26 ms·

Advertising needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking. It indiscriminately pollutes the environment, and inflicts harm on non participants by incentivi

Advertising needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking. It indiscriminately pollutes the environment, and inflicts harm on non participants by incentivising unbridled data collection.

werds 4y ago
this is a bit silly
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. The mental effects of products optimized for delivering advertising don't seem to be great for people or society (see: Meta's products, Twitter, TikTok).
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Cigarettes cause cancer. Some people (not me) actually get value from ads and AFAIK they don't cause cancer.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      No direct cancer, no, they only affect what you think, feel, say, eat, drink and do. Edit: also who you vote for, what laws are passed, who goes to prison, who lives and who dies. But no they don't _directly_ give you cancer.
    - afavour 4y ago
      Cigarettes also feel great to the people smoking them.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      This actually is a very valid argument. Cigarettes actually provide value to the user. Yes, there are negatives, but the user typically knows those and decides the upside is worth the risk. Do people know the risks of being profiled by ad companies? I am not sure most people can even begin to understand the associated risk. The few attempts to show people what companies know about you were shut down pretty hard.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      > Cigarettes cause cancer. So did the ads that told people to smoke. They were banned precisely because they were driving behavior that causes harm.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Do you have evidence as to the negative mental effects and how bad they are?
    - jeromegv 4y ago
      It’s been discussed for years in dozens of articles on hacker news and everywhere. At this point the burden is on you to show us on how being plugged to social media 24-7 is not harmful.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        No one is using it 24/7, this is about ads not social media use, and the burden isn't on disproving it just because people have talked about it often
- npteljes 4y ago
  Not at all. Being bombarded with every not-yet-banned psychological trick ever invented is unethical: harms privacy, makes public spaces ugly, increases waste, and when not promoting actively harmful stuff, promote stuff in harmful ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising
Workaccount2 4y ago
The hard, spikey, jagged, foul tasting pill to swallow then: Society needs to pay directly for content.
- Invictus0 4y ago
  Society doesn't pay enough for TV as is? No one even wants the hundreds of channels they stuff into the cable subscriptions.
- kadoban 4y ago
  Much of society either is paying or is willing to pay. Note that even in places that we _do_ pay, for example cable TV, we still get ads.
  - afavour 4y ago
    Right but that means you're not paying full price, since the ads subsidise it. So to modify the OP's point, people are going to need to be prepared to pay more for content and IMO we're already at price saturation point now.
    - mjhay 4y ago
      Not necessarily - it's what the market will bear, not the cost itself. This just means the target market will tolerate the ads, not that they are subsidizing the cost of the TV. The extra revenue could just as easily be gravy - especially because this is probably the result of some implicit collusion.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        This is my expectation of the market, based on at least the following two points: 1) Video games are sold at full price and still include ads and microtransactions 2) Cable TV was originally ad free (and marketed as such), until they realized they could include ads and make even more money. I hold the opinion that executives at many of these companies hold the view, "Why only get some of our customer's money when we can get all of it?" (though they probably word it differently, something about recurring revenue and monetizing the existing customer base).
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Advertising needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking I’ll hold my drink while you convince America why it should pay 10x for a TV because ads are bad.
- earth_walker 4y ago
  America has always paid 1x for a TV without ads. It is the TV and media companies that are a) using lies and deception to convince America that it's ok to instead pay (1x + advertising + a hidden loss of privacy) for a TV, and b) colluding to raise the prices of 'dumb' TVs as an added lever against consumers. Educating people on the real costs, and pointing out better alternatives are the best ways to combat this.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Advertising requires views which drives engagement optimization which results in addictive design. Binge watching of TV shows, excessive social media usage, video game addiction have all been linked to depression, anxiety. Convince people? Any ban on advertising is already likely to enjoy significant public support. There's precedent for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Last time I bought a TV was about 10 years ago, IIRC I paid €350 for it and it had no "smart features" at all and I assume Samsung made a profit on it. Or do you want to tell me that Samsung ate a €3k loss to give me a TV? This is just silly; TVs can maybe made a little bit cheaper by some ads, but not much, and TVs were plenty cheap for a long time well before "smart TVs with ads" became a thing (my TV wasn't a luxury model, but not the cheapest either).
- npteljes 4y ago
  America is paying, and then being forced to watch advertisement.

Advertising needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking. It indiscriminately pollutes the environment, and inflicts harm on non participants by incentivising unbridled data collection.

werds 4y ago

this is a bit silly

AlexandrB 4y ago
Maybe, maybe not. The mental effects of products optimized for delivering advertising don't seem to be great for people or society (see: Meta's products, Twitter, TikTok).
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Cigarettes cause cancer. Some people (not me) actually get value from ads and AFAIK they don't cause cancer.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    No direct cancer, no, they only affect what you think, feel, say, eat, drink and do. Edit: also who you vote for, what laws are passed, who goes to prison, who lives and who dies. But no they don't _directly_ give you cancer.
  - afavour 4y ago
    Cigarettes also feel great to the people smoking them.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    This actually is a very valid argument. Cigarettes actually provide value to the user. Yes, there are negatives, but the user typically knows those and decides the upside is worth the risk. Do people know the risks of being profiled by ad companies? I am not sure most people can even begin to understand the associated risk. The few attempts to show people what companies know about you were shut down pretty hard.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > Cigarettes cause cancer. So did the ads that told people to smoke. They were banned precisely because they were driving behavior that causes harm.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Do you have evidence as to the negative mental effects and how bad they are?
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    It’s been discussed for years in dozens of articles on hacker news and everywhere. At this point the burden is on you to show us on how being plugged to social media 24-7 is not harmful.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      No one is using it 24/7, this is about ads not social media use, and the burden isn't on disproving it just because people have talked about it often
npteljes 4y ago
Not at all. Being bombarded with every not-yet-banned psychological trick ever invented is unethical: harms privacy, makes public spaces ugly, increases waste, and when not promoting actively harmful stuff, promote stuff in harmful ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_advertising

Workaccount2 4y ago

The hard, spikey, jagged, foul tasting pill to swallow then: Society needs to pay directly for content.

Invictus0 4y ago
Society doesn't pay enough for TV as is? No one even wants the hundreds of channels they stuff into the cable subscriptions.
kadoban 4y ago
Much of society either is paying or is willing to pay. Note that even in places that we _do_ pay, for example cable TV, we still get ads.
- afavour 4y ago
  Right but that means you're not paying full price, since the ads subsidise it. So to modify the OP's point, people are going to need to be prepared to pay more for content and IMO we're already at price saturation point now.
  - mjhay 4y ago
    Not necessarily - it's what the market will bear, not the cost itself. This just means the target market will tolerate the ads, not that they are subsidizing the cost of the TV. The extra revenue could just as easily be gravy - especially because this is probably the result of some implicit collusion.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      This is my expectation of the market, based on at least the following two points: 1) Video games are sold at full price and still include ads and microtransactions 2) Cable TV was originally ad free (and marketed as such), until they realized they could include ads and make even more money. I hold the opinion that executives at many of these companies hold the view, "Why only get some of our customer's money when we can get all of it?" (though they probably word it differently, something about recurring revenue and monetizing the existing customer base).

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Advertising needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking I’ll hold my drink while you convince America why it should pay 10x for a TV because ads are bad.

earth_walker 4y ago
America has always paid 1x for a TV without ads. It is the TV and media companies that are a) using lies and deception to convince America that it's ok to instead pay (1x + advertising + a hidden loss of privacy) for a TV, and b) colluding to raise the prices of 'dumb' TVs as an added lever against consumers. Educating people on the real costs, and pointing out better alternatives are the best ways to combat this.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Advertising requires views which drives engagement optimization which results in addictive design. Binge watching of TV shows, excessive social media usage, video game addiction have all been linked to depression, anxiety. Convince people? Any ban on advertising is already likely to enjoy significant public support. There's precedent for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa
Beltalowda 4y ago
Last time I bought a TV was about 10 years ago, IIRC I paid €350 for it and it had no "smart features" at all and I assume Samsung made a profit on it. Or do you want to tell me that Samsung ate a €3k loss to give me a TV? This is just silly; TVs can maybe made a little bit cheaper by some ads, but not much, and TVs were plenty cheap for a long time well before "smart TVs with ads" became a thing (my TV wasn't a luxury model, but not the cheapest either).
npteljes 4y ago
America is paying, and then being forced to watch advertisement.