3 ms·

>I think advertisers —and the people implementing their work— are a net bad, at all ages. They are actively and openly trying to force influence on people to ge

>I think advertisers —and the people implementing their work— are a net bad, at all ages. They are actively and openly trying to force influence on people to get them to spend money. Why would you want that for yourself, let alone your kids? Because you want to learn about new products in some way, don't you? You also want companies to create new products, don't you? Advertisement is a necessary part in both of these. Few things spread fast enough with word of mouth alone. >"My kids are fine!" is an anecdote, not an argument. How about one of the dozens of reviews of the impacts of junk food advertising on diet, spurring record rates of childhood obesity? https://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx https://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx The article does not claim that it's a causal link. They quite clearly say that it's a correlation. The causal link could even be the other way around. >Letting people (and now AI) openly influence you is a stupid decision. Letting them do the same to your children is much worse. How do you propose that you or your kids learn knowledge? That's letting other people influence you. My guess is that your kids will pick up these "negative influences" anyway, but they will never tell you.

oliwarner 8y ago
> Because you want to learn about new products in some way, don't you Since when is somebody shouting about their random product the only way I can learn things? Active discovery is still a thing. Make something, make details available. If people need it, they will find it and buy it. > You also want companies to create new products, don't you? No, I want better products that I actually need, not more, or just newer. > They quite clearly say that it's a correlation. The causal link could even be the other way around. We're reading different things if that was your takeaway. You sound like an asbestos salesman in the 50s. You seem to hold your own mind in pretty low disregard, needing to be spoon fed to discover. You can be more than an idle consumer.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >Since when is somebody shouting about their random product the only way I can learn things? Active discovery is still a thing. Sure. Let's say you want to learn about a new product through "active discovery." What do you do that doesn't involve other people telling you that it's good? >Make something, make details available. If people need it, they will find it and buy it. Discord became so popular because it's good, right? Not at all because they advertised and sponsored the hell out of things, right? >No, I want better products that I actually need, not more, or just newer. And with no advertising nobody is going to bother improving their products, because nobody new will be able to compete. >We're reading different things if that was your takeaway. It says quite directly that research has found associations. That's a correlation and not causation. >You seem to hold your own mind in pretty low disregard, needing to be spoon fed to discover. You can be more than an idle consumer. I've tried making things and found out the hard way how difficult it is for whatever I made to be found.
  - oliwarner 8y ago
    Look, I disagree. Not only is is painfully obvious that you can still compare things, the drive to improve is a natural side effect of still being able to compare on factors. Advertising isn't part of this loop. It's there to buy influence. Most of the crap I buy on Amazon or Ebay, or in the supermarket; that is to say, 90% of my purchases don't involve advertising. I bought them because I wanted them.

oliwarner 8y ago

> Because you want to learn about new products in some way, don't you Since when is somebody shouting about their random product the only way I can learn things? Active discovery is still a thing. Make something, make details available. If people need it, they will find it and buy it. > You also want companies to create new products, don't you? No, I want better products that I actually need, not more, or just newer. > They quite clearly say that it's a correlation. The causal link could even be the other way around. We're reading different things if that was your takeaway. You sound like an asbestos salesman in the 50s. You seem to hold your own mind in pretty low disregard, needing to be spoon fed to discover. You can be more than an idle consumer.

Mirioron 8y ago
>Since when is somebody shouting about their random product the only way I can learn things? Active discovery is still a thing. Sure. Let's say you want to learn about a new product through "active discovery." What do you do that doesn't involve other people telling you that it's good? >Make something, make details available. If people need it, they will find it and buy it. Discord became so popular because it's good, right? Not at all because they advertised and sponsored the hell out of things, right? >No, I want better products that I actually need, not more, or just newer. And with no advertising nobody is going to bother improving their products, because nobody new will be able to compete. >We're reading different things if that was your takeaway. It says quite directly that research has found associations. That's a correlation and not causation. >You seem to hold your own mind in pretty low disregard, needing to be spoon fed to discover. You can be more than an idle consumer. I've tried making things and found out the hard way how difficult it is for whatever I made to be found.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  Look, I disagree. Not only is is painfully obvious that you can still compare things, the drive to improve is a natural side effect of still being able to compare on factors. Advertising isn't part of this loop. It's there to buy influence. Most of the crap I buy on Amazon or Ebay, or in the supermarket; that is to say, 90% of my purchases don't involve advertising. I bought them because I wanted them.