3 ms·

50+ years ago we were being marketed cigarettes as "Torches of Freedom", promoted by doctors and cartoon characters. We rightfully banned these practices in mos

by imiric 2y ago

50+ years ago we were being marketed cigarettes as "Torches of Freedom", promoted by doctors and cartoon characters. We rightfully banned these practices in most of the world because of the product they were advertising, but the deception and manipulation have been an industry staple, pioneered by Edward Bernays a century ago. The internet is simply a new tool they can use to make their work more sophisticated than ever before. It has also made a lot of people very rich, so I doubt that the advertising industry will accept devolving to a state before psychological manipulation became the norm, and sacrifice billions of dollars worth of revenue. Governments are unlikely to regulate it to that point either, given their symbiotic relationship. This banning of billboards is a good step, but the real problems are online.

shiroiushi 2y ago
There's really no easy black-and-white answer to this problem I think. While advertising cigarettes with cartoon characters to get kids interested is obviously disgusting, or having doctors promote them, advertising has its place. Remember "Computer Shopper", the huge magazine back in the 80s/90s where the ads were really the main reason to buy it? Those ads were how people back then bought computer components, because there was no other way of learning what was for sale from where, and how much it cost. Of course, the internet (which Computer Shopper helped make popular and accessible) put the magazine out of business eventually, but before the internet revolutionized communications (including advertising), ads like those were essential if you wanted to find products that weren't available in your local retail stores, or were only available at inflated prices. It'd be nice if there was some kind of advertising industry code of ethics, but I can't imagine how this would develop, since the people in today's ad industry are obviously a bunch of con artists and sociopaths who lack any ethical standards at all.
- hello_computer 2y ago
  I think consent is key. With "Computer Shopper", we gave our consent by picking-up the magazine and reading it. With Google/Bing/etc, we give it by choosing their search. With streaming, we give it by logging-in and watching whatever garbage they have on offer. But with billboards, subway placards, radios and televisions running in public spaces, etc... there is no consent, so those are more like rape.
  - account42 2y ago
    I disagree that ads bundled with other services imply consent. The EU got it right with the GDPR that consent is meaningless if it is not freely given, meaning not giving consent must have zero negative consequences. It is too easy to manipulate people to act against their own interest by just dangling a carrot in front of them.

by imiric 2y ago

shiroiushi 2y ago

There's really no easy black-and-white answer to this problem I think. While advertising cigarettes with cartoon characters to get kids interested is obviously disgusting, or having doctors promote them, advertising has its place. Remember "Computer Shopper", the huge magazine back in the 80s/90s where the ads were really the main reason to buy it? Those ads were how people back then bought computer components, because there was no other way of learning what was for sale from where, and how much it cost. Of course, the internet (which Computer Shopper helped make popular and accessible) put the magazine out of business eventually, but before the internet revolutionized communications (including advertising), ads like those were essential if you wanted to find products that weren't available in your local retail stores, or were only available at inflated prices. It'd be nice if there was some kind of advertising industry code of ethics, but I can't imagine how this would develop, since the people in today's ad industry are obviously a bunch of con artists and sociopaths who lack any ethical standards at all.

hello_computer 2y ago
I think consent is key. With "Computer Shopper", we gave our consent by picking-up the magazine and reading it. With Google/Bing/etc, we give it by choosing their search. With streaming, we give it by logging-in and watching whatever garbage they have on offer. But with billboards, subway placards, radios and televisions running in public spaces, etc... there is no consent, so those are more like rape.
- account42 2y ago
  I disagree that ads bundled with other services imply consent. The EU got it right with the GDPR that consent is meaningless if it is not freely given, meaning not giving consent must have zero negative consequences. It is too easy to manipulate people to act against their own interest by just dangling a carrot in front of them.