put any sugar in your coffee. Probably, it's true to say that majority of buyers still prefer sugary sodas, because simply put people like sweet tastes a lot. Logically, it means that forced unavailability of sodas will be compensated by other means, including oversweetened coffee, chocolates etc. and I'm just asking where this I-save-you-whether-you-like-it-or-not zeal will end: would you regulate a number of grams of sugar allowed to buy per day as the next logical step?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#566

Post by joantorres » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 11:28 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #548

joantorres wrote: post #535

The real cancer on society are religions. Not only they are totally useless, but they have been obstructing critical thinking and the progress of sciencific development for thousands of years.

We don't want religious flamewars on HN, so could you please not post like this here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, understood.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#567

Post by forgottenpass » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 11:47 AM 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…

>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.

You're asking him to argue against himself rather than put a strong case forward for a position. And you're framing the fact he doesn't as a mental limitation. You're denying the authors agency by asserting it wasn't even a stylistic choice about presentation; he didn't present what you would have so therefore his brain must be broken.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#568

Post by Fnoord » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 12:03 PM UTC

yoz-y wrote: post #564

Fnoord wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only because the current business model is very closed source (proprietary) a danger RMS warned about decades ago. The original GPLv3 was meant to address that, and websites such as Wikipedia and I suppose OpenAI don't work that way. If we were used to no advertising and paying for services, we'd be outraged by if there was advertising. Ironically, that way is more efficient. The ideal model for data is a Patr…

Podcast hosts (at least those I listen to) are often asked to provide a paid version of their content without ads. The answer is always the same: ads bring way more money in that a subscription would.

There are examples where subscriptions work perfectly well. Is the model perfect? No.

Podcast hosts are biased either way. Ads waste people's time while a subscription doesn't. The subscriber amount is inflated, and the quality of content is lower than it could be because of clickbait and other non-content.

One subscription-based model for news I'm looking forward to gaining adoption is essentially a Spotify for news, called Blendle. I also believe we focus too much on news, and not enough on in depth articles which is a model De Correspondent pursues.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#569

Post by Xixi » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #499

Xixi wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We send very different kind of teas, but they are all Japanese teas. So for instance we only sent black tea once [1] so far because wakocha is pretty rare, though it is gaining in popularity among tea producers. I recently found a very good one produced in Tanegashima, we may send it soon. Otherwise most teas will fall in either the roasted family (hojicha), or in the non-roasted family (sencha, gyokuro, etc.), with…

I am a pretty dedicated tea dork, even if I don’t particularly love Japanese tea. I’ll give it a shot.

Thank you :)

If you want a discount, you can use this coupon: REDDIT

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#570

Post by neop1x » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 12:23 PM UTC

dwild wrote: post #265

wpietri wrote: post #23

He doesn't quite say it by name, but most advertising is a classic arms race. Especially given how the internet now makes information easily available, a great deal of advertising is about manipulating consumers to pick company A's products over those from competitors B, C, and D. This forces those other companies to spend to get and keep customers. It's pure waste. For example, everybody on the planet is now familia…

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 pay for the search and to watch videos as long as the price were reasonable. I already pay for SlingTV and Netflix for example. Yet there is free to watch PlutoTV, filled with annoying ads. There should at least be an option to pay for ad-free, tracking-free, service.