4 ms·
Profitability does not necessarily correlate with better life for customers, it all depends specifically on the subject. Averts are entirely set up from the po
by realusername 10y ago
Profitability does not necessarily correlate with better life for customers, it all depends specifically on the subject.
Averts are entirely set up from the point of view of businesses, people can live better without ads, businesses need them because another competing business is also doing advertisement, it's just an arms race. Advertising and its growth is a cancer in our society, it destroy society values just for a quick buck and provides zero value to our society. I can't wait to see that die. I can't believe some of the smartest people we have out there spend all their lives making people click on ads, this is totally insane.
Advertising is just oppression by private companies, I don't see any difference with government ads. Except that because there is a profit in private advertising, it's even more invasive and everywhere.
- djschnei 10y agoIt is entirely in the customers interest for a business they support to be profitable, which advertising promotes. I'm sure residents of the DPRK would disagree that our ads are as invasive as their government propaganda. Or maybe they would agree with you... not sure that proves anything though...
- jakebasile 10y ago> Advertising is just oppression by private companies, I don't see any difference with government ads. You see no difference between ads that ask you to buy something and a government that uses torture, murder, mind control, propaganda, and fear to carry out the destruction of free will of its citizens? Ok. > it's even more invasive and everywhere. Yes, being sent to labor camps to work to death is just as invasive as having Google know that I like video games.
- djschnei 10y agoBut I want to be able to utilize all this cool free stuff that boosts my quality of life without seeing ads! It's my right! STOP OPPRESSING ME!
- realusername 10y agoNot all propaganda posters were about destructing free will, some of them were also for improving the social status quo. Example: "I will be a chemist" - USRR, 1964 - http://i.imgur.com/DTMN0MY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/DTMN0MY.jpg. And I don't compare labour camps with advertising. I compare governments ads "work harder for your country" and private ads "you look ugly, you should buy some of our makeup". Private ads are all about destroying free will too, that's exactly their point.
- djschnei 10y agoThey were so lucky to have a government that allowed them to become chemists.
- jhbadger 10y agoSeriously, though, talk to some Soviet-era scientists. It was a good gig. You might of course bring up Academician Sakharov. But his dissodence was actually a result of the high status scientists had in the USSR. He thought his status would shield him from his critiques of the government.
- djschnei 10y agoI guess you missed my point. I'm sure the chemists had a good time.
- djschnei 10y agoUntil companies can walk around with guns or threaten you with imprisonment for not paying their fees or "enjoying" their products, the two are nothing alike. Advertising doesn't use physical force.
- the_af 10y agoI don't think the "I will be a chemist" Soviet ad used physical force either.
- 10y ago
- digi_owl 10y ago> You see no difference between ads that ask you to buy something and a government that uses torture, murder, mind control, propaganda, and fear to carry out the destruction of free will of its citizens? How many of the western allies did just that during the cold war?
- jakebasile 10y agoI didn't make any mention of what country did what.