Hacker News Reader

Comment by RickS | Hacker News Reader

Good idea, bad approach. "Your phone isn't safe at the border" might be a hard fact but it's nonetheless an intentionally divisive expression of that sentiment. It's ambiguous, fearmongering.... facts can be clickbait, and this is one such case.

If the ads said "You can be legally compelled to X, even if Y. Learn more about your airport rights at www.url.com" then it would be much less objectionable IMO.

I don't get why campaigns keep making this mistake. Take the freaking high road. Imagine the mind of your opposition, and accomodate the low-hanging complaints they're going to have. Craft a message that's maximally agreeable to the people who disagree, while maintaining accuracy.

Weasels on both sides here, IMO.

View on HN

That's OpenMedia in a nutshell. They definitely aren't alone in this category, but I find them very frustrating. They mean well and I largely agree with them, but by agreeing with them I also seem to be agreeing with their nuance-free tabloid version of activism. I've somehow found myself on their mailing list a few times in the past and felt a strong sense of relief each time I have unsubscribed.

> nuance-free tabloid version of activism

Thank you - this is a very apt description of how I feel about them as well (also as someone who otherwise agrees with their efforts)

It's funny how advertising usually tries to sell people on things but a lot of "cause" related groups don't sell so much as try to preach to the choir or just fear monger in unproductive ways.

> a lot of "cause" related groups don't sell so much as try to preach to the choir

At many non-profits, the audiences for messaging are existing donors and fellow executives. There are no measurable objectives from the broader audience. Accountability is thus impossible.

>If the ads said "You can be legally compelled to X, even if Y. Learn more about your airport rights at www.url.com" then it would be much less objectionable IMO.

It's 'less objectionable' because it's bordering on bootlicking, and could even read as a tacit endorsement of the status quo.

Is that really bootlicking? I struggle to understand how that's the case, and I'd prefer to hear a dispassionate reading of reality that lets me decide how to feel based on my own values, rather than one that's intentionally extreme to try and scare me into subscribing to a position.

The phone is not safe from prying - their description sounds very accurate to me. Or would you describe a broken lock as 'safe'?

I wouldn't describe it as "unsafe". It's neither. Locks aren't dangerous. There is a whole level of subtext going on there and if you are in on it (which you seem to be), then it makes complete sense. If you are not, it leaves you scratching your head (as I was). I will argue that it is completely ineffective wording as the only people who will understand what it means are the people who don't need to read it.

It is, in that police tactics can be aggressive, but being assertive about protecting yourself from aggressive police tactics is "radical" or "paranoid."

also, it's boringly informative. People tend to ignore informative statements. What works is emotions. Unfortunately.

> why campaigns keep making this mistake

Because it works. And because many other campaigns do it and nobody cares. Then in one random occasion suddenly it's a big drama. Who could have known before? Marketing agencies have been inventing divisive ad statements for ages.

Agree, but unfortunately all your suggestion of taking the high road does is disqualify you from ever obtaining elected office...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com