3 ms·

"Spotify, ad-free magazines on my Kindle, and local journalists" all manipulate the thoughts you have. We don't live in a bubble; we're a product of our surrou

"Spotify, ad-free magazines on my Kindle, and local journalists" all manipulate the thoughts you have. We don't live in a bubble; we're a product of our surroundings. No aspect of the world is benign. The fact that ads may "change you" is not an argument against advertising, because it doesn't distinguish advertising from anything else, at all. It seems to me there is a moral judgement happening here. But, what is the appropriate way to distinguish moral manipulation from immoral manipulation? Communication – even honest communication – is designed to influence other people. I'm trying to "change you" with this message. Should this message be blocked? Yes/no? What is the difference?

vog 11y ago
This line of argument is heavily flawed, due to wildly mixing the parent's specific term "manipulating" with the broader term "changing".
- olegj 11y ago
  If it is you didn't explain why, you merely restated the core issue JacobJans has with fighting advertising. Where exactly is the line between "manipulating" and "changing view"? There are many associations and causalities studied with regards to human mind, should I be guilty of manipulation if I create a promotional poster using colours which are associated with some particular emotional response? In the end this is another of the cases where intent is everything, and for better or worse intent cannot be measured.
  - vog 11y ago
    There may be a grey area between "manipulating" and "changing view", but in the case of advertisement this this clearly on the "manipulation" side, almost by definition. Ads are fully paid by the seller, and exist by definition to serve solely the seller's purpose. In addition, ads are expected to "look and feel" like they were in the customer's interest, which makes it even more clear that this is all about manipulation.
    - olegj 11y ago
      How in your opinion should a material which informs potential buyers of a product be created? They seem to fit the same definition you use for ads as manipulative... I really don't see a way for a seller to inform about his product, highlight its good aspects to convince it is worth its price, without being charged guilty of manipulation by the argument you present. I have to say I really dislike ads, and would like if product promotion was done in a way most benefiting society in general, but the points that manipulation and changing views are very close, that ads change your view is not the bad thing about them and that we need to be careful about regulating ads (both legally and morally) as not to harm other beneficial things is very legitimate.

vog 11y ago

This line of argument is heavily flawed, due to wildly mixing the parent's specific term "manipulating" with the broader term "changing".

olegj 11y ago
If it is you didn't explain why, you merely restated the core issue JacobJans has with fighting advertising. Where exactly is the line between "manipulating" and "changing view"? There are many associations and causalities studied with regards to human mind, should I be guilty of manipulation if I create a promotional poster using colours which are associated with some particular emotional response? In the end this is another of the cases where intent is everything, and for better or worse intent cannot be measured.
- vog 11y ago
  There may be a grey area between "manipulating" and "changing view", but in the case of advertisement this this clearly on the "manipulation" side, almost by definition. Ads are fully paid by the seller, and exist by definition to serve solely the seller's purpose. In addition, ads are expected to "look and feel" like they were in the customer's interest, which makes it even more clear that this is all about manipulation.
  - olegj 11y ago
    How in your opinion should a material which informs potential buyers of a product be created? They seem to fit the same definition you use for ads as manipulative... I really don't see a way for a seller to inform about his product, highlight its good aspects to convince it is worth its price, without being charged guilty of manipulation by the argument you present. I have to say I really dislike ads, and would like if product promotion was done in a way most benefiting society in general, but the points that manipulation and changing views are very close, that ads change your view is not the bad thing about them and that we need to be careful about regulating ads (both legally and morally) as not to harm other beneficial things is very legitimate.