7 ms·

> the fact that advertising is not a socially beneficial activity and all advertising is an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public That's not a fact,

> the fact that advertising is not a socially beneficial activity and all advertising is an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public That's not a fact, that's your opinion. Advertising is a form of communication and like most communication, the person originating the communication often has a goal or desired outcome in mind. That you or me might not like their goals or the message that they communicate doesn't mean that no one finds it valuable, nor does it mean that we should ban all communication.

Nextgrid 6y ago
To be fair, when it comes to being valuable, criminals consider violence like armed robbery and murder valuable because it helps them achieve their goals, and yet we agree that those things are not a benefit to society and created laws to discourage and punish such acts.
- matz1 6y ago
  Certainly the criminals doesn't agree don't you think ? One side just happen to have more power to forced the other side to comply. There is no agreement. The more powerfull one get to decide what the law is.
carapace 6y ago
> Advertising is a form of communication and like most communication, the person originating the communication often has a goal or desired outcome in mind. So what? It's still "an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public". Advertising is adversarial, it's fundamentally bullshit. Leela : Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?" Fry : Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree. How is that "a socially beneficial activity"?
- ipsum2 6y ago
  > "an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public". So does a persuasive essay, but I don't see any calls for bans for those.
  - effingwewt 6y ago
    Persuasive essays aren't shoved everywhere you go in an attempt to separate you from your money, usually via deceit, at least in the US. Just look at how they all have asterisks and fine print unable to be read. Also I can choose not to read an essay, it's harder to tune out all advertising.
    - cameronbrown 6y ago
      Uhh, pretty much everything the media writes nowadays is an advert in some way... Ever visited Medium.com? "No ads" but full of them.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      There are many groups out there dedicated to spreading their ideals and ideas as well. Religions, paleo diets, and fringe political ideas are shoved at you everywhere you go as well without any monetary transactions involved with advertising, let alone the single party ones like business signage. I am afraid advertising isn't unique in those objections.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > So what? It's still "an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public". Advertising is adversarial So is what you just wrote. Should we ban discussion on HN because it is (or can be) adversarial?
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    HN has balanced discussions because of the voting system, moderators (banning voting rings and spammers) and that anyone can voice their counter-arguments. Advertising on the other hand is one-sided. If there was a universal ad platform where people could vote on ads (where overly negative feedback would get the ad taken down) and comment below them then it wouldn’t be that much of a problem. Finally HN is something you choose to participate in in your own time. Advertising doesn’t give you a choice on whether you want to see it.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Advertising on the other hand is one-sided. Most ad platforms allow anyone to submit an add. Most add platforms are moderated. > Advertising doesn’t give you a choice on whether you want to see it. Of course it does. When I'm reading a book I don't see advertisements. They aren't beamed into my brain, they're the price of admission for certain services I gain value from
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        > Most ad platforms allow anyone to submit an add I can submit another ad but I can't make it appear right below the previous ad I would like to "comment" on. > Most add platforms are moderated What about fake technical support numbers, or the variety of scams/quack products on Facebook that make impossible claims and prey on the vulnerable/stupid? > When I'm reading a book I don't see advertisements When I take public transport I see ads regardless. Same applies to a lot of services that are near-essential nowadays. Certain government agencies sell your details to spam operations (also a certain form of advertising) and you can't opt out. Most commercial products include spyware which track you and rat you out to ad platforms regardless of whether you even see any ads directly.
- carapace 6y ago
  And now on the HN front page: > In the mid-twentieth century, courts applying the antitrust laws held that such persuasive advertising is anticompetitive and harmful to consumers, but the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was unable to pursue an antitrust campaign against persuasive advertising for fear of de-priving consumers of advertising’s information value. Now that the information function of most advertising is obsolete, the FTC should renew its campaign against persuasive advertising by treating all advertising beyond the minimum required to ensure that product information is available to online searchers as monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. ~ "The Obsolescence of Advertising in the Information Age" https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-obsolescence-of-advertising-in-the-information-age https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-obsolescence-of-a... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22991286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22991286

Nextgrid 6y ago

To be fair, when it comes to being valuable, criminals consider violence like armed robbery and murder valuable because it helps them achieve their goals, and yet we agree that those things are not a benefit to society and created laws to discourage and punish such acts.

matz1 6y ago
Certainly the criminals doesn't agree don't you think ? One side just happen to have more power to forced the other side to comply. There is no agreement. The more powerfull one get to decide what the law is.

carapace 6y ago

> Advertising is a form of communication and like most communication, the person originating the communication often has a goal or desired outcome in mind. So what? It's still "an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public". Advertising is adversarial, it's fundamentally bullshit. Leela : Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?" Fry : Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree. How is that "a socially beneficial activity"?

ipsum2 6y ago
> "an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public". So does a persuasive essay, but I don't see any calls for bans for those.
- effingwewt 6y ago
  Persuasive essays aren't shoved everywhere you go in an attempt to separate you from your money, usually via deceit, at least in the US. Just look at how they all have asterisks and fine print unable to be read. Also I can choose not to read an essay, it's harder to tune out all advertising.
  - cameronbrown 6y ago
    Uhh, pretty much everything the media writes nowadays is an advert in some way... Ever visited Medium.com? "No ads" but full of them.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    There are many groups out there dedicated to spreading their ideals and ideas as well. Religions, paleo diets, and fringe political ideas are shoved at you everywhere you go as well without any monetary transactions involved with advertising, let alone the single party ones like business signage. I am afraid advertising isn't unique in those objections.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> So what? It's still "an attempt to psychologically manipulate the public". Advertising is adversarial So is what you just wrote. Should we ban discussion on HN because it is (or can be) adversarial?
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  HN has balanced discussions because of the voting system, moderators (banning voting rings and spammers) and that anyone can voice their counter-arguments. Advertising on the other hand is one-sided. If there was a universal ad platform where people could vote on ads (where overly negative feedback would get the ad taken down) and comment below them then it wouldn’t be that much of a problem. Finally HN is something you choose to participate in in your own time. Advertising doesn’t give you a choice on whether you want to see it.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Advertising on the other hand is one-sided. Most ad platforms allow anyone to submit an add. Most add platforms are moderated. > Advertising doesn’t give you a choice on whether you want to see it. Of course it does. When I'm reading a book I don't see advertisements. They aren't beamed into my brain, they're the price of admission for certain services I gain value from
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      > Most ad platforms allow anyone to submit an add I can submit another ad but I can't make it appear right below the previous ad I would like to "comment" on. > Most add platforms are moderated What about fake technical support numbers, or the variety of scams/quack products on Facebook that make impossible claims and prey on the vulnerable/stupid? > When I'm reading a book I don't see advertisements When I take public transport I see ads regardless. Same applies to a lot of services that are near-essential nowadays. Certain government agencies sell your details to spam operations (also a certain form of advertising) and you can't opt out. Most commercial products include spyware which track you and rat you out to ad platforms regardless of whether you even see any ads directly.
carapace 6y ago
And now on the HN front page: > In the mid-twentieth century, courts applying the antitrust laws held that such persuasive advertising is anticompetitive and harmful to consumers, but the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was unable to pursue an antitrust campaign against persuasive advertising for fear of de-priving consumers of advertising’s information value. Now that the information function of most advertising is obsolete, the FTC should renew its campaign against persuasive advertising by treating all advertising beyond the minimum required to ensure that product information is available to online searchers as monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. ~ "The Obsolescence of Advertising in the Information Age" https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-obsolescence-of-advertising-in-the-information-age https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-obsolescence-of-a... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22991286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22991286