Hacker News Reader

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

> As opposed to Disney's or Coca Cola's or Mattel's psychological war on kids?

Yes, as opposed to those, because it is so much more effective at that, that it becomes its own category, and not just an extension of age old tactics.

> It's ironic that an entity dependent on ad money would create such a title.

Why is that ironic? Getting people to watch ads, is not what this article is describing. It's the way they convince the brain that doing xyz is a sign of success.

Making people watch ads is a problem, but it's a totally different problem.

View on HN

Advertising underwrites and funds almost all of it.

Can we really assume the social media we know today would exist in it's present state without advertising? I think it would be inconsiderate and wholly unimaginative at best to suggest that it would. I think separating the two is a mistake.

The internet forums I grew up with in the late 90s were, I would argue, nothing but healthy. They exposed me to worlds of encouragement and knowledge. The social media we have now seems to be no comparison.

"Making people watch ads" is not the problem with advertising. The problem is the existence it creates for ourselves. Advertising, at it's current levels in the US, dictates our whole conception of the world we live in. I wonder if many will ever realize this without studying humanities and working in the ad industry; two things that combined have depleted my faith in humanity unless we can reverse this grave mistake. To think this is just an issue of time lost sitting through ads is just a misunderstanding of what advertising in 2018 even is, or of how it defines the world you think you live in.

You are correct as far as that goes, but you are partly reversing cause and effect.

Yes, advertising is the motivation to do these tactics. But it's not the problem in and of itself. Any other time-based money maker could replace advertising and nothing would change.

That's an indication the problem does not lie there.

But I put that word "time-based" for a reason: If you make money not based on engagement, but at a fixed rate per person, some things would indeed change. But only to a point: After all they need people addicted in order to convince them to stay, and recommend to others.

So I partly agree with you, partly disagree :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com