4 ms·

> That’s considered a radical stance I don’t think so. I think business wants us to feel that way, while the average person would choose to not hear/watch/see

by dahart 3y ago

> That’s considered a radical stance I don’t think so. I think business wants us to feel that way, while the average person would choose to not hear/watch/see ads given the choice. I’m not necessarily against advertising, and regardless it’s a fact that advertising drives our economy and as a whole we generally don’t know how to create and conduct business without advertising. But I am against the notion that not wanting ads is a radical stance. I think we do need to prevent that notion from being normalized. Business doesn’t get to expect me to watch ads or make me feel guilty or like a freak for not wanting them. They have to work for it. I say this as someone who has run a business and had to do advertising, and as someone who has never worked for a company or organization that doesn’t advertise.

usefulcat 3y ago
> it’s a fact that advertising drives our economy Is it really though? I could believe that advertising does incentivize people to buy things that they otherwise might not. But OTOH, if there were no advertising, people would still spend money, just differently. It's not as though people are going to start lighting money on fire in the absence of advertising.
- dahart 3y ago
  I think so, in part. To be clear I’m not claiming it’s the only driver, nor the largest, but it’s undeniably large nonetheless. Consider that Google’s entire search existence is funded by ads, and there’s loads of competition. Basically all of TV and a lot of online streaming is ad funded. Magazines and radio and print media all get large portions of revenue via ads. I agree people would still spend money in a world without ads, but we don’t currently have that world, right?
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    The things you mention are media, and that world is heavily loaded with advertising. Other industries have it but it isn’t attention whoring trash, it’s more subtle. The free coffee at a conference, the rep dropping by to say hello. The brand name on the pens. The strong views against advertising are a very logical reaction to the obnoxious methods used.
    - dahart 3y ago
      Yep totally agree. This is part of why I’m not against all advertising, and you’re also highlighting reasons why we shouldn’t allow being against the invasive media ads to be framed as or considered to be a radical stance.

by dahart 3y ago

usefulcat 3y ago

> it’s a fact that advertising drives our economy Is it really though? I could believe that advertising does incentivize people to buy things that they otherwise might not. But OTOH, if there were no advertising, people would still spend money, just differently. It's not as though people are going to start lighting money on fire in the absence of advertising.

dahart 3y ago
I think so, in part. To be clear I’m not claiming it’s the only driver, nor the largest, but it’s undeniably large nonetheless. Consider that Google’s entire search existence is funded by ads, and there’s loads of competition. Basically all of TV and a lot of online streaming is ad funded. Magazines and radio and print media all get large portions of revenue via ads. I agree people would still spend money in a world without ads, but we don’t currently have that world, right?
- lostlogin 3y ago
  The things you mention are media, and that world is heavily loaded with advertising. Other industries have it but it isn’t attention whoring trash, it’s more subtle. The free coffee at a conference, the rep dropping by to say hello. The brand name on the pens. The strong views against advertising are a very logical reaction to the obnoxious methods used.
  - dahart 3y ago
    Yep totally agree. This is part of why I’m not against all advertising, and you’re also highlighting reasons why we shouldn’t allow being against the invasive media ads to be framed as or considered to be a radical stance.