6 ms·
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads. I do. Ads are psychological manip
by tristor 3y ago
> If you don't think that all ads are bad, then I think you may agree that sometimes, ad targeting produces more useful ads.
I do. Ads are psychological manipulation at scale. This well predates the Internet, even. Advertisements and marketing are immoral. As long as we have them though, I will concede that better targeted ads are sometimes better than non-targeted ads. However, I believe targeting does not need to be personal to be effective, it can be based on the content the ad is placed next to, rather than the individual visiting and be equally as effective without necessitating spying.
As it stands, at best ads are malware, at worst they are concentrated form of social evil.
- endisneigh 3y agoAds are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. Your entire post is FUD. What form is communication that is disseminated at scale not "psychological manipulation at scale?"
- SenAnder 3y agoDo you believe all words are equally manipulative? That if we categorize speech by funding and intent, no category would be more manipulative than any other?
- endisneigh 3y agoyou're moving the goalposts. I didn't say anything about magnitudes, just that communication is inherently manipulative.
- regentbowerbird 3y ago> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. "no more" in your sentence implies the impact is roughly the same (not that I agree with your premise that all communication is manipulation, unless your definition of "manipulation" is so vast as to be useless).
- endisneigh 3y agoNo more does not imply equality, just that it's not greater than, which is simply the truth. Advertisements are not inherently more manipulative than words in general. If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure.
- tristor 3y ago> If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure. What do you think advertising is? It's propaganda for a product.
- endisneigh 3y agoNo, it is not. Advertising could be propaganda, but it is not inherently so.
- generic92034 3y agoNope. You did say: > Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general. This is a statement about magnitudes and in my estimation the statement is mostly wrong.
- endisneigh 3y agoit's not right or wrong. is paid poster in a college dorm hall - an advertisement - more or less manipulative than Trump's January 6th tweets? If you have evidence to suggest that advertisements are inherently more manipulative than other types of communication feel free to share.
- generic92034 3y agoYou have weighed "words in general" against ads. For me that is comparing an average with those ads. The average of generally used words/speech is very, very far from Trump's tweets and similar communication, IMHO.
- johnnyworker 3y agoThat's so wide it says nothing. It's not even a soccer field, much less a goal post.
- scrps 3y agoPeople having a visceral hate of advertising and a vast swath of the internet's users block them in every permutation because advertising is good for ones mental health? Car ads selling sex appeal, power, status and freedom are provable features of the car? Same goes for influencers pushing products, submarine marketing, etc... It is all psychology and it is manipulation at scale. Words at scale designed to manipulate people into doing something is psychological.
- xmprt 3y agoPeople block ads because they like to have control over the content they see. Not because of this nebulous fear of manipulation. If ad blocking was made impossible tomorrow then I'd learn other ways to tune out advertisements. It's because ads are boring and intrusive. Not because they're manipulative.
- scrps 3y agoI can only speak for myself but I block advertising because I find no utility in them in any form. I am curious what others reasons are?
- Given_47 3y agoTin foil hat time: I've started writing down companies behind ads that happen to slip through my defenses that are obnoxious/offensive/etc. Because, as you mention, so much of advertising is psychological manipulation. It'll be helpful to have a list of offenders to reference to before making a purchase for example. The idea occurred to me after someone here proclaimed that they're simply unaffected by ads, reasoning they don't make rash purchases. Someone naturally countered with the extreme subconscious effect of ads. This list thing is imperfect (I mean look how omnipresent car logos are for example) but it's an improvement from thinking you're immune to ads. Memory is fickle, and why Memento is my favorite movie.
- tristor 3y agoWords in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome by the end of the ad spot. Advertisements are. Words in general don't go through endless focus grouping and internal company debate to ensure the exact choice of words, tone of voice and cadence in uttering them, elicit the correct emotional response. Advertisements do. You are being disingenuous in your response to me and trying to set up a strawman. I realize a lot of highly paid tech workers on HN work in adtech or adtech-adjacent. It's even helped to pay my salary at different points in my career. It doesn't change the fact of the matter. The /entire point/ of advertisements is to psychologically manipulate the person viewing the ad. That is immoral, full stop.
- endisneigh 3y agoEverything you're saying can be applied to journalism. Is journalism immoral? Give me a break.
- tristor 3y agoSome "journalism" is immoral, most of which falls into that category effectively /are/ advertisements being put into the public eye under the cover of journalism. You are painting so broad a brush in order to create a fundamental category error in your constructed straw man. You might fool others, but your argument holds no sway with me because it is utterly inane and transparent for what it is. If you cannot articulate an actual point in response to me, I'd advise barking up another tree.
- endisneigh 3y agoYou presented a very concrete set of attributes that you call immoral. > Words in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome I have presented something, journalism, that does the same things. You claim that some journalism is not immoral which is true. It must follow for the same reason that some advertisements are not immoral either. Seems like you don't have an actual argument - posting on a Y Combinator MARKETING page, no less.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gambiting 3y ago>>Advertisements and marketing are immoral. So if you are selling something it's literally immoral to tell other people about it? How do you think people will ever find your store or product that you make? Just randomly stumble upon it? I'm genuinely curious.
- Nullabillity 3y agoWho do you think the current system of "biggest malvertising budget wins" favours? Who do you think can afford those massive budgets?
- gambiting 3y agoI don't see how that's relevant to my question. OP said that all advertising is immoral, I wonder if they really mean ALL advertising.
- charcircuit 3y ago>Who do you think can afford those massive budgets? Businesses that sell a lot of products that people actually want and do not end up returning. The money for advertising is not sustainable if it doesn't result in some sort of purchase down the line.
- chromoblob 3y agoA business can also subsidize adverts for "bad" products by profit from "good" products.
- xyzelement 3y agoNobody would intentionally chose to do that...
- chromoblob 3y agoWhy? Looks pretty imaginable to me.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoThere is no solid line separating ads from other content. What about a positive review for a game? Is that not an ad because the reviewer wasn’t paid? But what if they got the game for free? Or what if their job relies on access provided by the game company (an indirect form of compensation)? There are many other examples. It’s much more a matter of degree than just saying “ads bad”.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> But what if they got the game for free? Or what if their job relies on access provided by the game company (an indirect form of compensation)? Yes, that's a well-established conflict of interest which is why there's supposed to be disclaimers whenever it happens
- endisneigh 3y agoIronically what you are suggesting here would erode privacy.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoHow so?
- endisneigh 3y agounless you can uniquely identify people such disclaimers would be ineffective and useless. for example what if I were paid to say something? how would you know if I were paid or not? if it's the honor system, then that'll trend to no disclosure to begin with - that's exactly why shilling is a thing, and why it'll never stop.
- jzb 3y ago"Advertisements and marketing are immoral." That's quite a position. Are you also taking the position that capitalism and commerce are immoral? Because you really can't have those things absent marketing. At any rate, I can't agree with this. The way that ads/marketing are done can be immoral, for sure -- but you also have PSAs against littering or simply marketing / advertising for any number of things that I'd hope we'd all agree are good ("Spay and neuter your pets," "Don't drink & drive") or at worst neutral ("Now available: The Beatles 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper CD"). Promoting a thing is not the same thing as "psychological manipulation" unless you consider "making a person or persons aware of something" is manipulation. One might even argue that marketing is a good when the thing is something that people benefit from being aware of. Is marketing open source immoral? Fitness, as a concept? Ads for animal adoption are immoral? At any rate - ads are a symptom of consumerism and capitalism, so as long as that's the system we exist in they're going to be present.
- arpa 3y agoWow, man, your mental gymnastics are impressive and your gaslighting skills are formidable. Are you saying that greed and straight-out lying is moral, and just because there is a powerful and dangerous minority of super-greedy liars it actually is the only means of social existence? LOL. LMAO even. "Ads are just making people aware of something" is either a five-year old understanding of what ads are, or a deliberate lie.
- arpa 3y agoI wish I could upvote you more. I too think that advertisements are at best unethical, at worst downright evil. Just like organized religion, the ads are designed to distort the perceived reality into something that it isn't and part the fool and their money.