3 ms·
Ok, maybe television wasn't the best example of my point. Let me give a different example. Advertisements on the web are fundamentally more coercive than advert
by shawnz 8y ago
Ok, maybe television wasn't the best example of my point. Let me give a different example. Advertisements on the web are fundamentally more coercive than advertisements in the newspaper, so should we regress back to newspapers? You mentioned adblockers but obviously that's not feasible for television, so for the purposes of the hypothetical, assume that adblocking on the web isn't feasible either. Would you stop using the web if that was the case?
- darkpuma 8y ago> "Advertisements on the web are fundamentally more coercive than advertisements in the newspaper, so should we regress back to newspapers" Emphatic yes, should adblocking on the web become infeasible. As I said, "Reading more newspapers and books would be more appropriate." As it stands currently, it's possible to see fewer advertisements on the web of any sort than advertisements in newspapers. Web adblockers are currently very effective. Should that change, then I will change my reading habits and so should you. (Of course websites that do not contain advertisements would still be perfectly fine.)
- shawnz 8y agoI don't get it. Basically you are saying that advertising has a greater negative utility than the positive utility of any technological advancement which could be used for advertising. How could this possibly be true? Would you prefer a world where reading and writing were never invented if that meant advertising could never be invented?