4 ms·
I wish that commenters on the Internet generally, and HN in particular, would lay off "murder and jaywalking" arguments. If Gandi advertised with lewds, well.
by samatman 4y ago
I wish that commenters on the Internet generally, and HN in particular, would lay off "murder and jaywalking" arguments.
If Gandi advertised with lewds, well. People would complain and they would probably stop.
The "scummy actions and questionable security practices" are both necessary and sufficient to persuade the informed reader not to patronize their services. Bringing in additional minor peccadillos weakens the argument by bringing out everyone who likes tits in ads.
No one likes the kind of bad behavior GoDaddy is known for.
This comment might seem a bit out-of-place if you don't happen to use showdead.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sjtindell 4y agoTo me, using women to sell a product reeks of a bygone era and a certain mentality we’re working to get away from. I think that alone is a perfectly acceptable reason to think a company sucks and not use their product. Voting for behaviors with your dollars is important.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tellitnow 4y ago
- Rychard 4y agoThis. So many companies run marketing campaigns that largely pay lip-service to whatever is trending lately, without actually changing their internal strategies to reflect this stance. I would much rather the companies put that money towards actions that might actually benefit the cause, rather than spending 99% of the budget trying to prove they're committed to solving $PROBLEM by donating the remaining 1% to some non-profit. I totally recognize the counter-point; they didn't have to donate anything at all, and any amount is more than nothing. To me, the issue stems from the fact that companies are basically making money on the back of things that are actual issues. It's exploitation, plain and simple.
- NoSorryCannot 4y ago[flagged]
- tellitnow 4y ago
- skyyler 4y agoAnal sex defines lesbianism? You might need to calm down, buddy. The gays aren't coming for you.
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
- dang 4y ago"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DocTomoe 4y agoI wonder if it is more dehumanizing to the affected woman to show an attractive woman, or to not show women at all. I think to be consistent with the 'don't use women for ads' approach, you need to be opposed to use human-based or non-product-related human interest advertisement at all, which includes, but is probably not limited to men [1], children [2], the elderly [3], people of a certain demographic and/or sexual orientation and/or gender identity [4], or national rivalries [5][6] or stereotypes [7] or even the concepts of such. You would also have to have a stern look at the art scene, because sex also sells as sculpture, on canvas, as a particularly suggestive voice or on the screen - it may be part of the work, but it also has an advertising effect. And what a bleak world would that be. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C-vYY3SBDE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C-vYY3SBDE [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqgSO8_cRio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqgSO8_cRio [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4IaHgqH00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4IaHgqH00 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_gHMNs5iE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw_gHMNs5iE [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvKVE6rLI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvKVE6rLI0 [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g72KE8dmjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g72KE8dmjc [7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQnPWjK5pE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQnPWjK5pE
- samatman 4y agoWhile this is of course reductive, my counterexample is cosmetics and women's fashion generally, I'm happy to agree where internet services are concerned.