6 ms·

I think in the near future we'll have empirical evidence that most ads are malicious exploits of flaws in human psychology. Ideally, all ads should be plain te

by ajna91 7y ago

I think in the near future we'll have empirical evidence that most ads are malicious exploits of flaws in human psychology. Ideally, all ads should be plain text listing of facts. Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. And they should be listed in "Ad sections", like a phone book.

sosborn 7y ago
> plain text listing of facts Coca-Cola tastes great! Coca-Cola gives you an extra pep in your step! Coca-Cola will rot you teeth! These are all true statements (the first one is subjective, I'll admit), but I suspect that many believe the effect of plain test listing of facts would only allow the third statement. > Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. Wouldn't a photo of someone drinking a Coke and enjoying it be allowed under this rule?
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  Facts and advertisements are like apples and oranges. The notion of "plain text listing of fact" is pretty vague, though I'd personally classify none of those above statements as "plain text listing of facts", and all of them could be advertisements in the right context. An advertisement is a communication designed to manipulate its recipient. Whether it's "true" or not is neither here nor there. In fact, a lot of advertisements are complete non-sequiturs, because those kinds of statements are less likely to make the listeners/viewers think critically about the statements.
- oehpr 7y ago
  I agree with you. And I suspect 9 out of 10 doctors do as well. I want to neuter advertising more than anything, but I can't think of any kind of "rule" we could establish that would make public mind hacking illegal.
  - trophycase 7y ago
    Maybe we're focused too much on the content of the advertising rather than methodology of advertisement. First and foremost advertising is paid speech, that is speech that would not otherwise be made if one party was not being compensated in some way or another. Obviously this definition has tons of edge cases, but it's a good starting point IMO. While all of those coca cola ads are "true", they would be limited in scope to places that coca cola owns. So no bus stations or taxi toppers or whatever, unless they buy a fleet of taxis.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      What if we mandated that companies can only use their revenues for the company's purpose or given to the shareholders? I consider "ads" on company property part of the company's purpose here as they're necessary so the customer knows what company they're dealing with. - Ads would be implicitly banned. - Coca Cola couldn't bypass this rule by buying a taxi fleet because they aren't a taxi company. - Newspapers could still operate even though journalists get paid for speech. It could also help against other problems, depending on how narrow the purpose of a company has to be: - ISPs have no incentive to violate net neutrality by privileging their own value added services (streaming etc) because their ISPs not streaming providers. - If you subscribe to a folder that syncs you know that it will remain a folder that syncs. The behind it won't pivot to something you neither want not need, bloating the software till it bursts. - Similarly: No incredible journeys anymore. Products don't get discontinued because they get in the way of $CORPORATION's plans. - Chosing services because they aren't owned by Facebook actually works. - Open protocols would be a thing again if we decouple clients and services. Edge case: Someone initially has to develop a client, a server and the protocol. The idea is that by separating concerns, we enable customers to decide where their money goes and to freely chose between goods and services without getting artificially locked into any corporation's ecosystem.
  - cousin_it 7y ago
    Some rules would go a long way, for example 1) No depictions of people 2) Advertising only inside stores
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    you don't need any hardcoded rules. When in doubt have a local municipal office or whatever decide whether to take down ads or not based on residential complaints. Consensus and some common sense and case by case judgement ought to be enough to decide whether ad placement is appropriate.
    - sosborn 7y ago
      This is, of course, the right answer. Unfortunately we are too quick these days to pull out the shotgun when a small razor will do fine.
    - bobbydroptables 7y ago
      This doesn't work from a first amendment perspective. The town council is BFE, Mississippi is not going to approach its censor role in a fair way, for better or worse.
- jdsully 7y ago
  > Coca-Cola will rot you teeth! This is highly misleading as it will not under normal use. It is acidic just like orange juice. The rest of your phrases, while subjective, work under normal use.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Would like to see all three of your examples banned as well, because they're not statements of fact, they're opinions, of the kind you'd typically find in an ad today. Useful listings of facts look like this: - is carbonated (therefore acidic, refreshing, negatively impacting teeth) - has x mg sugar per 100ml (therefore energizing to some extent, promoting weight gain) - has x mg of caffeine per 100ml (therefore energizing to some extent) - has Foobar taste (Foobar because I'm not sure if there's anything common with similar taste, so perhaps it's not even worth mentioning) - it's intended to energize, refresh, help digest meals "Will do X for you" statements are usually not true when taken at face value, and they're already manipulative. Statements of fact, lists of features, and descriptions of intended application is what I'd like to see instead.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > they're not statements of fact, they're opinions At this point, you need a federal bureaucracy policing practically all retail commercial speech.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Probably wouldn't work, but I also wouldn't mind them trying.
    - criddell 7y ago
      The law could be written so that individuals could sue companies that advertise with opinions rather than facts. Kind of like ow ADA laws are set up in California. The bureaucracy would be the court system.
      - seventhtiger 7y ago
        False advertising is already prosecuted. So specifically here we need to adjust the "reasonability" interpretation. If they say Coca-Cola is refreshing, and I found it's not, courts now say it is reasonable to assume that the statement is subjective. If the reasonability test is changed they will no longer be able to advertise opinions.
- bananamerica 7y ago
  I think what he/she meant that there should be no persuasive language. The examples you gave are persuasive in nature.
wincy 7y ago
The movie “The Invention of Lying”, where everyone tells the truth (as lying hasn’t been ‘invented’) has an example of this. “Please drink Coca Cola. It’s basically just brown sugar water.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fhtTU-guW60 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fhtTU-guW60
- UncleSlacky 7y ago
  Also seen in the movie "Crazy People": https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099316/quotes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099316/quotes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE
CalRobert 7y ago
It's kind of nice to thumb through my grandparents' old magazines and see ads with entire paragraphs of copy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
harshreality 7y ago
They didn't used to be flaws. They used to be cognitive shortcuts that helped people make decisions quickly with incomplete information. Then John B. Watson and the study of behaviorism came along in the early 20th century. Persuasion techniques were systematically identified and studied, and with the advent of mass media (TV, radio, internet), the cognitive shortcuts meant for neighbors and friends (tribe members) to persuade each other became flaws to abuse on a massive scale for profit and political power. I think it's well recognized by anyone who is interested in this stuff that persuasion techniques are an abuse of human psychology. Cialdini's books are perhaps the most famous. Everyone merely tells themselves, "other people are doing it, and their products or ideas are worse, so we have to."

by ajna91 7y ago

sosborn 7y ago

> plain text listing of facts Coca-Cola tastes great! Coca-Cola gives you an extra pep in your step! Coca-Cola will rot you teeth! These are all true statements (the first one is subjective, I'll admit), but I suspect that many believe the effect of plain test listing of facts would only allow the third statement. > Pictures only allowed for demonstrative purposes. Wouldn't a photo of someone drinking a Coke and enjoying it be allowed under this rule?

frenchyatwork 7y ago
Facts and advertisements are like apples and oranges. The notion of "plain text listing of fact" is pretty vague, though I'd personally classify none of those above statements as "plain text listing of facts", and all of them could be advertisements in the right context. An advertisement is a communication designed to manipulate its recipient. Whether it's "true" or not is neither here nor there. In fact, a lot of advertisements are complete non-sequiturs, because those kinds of statements are less likely to make the listeners/viewers think critically about the statements.
oehpr 7y ago
I agree with you. And I suspect 9 out of 10 doctors do as well. I want to neuter advertising more than anything, but I can't think of any kind of "rule" we could establish that would make public mind hacking illegal.
- trophycase 7y ago
  Maybe we're focused too much on the content of the advertising rather than methodology of advertisement. First and foremost advertising is paid speech, that is speech that would not otherwise be made if one party was not being compensated in some way or another. Obviously this definition has tons of edge cases, but it's a good starting point IMO. While all of those coca cola ads are "true", they would be limited in scope to places that coca cola owns. So no bus stations or taxi toppers or whatever, unless they buy a fleet of taxis.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    What if we mandated that companies can only use their revenues for the company's purpose or given to the shareholders? I consider "ads" on company property part of the company's purpose here as they're necessary so the customer knows what company they're dealing with. - Ads would be implicitly banned. - Coca Cola couldn't bypass this rule by buying a taxi fleet because they aren't a taxi company. - Newspapers could still operate even though journalists get paid for speech. It could also help against other problems, depending on how narrow the purpose of a company has to be: - ISPs have no incentive to violate net neutrality by privileging their own value added services (streaming etc) because their ISPs not streaming providers. - If you subscribe to a folder that syncs you know that it will remain a folder that syncs. The behind it won't pivot to something you neither want not need, bloating the software till it bursts. - Similarly: No incredible journeys anymore. Products don't get discontinued because they get in the way of $CORPORATION's plans. - Chosing services because they aren't owned by Facebook actually works. - Open protocols would be a thing again if we decouple clients and services. Edge case: Someone initially has to develop a client, a server and the protocol. The idea is that by separating concerns, we enable customers to decide where their money goes and to freely chose between goods and services without getting artificially locked into any corporation's ecosystem.
- cousin_it 7y ago
  Some rules would go a long way, for example 1) No depictions of people 2) Advertising only inside stores
- Barrin92 7y ago
  you don't need any hardcoded rules. When in doubt have a local municipal office or whatever decide whether to take down ads or not based on residential complaints. Consensus and some common sense and case by case judgement ought to be enough to decide whether ad placement is appropriate.
  - sosborn 7y ago
    This is, of course, the right answer. Unfortunately we are too quick these days to pull out the shotgun when a small razor will do fine.
  - bobbydroptables 7y ago
    This doesn't work from a first amendment perspective. The town council is BFE, Mississippi is not going to approach its censor role in a fair way, for better or worse.
jdsully 7y ago
> Coca-Cola will rot you teeth! This is highly misleading as it will not under normal use. It is acidic just like orange juice. The rest of your phrases, while subjective, work under normal use.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Would like to see all three of your examples banned as well, because they're not statements of fact, they're opinions, of the kind you'd typically find in an ad today. Useful listings of facts look like this: - is carbonated (therefore acidic, refreshing, negatively impacting teeth) - has x mg sugar per 100ml (therefore energizing to some extent, promoting weight gain) - has x mg of caffeine per 100ml (therefore energizing to some extent) - has Foobar taste (Foobar because I'm not sure if there's anything common with similar taste, so perhaps it's not even worth mentioning) - it's intended to energize, refresh, help digest meals "Will do X for you" statements are usually not true when taken at face value, and they're already manipulative. Statements of fact, lists of features, and descriptions of intended application is what I'd like to see instead.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > they're not statements of fact, they're opinions At this point, you need a federal bureaucracy policing practically all retail commercial speech.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Probably wouldn't work, but I also wouldn't mind them trying.
  - criddell 7y ago
    The law could be written so that individuals could sue companies that advertise with opinions rather than facts. Kind of like ow ADA laws are set up in California. The bureaucracy would be the court system.
    - seventhtiger 7y ago
      False advertising is already prosecuted. So specifically here we need to adjust the "reasonability" interpretation. If they say Coca-Cola is refreshing, and I found it's not, courts now say it is reasonable to assume that the statement is subjective. If the reasonability test is changed they will no longer be able to advertise opinions.
bananamerica 7y ago
I think what he/she meant that there should be no persuasive language. The examples you gave are persuasive in nature.

wincy 7y ago

The movie “The Invention of Lying”, where everyone tells the truth (as lying hasn’t been ‘invented’) has an example of this. “Please drink Coca Cola. It’s basically just brown sugar water.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fhtTU-guW60 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fhtTU-guW60

UncleSlacky 7y ago
Also seen in the movie "Crazy People": https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099316/quotes https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099316/quotes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzyNPoI17rE

CalRobert 7y ago

It's kind of nice to thumb through my grandparents' old magazines and see ads with entire paragraphs of copy.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

harshreality 7y ago

They didn't used to be flaws. They used to be cognitive shortcuts that helped people make decisions quickly with incomplete information. Then John B. Watson and the study of behaviorism came along in the early 20th century. Persuasion techniques were systematically identified and studied, and with the advent of mass media (TV, radio, internet), the cognitive shortcuts meant for neighbors and friends (tribe members) to persuade each other became flaws to abuse on a massive scale for profit and political power. I think it's well recognized by anyone who is interested in this stuff that persuasion techniques are an abuse of human psychology. Cialdini's books are perhaps the most famous. Everyone merely tells themselves, "other people are doing it, and their products or ideas are worse, so we have to."