4 ms·

I guess we disagree on whether advertising goods and services to people should be considered a crime.

by akoboldfrying 3y ago

SoftTalker 3y ago
Advertising no. Tracking individuals and building profiles about them across the web, much less clear, probably yes.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  I feel similarly, though I also think that, provided the intent to track and profile-build is made clear to users up-front before they opt in to using something, the onus shifts to them (the user). (OTOH if that intention is conveyed in p. 37 of an EULA in dense legalese, it seems clearly designed to swamp the user. I'd like to see a lot more attention paid to this in legal circles.)
matheusmoreira 3y ago
We do. I think advertising of all kinds should be illegal. I consider it to be a form of mind rape when they forcibly insert their brands and products into my mind without my consent.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  > mind rape I'll bite. Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
  - civilitty 3y ago
    > Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? I'll bite: yes. If you show me images of goatse or mutilated bodies in a war zone without my consent that’s mind rape. Same with bring politics forcibly into the workplace, showing Fox News (or MSNBC or whatever) at the bbq joint while I’m trying to eat or at the gym while I’m trying to exercise, or screaming at me in protest while I’m trying to access family planning services. Just like women have the right to walk down the street in whatever clothing they want without getting raped, I have the right to experience the world without constantly being bombarded by commercial and political mind rape. > If not, where do you personally draw the line? Consent is implicit via set and setting. If you want to challenge peoples viewpoints go to college or start a poker night with a bunch of philosophically diverse neighbors who like to argue politics. If you want to shove ads down everyone's throat, go join an influencer support group. Everyone else deserves to live free from constant mental assault. > And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case? Judges, the people who interpret laws.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      > I have the right to experience the world without constantly being bombarded by commercial and political mind rape. Exactly. Our minds are sacred.
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      >Just like women have the right to walk down the street in whatever clothing they want without getting raped Do men, and lesbian and bisexual women, have the right to walk down the street without seeing a woman dressed in a way they find distracting? I think you will say that they have no such right. But if so: What makes this form of attention-grabbing behaviour (wearing a skimpy dress) acceptable, and the other form (advertising) unacceptable? This example highlights that (a) we are, in fact, capable of managing distractions to quite some degree, and (b) in both cases there is another party involved whose interests oppose our own, but whose rights nevertheless also need to be considered.
  - dcow 3y ago
    So, I think there’s a massive difference between ads in de-facto public spaces where consent is impossible, and ads in an environment where there’s full affirmative consent. Billboards on a highway: mind rape.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Not at all. I draw the line at consent. Nothing wrong with HN showing me your comments. I came here to see comments. If they started showing up while I'm watching a video somewhere else I would feel violated and swiftly block them. Nothing wrong with showing me products when I open a store app. That's what I opened the app to see. Showing me products while I'm trying to read an article is a violation. Advertising is by definition noise. Superfluous. Information I did not ask for. Irrelevant stuff that someone paid money to put in front of me. Information I explicitly ask for is not advertising, it's simply information. My cognitive functions are inalienable, they are not theirs to sell to the highest bidder, nor are they currency to pay for services with. I have attention deficit disorder. It's hard enough for me to focus without these corporations trying to grab my attention. I consider their attempts to do so a violation of my personal integrity. I consider ad blocking to be justified self-defense. I will literally do everything in my power to avoid looking at ads.
    - seabass-labrax 3y ago
      Most online advertisements are as intrusive from a mental attention perspective as a door-to-door salesman is intrusive from a personal space perspective. Yet, the former is somehow considered acceptable even in societies where the latter is completely taboo. I always try to make sure my online contributions are worthy of the valuable attention of their readers they take up.
- superdug 3y ago
  Therein lies the rub (or more precisely the problem) advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil. Taking into account that the onus of every advertisement is to entice you to do something that you may have otherwise not considered we still do not negate the need for an advertisement to be evil. Now, you may very well be enticed to do something that is not in absolutely everyone’s best interests in mind, which does indeed qualify as evil. And I believe we agree that there are far too many advertisements prevalent that are indeed evil when referring specifically towards advertisements on a digital medium. So I think that the argument is valid that ending all advertising would ultimately prevent all evil advertising it would also prevent any not evil advertising from ever happening as well. Now again, that may be perfectly acceptable to you, your argument that advertising should not happen at all isn’t really practical for absolutely everyone who does or doesn’t support your absolute opinion on advertisements, as contrary to you, but they want you to simply affirm that their opinion is not absolutely based on them supporting the evil ads that you both abhor.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is but I'll respond to this: > advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil Advertising has inherent and irreconciliable conflicts of interest that make it worthless to any rational person. They're trying to sell you stuff, it's literally guaranteed that they will be overstating the pros and downplaying the cons. When you want to make an informed decision, the last person you want to listen to is the advertiser. You want to listen to people you personally trust or independent third parties, not the seller who has every incentive in the world to lie to you. Therefore the existence of advertising is incompatible with a rational society. There is no such thing as "non-evil" advertising. It doesn't inform anyone. On the contrary: it is disinformation, inherently untrustworthy.
    - superdug 3y ago
      But again, why is selling stuff abhorred by you as an absolute. A transaction which is facilitated by money is the key component to guaranteed assertion that a single valued skill can be exercised for any good or service at any time so long as everyone agrees that the compensation is fair and reasonable by all concerned parties. It’s one of fundamental components of an interdependent system that furthers the entire race at the same time and regulates itself to follow the current definition of justice needed to ensure continued success of all parties involved. As progress moves forward so then does the equality shared benefit of a longer and more fulfilling existence than would have otherwise been impossible.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > I consider it to be a form of mind rape when they forcibly insert their brands and products into my mind without my consent. We aren't talking about a Clockwork Orange type of scneario. You're trivialising real rape when you refer to easily avoidable online-advertising. Your mind "rape" is in no way or form analogous to rape.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Rape is violation of the body without consent. My mind is part of my body. I feel violated.
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > Rape is violation of the body without consent. No, it isn't. It's defined in terms of penetration. Both legal definitions and dictionary definitions. If your argument depends on a word having a different meaning from the dictionary definition, it's your argument that is wrong, not the dictionary. > My mind is part of my body. I feel violated. Violation is not rape.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
        We're arguing dictionary definitions now? > define rape > The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. > "the rape of Europa by Zeus." > The act of pillaging or plundering. > "the rape of the city by the invaders." > Abusive or improper treatment; spoiling or abuse. > "the rape of the land by polluters." Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there.
        lelanthran 3y ago
        > Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there. Well, when there is you can claim your argument doesn't trivialise rape. Until then your claim is baseless.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Can we call it nonconsensual ideation? Maybe that can be workshopped into something less wordy? Mind rape is too off-putting to generate good discussion, imho.

I guess we disagree on whether advertising goods and services to people should be considered a crime.

SoftTalker 3y ago

Advertising no. Tracking individuals and building profiles about them across the web, much less clear, probably yes.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
I feel similarly, though I also think that, provided the intent to track and profile-build is made clear to users up-front before they opt in to using something, the onus shifts to them (the user). (OTOH if that intention is conveyed in p. 37 of an EULA in dense legalese, it seems clearly designed to swamp the user. I'd like to see a lot more attention paid to this in legal circles.)

matheusmoreira 3y ago

We do. I think advertising of all kinds should be illegal. I consider it to be a form of mind rape when they forcibly insert their brands and products into my mind without my consent.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
> mind rape I'll bite. Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
- civilitty 3y ago
  > Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? I'll bite: yes. If you show me images of goatse or mutilated bodies in a war zone without my consent that’s mind rape. Same with bring politics forcibly into the workplace, showing Fox News (or MSNBC or whatever) at the bbq joint while I’m trying to eat or at the gym while I’m trying to exercise, or screaming at me in protest while I’m trying to access family planning services. Just like women have the right to walk down the street in whatever clothing they want without getting raped, I have the right to experience the world without constantly being bombarded by commercial and political mind rape. > If not, where do you personally draw the line? Consent is implicit via set and setting. If you want to challenge peoples viewpoints go to college or start a poker night with a bunch of philosophically diverse neighbors who like to argue politics. If you want to shove ads down everyone's throat, go join an influencer support group. Everyone else deserves to live free from constant mental assault. > And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case? Judges, the people who interpret laws.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > I have the right to experience the world without constantly being bombarded by commercial and political mind rape. Exactly. Our minds are sacred.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    >Just like women have the right to walk down the street in whatever clothing they want without getting raped Do men, and lesbian and bisexual women, have the right to walk down the street without seeing a woman dressed in a way they find distracting? I think you will say that they have no such right. But if so: What makes this form of attention-grabbing behaviour (wearing a skimpy dress) acceptable, and the other form (advertising) unacceptable? This example highlights that (a) we are, in fact, capable of managing distractions to quite some degree, and (b) in both cases there is another party involved whose interests oppose our own, but whose rights nevertheless also need to be considered.
- dcow 3y ago
  So, I think there’s a massive difference between ads in de-facto public spaces where consent is impossible, and ads in an environment where there’s full affirmative consent. Billboards on a highway: mind rape.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Not at all. I draw the line at consent. Nothing wrong with HN showing me your comments. I came here to see comments. If they started showing up while I'm watching a video somewhere else I would feel violated and swiftly block them. Nothing wrong with showing me products when I open a store app. That's what I opened the app to see. Showing me products while I'm trying to read an article is a violation. Advertising is by definition noise. Superfluous. Information I did not ask for. Irrelevant stuff that someone paid money to put in front of me. Information I explicitly ask for is not advertising, it's simply information. My cognitive functions are inalienable, they are not theirs to sell to the highest bidder, nor are they currency to pay for services with. I have attention deficit disorder. It's hard enough for me to focus without these corporations trying to grab my attention. I consider their attempts to do so a violation of my personal integrity. I consider ad blocking to be justified self-defense. I will literally do everything in my power to avoid looking at ads.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    Most online advertisements are as intrusive from a mental attention perspective as a door-to-door salesman is intrusive from a personal space perspective. Yet, the former is somehow considered acceptable even in societies where the latter is completely taboo. I always try to make sure my online contributions are worthy of the valuable attention of their readers they take up.
superdug 3y ago
Therein lies the rub (or more precisely the problem) advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil. Taking into account that the onus of every advertisement is to entice you to do something that you may have otherwise not considered we still do not negate the need for an advertisement to be evil. Now, you may very well be enticed to do something that is not in absolutely everyone’s best interests in mind, which does indeed qualify as evil. And I believe we agree that there are far too many advertisements prevalent that are indeed evil when referring specifically towards advertisements on a digital medium. So I think that the argument is valid that ending all advertising would ultimately prevent all evil advertising it would also prevent any not evil advertising from ever happening as well. Now again, that may be perfectly acceptable to you, your argument that advertising should not happen at all isn’t really practical for absolutely everyone who does or doesn’t support your absolute opinion on advertisements, as contrary to you, but they want you to simply affirm that their opinion is not absolutely based on them supporting the evil ads that you both abhor.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is but I'll respond to this: > advertising at its core does _NOT_ have to be evil Advertising has inherent and irreconciliable conflicts of interest that make it worthless to any rational person. They're trying to sell you stuff, it's literally guaranteed that they will be overstating the pros and downplaying the cons. When you want to make an informed decision, the last person you want to listen to is the advertiser. You want to listen to people you personally trust or independent third parties, not the seller who has every incentive in the world to lie to you. Therefore the existence of advertising is incompatible with a rational society. There is no such thing as "non-evil" advertising. It doesn't inform anyone. On the contrary: it is disinformation, inherently untrustworthy.
  - superdug 3y ago
    But again, why is selling stuff abhorred by you as an absolute. A transaction which is facilitated by money is the key component to guaranteed assertion that a single valued skill can be exercised for any good or service at any time so long as everyone agrees that the compensation is fair and reasonable by all concerned parties. It’s one of fundamental components of an interdependent system that furthers the entire race at the same time and regulates itself to follow the current definition of justice needed to ensure continued success of all parties involved. As progress moves forward so then does the equality shared benefit of a longer and more fulfilling existence than would have otherwise been impossible.
lelanthran 3y ago
> I consider it to be a form of mind rape when they forcibly insert their brands and products into my mind without my consent. We aren't talking about a Clockwork Orange type of scneario. You're trivialising real rape when you refer to easily avoidable online-advertising. Your mind "rape" is in no way or form analogous to rape.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Rape is violation of the body without consent. My mind is part of my body. I feel violated.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > Rape is violation of the body without consent. No, it isn't. It's defined in terms of penetration. Both legal definitions and dictionary definitions. If your argument depends on a word having a different meaning from the dictionary definition, it's your argument that is wrong, not the dictionary. > My mind is part of my body. I feel violated. Violation is not rape.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      We're arguing dictionary definitions now? > define rape > The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. > "the rape of Europa by Zeus." > The act of pillaging or plundering. > "the rape of the city by the invaders." > Abusive or improper treatment; spoiling or abuse. > "the rape of the land by polluters." Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there.
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        > Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there. Well, when there is you can claim your argument doesn't trivialise rape. Until then your claim is baseless.
maxbond 3y ago
Can we call it nonconsensual ideation? Maybe that can be workshopped into something less wordy? Mind rape is too off-putting to generate good discussion, imho.