Most active commenters
  • badpun(3)

←back to thread

550 points polskibus | 19 comments | | HN request time: 1.104s | source | bottom
Show context
locklock ◴[] No.19116039[source]
I'm really thankful I haven't yet had a job where all I'm developing is new ways to force people to see ads. Imagine working on a 'feature' like this for weeks or months, and the end result is simply that people who don't want to see ads now have to see ads.
replies(18): >>19116155 #>>19116176 #>>19116284 #>>19116297 #>>19116323 #>>19116487 #>>19116513 #>>19116720 #>>19116769 #>>19116867 #>>19116940 #>>19117235 #>>19117240 #>>19117870 #>>19118148 #>>19118153 #>>19118697 #>>19119394 #
duxup ◴[] No.19116769[source]
It sounds like a fun challenge.

It's just ads. If we're talking about some ad for a coffee maker, whatever.

Now their whole selling data to unscrupulous folks, taking money from parents via their kids, selling fake news that makes people hate other people (now that gets into the ad space...) ....

That's where I'd want to nope out.

replies(8): >>19116963 #>>19116992 #>>19117001 #>>19117002 #>>19118376 #>>19118958 #>>19119754 #>>19120219 #
asdkhadsj ◴[] No.19117002[source]
Thank you. I feel like ads have such a bad rap because of the state of the internet. Yet, what does everyone expect? Is it shocking that content providers want money for their product?

And yes, I know, some sites and ads do terrible things. The actively hurt viewership. BUT, isn't that the same with everything? Even my groceries are getting worse as companies seek ways to increase profits without pissing me off; they swap out quality ingredients with cheaper ingredients. They change the shape of the bottle to reduce volume and hope I don't notice that the price effectively went up. Etc.

My point is not in defense of these practices. Rather, I'm defending "no shit" in all of this; welcome to the real world. Everyone is going to try and take and make as much as they can before it starts to actively show a negative impact.

So who is to really blame? Us, of course. Consumers of these practices are largely okay with it as is.

So yea, I don't have a problem with ads. They sort themselves out because people will stop using the products. I do have a problem with selling out data though, as people are largely unaware of the consequences and severity of what is actually happening. Ads however though? Who cares.

edit: Sidenote, I imagine an argument could be made that all and any ads are terrible. I definitely could agree with that, but getting rid of all advertisements across all mediums online or offline seems a tall order, and out of scope for this discussion heh.

replies(14): >>19117133 #>>19117192 #>>19117329 #>>19117387 #>>19117474 #>>19117492 #>>19117576 #>>19117798 #>>19118079 #>>19118111 #>>19118157 #>>19118373 #>>19119048 #>>19131235 #
andrepd ◴[] No.19117576[source]
To me ads are fundamentally about misleading you, manipulating you, or in short: making you do something that you wouldn't do otherwise. This to me is morally wrong on a base level. Advertisement is an attempt to attack/manipulate your vulnerable mammal brain to make you do something against your interest (be it buying a product, voting on someone, etc). In other words, to do something that you wouldn't do rationally, or wouldn't do without this prodding.
replies(5): >>19117706 #>>19118013 #>>19118694 #>>19118715 #>>19119427 #
1. JacobJans ◴[] No.19118013[source]
This is a very immature view of advertising, that, unfortunately many advertisers share -- and it leads to scummy ads, with no eye on the long term relationship with the person viewing the ad.

However, many ads are not deceptive in any way, and instead simply offer something of value to people who may be interested, without any deceit, psychological trick, or ulterior motive.

Just because there are bad ads does not mean that all advertising is bad.

replies(4): >>19118128 #>>19118568 #>>19119872 #>>19120721 #
2. jackstraw14 ◴[] No.19118128[source]
I'd say the ads are still deceptive even if they weren't created with that intention. It doesn't need to be sneaky, but if it's unsolicited then the consumer didn't opt for their attention to be steered toward it.

edit: removed example as it distracts from the point.

replies(3): >>19118273 #>>19118457 #>>19119026 #
3. i_cant_speel ◴[] No.19118273[source]
You are still using the reasoning of "Here is an example of a bad ad, therefore all ads are bad."
4. BenderBRod ◴[] No.19118457[source]
> if it's unsolicited then the consumer didn't opt for their attention to be steered toward it.

Isn't that everything in the world, always?

Why do I have to walk past the cereal to get to the milk on a supermarket, why I am being so deceived? After all, I didn't consent to being bombarded by all those car emblems on the highway on my way to work, and I definitely didn't agree to see the orange bar at the top of this page, that "Y" is hunting me I say! why is my attention being stolen away?

replies(1): >>19118677 #
5. badpun ◴[] No.19118568[source]
If I were king, all ads would have to be black text on white background, containing ONLY the name of the product/service, its description and advertised merits. The description would have to consist of well-defined and falsifiable statements only.
replies(5): >>19118764 #>>19118808 #>>19119455 #>>19119550 #>>19120951 #
6. jackstraw14 ◴[] No.19118677{3}[source]
> Isn't that everything in the world, always?

If you're saying advertising is a thing in the world, that's correct.

We have the ability to adjust this particular aspect of our landscape but your questions illustrate it pretty well. Most people don't seem to get very upset about advertising, and therefore it continues to surround us. I don't think there's anything that any one of us can do at this point, we're collectively shaping this world into the one with all the cereal and car emblems and have been for a while.

7. jachee ◴[] No.19118764[source]
And the product's non-obfuscated cost.
8. sokoloff ◴[] No.19118808[source]
Prediction: in your kingdom, product names would evolve to become "World's Best Hair Tonic" with "World's Best" being the company's brand/trade name...
replies(2): >>19119846 #>>19134836 #
9. cortesoft ◴[] No.19119026[source]
Say you develop some really cool new product that will really help people's lives be better... how would you suggest you get people to know about it?
replies(1): >>19121492 #
10. wolrah ◴[] No.19119455[source]
What Google AdWords used to be, just plain text that was generally pretty relevant to whatever you were viewing, clearly defined as an ad.
replies(1): >>19121787 #
11. bartread ◴[] No.19119550[source]
> If I were king, all ads would have to be black text on white background, containing ONLY the name of the product/service, its description and advertised merits. The description would have to consist of well-defined and falsifiable statements only.

Sorry, but for a lot of products this approach is simply ridiculous. I want to know what I'm buying looks like before I buy it in many cases. E.g., clothes, sportswear, footwear, furniture, electric guitars - even food.

replies(1): >>19121782 #
12. russh ◴[] No.19119846{3}[source]
Except it would be: World's Best(tm) Hair Tonic -- I think I could parse that correctly.
13. ◴[] No.19119872[source]
14. salawat ◴[] No.19120721[source]
I don't believe so.

Advertisements done right should be a passive consumption model.

I want this -> bunch of leads for what you are looking for.

Advertisements nowadays are focused around an active attention-consuming model. You have companies fighting for any in they can to get themselves situated at the forefront of your attention.

There is really no excuse for it, and the dark paths attach has opened in terms of advancing surveillance technology, and harboring an insatiable appetite for as much information on potential buyer's as possible has frankly ruined any credibility or claim to benignity that I could be bothered to extend to the industry.

I could even tolerate blatant puffery if advertising would just cut out all the 1984-tier privacy destroying behavior.

I don't mind ads. I mind mental intrusiveness and privacy invasion 24/7/365.

15. satvikpendem ◴[] No.19120951[source]
If you go to your local supermarket, you will see many branded items with varied fonts and pictures. This packaging is essentially an ad for the item. If you removed that, which you could do, as some brands like Brandless have done, people would not know what to buy. The packaging itself provides value. So too with ads online.
16. QasimK ◴[] No.19121492{3}[source]
Perhaps a webpage that people can go to to browse products (an “adstore”).
17. badpun ◴[] No.19121782{3}[source]
You’re right - we should allow one photo - presenting product only (i.e. without pictures of scandily clad women used to sell for example wallpaper paste, as is common in my country), against a clear background.
18. badpun ◴[] No.19121787{3}[source]
Yep that was pretty cool, I respected Google for it.
19. e_proxus ◴[] No.19134836{3}[source]
If I remember correctly, calling products "best" or similar is illegal in Sweden unless you can point to verifiable neutral source such as product tests etc. I'm sure it's corruptible to some extent, but at least it is possible to prevent these things at large.