6 ms·

>philosophically, is there really a way we can claim that advertising makes you want things in a way that's wrong Absolutely! We can say that, whatever the ori

>philosophically, is there really a way we can claim that advertising makes you want things in a way that's wrong Absolutely! We can say that, whatever the origins of our desires, advertising arises from the needs of advertisers and seeks to repurpose our attention and desires to align with those needs rather than our own. I understand where you are coming from, as it sounds like you don't agree with this argument so much as you think it demands a robust answer. I think the key to having robust answer is in challenging the second piece of your comment: it construes human interests as basically interchangeable, with none being really any more better than any other. I do agree that you would have to believe something like that to defend advertising as fundamentally benign, and I also happen to think that's absurd. Positive psychology, for all its flaws, is a systematic way of looking at human needs, desires, and fulfillment. And we really do need certain things: safety, security, to be understood, a certain degree of social cohesion, self actualization. To say that advertising is every bit as legitimate as any other human interests, you have to be willing to argue that whatever ads you see driving down a highway do more to reflect human nature than something like Maslow's hierarchy, and I think that's a really tough argument to make. I also think it's a fundamental confusion baked into moral relativism as a philosophical view itself, which (correctly!) captures important aspects of decision making, psychology and subjectivity that are at play in how people engage with our own desires but mistakes them for a foundation to morality itself.

srcreigh 5y ago
Are you saying advertiser's influence is somehow making the fulfillment problem worse? This kinda assumes our own thoughts and desires aren't influenced by outside factors (bad habits, intrusive thoughts, etc), and without advertisers input we are on our own jolly way. There could be an argument made that we face challenges for fulfillment from the inside out. Therefore objecting to one external force misses the forest for one tree.
- upsidesinclude 5y ago
  Yeah, but in practice... the iPhone/Apple represents an example par excellence: Planned obsolescence, dated features, software deprecation, false narrative (e.g. privacy). The plan is to always provide that fulfillment until it is time for you to renew your subscription. Then the fulfillment reward is attached to a new product and the consumer must acquiesce. Consumerism is this forest. Stepping any deeper into the waters, keep this outdoorsy pun rolling, is an arbitrary excersize. "What does it mean to 'be'?" Abstraction does not undo the real harm caused by corporations.
  - skybrian 5y ago
    I don't have one, but don't iPhones typically work longer than many Android phones? I do have an iMac that's at least a decade old. I should install Linux since the OS isn't supported anymore, but it seems like it's had a good run.
    - upsidesinclude 5y ago
      No. Try a lightweight distro & just install Kodi or Plex for a media server. I have several old laptops (hp 17yrs, Toshiba 8yrs, Acer 11yrs) for that purpose
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      > don't iPhones typically work longer than many Android phones Given that Google only updates Android for half as many years on a Pixel phone, there is planned obsolescence in play here, but not from Apple.
  - llbeansandrice 5y ago
    > iPhone/Apple represents an example par excellence: Planned obsolescence, dated features, software deprecation, false narrative I feel like people say this and then don't provide any decent examples. iPhones hold value and are usable much longer than most Androids thanks to Apple's willingness to support the devices. HN loves to hate on Apple but I don't find these examples and arguments very compelling.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      The mere fact that you believe that Android is the only alternative to an iPhone shows how effective the manipulation is.
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        That's because for all practical purposes, it is. Name one bank or payment system in the developed world that released a native mobile app for KaiOS.
- glenstein 5y ago
  >Are you saying advertiser's influence is somehow making the fulfillment problem worse? Yes. >This kinda assumes our own thoughts and desires aren't influenced by outside factors (bad habits, intrusive thoughts, etc), and without advertisers input we are on our own jolly way. It doesn't assume that. It just assumes we're influenced by everything else other than advertising. >and without advertisers input we are on our own jolly way. This however assumes that advertisers are beneficial correctives rather than accelerants of adverse behaviors. Rather than building an encyclopedia where every positive and negative case is examined, I'm suggesting that you zoom out and think about the underlying incentives in a systematic way. Advertising is in the interest of the advertisers, not the consumers. You don't have to assume that consumers never make mistakes in seeking their own fulfillment.
  - srcreigh 5y ago
    Everything we do involves being influenced by the interests of others. I'm curious what makes advertising A) special B) necessarily negative. Advertising is bad therefore it's bad doesn't really prove anything. Is that what you are saying? A good business will provide for at least some interests of its customers, so it's not clear to me that advertising is negative.
vlunkr 5y ago
Philosophically, that's still not convincing. Lets take the most basic form of advertising as an example. If I put a couch in my yard with a price tag on it, I'm wanting people to notice and desire to buy it, but there's no malicious intent. I have a thing I want to get rid of, maybe someone wants to buy it. If I don't do that, no one will know it's for sale. So I do think advertising is fundamentally benign, and despite what the original comment said, is absolutely part of supply and demand. People are supposed to generate supply and then sit around waiting for people to come see it? Of course there's lots of bad stuff going on in advertising. Lies, inducing FOMO, unnecessary gathering of personal data, etc. But I'm not convinced that advertising is morally wrong in it's purest form.
- ballenf 5y ago
  The anti-advertising stance taken to reasonable conclusion is indeed absurd. You couldn't even mention your sofa to a friend without risk of "inciting" unnatural demand in them for a sofa. And you couldn't even allow third party mentions either as are fundamentally indistinguishable in terms of effects on artificial demands. But hope isn't lost. A natural limit on advertising is completely eliminating surveillance capitalism. Even the kind enable by credit cards selling your purchase history. Or stores issuing loyalty cards.
- dota_fanatic 5y ago
  I like to look at this through the lens of push vs pull. I don't want people pushing things at me that I'm 100% uninterested in in the off chance that 1% of those ads is actually interesting to me and I otherwise wouldn't know it exists. I do want to be able to search a database of vendors (with degrees of trust associated with them) with objective descriptions of available goods and services at known costs, either one-time or recurring. If I'm looking for something that's completely new, I should still be able to find it by using relevant terms and weightings (cost, materials, origin of materials, shipping distance, labor chain, etc.) So, no, I do think someone using their front yard to sell a couch is bad provided we have the internet and a good marketplace built on top of it. Who wants to see human junk covering nature solely so it can impinge on others' field-of-view in order to be sold? I don't think it's bad for them to register the availability of said couch in the hypothetical regulated marketplace. And, for those who consent, they can ask to have relevant categories of ads pushed at them. But leave people like me out of it. No such consent can be obtained when you just e.g. put it on a billboard. Yes, I know what I'm saying is probably naive and would never work, or something, or that's where governance is supposed to come in, but it's a nice dream.
alecbz 5y ago
> whatever the origins of our desires, advertising arises from the needs of advertisers and seeks to repurpose our attention and desires to align with those needs rather than our own. It sounds like you're saying something like: "advertisers have their own desires that are different than ours, and so it's more likely that they'll get us to desire things that are bad for us" This I think is a fair point. It's not especially unique to advertising as opposed to other forms of influence, though maybe it's most pronounced in advertising. Nonetheless, even if it applies to all forms of influence, it's a fair argument for why influence is categorically at least risky of being bad for us. I think you're right of course that primal needs like Maslow's cannot really compare to needs or desires we create with advertising or other kinds of social influence. But I don't think that's what we're really talking about. I think it's more stuff like "I would have wanted to cook tonight but instead I saw a Dominos ad and so now I'm eating Dominos. This is a false desire!" Why? What makes the desire false just because it was created by an ad? You could have a genuine desire for Domino's created by the ad that you've now satisfied and feel good about. To the extent that ads distract us from pursuing more basic human needs and cause us to be more consumerist, fair. I think that's a broader, different point about the nature of consumption period. --- I don't think I'm making an argument for moral relativism here at all? I don't think I'd consider myself a moral relativist.
- glenstein 5y ago
  >It sounds like you're saying something like: "advertisers have their own desires that are different than ours, and so it's more likely that they'll get us to desire things that are bad for us" It is a rare but very satisfying experience to see yourself quoted and feel like you're being interpreted correctly. Yes, you are right, I'm saying that, more or less. >I think you're right of course that primal needs like Maslow's cannot really compare to needs or desires we create with advertising [...] But I don't think that's what we're really talking about. I take something like Maslow to be comprehensive, and so always implicated. I think your dominos example serves to suggest that there are cases that are mundane, harmless, or where nothing is at stake. I think so far as something like that is concerned, I think that's true and those things happen. However, I think (1) even seemingly benign examples really do have important issues at stake. I think American consumers have trouble budgeting and a huge input into that is innocent-seeming habit of ordering out, which, over time, ads up in significant ways. Also (2) while we can contemplate one-off examples, I think the primary frame of reference should be a big picture, systematic look at the incentives. The system writ large serves interests of advertisers, not consumers, and the legitimacy of that lives or dies with systematic arguments about the incentives. >I don't think I'm making an argument for moral relativism here at all? I think the idea that our preferences are transient, that none are really more right than any other, and that therefore there's nothing really at stake in letting your interests be swapped out for different interests, is what I regard as moral relativism. You have to believe there's some underlying truth at stake and real interests being defended to make a case against ads.

srcreigh 5y ago

Are you saying advertiser's influence is somehow making the fulfillment problem worse? This kinda assumes our own thoughts and desires aren't influenced by outside factors (bad habits, intrusive thoughts, etc), and without advertisers input we are on our own jolly way. There could be an argument made that we face challenges for fulfillment from the inside out. Therefore objecting to one external force misses the forest for one tree.

upsidesinclude 5y ago
Yeah, but in practice... the iPhone/Apple represents an example par excellence: Planned obsolescence, dated features, software deprecation, false narrative (e.g. privacy). The plan is to always provide that fulfillment until it is time for you to renew your subscription. Then the fulfillment reward is attached to a new product and the consumer must acquiesce. Consumerism is this forest. Stepping any deeper into the waters, keep this outdoorsy pun rolling, is an arbitrary excersize. "What does it mean to 'be'?" Abstraction does not undo the real harm caused by corporations.
- skybrian 5y ago
  I don't have one, but don't iPhones typically work longer than many Android phones? I do have an iMac that's at least a decade old. I should install Linux since the OS isn't supported anymore, but it seems like it's had a good run.
  - upsidesinclude 5y ago
    No. Try a lightweight distro & just install Kodi or Plex for a media server. I have several old laptops (hp 17yrs, Toshiba 8yrs, Acer 11yrs) for that purpose
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    > don't iPhones typically work longer than many Android phones Given that Google only updates Android for half as many years on a Pixel phone, there is planned obsolescence in play here, but not from Apple.
- llbeansandrice 5y ago
  > iPhone/Apple represents an example par excellence: Planned obsolescence, dated features, software deprecation, false narrative I feel like people say this and then don't provide any decent examples. iPhones hold value and are usable much longer than most Androids thanks to Apple's willingness to support the devices. HN loves to hate on Apple but I don't find these examples and arguments very compelling.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    The mere fact that you believe that Android is the only alternative to an iPhone shows how effective the manipulation is.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      That's because for all practical purposes, it is. Name one bank or payment system in the developed world that released a native mobile app for KaiOS.
glenstein 5y ago
>Are you saying advertiser's influence is somehow making the fulfillment problem worse? Yes. >This kinda assumes our own thoughts and desires aren't influenced by outside factors (bad habits, intrusive thoughts, etc), and without advertisers input we are on our own jolly way. It doesn't assume that. It just assumes we're influenced by everything else other than advertising. >and without advertisers input we are on our own jolly way. This however assumes that advertisers are beneficial correctives rather than accelerants of adverse behaviors. Rather than building an encyclopedia where every positive and negative case is examined, I'm suggesting that you zoom out and think about the underlying incentives in a systematic way. Advertising is in the interest of the advertisers, not the consumers. You don't have to assume that consumers never make mistakes in seeking their own fulfillment.
- srcreigh 5y ago
  Everything we do involves being influenced by the interests of others. I'm curious what makes advertising A) special B) necessarily negative. Advertising is bad therefore it's bad doesn't really prove anything. Is that what you are saying? A good business will provide for at least some interests of its customers, so it's not clear to me that advertising is negative.

vlunkr 5y ago

Philosophically, that's still not convincing. Lets take the most basic form of advertising as an example. If I put a couch in my yard with a price tag on it, I'm wanting people to notice and desire to buy it, but there's no malicious intent. I have a thing I want to get rid of, maybe someone wants to buy it. If I don't do that, no one will know it's for sale. So I do think advertising is fundamentally benign, and despite what the original comment said, is absolutely part of supply and demand. People are supposed to generate supply and then sit around waiting for people to come see it? Of course there's lots of bad stuff going on in advertising. Lies, inducing FOMO, unnecessary gathering of personal data, etc. But I'm not convinced that advertising is morally wrong in it's purest form.

ballenf 5y ago
The anti-advertising stance taken to reasonable conclusion is indeed absurd. You couldn't even mention your sofa to a friend without risk of "inciting" unnatural demand in them for a sofa. And you couldn't even allow third party mentions either as are fundamentally indistinguishable in terms of effects on artificial demands. But hope isn't lost. A natural limit on advertising is completely eliminating surveillance capitalism. Even the kind enable by credit cards selling your purchase history. Or stores issuing loyalty cards.
dota_fanatic 5y ago
I like to look at this through the lens of push vs pull. I don't want people pushing things at me that I'm 100% uninterested in in the off chance that 1% of those ads is actually interesting to me and I otherwise wouldn't know it exists. I do want to be able to search a database of vendors (with degrees of trust associated with them) with objective descriptions of available goods and services at known costs, either one-time or recurring. If I'm looking for something that's completely new, I should still be able to find it by using relevant terms and weightings (cost, materials, origin of materials, shipping distance, labor chain, etc.) So, no, I do think someone using their front yard to sell a couch is bad provided we have the internet and a good marketplace built on top of it. Who wants to see human junk covering nature solely so it can impinge on others' field-of-view in order to be sold? I don't think it's bad for them to register the availability of said couch in the hypothetical regulated marketplace. And, for those who consent, they can ask to have relevant categories of ads pushed at them. But leave people like me out of it. No such consent can be obtained when you just e.g. put it on a billboard. Yes, I know what I'm saying is probably naive and would never work, or something, or that's where governance is supposed to come in, but it's a nice dream.

alecbz 5y ago

> whatever the origins of our desires, advertising arises from the needs of advertisers and seeks to repurpose our attention and desires to align with those needs rather than our own. It sounds like you're saying something like: "advertisers have their own desires that are different than ours, and so it's more likely that they'll get us to desire things that are bad for us" This I think is a fair point. It's not especially unique to advertising as opposed to other forms of influence, though maybe it's most pronounced in advertising. Nonetheless, even if it applies to all forms of influence, it's a fair argument for why influence is categorically at least risky of being bad for us. I think you're right of course that primal needs like Maslow's cannot really compare to needs or desires we create with advertising or other kinds of social influence. But I don't think that's what we're really talking about. I think it's more stuff like "I would have wanted to cook tonight but instead I saw a Dominos ad and so now I'm eating Dominos. This is a false desire!" Why? What makes the desire false just because it was created by an ad? You could have a genuine desire for Domino's created by the ad that you've now satisfied and feel good about. To the extent that ads distract us from pursuing more basic human needs and cause us to be more consumerist, fair. I think that's a broader, different point about the nature of consumption period. --- I don't think I'm making an argument for moral relativism here at all? I don't think I'd consider myself a moral relativist.

glenstein 5y ago
>It sounds like you're saying something like: "advertisers have their own desires that are different than ours, and so it's more likely that they'll get us to desire things that are bad for us" It is a rare but very satisfying experience to see yourself quoted and feel like you're being interpreted correctly. Yes, you are right, I'm saying that, more or less. >I think you're right of course that primal needs like Maslow's cannot really compare to needs or desires we create with advertising [...] But I don't think that's what we're really talking about. I take something like Maslow to be comprehensive, and so always implicated. I think your dominos example serves to suggest that there are cases that are mundane, harmless, or where nothing is at stake. I think so far as something like that is concerned, I think that's true and those things happen. However, I think (1) even seemingly benign examples really do have important issues at stake. I think American consumers have trouble budgeting and a huge input into that is innocent-seeming habit of ordering out, which, over time, ads up in significant ways. Also (2) while we can contemplate one-off examples, I think the primary frame of reference should be a big picture, systematic look at the incentives. The system writ large serves interests of advertisers, not consumers, and the legitimacy of that lives or dies with systematic arguments about the incentives. >I don't think I'm making an argument for moral relativism here at all? I think the idea that our preferences are transient, that none are really more right than any other, and that therefore there's nothing really at stake in letting your interests be swapped out for different interests, is what I regard as moral relativism. You have to believe there's some underlying truth at stake and real interests being defended to make a case against ads.