> I've never followed this line of reasoning. The whole point of ads is to introduce you to products you might want. It's not manipulative. It's "Hey! Check out

> I've never followed this line of reasoning. The whole point of ads is to introduce you to products you might want. It's not manipulative. It's "Hey! Check out this cool new thing." Followed by "Oh neat, that thing solves a problem or desire I have" I disagree. The whole point of advertisements is to connect buyers with sellers. Which does not at all indicate the authenticity or honesty of the transaction. If you had no morals but you could put an ad up that made people immediately buy your product, would it not still be an ad? There's obviously all sorts of guard rails to advertisements that we have in practice or can theorize about. From deceptive ads to brain-hacks, ads are just a form of media and they can take all shapes and sizes. Hell, i'd be more open to the idea of ads if they were just what you said. Instead it's a very adversarial relationship where they don't just want to make sure i know Coke exists, but to trick my brain into wanting Coke. This isn't a knowledge transfer it's an attempt at dopamine and association. You're Pavlov's dog and they hold the bell in this experiment. Which is not an argument against all advertisements. Merely stating that it's not as clean cut and free of manipulation as you suggest.