Advertising is the closest thing we have to mind control. The entire goal is to use money to change your behavior. They’re inherently manipulative by definition. There’s no way to spin that as a positive effect
Comment on Google Pulls the Plug: The End of Third-Party Cookies and What it Means | TWiT.TV
redfox@infosec.pub 4 months agoYeah, large portions of economies are being driven by consumption. I feel like so much stuff is just landfill fodder.
hcbxzz@lemmy.world 4 months ago
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
Sorry I don’t have any great sources on this. It’s rather speculation because how could you research this scientifically? Even if you could, an experiment like that would actually be unethical! And who would fund this, there is no way to talk in mainstream about advertising without running against massive financial interests. There are some search results but most of those articles look like mental garbage.
My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.
Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation which means we constantly have to switch between and adversarial mindset and whatever content we were watching / reading. Or we become obedient and just “let the advertising wash through us”. And advertising constantly has to find new ways to activate our emotions.
Just as massive is the effect on content produced, there is a “natural selection” that any content that helps sell advertisement is more successful on the market. It’s not just that you can’t piss off your advertiser but that generally you want the consumer to be in a certain mood - or that content producers who do this naturally are more successful and grow.
Then there are privacy concerns which reduce humans to machines and creates a powerful system that can and is abused for political control (public relations).
How can any of that not have massive societal impacts, since it’s being done on a massive scale and is near ubiquitous? How can anyone assume these effects are not incredibly bad?
You could have a country banning advertising that has a kind of “content tax” that is funded publicly and administered independent from the government through separate elections. And that has strict mandates and distributes the money to news papers, websites, movies and video creators dependent on views - similar to music rights agencies. But none of this is even talked about. We’ve completely lost the ability to even think seriously about how to improve our society.
redfox@infosec.pub 4 months ago
My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.
Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation.
I stopped quoting because you made many good points. I imagine we could find some supporting material for this basic idea. It seems like a safe idea to say people adapt to the environment they are in, including our thinking patterns based on what we take in and feed our minds (books, media, streaming, conversation, etc).
I wouldn’t be eager for a new tax, but the creative problem solving and imagining new ways to do things is good.
Also, thanks for the movie mention.
iquanyin@lemmy.world 4 months ago
i have an idea. let people buy the books and magazines. the ones people want to read are successful. others oh well. i’m a genius!
treefrog@lemm.ee 4 months ago
Here’s an example.
I was advertised camel smokes as a kid.
Everytime I relapse it’s on camels. Camels are shitty and cheap.
I relapse and then switch to a brand that’s not garbage. Then figure out again how to beat the addiction.
It’s a substance use disorder directly caused by advertising. And cancer causing (so my physical environment).
redfox@infosec.pub 4 months ago
I think those are good examples, thanks.
Off topic: I do generally hate smoking (I dont) so much. I dislike the smell, and the affects on people around the user, like you said. I appreciate vaping. Not because of some hopeful idea that it would be safer, but cause I either can’t smell it, or it smells like cotton candy. Who doesn’t love the smell of cotton candy?
Also, props for quitting all the times you have. I’m probably majorly addicted to caffeine. Like smokers tell me they have one first thing in the morning, coffee is the first desire after I’m out of bed. I’ve already limited myself to two-ish cups/day, but I don’t think that helped. Coffee also has negative effects on others…fortunately, my wife has coffee breath too :)
iquanyin@lemmy.world 4 months ago
just to say, it’s about 95% less full of harmful chemicals. even opponents admit that. vaping is safer. not safe but safer. and unlike the 200+ times i tried to quite over 45 years (hypnosis, gum, patch, groups, acupuncture, and a heap 'cold turkey), it took me just a few years to quit by first switching to vapes. and within a month of the switch, i felt better in every way. all the bs restrictions in place are so dumb.
redfox@infosec.pub 4 months ago
I’m glad that helped. Was it the ability to dose down intentionally that helped?
treefrog@lemm.ee 4 months ago
It’s also more addictive than tobacco. Which isn’t saying it’s not safer. But the vape ROA hits the brain faster than smoking. This reinforces the addiction cycle more effectively.
Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
Vaping has associated the smell of cotton candy with assholes who can’t keep their smelly (and potentially dangerous) substance abuse away from unconsenting people, because they think no one will mind because it smells like cotton candy.
iquanyin@lemmy.world 4 months ago
let’s ban it along with cooking smells, car exhaust, perfume, and cheap deodorant. and any other smells you personally don’t like. sound good?
frostysauce@lemmy.world 4 months ago
lol, since when are Camels cheap?
treefrog@lemm.ee 4 months ago
I was referring to quality lol
I can buy a pack of American Spirits and half a smoke will satisfy me.
I finish a Camel, and I’m like, wtf happened to that thing?