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

91–100 of 657 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#91

Post by lostlogin »

cm2012 wrote: post #25

Advertising (Which appears to be defined in your broad doc as anything that gets your attention without asking for it first) is the worst way to get people to pay attention to things, except for all the other ways. The alternative to "advertising" is the rate of people discovering new things dropping to 1% of what it is now. 1% of products have natural virality and will be found on their own. The other 99% of product…

> Anyone who works in start-up growth will tell you the same things I am.

Some who works in adverting values advertising? Yes, you’re well placed to judge, but I’ve little time for adverts and actually dedicate time to avoiding Facebook (blockers, Pihole etc).

If I miss the odd product or service, so be it. The current situation is toxic.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#92

Post by autoexec »

> "There's really nothing stopping any government from tapping into this total surveillance infrastructure other than lack of will."

Why assume a lack of will at this point? We know they routinely approach companies about collecting the data the company collects. They've clearly demonstrated the will to collect our data regardless of legality. (Does/did this site have a warrant canary?)

At this point I treat all ads as hostile. As much as websites try to make you feel guilty for blocking their ads I feel zero obligation to allow or support their efforts to manipulate me or compromise my privacy and security.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#93

Post by zentiggr »

Aperocky wrote: post #84
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…

How do you define "Something useful" though? The advertisement money eventually makes it to Google, broadcasters, sites, TV-channels, sports events and people running those organization in term gets more money to spend on [Potentially useful stuff]. It's not like the money magically vanishes to never be seen again, and business to business transaction like this make the money flow faster instead of slower. Economy is…

> It's not like the money magically vanishes to never be seen again

No, it remains in corporate budgets, which, without all the marketing spend, can be shifted to better wages, charity work, capital investments, better wages, safety and health initiatives, better wages...

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#94

Post by ufo »

natalyarostova wrote: post #34

Anyone else find the user of 'cancer' in these terms to be frustrating? Having had to experience the pain of people I care about having cancer, it immediately just makes me feel like shit. I guess maybe I'm just sensitive...

I was diagnosed with cancer this week. I couldn't bring myself to read the article and came here only to see if I needed to make this exact comment myself or if someone like you already had.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#95

Post by cousin_it »

starpilot wrote: post #2

We get rid of it, Google/Facebook/etc. shut down. While social media is of arguable benefits, Google has provided incalculable value to the world. Ads are the magic money fountain that give them the power to organize all of human knowledge, a phenomenal resource anyone can tap.

If projects as large as Linux or Wikipedia can thrive without ads, I'm sure a Google-quality search engine can do the same. So far it hasn't been done because the ad-supported model is promising more money to anyone who tries; but if the ad-supported model goes away, you'll see a good non-ad-supported search engine soon enough. It could be P2P and free (like Mastodon, which proved that social networks don't have to rely on ads), or it could be paid (like your Windows license or your internet connection).

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#96

Post by blodovnik »

kelnos wrote: post #81
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…

There must be a way to do advertising that respects the consumer, and doesn't use some form of sketchy manipulation to achieve the desired goal. And yet the vast majority of advertising is (to me) offensive. > Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. That's a rather childish and immature rejoinder. The world of employment simply doesn't…

People were offended by advertising in the same way in the 1970s.

Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#97

Post by jkeuhlen »

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.

What are the other models that exist and are currently working? As someone who is looking to build a free consumer product, I don't know what else exists that can offset my costs other than advertising. I hate paywalls just as much as advertising, so I'm opposed to just charging for access.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#98

Post by _virtu »

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.

I haven't read the article yet, but I was thinking about this yesterday. I was sitting in my car and a sign that had "RENT TO OWN" on it where "RENT TO" was flashing. I felt offended by the fact that my attention was taken from me all for the sake of drawing me in to spend my money on something I didn't care about or need to know about during that time. I know that there are physical limitations on what you can say is or is not acceptable for an advert; the implications on free speech would probably be too much to ever be able to pass any meaningful changes, but, to me, advertising is an assault on your senses that you have no control over.

It made me think of a future where AR is highly prevalent. What will your life be like? Will you have to pay to not have adverts stuck in your face all the time? To me human attention is valuable and it should be protected. I'm concerned for future generations as technology is going to progress further.

I don't have a full argument formed, but in my opinion we should rethink what should be allowed in regards to advertising in the internet age. Why is advertising required at this point with services like google? Could you just have a regulated service directory that operates similarly to google instead?

To those of you that are reading, I get it, yeah we wouldn't have services today without advertising, but now that we have technology, isn't most advertising antiquated? If I really do need something, I'll look for it and let technology bring the service or product to me.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#99

Post by specialist »

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.

I also believe we live in an attention economy.

The OC is a good rant, list of grievances.

Missing from his cancer analogy is the feedback loop.

The cancer is monetization and preferential attachment (recommendation engines) leading to outrage culture.

Any remedy, mitigation would interrupt or add friction to that feedback loop. No more retweets. Require all statements to be sourced. Hinkley's notion (elsewhere) of not allowing ads to be treated as biz expense. And so forth.

None of those things will happen. Until...

Advertising today is like petroleum wildcatting in the early days. The bottom will fall out when everyone wises up to the con. Then investors will demand US Govt intervene with regulation, to save the market.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#100

Post by kyruzic »

amiune wrote: post #86
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…

If every company stopped advertising then google and facebook and twitter will disappear. Are all these companies pure waste? How do you fund a replacement for them? Should these services be provided by governments?

Each of those companies has a FOSS competitor that does not rely on advertising money yet still exists.
Post reply on HN