5 ms·

> I don't want the distraction, mental pollution, bandwidth usage, loading delays... This argument concerns me, it's not like ads can take over your mind. I un

> I don't want the distraction, mental pollution, bandwidth usage, loading delays... This argument concerns me, it's not like ads can take over your mind. I understand your position, but I'm of the opinion that it's not nearly as distracting as you seem to think. If a banner ad is there, great. It's not hurting me, it's sustaining the web, and if it is relevant, I might click on it. My only gripe is pop-up ads, extreme overuse of banners, auto playing videos and performance. Oh my, performance. No wonder Google's had to make V8 fast, and it's still not nearly enough. If there was only one/two ads on screen at any time, I think that'd be a decent balance.

Draiken 7y ago
> This argument concerns me, it's not like ads can take over your mind. Advertising's main goal is to take over your mind. They want you to think of something and immediately put a brand on it, to spend your money on them above anything else, to think you need something that you don't, to feel inadequate for not having something and a lot more. The fact you (and many others) think ads aren't that bad means you've conformed to what they want. To think that "it has to be this way and it's not that bad"
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  > Advertising's main goal is to take over your mind. If it is, then it's doing an awful job. At the end of the day, I am responsible for me own actions, not banner ads. That being said there are some ads that I do find disgusting which I refuse to let touch my computer, Taboola ads spring to mind. Just because I don't mind the concept doesn't mean I don't think there are huge issues with the ad industry, especially around ethics. > The fact you (and many others) think ads aren't that bad means you've conformed to what they want. So because I (and many others) don't agree with you, I've been warped by the ad industry? Who are "they"?
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    If ads had as low ROI as you've convinced yourself they do, advertising wouldn't be the behemoth of an industry that it is.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      FWIW, they could just be really effective at marketing... the effectiveness of ads. And nothing else. There are days when I wonder if adtech really works, given that most of the "proof" I've seen amounts to "it positively correlates... except when it doesn't".
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      I never said they had low ROI, just that ultimately I am responsible for what I buy, regardless of how many ads I've seen. If I see an advert for something I'm already interested in, it's an extra datapoint to take into account if I ever purchase something. I don't consider this a takeover of the mind, that's just blatant hyperbole. If I like the product I'm getting, does it matter if I found them through ads? Having worked a little bit with people in the ad industry (advertisers not publishers and I stress very limited work) they don't care if 90% is a 'waste' - because of the bidding system, that waste along with other things like click fraud is priced in. This only works if you can measure it. Without tracking, digital ads would be worth less even if ROI was 10% higher (which I'm still sceptical of).
      - Draiken 7y ago
        Either you're being naive or maybe a zen monk? I know my tastes and try my best to not be influenced by marketing, but I wouldn't dare say "I was never influenced by an ad". The very things you want or want to avoid are many times dictated by marketing. Maybe you hate those super advertised brands and choose to not buy from them, but the very fact that you do that means they influenced you. Marketing is evil and influences everyone's lives. The fact that you tell yourself that "I still have a choice" doesn't make it any better. No matter how you put it, the bottom line is: marketing's only goal is to influence people's minds. Long gone are the days where marketing was simply a way to give awareness to a product.
CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
Oh, but they can. And they do: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
techntoke 7y ago
Advertisers sure spend a lot of money on ads for then to not have any influence on a person's mind. Actually ads are designed to exploit the mind.

Draiken 7y ago

> This argument concerns me, it's not like ads can take over your mind. Advertising's main goal is to take over your mind. They want you to think of something and immediately put a brand on it, to spend your money on them above anything else, to think you need something that you don't, to feel inadequate for not having something and a lot more. The fact you (and many others) think ads aren't that bad means you've conformed to what they want. To think that "it has to be this way and it's not that bad"

cameronbrown 7y ago
> Advertising's main goal is to take over your mind. If it is, then it's doing an awful job. At the end of the day, I am responsible for me own actions, not banner ads. That being said there are some ads that I do find disgusting which I refuse to let touch my computer, Taboola ads spring to mind. Just because I don't mind the concept doesn't mean I don't think there are huge issues with the ad industry, especially around ethics. > The fact you (and many others) think ads aren't that bad means you've conformed to what they want. So because I (and many others) don't agree with you, I've been warped by the ad industry? Who are "they"?
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  If ads had as low ROI as you've convinced yourself they do, advertising wouldn't be the behemoth of an industry that it is.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    FWIW, they could just be really effective at marketing... the effectiveness of ads. And nothing else. There are days when I wonder if adtech really works, given that most of the "proof" I've seen amounts to "it positively correlates... except when it doesn't".
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    I never said they had low ROI, just that ultimately I am responsible for what I buy, regardless of how many ads I've seen. If I see an advert for something I'm already interested in, it's an extra datapoint to take into account if I ever purchase something. I don't consider this a takeover of the mind, that's just blatant hyperbole. If I like the product I'm getting, does it matter if I found them through ads? Having worked a little bit with people in the ad industry (advertisers not publishers and I stress very limited work) they don't care if 90% is a 'waste' - because of the bidding system, that waste along with other things like click fraud is priced in. This only works if you can measure it. Without tracking, digital ads would be worth less even if ROI was 10% higher (which I'm still sceptical of).
    - Draiken 7y ago
      Either you're being naive or maybe a zen monk? I know my tastes and try my best to not be influenced by marketing, but I wouldn't dare say "I was never influenced by an ad". The very things you want or want to avoid are many times dictated by marketing. Maybe you hate those super advertised brands and choose to not buy from them, but the very fact that you do that means they influenced you. Marketing is evil and influences everyone's lives. The fact that you tell yourself that "I still have a choice" doesn't make it any better. No matter how you put it, the bottom line is: marketing's only goal is to influence people's minds. Long gone are the days where marketing was simply a way to give awareness to a product.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

Oh, but they can. And they do: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect

techntoke 7y ago

Advertisers sure spend a lot of money on ads for then to not have any influence on a person's mind. Actually ads are designed to exploit the mind.