all 12 comments

[–]Entropick 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Aw yeah, my pet irritant. Parasitic marketers and lying advertisers using their black magick mind control and manipulating sensitive conditions for profit. A scourge upon us all.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I mean, they paid for the ad space. Someone owns the space, money changes hands. Then there are laws about what can and can't be advertised. Advertising is not quite as one sided as this makes it out to be.

[–]PikonParadox 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

People working in marketing are probably experts in psychology or know how to influence people. We the people are neither experts nor are we aware of how we can be influenced. What we are, is, victims of psychological manipulation. The only control people have is to close their ears and or eyes when an ad is encountered, assuming the people are aware that the ad could potentially manipulate them.

Laws are not the same as ethics. There was a time a lot of things were legal which we now consider illegal; slavery was legal, genocide was legal. Just because something is legal, it does not mean it is right or ethical. I know that what we have now cannot be easily compared with genocide or slavery or rape or whatever but, it still is a big deal.

If we want to talk about making the money change hands, we need to find a better way than getting into people's heads and making their lives miserable.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The sad fact is, if something is unethical, but legal, you are free to do it. It might be a basis for a boycott, but boycotting advertising would be absurdly difficult. I think we also have to acknowledge how effective advertising is towards commerce. There is the pessimistic view that it's manipulative, but it is genuinely informative, too, and the economy literally collapse if advertising was ended all together. Some business models, like google, are based entirely on adverstiting. You would have to pay for your search engines and free email accounts. TV and radio wouldn't exist.

[–]PikonParadox 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are right, banning things is not always the answer. What we need is to educate common people. For instance, we don't have to ban advertisements despite the paradigm that they are manipulative; we have to teach people to acknowledge that advertisements can manipulate them and teach them not to let advertisements mess with their heads too much.

This could render the advertisements useless because their very purpose is to "convince" people to like the product but, we have to try to make the best situation possible where there is minimum or no harm coming to either party.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

we have to teach people to acknowledge that advertisements can manipulate them

That's a good start, but since advertising works on the subconscious, that might not make much of a difference. I think more research has to be done with regard to deciding that ads are a public health nuisance. Any solution we come up with now would be based around a limited understanding of how it psychologically effects people, because like a lot of what we know, succesful advertising comes from trial and error rather than a deeper understanding of how it works. It would touch on "thought crime".

[–]cant_even 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You would have to pay for your search engines and free email accounts.

...if you wanted them. There are millions who remember when they didn't exist, and some of them could live without them again.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You mean visit the local library and work your way through the card catalog, or files full of microfilm to gather information? You mean like lick envelopes and stamps and deliver it to the nearest parcel receptacle, and then wait a week for it to get where it was going? You have to be a card carrying ludite to think for a moment that we could be better off living in the past.

[–]worm 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Is there a transcript of this somewhere? This is honestly pretty hard to read, but from what I can tell seems to be some sort of rant against advertising because it's intrusive and ugly.

Maybe the sheer pettiness of that anger is the joke, but oddly enough some of you like /u/entropick seem to be taking it quite seriously. Can someone explain why they hate advertising so much?

[–]Entropick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am at an actual loss in how to reply to this. I assume you are satisfied with the status quo and prefer the current conditions as consequence. Your opinion is fair but I have neither the desire nor inclination to spend time in digressing on the matter.

[–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the status quo; I simply can't bring myself to care about it one way or another, and I'm having some difficulty thinking of why anyone would get riled up about advertising either way.

[–]cant_even 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it were only "advertisers". Government, and non-government 'thought-shapers' use the identical principles to perform the same manipulations.