Comment by nine_k | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nine_k | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The scoop:

* Ads are everywhere, not just online; physical ads are harder to filter off.

* Ads work (mostly) on unconscious level.

* Conscious resistance takes effort, and has a limited effect.

> advertising should be considered a public issue as it constrains our ability to solve social and environmental problems.

BTW I can't help but compare this to the recent outrage about social networks and games engineered to produce unconscious impulses to want more, and suggestions to regulate them, the way gambling and liquor are regulated.

I wonder how much of the unconscious-affecting stuff may get regulated. Perfumes affect the sense of scent which is ancient and bypasses consciousness well. Spices, salt, sugar — they all affect the unconscious sense of taste. Certain kinds of attire produce unconsciously recognized images of strength, authority, sexuality, etc. To say nothing of facial expressions. If followed down properly, this rabbit hole of a logic leads pretty deep.

> To say nothing of facial expressions. If followed down properly, this rabbit hole of a logic leads pretty deep.

I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time drawing the line between billboards and facial expressions.

How about this: "People should be able to express opinions and propaganda however they'd like. Inanimate objects in public spaces should be constrained by something similar to the Fairness Doctrine[0], where factual information is allowed but blatant propaganda is not".

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

You see, certain cultures already put this line much closer to facial expressions, and find it appropriate to wear veils of some kinds to conceal them.

I'm not only talking about e.g. Muslim cultures; veils were pretty normal in 19th century's Europe (though not as thick as in 16th-century Europe).

So my question is where the line will be drawn, because removing the unconscious form humans seems infeasible, no matter how cultures try.

When facial expressions start causing social harm I'm sure we'll regulate those too, but this is the most bizarre slippery slope I've ever seen.

I think you aren't giving humanity enough credit in its ability to differentiate among the enormously wide variety of subconscious effects.

It seems a bit strange to say they all fit comfortably in the same bucket and thus we can't handle them differently.

I take your point, it is an interesting one. Pulling such threads all the way may lead us to strange places.

However, I think it is important to note that we have been using spices and perfumes for thousands of years. Direct, omnipresent commercial advertising, as seen in modern cities, is an entirely new thing. I'm guessing there was much advertising prior to the 1800s (curious to research this more though).

Likewise with social media and good old fashioned social interaction.

I think there are many distinctions that are quite important to make when looking at subconscious influences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com