4 ms·

I agree entirely that there are no acceptable ads. I have only one life and the entirety of the value I derive from it comes from that which I pay attention to.

I agree entirely that there are no acceptable ads. I have only one life and the entirety of the value I derive from it comes from that which I pay attention to. Thus I highly value the extent to which I can control my attention and the thoughts swirling around in my consciousness (and in my subconscious, since that has a significant effect on what ends up being promoted to conscious thought.) I consider advertising to be robbing me of ME. I understand that this is a cost I am incurring as payment for a service, but I consider it an extremely high cost, and exploitative of the fact that it is difficult to see how high the cost is. This view is informed largely by popular books on how the brain/humans work, like Thinking Fast and Slow and Consciousness and the Brain and podcasts like You Are Not So Smart, etc. It is also somewhat informed by meditative experience, which I think has given me at least a little insight into the workings of my mind. I'll note that I do think there is some amount of informational value in advertising. But as long as advertising is created and funded by people working hard to drive me to a specific conclusion rather than to inform me, I'm not interested. I'd rather pay services like consumer reports to deliver this information to me.

branchless 11y ago
Also advertising typically uses negative tactics to try to get you to buy. "Look at this guy/girl, so much better looking, so much happier with their XXXXX". It saps moral. I agree, I wouldn't have these people round my home to talk to me about this. I don't want to see them.
Avshalom 11y ago
>I consider advertising to be robbing me of ME Okay fine but the alternative is working longer hours to produce the money to pay for your consumption. Which is as much robbing you of you as advertising is with the disadvantage that you can't consume concurrently.
- furyofantares 11y ago
  If that's true, I think I'm willing to accept it. I'm much more capable of evaluating how much to consume vs how much to work than I am of evaluating advertising. I'm not sure it's true, though. Advertisers are confident they make money from me by taking my attention. Like everyone else, I don't directly perceive that to be true -- but, amazingly, it is.* Advertisers split those profits with the content creators/distributors. I'd rather that money come directly from a conscious, informed choice on my part rather than by intentionally manipulated behaviors. That does mean I'll consume different things than I do when I'm advertised to, but it also frees up money. I believe this just from looking at "sinks and sources" -- removing advertiser profits is removing a big sink (and a small source of informational value, which I've mentioned I'd rather get elsewhere.) I don't know what the solution is for getting that money into the hands of content creators and distributors, but I'm sure there is one. * And this apparent contradiction, where basically nobody directly perceives the cost, but advertisers realize the value anyway, is consistent with everything psychology tells us about the myriad of systematic human bias, and is a big part of the reason I say the cost of advertising is difficult/impossible to evaluate from an experiential perspective.
- a_imho 11y ago
  provided you would consume that content anyway, another alternative is that advertisers making less profit
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Okay fine but the alternative is working longer hours to produce the money to pay for your consumption. Which is as much robbing you of you as advertising is with the disadvantage that you can't consume concurrently. I already pay much more for my consumption than I did 20-30 years ago (adjusted for inflation), in all kinds of direct, round-about and sneaky ways (e.g. diluted news value from infomercials and paid posts posing as content). Stopping all these BS and paying a normal rate for consumption again would be fine. You also forgot that 10-20% of a product is often advertising costs. If without ads the products had their prices lowered accordingly, then that's more than enough to cover my consumption...
- vitd 11y ago
  That's one alternative, but by no means the only one. You could: - reduce consumption - consume the same or more, but of content that costs less to produce (say modern day dramas with fewer special effects and less well-known actors instead of high-end special fx driven or period-driven narratives) - reduce consumption of something else to make up the difference and consume the same amount of media for a higher cost - Other options I haven't thought of

branchless 11y ago

Also advertising typically uses negative tactics to try to get you to buy. "Look at this guy/girl, so much better looking, so much happier with their XXXXX". It saps moral. I agree, I wouldn't have these people round my home to talk to me about this. I don't want to see them.

Avshalom 11y ago

>I consider advertising to be robbing me of ME Okay fine but the alternative is working longer hours to produce the money to pay for your consumption. Which is as much robbing you of you as advertising is with the disadvantage that you can't consume concurrently.

furyofantares 11y ago
If that's true, I think I'm willing to accept it. I'm much more capable of evaluating how much to consume vs how much to work than I am of evaluating advertising. I'm not sure it's true, though. Advertisers are confident they make money from me by taking my attention. Like everyone else, I don't directly perceive that to be true -- but, amazingly, it is.* Advertisers split those profits with the content creators/distributors. I'd rather that money come directly from a conscious, informed choice on my part rather than by intentionally manipulated behaviors. That does mean I'll consume different things than I do when I'm advertised to, but it also frees up money. I believe this just from looking at "sinks and sources" -- removing advertiser profits is removing a big sink (and a small source of informational value, which I've mentioned I'd rather get elsewhere.) I don't know what the solution is for getting that money into the hands of content creators and distributors, but I'm sure there is one. * And this apparent contradiction, where basically nobody directly perceives the cost, but advertisers realize the value anyway, is consistent with everything psychology tells us about the myriad of systematic human bias, and is a big part of the reason I say the cost of advertising is difficult/impossible to evaluate from an experiential perspective.
a_imho 11y ago
provided you would consume that content anyway, another alternative is that advertisers making less profit
coldtea 11y ago
>Okay fine but the alternative is working longer hours to produce the money to pay for your consumption. Which is as much robbing you of you as advertising is with the disadvantage that you can't consume concurrently. I already pay much more for my consumption than I did 20-30 years ago (adjusted for inflation), in all kinds of direct, round-about and sneaky ways (e.g. diluted news value from infomercials and paid posts posing as content). Stopping all these BS and paying a normal rate for consumption again would be fine. You also forgot that 10-20% of a product is often advertising costs. If without ads the products had their prices lowered accordingly, then that's more than enough to cover my consumption...
vitd 11y ago
That's one alternative, but by no means the only one. You could: - reduce consumption - consume the same or more, but of content that costs less to produce (say modern day dramas with fewer special effects and less well-known actors instead of high-end special fx driven or period-driven narratives) - reduce consumption of something else to make up the difference and consume the same amount of media for a higher cost - Other options I haven't thought of