4 ms·

"No ads" isn't editorializing, though. Unlike "best" or "#1", it's a statement of fact, and a fact that is probably useful to shoppers.

baseballdork 5y ago
Could this be in response to apps indicating that they don't have ads even though they do?
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Or apps which don't have ads when first installed, but ads later get added in an update. The user will likely never see the updated app name.
- petschge 5y ago
  In that case these apps should be banned, not the use of "no ads" in titles.
- rscoots 5y ago
  That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.
otterley 5y ago
The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Buy Uncle Miller’s Corn Flakes — 100% arsenic free!
  - zepto 5y ago
    Avoid toxic chemicals - drink Coca Cola!
    - Spivak 5y ago
      Aspartame just hits different ya know?
  - otterley 5y ago
    Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.
    - duffyjp 5y ago
      Wow, that's incredibly dishonest to consumers! My turkey states "no hormones added," I assume that's also unlawful like pork? It should be illegal to advertise you're not doing something that is illegal in the first place if the intent is to imply others are in fact doing it.
      - otterley 5y ago
        Correct, both pork and poultry.
      - Spivak 5y ago
        The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.

baseballdork 5y ago

Could this be in response to apps indicating that they don't have ads even though they do?

londons_explore 5y ago
Or apps which don't have ads when first installed, but ads later get added in an update. The user will likely never see the updated app name.
petschge 5y ago
In that case these apps should be banned, not the use of "no ads" in titles.
rscoots 5y ago
That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.

otterley 5y ago

The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.

Spivak 5y ago
Buy Uncle Miller’s Corn Flakes — 100% arsenic free!
- zepto 5y ago
  Avoid toxic chemicals - drink Coca Cola!
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Aspartame just hits different ya know?
- otterley 5y ago
  Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.
  - duffyjp 5y ago
    Wow, that's incredibly dishonest to consumers! My turkey states "no hormones added," I assume that's also unlawful like pork? It should be illegal to advertise you're not doing something that is illegal in the first place if the intent is to imply others are in fact doing it.
    - otterley 5y ago
      Correct, both pork and poultry.
    - Spivak 5y ago
      The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.