3 ms·

I don't think that correlation is accurate. But even if it is, there is a trade-off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20034507 https://news.ycombinator.com/

• JohnFen 7y ago
  I understand. I'm not saying that I accept that the correlation is accurate. I'm just saying that if it is, the tradeoff to stop making 3% of people less happy is totally worthwhile. But of course, still in the hypothetical, it wouldn't be necessary for ads to disappear to accomplish this. All that would be necessary is for advertising to adhere to the ideals the ad industry itself says it holds: rather than manipulating people, ads could just inform people what the product is, what it does, and what its strengths (and, as long as I'm dreaming, weaknesses) are. But the vast majority of ads do none of that. Instead, they engage in psychological manipulation.
  • cm2012 7y ago
    I'd take issue with that. Go to https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=US&q=Gap&view_all_page_id=14856729724 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_t... and look up some random brands you've heard of. The vast majority of ads are on the level. The ones that aren't are when the product itself is a scam most of the time.
    • JohnFen 7y ago
      I don't do Facebook, and have no clue what FB ads look like. I'm talking about advertising generally, online and off. I very rarely see ads that are like that.