3 ms·
> Is it really that different when you can do it with $29 on one person than with $290 on 100 persons or $100k on a million? Yes. It would take tons of time t
by everdev 8y ago
> Is it really that different when you can do it with $29 on one person than with $290 on 100 persons or $100k on a million?
Yes.
It would take tons of time to protect individuals from deceptive advertising. The bigger the group and the more public the ad the easier it is to protect the public.
Also, for $29 someone could bombard you with content about suicide or other dark topics and just be relentless with negativity.
It's so much different than showing an ad to 100 women ages 30-45 in Chicago.
- forgottenpass 8y agoIs pushing anxiety, inadequacy, incompleteness and consumerism into the minds of 100 women ages 30-45 in Chicago more justifiable than if it were "suicide or other dark topics." I think we've defined "acceptable" advertising by working backward from what people find profitable to advertise about. We can chip at the edges here and there (not these products, forced demographic boundaries (or lack thereof)) but the overwhelming thrust isn't effected. It's a lie we tell ourselves because the alternative is to admit we're powerless. Powerless to control the content of ads, and powerless to identify and repel the forces ads wants to effect on our psyche.
- everdev 8y agoCorrect, neither is good, but IMO individual targeting is worse because the potential for accountability is less. It requires every individual to complain. In group targeting, only a few in the group need to know something is wrong and they can complain and save the group from further inappropriate advertising.
- acct1771 8y agoYou are NOT powerless. Mute the TV, close the Facebook or YouTube video. At minimum, turn away. Learn to ignore the ad areas, or use an ad blocker. Resist.