3 ms·

That assumes that advertising has no harmful effect, but would it be the same if one said "living in a heavily air polluted city is better than being homeless"

That assumes that advertising has no harmful effect, but would it be the same if one said "living in a heavily air polluted city is better than being homeless" or similar?

FredPret 3y ago
And let me guess - you are going to be the judge of which ads are how harmful, and which air is safe to breathe? That is authoritarian. Let people decide for themselves. I promise they are capable of making the right choices.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > That is authoritarian. Let people decide for themselves. I promise they are capable of making the right choices. Who is making which choice, exactly? I don't get to decide which adverts are presented to me. Best I can do is install ad blockers and get almost all of them… or campaign for laws. Governments already have some rules about what is and isn't allowed in advertising, and block certain categories entirely — for example, the UK bans all cigarette advertising everywhere. I don't know about the USA; I assume liquor and gambling have some rules, but that's just an assumption.
- throwbadubadu 3y ago
  All undesired&unwanted attention grabbing ones, simple. If one opts in to getting an overview of new things, or just trash, that's fine (so yeah, I think also all in public spaces). Personally, I really don't ever needed and will ever need them. I'd prefer just going for good objective test magazines / trusted reviews / known people recommendations if I have the need for something. Yes, that's just my view and personal dream ;) Anyway, the industry so far imo just brings >95% harm and bad and unnecessary stuff over humanity, and grabs my attention unasked everywhere, even where I kind of didn't opt in. What btw about laws where certain advertisements were forbidden, e.g. alcohol or tobacco, or lottery, also in western countries.. that's not authoritarian but protecting children, right at least?
olalonde 3y ago
Your analogy suggests that people often choose the lesser of two evils, which I agree with. If advertising is indeed "harmful", yet people still prefer it over paying, it suggests that the financial burden of paying might be perceived as more "harmful" to them. Similarly, in your analogy, people might choose to reside in a polluted city rather than face homelessness, as they perceive the latter to be more "harmful".
whimsicalism 3y ago
I don’t see the relevance of the analogy but it is also clearly true that living in the air polluted city is better than being homeless, so I really don’t get your point.

That assumes that advertising has no harmful effect, but would it be the same if one said "living in a heavily air polluted city is better than being homeless" or similar?

FredPret 3y ago

And let me guess - you are going to be the judge of which ads are how harmful, and which air is safe to breathe? That is authoritarian. Let people decide for themselves. I promise they are capable of making the right choices.

ben_w 3y ago
> That is authoritarian. Let people decide for themselves. I promise they are capable of making the right choices. Who is making which choice, exactly? I don't get to decide which adverts are presented to me. Best I can do is install ad blockers and get almost all of them… or campaign for laws. Governments already have some rules about what is and isn't allowed in advertising, and block certain categories entirely — for example, the UK bans all cigarette advertising everywhere. I don't know about the USA; I assume liquor and gambling have some rules, but that's just an assumption.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
All undesired&unwanted attention grabbing ones, simple. If one opts in to getting an overview of new things, or just trash, that's fine (so yeah, I think also all in public spaces). Personally, I really don't ever needed and will ever need them. I'd prefer just going for good objective test magazines / trusted reviews / known people recommendations if I have the need for something. Yes, that's just my view and personal dream ;) Anyway, the industry so far imo just brings >95% harm and bad and unnecessary stuff over humanity, and grabs my attention unasked everywhere, even where I kind of didn't opt in. What btw about laws where certain advertisements were forbidden, e.g. alcohol or tobacco, or lottery, also in western countries.. that's not authoritarian but protecting children, right at least?

olalonde 3y ago

Your analogy suggests that people often choose the lesser of two evils, which I agree with. If advertising is indeed "harmful", yet people still prefer it over paying, it suggests that the financial burden of paying might be perceived as more "harmful" to them. Similarly, in your analogy, people might choose to reside in a polluted city rather than face homelessness, as they perceive the latter to be more "harmful".

whimsicalism 3y ago

I don’t see the relevance of the analogy but it is also clearly true that living in the air polluted city is better than being homeless, so I really don’t get your point.