5 ms·

> manipulating people into buying something they don't need? This shows you have very little idea how advertising business works. There’s a lot of bad and shad

> manipulating people into buying something they don't need? This shows you have very little idea how advertising business works. There’s a lot of bad and shady stuff, sure, but that’s extremely naive oversimplification. It’s like saying that software engineering exists to steal jobs from people and give them to machines instead.

cwkoss 6y ago
People who work in telemarketing or bulk mail or spam all make similar arguments, but I don't buy it. There are narrow cases where advertising can be societally beneficial, but this is not the case the vast majority of the time.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  It’s not about arguments, it’s about educating yourself on the topic before making definitive conclusions. Bringing up telemarketing and spam when we talk about advertising is as relevant as bringing ransomware as an argument against encryption.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    What do you think the difference is between telemarketing and other forms of advertising that makes comparing them an expression of total ignorance, worthy of gratuitous insults? The premise of both is forcing people’s attention to focus on an unsolicited message as a way of manipulating them into doing something they would not otherwise do or buy something they would not otherwise buy. Spreading those manipulative messages through phone calls or paper mail does not seem to be fundamentally different than spreading them through interstitial television clips, magazine pages, billboards, spam emails, or website popups. All of these delivery mechanisms are ugly, unpleasant, and typically exploitative. Personally I find e.g. Facebook and Google’s panopticon-driven advertising empires to be more ethically problematic than many kinds of telemarketing and junk mail. Facebook in particular has caused more concrete harm in the world than any telemarketing firm.
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      Why is me telling you about a product I’ve created, or service I offer exploitative? Are 100% of products you use in your life, products and services that you’d know about their existence and value they can provide to you without any form of advertising? If my aunt opens a hair salon and buys ads to get potential customers to come and try her service making world a worse place? What if I build new app, that helps to solve child sleeping problems for new parents - i should just hope they stumble upon it by accident, and God forbids try to advertise to new parents? I’m not arguing there isn’t lots of crap in advertising market, or that big tech ads don’t have problems. But ads are much more complex, and it serves much more use cases than typical “let’s kill all ads with fire” person on HN is aware of. For big chunk of them their only expertise in ads ecosystem is installing Adblock.
      - jacobolus 6y ago
        You dodged the question. What do you think the fundamental difference is between your aunt leaving doorknob flyers, cold-calling neighbors at dinnertime, sending spam emails, buying TV ad slots in the local news program, putting up a billboard on the highway, or buying targeted facebook ads? Do you think there is a fundamental difference between your aunt’s salon and someone selling candy to kids, encouraging people to ask their doctor about a named pharmaceutical, describing a casino’s slot machines, soliciting donations to a megachurch, talking up penny stocks, presenting jingoistic propaganda, making unfounded accusations about a political rival, or describing a phone sex hotline? Where do you draw the line between advertising that you consider beneficial (or ethical) vs. not?
        justapassenger 6y ago
        Of course there’s fundamental difference between all those things you’re describing, and you’re arguing in dishonest way if you pretend not to see it. I’m not arguing there aren’t bad uses of advertising, or bad channels to do it. I’m arguing this is very complex space that you cannot just simplify to few anecdotes and claim that based on it proves it’s detrimental to society and should be destroyed. There’s no point in continuing this conversation, bye.
  - cwkoss 6y ago
    Telemarketing and spam are advertising. It's all the same game as digital advertising, just different mediums. Your hostility to the idea that advertising is a net societal ill reminds me of the quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    - justapassenger 6y ago
      I’m not arguing they aren’t form of advertising. Same as ransomware is a form of encryption. Should we ban encryption, because it’s being used for bad things as well? I’m also not hostile to an idea that advertising maybe net negative. I’d love to see a study that shows that. But I’m very septic about someone bringing that idea as a given truth, while they lack even most basic knowledge about advertising.
tomhoward 6y ago
I think you started a mini flame war by over-reacting to that phrase. The original commenter acknowledged from the get-go that there is a difference between advertising that benefits people and that which doesn't. But you've selectively quoted them and repeatedly insisted that not all advertising is bad, even though they never claimed it is. You made things worse by repeatedly calling people ignorant, which just doesn't help to cultivate constructive discussion.

cwkoss 6y ago

People who work in telemarketing or bulk mail or spam all make similar arguments, but I don't buy it. There are narrow cases where advertising can be societally beneficial, but this is not the case the vast majority of the time.

justapassenger 6y ago
It’s not about arguments, it’s about educating yourself on the topic before making definitive conclusions. Bringing up telemarketing and spam when we talk about advertising is as relevant as bringing ransomware as an argument against encryption.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobolus 6y ago
  What do you think the difference is between telemarketing and other forms of advertising that makes comparing them an expression of total ignorance, worthy of gratuitous insults? The premise of both is forcing people’s attention to focus on an unsolicited message as a way of manipulating them into doing something they would not otherwise do or buy something they would not otherwise buy. Spreading those manipulative messages through phone calls or paper mail does not seem to be fundamentally different than spreading them through interstitial television clips, magazine pages, billboards, spam emails, or website popups. All of these delivery mechanisms are ugly, unpleasant, and typically exploitative. Personally I find e.g. Facebook and Google’s panopticon-driven advertising empires to be more ethically problematic than many kinds of telemarketing and junk mail. Facebook in particular has caused more concrete harm in the world than any telemarketing firm.
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    Why is me telling you about a product I’ve created, or service I offer exploitative? Are 100% of products you use in your life, products and services that you’d know about their existence and value they can provide to you without any form of advertising? If my aunt opens a hair salon and buys ads to get potential customers to come and try her service making world a worse place? What if I build new app, that helps to solve child sleeping problems for new parents - i should just hope they stumble upon it by accident, and God forbids try to advertise to new parents? I’m not arguing there isn’t lots of crap in advertising market, or that big tech ads don’t have problems. But ads are much more complex, and it serves much more use cases than typical “let’s kill all ads with fire” person on HN is aware of. For big chunk of them their only expertise in ads ecosystem is installing Adblock.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      You dodged the question. What do you think the fundamental difference is between your aunt leaving doorknob flyers, cold-calling neighbors at dinnertime, sending spam emails, buying TV ad slots in the local news program, putting up a billboard on the highway, or buying targeted facebook ads? Do you think there is a fundamental difference between your aunt’s salon and someone selling candy to kids, encouraging people to ask their doctor about a named pharmaceutical, describing a casino’s slot machines, soliciting donations to a megachurch, talking up penny stocks, presenting jingoistic propaganda, making unfounded accusations about a political rival, or describing a phone sex hotline? Where do you draw the line between advertising that you consider beneficial (or ethical) vs. not?
      - justapassenger 6y ago
        Of course there’s fundamental difference between all those things you’re describing, and you’re arguing in dishonest way if you pretend not to see it. I’m not arguing there aren’t bad uses of advertising, or bad channels to do it. I’m arguing this is very complex space that you cannot just simplify to few anecdotes and claim that based on it proves it’s detrimental to society and should be destroyed. There’s no point in continuing this conversation, bye.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  Telemarketing and spam are advertising. It's all the same game as digital advertising, just different mediums. Your hostility to the idea that advertising is a net societal ill reminds me of the quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
  - justapassenger 6y ago
    I’m not arguing they aren’t form of advertising. Same as ransomware is a form of encryption. Should we ban encryption, because it’s being used for bad things as well? I’m also not hostile to an idea that advertising maybe net negative. I’d love to see a study that shows that. But I’m very septic about someone bringing that idea as a given truth, while they lack even most basic knowledge about advertising.

tomhoward 6y ago

I think you started a mini flame war by over-reacting to that phrase. The original commenter acknowledged from the get-go that there is a difference between advertising that benefits people and that which doesn't. But you've selectively quoted them and repeatedly insisted that not all advertising is bad, even though they never claimed it is. You made things worse by repeatedly calling people ignorant, which just doesn't help to cultivate constructive discussion.