That's the point though. The New Yorker (and the memeplex it's a part of) wasn't publishing hysterical articles about advertising's abuse of emotional appeal du

That's the point though. The New Yorker (and the memeplex it's a part of) wasn't publishing hysterical articles about advertising's abuse of emotional appeal during the heyday of Madison Avenue, and randomly throwing an extra dimension of targeting by limiting one's concern to when tech does it doesn't make any sense. It's not enough to say "just because A did it doesn't mean B can" without 1) addressing why the calls for cessation are narrowly targeted at B and 2) understanding why A was never successfully made to stop. 2 can help you understand the pitfalls of what you're trying to do ("manipulating emotions" is a ridiculously ill-defined phrase), and 1 can help you understand whether you're chasing after a red herring instead of what you're actually concerned about. To use your own framing: perhaps if you'd spent 5 minutes thinking about it instead of 2, you'd realize these dimensions exist and are valid bases for complaint.