11 ms·

The world would definitely be better without ads. All ads are poisonous. All of them first convince you that you and your life as it is is not good enough, and

by iammjm 9mo ago

The world would definitely be better without ads. All ads are poisonous. All of them first convince you that you and your life as it is is not good enough, and that in order to be happy again you need to spend money to buy a $product.

spencerflem 9mo ago
And the worst part is, from a societal point of view - it doesnt matter if $companyA wins over $companyB, if the reason they won is that there was more Geico ads than Liberty ads etc. We allow every space to be overrun with these things, wasting our time and infecting our brains and in the end its zero-sum for the companies and negative-sum for us. No value anywhere is created.
- ksaj 9mo ago
  The bigger problem is those fake "realistic robot dog" ads, and all the other ai-faked products. Why YT and Google in general would want to be associated with such scammery, I do not know.
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    >Why YT and Google in general would want They want the numbers to always go up. Scam ads pay just like non-scam ads. Hence why companies have to be forced not to be assholes with legislation.
  - immibis 9mo ago
    They get paid per ad. Whether the product actually works is not their problem, unless they get a lawsuit. IIRC Facebook did lose a lawsuit over scam ads, but continued doing the process it was sued for, because it's so profitable, and just added a check so those ads don't get shown to regulators.
al_borland 9mo ago
As much as I hate ads, I don’t know that it’s so simple. There are products that do solve legitimate problems people have. Maybe there is less of that now, but in this past this was very true, and advertising helped make people aware that solutions to their problems have been developed. The first washing machine, for example. The problem comes when the advertisement manufacturers problems that didn’t previously exist.
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  If a product is really that good than people will legit recommend it. It's not a problem at all.
  - kyralis 9mo ago
    Depends on the niche, really. I despise ads, but I can also admit to having learned about products from them that I have subsequently purchased and been pleased with. Sometimes the ad lets me know about an entire type of product that I didn't know existed but found very useful, and I probably didn't even by the actual brand that was advertised. If you consider the general concept of "letting people know what products are available for purchase", I think it's hard to disagree that it's a reasonable thing to do. That doesn't excuse the manner in which it is done today, of course, but that core functionality is not fundamentally evil.
    - master-lincoln 9mo ago
      There are still tests and reviews and content where people can show products without being paid by the people producing these products.
      - tpmoney 9mo ago
        Even without being paid, unless someone is advertising the product somewhere the reviewer won't know it exists to review. And if the reviewer is being sent free product or solicited directly by the producer, that's still advertising. It may be more trustworthy if the reviewer is strict about not letting the producer have editorial control, but you better believe that the company is sending out free products to reviewers because that gets the product in front of eye-balls just like any other ad. The cost of the free review product is the price of the ad.
charlieyu1 9mo ago
As much as I hate ads, if you don’t make yourself known to potential customers you’re very screwed
- ksaj 9mo ago
  Most of the YT ads are AI rubbish. I can't imagine those fake "realistic puppy" ads generate any sales whatsoever. Same for the monocular that can zoom into a book title from a mountain range away. And nearly all the other YT and news feed ads one typically sees. Frankly, they should be illegal. If a physical store did that in Canada, it certainly would be. I'm surprised Canada hasn't reacted to these overabundant fake-product ads.
- barbazoo 9mo ago
  Is there not always some sort "marketplace" where people see what's being offered one way or another? I don't think we need ads for discovery, I see it more as a nefarious way to occupy space in people's conscious.
  - pixl97 9mo ago
    >Is there not always some sort "marketplace" How exactly does that work for virtual products?
    - cramsession 9mo ago
      If they provide value, people will seek them out.
      - taffer 9mo ago
        How? If you don't advertise, no one can see you.
        tcfhgj 9mo ago
        Just one counter example: gh.de
iso1631 9mo ago
Adverts I specifically request are fine. Trailers for example -- I specifically go to youtube to find trailers. Or I'll go to rightmove if I want to look at adverts for houses. I'm happy to spend both time and even money on seeking out new products. But it seems that people have a parasitical relationship with adverts, they can't imagine a world where there aren't wall to wall adverts on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written in the sky. Adverts should be for my benefit, i.e. I can turn them on or off.
serial_dev 9mo ago
Even as a consumer I am legitimately happy that I’ve seen ads for some products. Now sure, it probably happens about once a quarter, and for that I watched probably hundreds if not thousands of ads, so was it worth it, I don’t know, probably not.
- bigyabai 9mo ago
  As a consumer, I am fully willing to swallow the opportunity cost of blocking advertisements. I'm not afraid of having unspent money sitting around.
thenewnewguy 9mo ago
Obviously, if you could just delete the ads without changing anything else the world would be better, but that's not how it works. Lots of businesses sustain themselves on ad revenue - would the world be a better place if we had no ads, but - TV was twice the cost - Google, YouTube, etc. (insert your favorite ad-supported website here) didn't exist or cost a monthly subscription - All news was paywalled - Any ad-supported website providing basic information (e.g. the weather) was paywalled or didn't exist - etc etc
- kelnos 9mo ago
  Given that companies often spend a significant fraction of their budgets on advertising, I wonder if some products would be cheaper if advertising was banned. Sure, maybe some ad-supported services would be paywalled, but it might end up being a wash in the end. At the very very very least, every ad-supported service should be required to offer an option to pay and see no ads. I do pay for services I use regularly when they offer it as an option to avoid ads.
  - taffer 9mo ago
    Companies spending money on advertising is just another way of acquiring customers. If they were unable to do that, they would need to resort to other, more costly ways of acquiring customers. I doubt that higher costs would result in lower prices for customers.
- elevatortrim 9mo ago
  I actually think so, yes, the world would be better off with everything you listed happening. When we used to pay for newspapers, the informational value of the news was a lot higher, news and news-like social media posts were not the primary tool to spread stupidity.
  - taffer 9mo ago
    > When we used to pay for newspapers Some newspapers were 50% advertising. You still had to pay for them.
citizenpaul 9mo ago
>The world would definitely be better without ads. I don't have the proof but I'm guessing that this is provably wrong. Without advertising in some existance it would be nearly impossible to start a business which means everyone would be peasants farming for subsistence living. I think the problem is that the propose of ads has become divorced from product. The issue is poor regulation not the existence of ads. Think about it, how as a small or competitive business owner would you get people to buy your soda vs coke/pepsi without advertising in some way? The issue is that coke/pepsi know they have a simple product so they blast ads not to sell their product but to adversarially drown out competitors before they can exist. Tons of advertising has counter agenda purposes like this rather than selling a product, its propaganda not advertisement. There are probably tons of unenforced laws already about this but IANAL.
- elevatortrim 9mo ago
  Why would it be impossible to start a business? You would still be able to list your business in mediums where potential buyers willingly go and search for products and services. If anything, it would level the playing field, paying more for ads would not mean you getting your poorer services more visible buy paying more for ads.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - citizenpaul 9mo ago
    Do you know the very concept of prices and price tags is one of the first advertisements?
- citizenpaul 9mo ago
  The very concept of fair pricing is an advertisement. In nearly all of history the merchant would charge what they judged you could pay. but keep those noses up HN.....
tirant 9mo ago
Definitely the world wouldn’t be better without all ads, because that would be a clear violation of free speech. However ads should be limited only to communication channels that are optional to engage in. As for example, an ad on YouTube, a private video platform, should be perfectly fine. That’s part of the product. On the other hand, ads on a highway, on the street, should not be allowed. I have not given permission for them to enter my personal mental space. I’m fine with shops advertising their presence, but not full fledged advertising on roads, streets, etc.
- moffkalast 9mo ago
  If free speech is you rolling up with a megaphone to yell promotional nonsense at me, then it's my free speech to vote for you to get banned I think.
  - tirant 9mo ago
    That’s exactly my point. Free speech but only when the receiver has agreed to participate in that medium. You guys did not read past the first sentence?
- elevatortrim 9mo ago
  Free speech does not mean you get to yell at me. In the same way, banning ads where they are shown to users without their consent would not mean violation of free speech.
- tcfhgj 9mo ago
  ads aren't free speech, but corrupted speech
kibwen 9mo ago
Furiously seconded. Ads are just a tax that we pay both with our attention and then with our wallets. Every dollar that a company forks over to Google is a dollar they recoup by passing the costs on to you, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the product you're paying for. Destroy this heinous rent-seeking industry.
- charcircuit 9mo ago
  You are ignoring the value of discovering a good or service. Increasing the customer acquisition cost for a company to infinity doesn't make them lower their prices. It makes them go out of business because they have no customers.
  - kibwen 9mo ago
    People are really out here acting like we didn't have a functioning economy before we invited ad companies in to parasitize global commerce. I don't give a fuck if it means "less discoverability", if I could snap my fingers and make every ad company disappear tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
    - tpmoney 9mo ago
      When did we have a functioning economy without ads? Was it the 1980's when some of the most classic children's shows were 30 minute commercials for toys? Was it the 1960s when Charles Schultz was lamenting the commercialization of Christmas in the Charlier Brown special? Maybe the 1910's when Uncle Sam famously wanted you to join the army? Was it the 1890's when Montgomery Ward and Sears were sending out mail order catalogs? Was it the 1860's when you could learn that "The Best Glass of Ale In the Globe" was available at Isabella Nesbitt's Inn[1]? Town criers and traveling medicine shows date back to at least the 1700's. Less intrusive ads? Less frequent ads? Sure I can get behind that (though, I can turn off a TV, can't turn off the town crier). But ads have been a part of us since the first person with something to sell wanted to sell it. [1]: https://bailiffgatecollections.co.uk/gallery-category/victorian-advertisements/ https://bailiffgatecollections.co.uk/gallery-category/victor...
hoorayimhelping 9mo ago
>All ads are poisonous This is a silly and short-sighted blanket statement. People used to love getting catalogs, which are just big books full of ads. In the right context, people appreciate being informed of products that can help improve their lives.
- elevatortrim 9mo ago
  Exactly. I hate seeing ads when I do not want to, and I love going out and buying a furniture catalogue. The difference should be obvious.
tzs 9mo ago
How are the ads that local grocers and restaurants mail to me telling me of sales or giving me coupons which let me get things I'd be buying anyway for less money poisonous?
- iceflinger 9mo ago
  If you were going to be buying it anyway why does it even matter what the price is? Why can't they just list it at the coupon price for everyone?
  - tzs 9mo ago
    Let me clarify. When I said I'm going to buy it anyway I didn't necessarily mean at that time. There are many things that are in the "do not need to go out and buy it now but I do need to buy it in the near future" category. I would normally get those at the store I normally buy that kind of thing when I'm there to get other things. E.g., most groceries come from the big Walmart Supercenter near my house. If I get a flyer in the mail from the Safeway that is on the other side of town, and see they have a good sale price on one of those things, I might stop by that Safeway when I'm in that part of town on other business and get it.
    - tcfhgj 9mo ago
      just get a list of shops and compare their prices instead of waiting for an ad popping up in front of you for each product you buy when you actually would prefer to watch something else?
shuntress 9mo ago
The problem is not ads. The problem is SPAM. There are plenty of legitimately well-intentioned ads that can connect someone who needs a good/service with someone that supplies it and everyone wins. The problem is that we use a nearly totally free unregulated market where anyone can advertise anything anywhere. edit: I'm not saying we should necessarily try to optimize for good ads over bad ads or even assuming that is possible. I would settle for just somehow reducing the total volume of ads to help make email, snail main, voice mail, and other methods of communication more usable.
presentation 9mo ago
Hard disagree, without any ads the only way to find out about new things is via word of mouth, which would make many valuable products never get off the ground. Ads done badly are poison but ads done well educate people about new things they can benefit from and drive the entire economy. I have had many experiences where I’ve seen an ad that I genuinely think is interesting and was enlightening to find.
catlifeonmars 9mo ago
> All ads are poisonous. Yeah but the lethal dose is pretty high. 1 ad won’t kill you. Unfortunately there can never be just 1 ad without regulation.
Blikkentrekker 9mo ago
Advertisement also more or less puts a wrench in the theory of capitalistic competition in that companies would be incentivized to create the best product for the lowest price supposedly. They're now just incentivized to create the best ad campaign which costs money and does not improve the product in any way. Also, the existence of crippleware, where companies actually invest resources into removing features from a product is interesting. It would be interesting if we were to live in a world were both advertisement and crippleware are forbidden. It's already forbidden in many jurisdictions for various public function professions such as medical services or legal services so it's not as though it couldn't be implemented.

by iammjm 9mo ago

spencerflem 9mo ago

And the worst part is, from a societal point of view - it doesnt matter if $companyA wins over $companyB, if the reason they won is that there was more Geico ads than Liberty ads etc. We allow every space to be overrun with these things, wasting our time and infecting our brains and in the end its zero-sum for the companies and negative-sum for us. No value anywhere is created.

ksaj 9mo ago
The bigger problem is those fake "realistic robot dog" ads, and all the other ai-faked products. Why YT and Google in general would want to be associated with such scammery, I do not know.
- pixl97 9mo ago
  >Why YT and Google in general would want They want the numbers to always go up. Scam ads pay just like non-scam ads. Hence why companies have to be forced not to be assholes with legislation.
- immibis 9mo ago
  They get paid per ad. Whether the product actually works is not their problem, unless they get a lawsuit. IIRC Facebook did lose a lawsuit over scam ads, but continued doing the process it was sued for, because it's so profitable, and just added a check so those ads don't get shown to regulators.

al_borland 9mo ago

As much as I hate ads, I don’t know that it’s so simple. There are products that do solve legitimate problems people have. Maybe there is less of that now, but in this past this was very true, and advertising helped make people aware that solutions to their problems have been developed. The first washing machine, for example. The problem comes when the advertisement manufacturers problems that didn’t previously exist.

wolvoleo 9mo ago
If a product is really that good than people will legit recommend it. It's not a problem at all.
- kyralis 9mo ago
  Depends on the niche, really. I despise ads, but I can also admit to having learned about products from them that I have subsequently purchased and been pleased with. Sometimes the ad lets me know about an entire type of product that I didn't know existed but found very useful, and I probably didn't even by the actual brand that was advertised. If you consider the general concept of "letting people know what products are available for purchase", I think it's hard to disagree that it's a reasonable thing to do. That doesn't excuse the manner in which it is done today, of course, but that core functionality is not fundamentally evil.
  - master-lincoln 9mo ago
    There are still tests and reviews and content where people can show products without being paid by the people producing these products.
    - tpmoney 9mo ago
      Even without being paid, unless someone is advertising the product somewhere the reviewer won't know it exists to review. And if the reviewer is being sent free product or solicited directly by the producer, that's still advertising. It may be more trustworthy if the reviewer is strict about not letting the producer have editorial control, but you better believe that the company is sending out free products to reviewers because that gets the product in front of eye-balls just like any other ad. The cost of the free review product is the price of the ad.

charlieyu1 9mo ago

As much as I hate ads, if you don’t make yourself known to potential customers you’re very screwed

ksaj 9mo ago
Most of the YT ads are AI rubbish. I can't imagine those fake "realistic puppy" ads generate any sales whatsoever. Same for the monocular that can zoom into a book title from a mountain range away. And nearly all the other YT and news feed ads one typically sees. Frankly, they should be illegal. If a physical store did that in Canada, it certainly would be. I'm surprised Canada hasn't reacted to these overabundant fake-product ads.
barbazoo 9mo ago
Is there not always some sort "marketplace" where people see what's being offered one way or another? I don't think we need ads for discovery, I see it more as a nefarious way to occupy space in people's conscious.
- pixl97 9mo ago
  >Is there not always some sort "marketplace" How exactly does that work for virtual products?
  - cramsession 9mo ago
    If they provide value, people will seek them out.
    - taffer 9mo ago
      How? If you don't advertise, no one can see you.
      - tcfhgj 9mo ago
        Just one counter example: gh.de

iso1631 9mo ago

Adverts I specifically request are fine. Trailers for example -- I specifically go to youtube to find trailers. Or I'll go to rightmove if I want to look at adverts for houses. I'm happy to spend both time and even money on seeking out new products. But it seems that people have a parasitical relationship with adverts, they can't imagine a world where there aren't wall to wall adverts on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written in the sky. Adverts should be for my benefit, i.e. I can turn them on or off.

serial_dev 9mo ago

Even as a consumer I am legitimately happy that I’ve seen ads for some products. Now sure, it probably happens about once a quarter, and for that I watched probably hundreds if not thousands of ads, so was it worth it, I don’t know, probably not.

bigyabai 9mo ago
As a consumer, I am fully willing to swallow the opportunity cost of blocking advertisements. I'm not afraid of having unspent money sitting around.

thenewnewguy 9mo ago

Obviously, if you could just delete the ads without changing anything else the world would be better, but that's not how it works. Lots of businesses sustain themselves on ad revenue - would the world be a better place if we had no ads, but - TV was twice the cost - Google, YouTube, etc. (insert your favorite ad-supported website here) didn't exist or cost a monthly subscription - All news was paywalled - Any ad-supported website providing basic information (e.g. the weather) was paywalled or didn't exist - etc etc

kelnos 9mo ago
Given that companies often spend a significant fraction of their budgets on advertising, I wonder if some products would be cheaper if advertising was banned. Sure, maybe some ad-supported services would be paywalled, but it might end up being a wash in the end. At the very very very least, every ad-supported service should be required to offer an option to pay and see no ads. I do pay for services I use regularly when they offer it as an option to avoid ads.
- taffer 9mo ago
  Companies spending money on advertising is just another way of acquiring customers. If they were unable to do that, they would need to resort to other, more costly ways of acquiring customers. I doubt that higher costs would result in lower prices for customers.
elevatortrim 9mo ago
I actually think so, yes, the world would be better off with everything you listed happening. When we used to pay for newspapers, the informational value of the news was a lot higher, news and news-like social media posts were not the primary tool to spread stupidity.
- taffer 9mo ago
  > When we used to pay for newspapers Some newspapers were 50% advertising. You still had to pay for them.

citizenpaul 9mo ago

>The world would definitely be better without ads. I don't have the proof but I'm guessing that this is provably wrong. Without advertising in some existance it would be nearly impossible to start a business which means everyone would be peasants farming for subsistence living. I think the problem is that the propose of ads has become divorced from product. The issue is poor regulation not the existence of ads. Think about it, how as a small or competitive business owner would you get people to buy your soda vs coke/pepsi without advertising in some way? The issue is that coke/pepsi know they have a simple product so they blast ads not to sell their product but to adversarially drown out competitors before they can exist. Tons of advertising has counter agenda purposes like this rather than selling a product, its propaganda not advertisement. There are probably tons of unenforced laws already about this but IANAL.

elevatortrim 9mo ago
Why would it be impossible to start a business? You would still be able to list your business in mediums where potential buyers willingly go and search for products and services. If anything, it would level the playing field, paying more for ads would not mean you getting your poorer services more visible buy paying more for ads.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- citizenpaul 9mo ago
  Do you know the very concept of prices and price tags is one of the first advertisements?
citizenpaul 9mo ago
The very concept of fair pricing is an advertisement. In nearly all of history the merchant would charge what they judged you could pay. but keep those noses up HN.....

tirant 9mo ago

Definitely the world wouldn’t be better without all ads, because that would be a clear violation of free speech. However ads should be limited only to communication channels that are optional to engage in. As for example, an ad on YouTube, a private video platform, should be perfectly fine. That’s part of the product. On the other hand, ads on a highway, on the street, should not be allowed. I have not given permission for them to enter my personal mental space. I’m fine with shops advertising their presence, but not full fledged advertising on roads, streets, etc.

moffkalast 9mo ago
If free speech is you rolling up with a megaphone to yell promotional nonsense at me, then it's my free speech to vote for you to get banned I think.
- tirant 9mo ago
  That’s exactly my point. Free speech but only when the receiver has agreed to participate in that medium. You guys did not read past the first sentence?
elevatortrim 9mo ago
Free speech does not mean you get to yell at me. In the same way, banning ads where they are shown to users without their consent would not mean violation of free speech.
tcfhgj 9mo ago
ads aren't free speech, but corrupted speech

kibwen 9mo ago

Furiously seconded. Ads are just a tax that we pay both with our attention and then with our wallets. Every dollar that a company forks over to Google is a dollar they recoup by passing the costs on to you, for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the product you're paying for. Destroy this heinous rent-seeking industry.

charcircuit 9mo ago
You are ignoring the value of discovering a good or service. Increasing the customer acquisition cost for a company to infinity doesn't make them lower their prices. It makes them go out of business because they have no customers.
- kibwen 9mo ago
  People are really out here acting like we didn't have a functioning economy before we invited ad companies in to parasitize global commerce. I don't give a fuck if it means "less discoverability", if I could snap my fingers and make every ad company disappear tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
  - tpmoney 9mo ago
    When did we have a functioning economy without ads? Was it the 1980's when some of the most classic children's shows were 30 minute commercials for toys? Was it the 1960s when Charles Schultz was lamenting the commercialization of Christmas in the Charlier Brown special? Maybe the 1910's when Uncle Sam famously wanted you to join the army? Was it the 1890's when Montgomery Ward and Sears were sending out mail order catalogs? Was it the 1860's when you could learn that "The Best Glass of Ale In the Globe" was available at Isabella Nesbitt's Inn[1]? Town criers and traveling medicine shows date back to at least the 1700's. Less intrusive ads? Less frequent ads? Sure I can get behind that (though, I can turn off a TV, can't turn off the town crier). But ads have been a part of us since the first person with something to sell wanted to sell it. [1]: https://bailiffgatecollections.co.uk/gallery-category/victorian-advertisements/ https://bailiffgatecollections.co.uk/gallery-category/victor...

hoorayimhelping 9mo ago

>All ads are poisonous This is a silly and short-sighted blanket statement. People used to love getting catalogs, which are just big books full of ads. In the right context, people appreciate being informed of products that can help improve their lives.

elevatortrim 9mo ago
Exactly. I hate seeing ads when I do not want to, and I love going out and buying a furniture catalogue. The difference should be obvious.

tzs 9mo ago

How are the ads that local grocers and restaurants mail to me telling me of sales or giving me coupons which let me get things I'd be buying anyway for less money poisonous?

iceflinger 9mo ago
If you were going to be buying it anyway why does it even matter what the price is? Why can't they just list it at the coupon price for everyone?
- tzs 9mo ago
  Let me clarify. When I said I'm going to buy it anyway I didn't necessarily mean at that time. There are many things that are in the "do not need to go out and buy it now but I do need to buy it in the near future" category. I would normally get those at the store I normally buy that kind of thing when I'm there to get other things. E.g., most groceries come from the big Walmart Supercenter near my house. If I get a flyer in the mail from the Safeway that is on the other side of town, and see they have a good sale price on one of those things, I might stop by that Safeway when I'm in that part of town on other business and get it.
  - tcfhgj 9mo ago
    just get a list of shops and compare their prices instead of waiting for an ad popping up in front of you for each product you buy when you actually would prefer to watch something else?

shuntress 9mo ago

The problem is not ads. The problem is SPAM. There are plenty of legitimately well-intentioned ads that can connect someone who needs a good/service with someone that supplies it and everyone wins. The problem is that we use a nearly totally free unregulated market where anyone can advertise anything anywhere. edit: I'm not saying we should necessarily try to optimize for good ads over bad ads or even assuming that is possible. I would settle for just somehow reducing the total volume of ads to help make email, snail main, voice mail, and other methods of communication more usable.

presentation 9mo ago

Hard disagree, without any ads the only way to find out about new things is via word of mouth, which would make many valuable products never get off the ground. Ads done badly are poison but ads done well educate people about new things they can benefit from and drive the entire economy. I have had many experiences where I’ve seen an ad that I genuinely think is interesting and was enlightening to find.

catlifeonmars 9mo ago

> All ads are poisonous. Yeah but the lethal dose is pretty high. 1 ad won’t kill you. Unfortunately there can never be just 1 ad without regulation.

Blikkentrekker 9mo ago

Advertisement also more or less puts a wrench in the theory of capitalistic competition in that companies would be incentivized to create the best product for the lowest price supposedly. They're now just incentivized to create the best ad campaign which costs money and does not improve the product in any way. Also, the existence of crippleware, where companies actually invest resources into removing features from a product is interesting. It would be interesting if we were to live in a world were both advertisement and crippleware are forbidden. It's already forbidden in many jurisdictions for various public function professions such as medical services or legal services so it's not as though it couldn't be implemented.