5 ms·

> Ads are immoral How do you justify this claim? How can advertising your product to attract customers be morally wrong?

crop_rotation 3y ago
I think the commenter meant "targeted advertising" which is the norm on the Internet.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  I meant all forms of advertising but surveillance capitalism backed targeted advertising is certainly one of its worst forms.
nullc 3y ago
I'll argue the case here though I go back and forth how strongly I hold this view. Ads are immoral because modern advertising is carefully engineered brainwashing, often filled with factually incorrect claims (which are legally permitted as "hyperbole"). Beyond creating demand for products that the viewer would be better off without the brainwashing component in many often damages the viewers level of personal satisfaction or feelings of self worth by playing to their insecurities or creating unrealistic comparisons (which by implication or claim the purchase will cure). Because of this advertising can be negative sum -- anytime the benefit of introducing someone to the product is outweighed by the harm created by the effort to convince the user they need it. For example, ads for things you can't afford can create longing that can't be answered, yet don't provide you the benefit of the good (or the seller the benefit of the sale!). One can construct advertising which is harder to fault morally, but because its less effective its generally outbid by things further over on the brainwashing spectrum. Even where the ad can't be describe as brainwashing unless its in a catalogue of goods or similar, the user wasn't looking for it right now and so by forcing them to watch it you're taking their time. Because copyright creates a monopoly for goods, the user often doesn't have the opportunity to choose instead "similar to X but with less time wasting ads". Since the user is denied a practical alternative (other than a costly 'go without entirely') you cannot say that their consent to view the advertisement was freely given -- and consent not freely given isn't valid. As such, even a brainwashing free advertisement is ethically dubious because its stealing the user's time.
- patrakov 3y ago
  > One can construct advertising which is harder to fault morally, but because its less effective its generally outbid by things further over on the brainwashing spectrum. I think there exists a solution, but it is a hard sell. Ads by themselves are not inherently immoral. On the contrary, paid promotions performed by the person who is doing the show are part of the show, and, if done in good faith by a well-known and trusted person, can be considered a credible endorsement of the products being promoted. A relevant and creative promotion will not be skipped over even when there is such choice. There are people who make mediocre/misleading/fraudulent/infected/immoral ads - this is one root of the evil, and the second root lies in creators willingly giving up part of the screen time to the content that they have no control over and that, realistically, no human other than the potentially-malicious advertisement author has approved for airing. You are right that good ads are generally outbid by things further over on the brainwashing spectrum. So, it's bidding on ads that were not reviewed by relevant humans that's the problem. Idea of a solution: make creators that want to profit from ads watch these ads and approve the best ones for their audience. Don't run unapproved ads no matter how high they bid. The place where this fails is the extra amount of work shifted onto creators: it's too much work to watch let's say 50 ads that the algorithm thinks are relevant, in order to select the best 5, so that only they are rotated.
  - aembleton 3y ago
    There's also the issue of the ad using a different language to the one that the creator knows about or an ad talking about a product they're not familiar with. I guess they could just not approve of any of those ads but if their income plummets they might be tempted to start approving them
matheusmoreira 3y ago
I justify it by stating that my attention belongs to me. No one is entitled to it. My attention is not a currency that can be used to pay for products. It doesn't belong to the corporation and it absolutely isn't something they can sell off to the highest bidder. I choose what to pay attention to. Anyone and anything that grabs my attention without my consent is violating my boundaries. Advertising's entire business model consists of mind raping people for profit. Forcibly injecting their little brands, slogans, ideas into people's minds whether they want it or not. It increases revenue so everyone is heavily incentivized to consider it legitimate. Well I don't consider that activity to be legitimate at all. Ad blocker? It's just self defense. I don't lose any sleep over it and neither should anyone else.
- MrZander 3y ago
  If someone taps you on the shoulder, they are performing an immoral action by grabbing your attention? I think you have an irrationally radical take on this. I can understand disdain for targeted or excessive and intrusive ads -- I use an ad blocker too. But to say that advertising as a whole is immoral seems overblown. What constitutes an ad? Can I put a yellow label on my can of beans I sell, or is that too vibrant and might catch your eye in the supermarket? Should all products and signage be black/white to protect your delicate attention span?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > If someone taps you on the shoulder, they are performing an immoral action by grabbing your attention? My boundaries aren't so strict when it comes to my personal space. People usually have good reasons to call my attention when they tap my shoulders. I just don't get advertised to when I turn around to greet them. Usually they want to ask me a question or simply socialize. People don't like to be rude. They don't like to bother others without good reason. They want the social activity to be a positive experience so that they will be accepted by others. That's the social norm and it protects me from abuses such as random people tapping me on the shoulder for idiotic reasons such as advertising. You'd have to be some kind of sociopath to think it's okay to tap someone on the shoulders and start pushing products at them the second they turn around. Mercifully, people that bold just don't seem to exist in my social circles. > you have an irrationally radical take on this Radical? OK. Nothing wrong with being radical. Compromise is the root of all evil. Irrational? No. I spent a lot of time thinking about this. If you want to claim I'm irrational, you need to refute everything I've said to the point it looks like I'm babbling incoherently. > But to say that advertising as a whole is immoral seems overblown. Not at all. Advertising is by definition information people didn't ask for. It's noise, to be filtered. It's audiovisual pollution. > What constitutes an ad? Information I did not seek out. For example, when I open this web site, it's because I want to read and post comments. I don't come here to look at products. If HN starts sending me ads for products I'll block them. > Can I put a yellow label on my can of beans I sell, or is that too vibrant and might catch your eye in the supermarket? If I go to the supermarket, it's because I want to buy products. If I open an app store, it's because I want to see apps. It's okay to show me the stuff. The key point here is I asked for it. I don't even consider it advertising in that case. It's just the information I wanted. > Show Should all products and signage be black/white to protect your delicate attention span? In my country there's laws in certain cities to that effect. I think it's pretty great. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa
aio2 3y ago
Ads are kinda a waste of time, and in case you didn't know, humans have very limited time.

crop_rotation 3y ago

I think the commenter meant "targeted advertising" which is the norm on the Internet.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
I meant all forms of advertising but surveillance capitalism backed targeted advertising is certainly one of its worst forms.

nullc 3y ago

I'll argue the case here though I go back and forth how strongly I hold this view. Ads are immoral because modern advertising is carefully engineered brainwashing, often filled with factually incorrect claims (which are legally permitted as "hyperbole"). Beyond creating demand for products that the viewer would be better off without the brainwashing component in many often damages the viewers level of personal satisfaction or feelings of self worth by playing to their insecurities or creating unrealistic comparisons (which by implication or claim the purchase will cure). Because of this advertising can be negative sum -- anytime the benefit of introducing someone to the product is outweighed by the harm created by the effort to convince the user they need it. For example, ads for things you can't afford can create longing that can't be answered, yet don't provide you the benefit of the good (or the seller the benefit of the sale!). One can construct advertising which is harder to fault morally, but because its less effective its generally outbid by things further over on the brainwashing spectrum. Even where the ad can't be describe as brainwashing unless its in a catalogue of goods or similar, the user wasn't looking for it right now and so by forcing them to watch it you're taking their time. Because copyright creates a monopoly for goods, the user often doesn't have the opportunity to choose instead "similar to X but with less time wasting ads". Since the user is denied a practical alternative (other than a costly 'go without entirely') you cannot say that their consent to view the advertisement was freely given -- and consent not freely given isn't valid. As such, even a brainwashing free advertisement is ethically dubious because its stealing the user's time.

patrakov 3y ago
> One can construct advertising which is harder to fault morally, but because its less effective its generally outbid by things further over on the brainwashing spectrum. I think there exists a solution, but it is a hard sell. Ads by themselves are not inherently immoral. On the contrary, paid promotions performed by the person who is doing the show are part of the show, and, if done in good faith by a well-known and trusted person, can be considered a credible endorsement of the products being promoted. A relevant and creative promotion will not be skipped over even when there is such choice. There are people who make mediocre/misleading/fraudulent/infected/immoral ads - this is one root of the evil, and the second root lies in creators willingly giving up part of the screen time to the content that they have no control over and that, realistically, no human other than the potentially-malicious advertisement author has approved for airing. You are right that good ads are generally outbid by things further over on the brainwashing spectrum. So, it's bidding on ads that were not reviewed by relevant humans that's the problem. Idea of a solution: make creators that want to profit from ads watch these ads and approve the best ones for their audience. Don't run unapproved ads no matter how high they bid. The place where this fails is the extra amount of work shifted onto creators: it's too much work to watch let's say 50 ads that the algorithm thinks are relevant, in order to select the best 5, so that only they are rotated.
- aembleton 3y ago
  There's also the issue of the ad using a different language to the one that the creator knows about or an ad talking about a product they're not familiar with. I guess they could just not approve of any of those ads but if their income plummets they might be tempted to start approving them

matheusmoreira 3y ago

I justify it by stating that my attention belongs to me. No one is entitled to it. My attention is not a currency that can be used to pay for products. It doesn't belong to the corporation and it absolutely isn't something they can sell off to the highest bidder. I choose what to pay attention to. Anyone and anything that grabs my attention without my consent is violating my boundaries. Advertising's entire business model consists of mind raping people for profit. Forcibly injecting their little brands, slogans, ideas into people's minds whether they want it or not. It increases revenue so everyone is heavily incentivized to consider it legitimate. Well I don't consider that activity to be legitimate at all. Ad blocker? It's just self defense. I don't lose any sleep over it and neither should anyone else.

MrZander 3y ago
If someone taps you on the shoulder, they are performing an immoral action by grabbing your attention? I think you have an irrationally radical take on this. I can understand disdain for targeted or excessive and intrusive ads -- I use an ad blocker too. But to say that advertising as a whole is immoral seems overblown. What constitutes an ad? Can I put a yellow label on my can of beans I sell, or is that too vibrant and might catch your eye in the supermarket? Should all products and signage be black/white to protect your delicate attention span?
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > If someone taps you on the shoulder, they are performing an immoral action by grabbing your attention? My boundaries aren't so strict when it comes to my personal space. People usually have good reasons to call my attention when they tap my shoulders. I just don't get advertised to when I turn around to greet them. Usually they want to ask me a question or simply socialize. People don't like to be rude. They don't like to bother others without good reason. They want the social activity to be a positive experience so that they will be accepted by others. That's the social norm and it protects me from abuses such as random people tapping me on the shoulder for idiotic reasons such as advertising. You'd have to be some kind of sociopath to think it's okay to tap someone on the shoulders and start pushing products at them the second they turn around. Mercifully, people that bold just don't seem to exist in my social circles. > you have an irrationally radical take on this Radical? OK. Nothing wrong with being radical. Compromise is the root of all evil. Irrational? No. I spent a lot of time thinking about this. If you want to claim I'm irrational, you need to refute everything I've said to the point it looks like I'm babbling incoherently. > But to say that advertising as a whole is immoral seems overblown. Not at all. Advertising is by definition information people didn't ask for. It's noise, to be filtered. It's audiovisual pollution. > What constitutes an ad? Information I did not seek out. For example, when I open this web site, it's because I want to read and post comments. I don't come here to look at products. If HN starts sending me ads for products I'll block them. > Can I put a yellow label on my can of beans I sell, or is that too vibrant and might catch your eye in the supermarket? If I go to the supermarket, it's because I want to buy products. If I open an app store, it's because I want to see apps. It's okay to show me the stuff. The key point here is I asked for it. I don't even consider it advertising in that case. It's just the information I wanted. > Show Should all products and signage be black/white to protect your delicate attention span? In my country there's laws in certain cities to that effect. I think it's pretty great. https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

aio2 3y ago

Ads are kinda a waste of time, and in case you didn't know, humans have very limited time.