4 ms·

> We could not possible disagree more. I think it is straight-up immoral for anyone to intentionally make another's life worse in order to sell them stuff. I'm

> We could not possible disagree more. I think it is straight-up immoral for anyone to intentionally make another's life worse in order to sell them stuff. I'm not sure we disagree, actually. I think you may be misunderstanding my meaning. When I tell you about a product, a number of things are happening: 1. If I'm successful in getting you to want the product, I've created (or emphasized an existing) dissatisfaction. That's not good. But: 2. I've given you the knowledge of a solution to your problem. Depending on the problem at hand, the solution might improve your health, extend your life, help you earn more money, be a better parent, donate to a charity, etc. So I think if you want to stand in judgment of the morality of advertising, it has to be done on a case by case basis, and you have to weigh all the pros and cons. I'll give you an example of a type of advertising that will clearly decrease your happiness but is still a net positive. (Impossible, right?) Take a look at any ad for any charity. Those ads make your life worse by telling you how miserable things are for some group of people or animals or some other cause. And even if you "buy" what the ads are selling (i.e. you give them money), you're still going to feel like garbage about their cause. And yet, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't consider those ads to be evil, would you? It's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point: you have to consider more than just happiness. Here's a more extreme example: If all I cared about was making people happy, I'd sell heroin. Heroin feels awesome. Heroin makes people happy. It also destroys their lives in the process. Some addicts manage to be happy all the way to their death bed. So happiness is not the end-all-be-all measurement of what is good and what is bad. It's definitely A measurement. I'm not discounting it. I'm just saying there are other things to consider as well, and I don't personally consider it the #1 most important measurement. (It's probably in my top 5.)

JohnFen 7y ago
> I've given you the knowledge of a solution to your problem. But you've given a "solution" (that involves separating me from my money) to a problem that you created in the first place. I don't see how that's a good thing. > And yet, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't consider those ads to be evil, would you? "Evil" isn't the word I'd use. "Immoral" is. If a charitable organization is using ads that are intentionally trying to make me feel bad (as opposed to merely informing me), then those ads don't suddenly become acceptable just because it's a charitable organization. The ends don't justify the means. Interestingly enough, although I donate to charitable organization reasonably heavily, I long ago decided not to donate to ones that engage in such advertising, for precisely this reason. > If all I cared about was making people happy, I'd sell heroin. No, you wouldn't, because doing so will make people unhappy, not happy. "Feeling good" is a very different thing than happiness, particularly if you're only looking at the near term.
- nickelcitymario 7y ago
  > But you've given a "solution" (that involves separating me from my money) to a problem that you created in the first place. When did I create a problem? Yes, some advertising invents nonexistent problems and I thought I was clear that this shit is evil. That's a different thing from saying "that headache you have sucks, doesn't it? here's some tylenol" > No, you wouldn't, because doing so will make people unhappy, not happy. Way to miss the point, dude.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > That's a different thing from saying "that headache you have sucks, doesn't it? here's some tylenol" It is indeed different. I was responding to this: > 1. If I'm successful in getting you to want the product, I've created (or emphasized an existing) dissatisfaction. That's not good. But: > 2. I've given you the knowledge of a solution to your problem. Where you appeared to be justifying creating dissatisfaction on the basis that you are providing a solution to that dissatisfaction. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point here. > Way to miss the point, dude. I suppose that I did -- and I still do, because I don't see how my reply was unresponsive.
    - nickelcitymario 7y ago
      > Where you appeared to be justifying creating dissatisfaction on the basis that you are providing a solution to that dissatisfaction. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point here. Touché. I did say that. Balderdash. My point (poorly stated) was that while I think it's cruel to create a problem where it doesn't exist, it's not cruel to promote the solution to a real problem that already exists. However, promoting the solution involves reminding you of the problem, which creates or emphasizes a dissatisfaction you may have been ignoring. > I suppose that I did -- and I still do, because I don't see how my reply was unresponsive. My point in using heroin as an example was to say there are plenty of ways to create happiness that aren't necessarily beneficial in the long run. Perhaps some better examples would be: - Sitting on the beach all day - Not exercising - Spending every dollar I have today and ignoring my future needs All of these would lead to me being happy for a while. But eventually they're detrimental. Yes?
adangert 7y ago
Woah now, I would completely disagree, heroin does not make you happy, short term pleasure is not the same thing. New information which helps people is inherently a good thing, but can be obtained through other means than ads, i.e. word of mouth. The fact is that most ads are targeted badly and thus useless for most people, and the targeted ads that do help some are breaches of privacy, the better the ad the more information you must know about the person, which leads to all types of misuse of information. Ads also give large companies leverage to destroy small companies. Basically if two entities are trying to compete, if one has more money, and a worse product, then they have the ability to out compete the smaller company specifically by spending more on advertisements. The incentive model for advertisments is to take away as much privacy as possible from you (which we have seen in practice) and removes the effectiveness of the free market to function properly. Case in point, we should completely remove ads and only have new information from word of mouth or people who are willing to be paid for their time.
- nickelcitymario 7y ago
  So your position is that without advertising, large companies would have no means to crush their competition? 1. They'd simply undercut their prices, as they do now. 2. Advertising can level the playing field when the smaller competitor understands the game they're playing. There are countless examples of now-major brands that started out as the underdog but put out really creative work. Truly creative work can radically outperform your average ad campaign, but they're risky. Which is why the major brands play it safe and can't produce the outstanding work. As for the whole privacy/targeting thing, I'm not defending that one. I 100% agree that it's gone way too bloody far. I was perfectly happy with ads that were targeted based purely on the content being presented rather than the creepy profiles that a lot of media companies keep on all of us.

JohnFen 7y ago

> I've given you the knowledge of a solution to your problem. But you've given a "solution" (that involves separating me from my money) to a problem that you created in the first place. I don't see how that's a good thing. > And yet, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't consider those ads to be evil, would you? "Evil" isn't the word I'd use. "Immoral" is. If a charitable organization is using ads that are intentionally trying to make me feel bad (as opposed to merely informing me), then those ads don't suddenly become acceptable just because it's a charitable organization. The ends don't justify the means. Interestingly enough, although I donate to charitable organization reasonably heavily, I long ago decided not to donate to ones that engage in such advertising, for precisely this reason. > If all I cared about was making people happy, I'd sell heroin. No, you wouldn't, because doing so will make people unhappy, not happy. "Feeling good" is a very different thing than happiness, particularly if you're only looking at the near term.

nickelcitymario 7y ago
> But you've given a "solution" (that involves separating me from my money) to a problem that you created in the first place. When did I create a problem? Yes, some advertising invents nonexistent problems and I thought I was clear that this shit is evil. That's a different thing from saying "that headache you have sucks, doesn't it? here's some tylenol" > No, you wouldn't, because doing so will make people unhappy, not happy. Way to miss the point, dude.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > That's a different thing from saying "that headache you have sucks, doesn't it? here's some tylenol" It is indeed different. I was responding to this: > 1. If I'm successful in getting you to want the product, I've created (or emphasized an existing) dissatisfaction. That's not good. But: > 2. I've given you the knowledge of a solution to your problem. Where you appeared to be justifying creating dissatisfaction on the basis that you are providing a solution to that dissatisfaction. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point here. > Way to miss the point, dude. I suppose that I did -- and I still do, because I don't see how my reply was unresponsive.
  - nickelcitymario 7y ago
    > Where you appeared to be justifying creating dissatisfaction on the basis that you are providing a solution to that dissatisfaction. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point here. Touché. I did say that. Balderdash. My point (poorly stated) was that while I think it's cruel to create a problem where it doesn't exist, it's not cruel to promote the solution to a real problem that already exists. However, promoting the solution involves reminding you of the problem, which creates or emphasizes a dissatisfaction you may have been ignoring. > I suppose that I did -- and I still do, because I don't see how my reply was unresponsive. My point in using heroin as an example was to say there are plenty of ways to create happiness that aren't necessarily beneficial in the long run. Perhaps some better examples would be: - Sitting on the beach all day - Not exercising - Spending every dollar I have today and ignoring my future needs All of these would lead to me being happy for a while. But eventually they're detrimental. Yes?

adangert 7y ago

Woah now, I would completely disagree, heroin does not make you happy, short term pleasure is not the same thing. New information which helps people is inherently a good thing, but can be obtained through other means than ads, i.e. word of mouth. The fact is that most ads are targeted badly and thus useless for most people, and the targeted ads that do help some are breaches of privacy, the better the ad the more information you must know about the person, which leads to all types of misuse of information. Ads also give large companies leverage to destroy small companies. Basically if two entities are trying to compete, if one has more money, and a worse product, then they have the ability to out compete the smaller company specifically by spending more on advertisements. The incentive model for advertisments is to take away as much privacy as possible from you (which we have seen in practice) and removes the effectiveness of the free market to function properly. Case in point, we should completely remove ads and only have new information from word of mouth or people who are willing to be paid for their time.

nickelcitymario 7y ago
So your position is that without advertising, large companies would have no means to crush their competition? 1. They'd simply undercut their prices, as they do now. 2. Advertising can level the playing field when the smaller competitor understands the game they're playing. There are countless examples of now-major brands that started out as the underdog but put out really creative work. Truly creative work can radically outperform your average ad campaign, but they're risky. Which is why the major brands play it safe and can't produce the outstanding work. As for the whole privacy/targeting thing, I'm not defending that one. I 100% agree that it's gone way too bloody far. I was perfectly happy with ads that were targeted based purely on the content being presented rather than the creepy profiles that a lot of media companies keep on all of us.