4 ms·
The point of ads is to create demand where none existed, as much as adtech people want to pretend thats merely via informing people of all these wonderful produ
by throwaway2048 7y ago
The point of ads is to create demand where none existed, as much as adtech people want to pretend thats merely via informing people of all these wonderful products they were previously unaware of (which I admit, does happen), the vast majority of advertising is trying to convince you to buy useless shit you don't need, or even worse, stuff that actively harms you. (these are the most profitable things, thus the most profitable things to advertise).
They do this by preying on insecurities and making you feel less valuable and incomplete. Another tactic is either outright lying about the product, or constructing statements where a reasonable person would "fill in the gaps" to produce the lie they intend, even if they don't explicitly state it. Closely study some ads sometimes, they are incredibly psychologically manipulative.
This is before such considerations as privacy, tracking and data leaks with online advertisement, and the general idea that advertising is a zero sum game, and the only way to "beat" your competitor at it is to blow even more money on it, thus its a massive economic inefficiency, advertising doesn't create value, it merely shifts it around.
While advertisement is rarely actively malicious in a targeted way, they are a systematic evil much like pollution, everyone would be better off if it didn't exist in the first place.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> Closely study some ads sometimes, they are incredibly psychologically manipulative. Also, study the 101 of the domain. Like the famous Cialdini's book Influence: Science and Practice, or Cliff Ennico's How To Sell Anything To Anybody talks. Moral bankrupcy is in the very DNA of the practice, so no surprise that most ads just reflect this.
- tantalor 7y ago> Moral bankrupcy (sic) Ironic you'd bring up ethics in a discussion of ad blockers. Considering how radio & podcasts depend on sponsorship, isn't it unethical to remove ads that pay for the content? Effectively it is stealing. https://current.org/2019/09/podcast-sponsorship-revenues-continue-to-fuel-nprs-financial-growth/ https://current.org/2019/09/podcast-sponsorship-revenues-con...
- dublinben 7y agoIs leaving the room during a television commercial break also stealing?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoYes. Radio and podcasts aren't entitled to their business model working, especially if their business model involves purposefully exposing their listeners to harmful material. I believe ad blocking is ethically justified on the grounds that it's just defending yourself from other's unethical behavior, and that you're entitled to do so - claiming otherwise would imply you're supposed to be forced to sit through entirety of a performance. That would be absurd invasion of your autonomy. Also note that you are not paying radio hosts/podcast authors through advertisements. The ad network is. The exact payout structure is complicated and agreed upon without involving me the listener, but it boils down to parties speculating that a fraction of ad impressions will turn into eventual boost in sales, and money flowing from advertisers, through networks, to publishers, based on that expectation. At no point was I consulted in this, so I feel no obligation towards participating in whatever deals these parties set up between themselves - doubly so given that I'm being harmed by those deals.