4 ms·
This feels very similar in my mind to blanket concepts like "let's ban lobbying". There are certainly specific modes or practices in lobbying that are damaging
by gameman144 2y ago
This feels very similar in my mind to blanket concepts like "let's ban lobbying". There are certainly specific modes or practices in lobbying that are damaging to society, but lobbying itself (specifically, informing lawmakers about your specific perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable function.
Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.
In both cases, it seems totally fine to have strict guardrails about what kinds of practices we deem not okay (e.g. banning advertising to children, or banning physical ads larger than some size or in some locations), but the extreme take of the article felt like it intentionally left no room for nuance.
- Henchman21 2y agoWhy should we be open to nuance when we’re being actively manipulated? Cease manipulating me and I will hear them out on the nuances, provided the advertisers can articulate it.
- gameman144 2y agoSomeone telling you about a product is not manipulating you. Tracking or certain ad practices might be manipulative, and it's fine to push back against or ban that manipulation, but that is not at all inherent to advertising.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Henchman21 2y agoFeeding people lines about what “they need” or what their neighbors might be doing is manipulative. All advertising attempts to be manipulative, IMO. But, I’ll play along for a moment: If trying to convince people they need something that oftentimes they simply don’t isn’t manipulation, then what is it? It isn’t simply informative because it’s attempting to change one’s mind.
- gameman144 2y agoI think we might disagree in terms of the kinds of advertising we're talking about. The best advertising for me is showing me a product and showing me how it's used -- the "Coca Cola will make you have friends and have a good time" style ads could be construed as manipulative, I totally get that, but if I see an ad that just says "here's the product, here's what it does" for a product that _actually_ solves a problem I have, that's pretty great in my book, and is a win-win for me and whoever makes the product.
- barnabee 2y ago> “here’s the product, here’s what it does” Belongs in catalogues, store listings, the manufacturers website, product search engines, not forced into view when you’re trying to do something else. It’d be perfectly reasonable even to have sites listing or aggregating new and updated products, or social media accounts that post about interesting [new or otherwise] products, as long as they’re not paid to place or promote products, too.
- Henchman21 2y agoIf I saw ads that simply informed that would be amazing. I never see those ads. At all. What I see are endless billboards, posters, murals on the sides of buildings, cars, busses, etc. I see it everywhere. Its inescapable! Must be nice living in that different world. Can I get a ticket to wherever you are??
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- caseyy 2y agoI'd say you're underestimating how much anxiety there is in the world because advertisers and influencers bombard people with the idea that they are not enough, or that they don't have enough. It becomes very clear when you move to a different country where you don't speak the language. Suddenly, advertisers cannot tell you that you need their products. And it is very emancipating mentally.
- gameman144 2y agoOh totally, don't get me wrong, I hate the majority of ads (playing the "guess what this ad is even for" game reveals just how terrible most ads are.) The nuance for me is that sometimes (mostly online) I see ads for a tool or game or product that just shows it in action, and while 95% of the time I still don't want it, there's the small fraction of the time where I think "Hey that actually looks nice" (and I'm fine with the other 95% that just show me the product). Commercials for insurance are basically always terrible though; if you're advertising anything besides rates, coverage, or service, then what does it have to do with your product?
- Henchman21 2y agoThis is interesting and I think it speaks to your point about us having a disagreement in terms. I don't see many ads online. I've been very happy with my pihole + ublock origin + firefox setup. Honestly if I see ads online I take action to make sure I don't see them anymore, because that's in my control! My gripe is almost entirely with IRL "meatspace" ads, though I'd be happy to give up the arms race online. It seems like we mostly agree after all?
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y agoAre you regularly exposed to ads? I don’t understand this at all. Advertisement has next to nothing to do with “telling you about a product” which is why old ads are funny today. They hadn’t figured out a lot of the techniques we use to elevate advertising so far beyond that. An easy example, which some old ads even caught onto, would be associating the product with something else the consumer desires. Ever see an ad for a car with a happy family in it? Ever see an ad for a sportier car with a guy driving around an attractive lady? Is the happy family related to the function of the car? Of course not; the goal is to tie the thing the consumer wants (a happy family) to the thing they don’t yet (the car).
- _Algernon_ 2y agoYou might want to read up on Edward Bernays[1] if you think modern advertising is "just telling you about a product". It most decidedly is not. It is a century of of human effort poured into exploiting human evolutionary biases in order to increase sales. It's an exercise in inducing demand, not in fulfilling preexisting demand. >What the advertiser needs to know is not what is right about the product but what is wrong about the buyer. And so the balance of business expenditures shifts from product research to market research, which means orienting business away from making products of value and toward making consumers feel valuable. The business of business becomes pseudo-therapy; the consumer, a patient reassured by psychodramas.[2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays [2]: Technopoly by Neil Postman
- Henchman21 2y agoJeez that is positively evil
- walleeee 2y ago> lobbying itself (specifically, informing lawmakers about your specific perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable function. If it were a truly demotic activity you would have a point. But as it is, lobbying (in the US at least) is almost exclusively by/for large/moneyed interests, and the part of it which isn't is considerably less effective than that which is.
- milesrout 2y agoEvery time you communicate something to a politician, submit a submission on a Bill, or write a letter to the editor criticising a political policy, you are lobbying. That you don't bother engaging and others do doesn't give them an unfair advantage. That being said, the US system sounds like a shitshow of bribery and corruption.
- SebastianKra 2y ago> Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it. Journalists exist. The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products. Companies can also promote a product by sending it to reviewers. So ads are not the only way to inform consumers, and the benefits IMO don't outweigh the cost.
- milesrout 2y agoThere are a very few areas where there are good reviewers. Sadly most "reviewers" just repeat marketing materials, read stats from the box, and talk about themselves.
- aucisson_masque 2y ago> The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products. In the same sentence, you give a possible solution and the reason why it wouldn't work. Ban ads and companies are going to pay more and more for sponsored content to the point you can't differentiate what is legit from what is not.
- barnabee 2y agoSponsored content should be considered an ad too and banned in this scenario. Many “influencers” would have to go back to being amateurs. That’s ok. Some would accept backhanders, but they risk prosecution, which is actually possible [0]. [0] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/government-orders-maori-influencers-to-stop-promoting-online-gambling-or-face-10k-fine/BE66NAFH5JEM7JN7QXQMYRLOSI/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/government-orders-maori-infl...
- SebastianKra 2y agoI'd expect the law to broadly define an ad as any message, where the author has a conflict of interest. This would also include down propaganda on social media. We could then work backwards to define exceptions such as politicians speaking in moderated debates, signage in shops, etc... Defining this correctly will be difficult, but that's the case with any law. GDPR was watered down, and I'm still glad it's there.
- wat10000 2y agoAnyone who has found out about a useful product through advertising that you wouldn’t have know about otherwise, purchased it, and been pleased with your purchase, raise your hand. Anyone? This whole “advertising is useful” thing sounds like the spherical cow of marketing to me. It might make sense in abstract but it doesn’t reflect reality.
- charcircuit 2y agoThere's several games I've enjoyed from seeing ads for them. I would have never seemed them out on my own.
- milesrout 2y agoYes, happens often. Plus all the products that have been recommended by (a friend that became aware of them through)+ advertising. And all the products that only exist because of advertising. Also: sales. I have bought things in sales that I would not have bought otherwise (because its value to me is higher than the sale price but lower than the normal price) where I was only aware of the sales from ads.
- mindwok 2y agoMany people, otherwise advertising wouldn’t work at all and the industry wouldn’t exist. Even if you hear it via some other source, they may have heard of it via some form of advertising.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago>is a valid and desirable function No I don’t think so. I would genuinely guess that 97% of the ads I see are irrelevant garbage or, more commonly, bids by products I know to raise awareness to increase the probability of their sale. I discover the vast majority of what I care about through word of mouth and I suspect I’d be fine without ads. There are so many negative externalities that it’s actually ridiculous.
- yunohn 2y agoAnd pray tell how the chain of word of mouth started for that product?
- barnabee 2y agoPeople who work there. People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a market. Reading (unpaid) reviews. There are vastly many ways that unbiased, factual information about a new product can be disseminated to those who are looking for it that are not advertising.
- yunohn 2y ago> People who work there. They’re paid to work on and like the product. > People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a market. The salespeople at the shop and market are paid to like and sell the product. Even getting your product into a store shelf is a marketing activity, and chain stores charge a lot of money for the privilege. > Reading (unpaid) reviews. This can be a hobby, but most people need to make money from the work they do. This is why this area is covered by companies that employ and pay people to use and review products. Also, this is recursive - where did this unpaid reviewer hear about the product? > unbiased, factual information What is an unbiased fact? Is vim better or emacs? How do you decide between the two? First you “hear” about them, and hopefully they didn’t “bias” you on way or another, and then because they’re (luckily) free, you can try both and decide for yourself what the “facts” are. But what about vscode and jetbrains and etc? They’re backed by corporations, and have marketing behind them, but they’re great products too! You see where this is going once you generalize across industries? People pay for ads so that they can tell people what they think is an unbiased fact about their product. If they’re lucky, they also get word of mouth. But in a massively populated world with millions of products, this obviously creates a market for said “word of mouth”. And in turn, attracts bad actors, who lie about their product or manipulate you for politics etc. Some cases are clear cut, but others are not. It’s up to the viewer to decide at the end of the day.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thewileyone 2y agoLobbying is too ingrained in American politics. Banning lobbying would just drive in underground like with Clarence Thomas.
- ninalanyon 2y agoJust give the responsibility for policing it to the tax authorities. The lobbyist might be able to hide the money but the recipient has to spend it or it is worthless so it will be detectable and the transactions punishable. Also, that we won't be able to make it perfect is not an argument against trying to improve.