4 ms·

> 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

> 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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

ipsum2 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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