7 ms·

“If you accept the existence of advertising, you accept a system designed to persuade and to dominate minds by interfering in people's thinking patterns. You al

“If you accept the existence of advertising, you accept a system designed to persuade and to dominate minds by interfering in people's thinking patterns. You also accept that the system will be used by the sorts of people who like to influence people and are good at it. No person who did not wish to dominate others would choose to use advertising, or choosing it, succeed in it. So the basic nature of advertising and all technologies created to serve it will be consistent with this purpose, will encourage this behaviour in society, and will tend to push social evolution in this direction.” ― Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television

Barbing 1mo ago
Any leeway here for children’s bone cancer charities to separate them from Zuckgoogle_et.al._AdCorp? Or OP: OP posted the link in good faith, not to interfere with my brain but to inform me. Reminder to brush your teeth = benevolent. Reminder wealthy people might be happy if they give a smidge of money this year to a good cause can be a check-in on whether we’re being holistically solid folks more than evidence of a desire for mental domination? Maybe that thinking demands only word of mouth promotion, but not sure that roundly and uniquely beats videorecording a promotion and paying someone to play the video back for strangers. (per my previous, zany, comment you can tell I’m on your side, as Jerry would hopefully see… he probably addressed my points above too in the full text)
- JoshTriplett 1mo ago
  Leeway to advertise in unrelated content? Nope.
  - ajkjk 1mo ago
    yep, agreed. The problem is not "bone cancer charities must have a way of getting their message out!" therefore "they should be able to bug you about it while you're reading an article". The problem is that the things bugging you while reading an article is bad for your mind (and even worse if they are manipulative, which they are). If you get rid of these exploitable mediums for messaging, other mediums will appear which -- hopefully -- are more just and healthy. Particularly if they're things we value as society. And if some things we don't value die because invasive advertising was the only way they could survive? Fine.
    - Barbing 1mo ago
      > If you get rid of these exploitable mediums for messaging, other mediums will appear which -- hopefully -- are more just and healthy. I like that! Would be hard to be absolutist (“never mention children’s cancer unless I ask directly, read a related article, or we’re friends”) but sure, can imagine a better way than today.

Barbing 1mo ago

Any leeway here for children’s bone cancer charities to separate them from Zuckgoogle_et.al._AdCorp? Or OP: OP posted the link in good faith, not to interfere with my brain but to inform me. Reminder to brush your teeth = benevolent. Reminder wealthy people might be happy if they give a smidge of money this year to a good cause can be a check-in on whether we’re being holistically solid folks more than evidence of a desire for mental domination? Maybe that thinking demands only word of mouth promotion, but not sure that roundly and uniquely beats videorecording a promotion and paying someone to play the video back for strangers. (per my previous, zany, comment you can tell I’m on your side, as Jerry would hopefully see… he probably addressed my points above too in the full text)

JoshTriplett 1mo ago
Leeway to advertise in unrelated content? Nope.
- ajkjk 1mo ago
  yep, agreed. The problem is not "bone cancer charities must have a way of getting their message out!" therefore "they should be able to bug you about it while you're reading an article". The problem is that the things bugging you while reading an article is bad for your mind (and even worse if they are manipulative, which they are). If you get rid of these exploitable mediums for messaging, other mediums will appear which -- hopefully -- are more just and healthy. Particularly if they're things we value as society. And if some things we don't value die because invasive advertising was the only way they could survive? Fine.
  - Barbing 1mo ago
    > If you get rid of these exploitable mediums for messaging, other mediums will appear which -- hopefully -- are more just and healthy. I like that! Would be hard to be absolutist (“never mention children’s cancer unless I ask directly, read a related article, or we’re friends”) but sure, can imagine a better way than today.