Comment by iN7h33nD | Hacker News Reader

Comment by iN7h33nD | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think that the aspirations that almost all advertisements give to people are actively harmful in every possible way.

- It is the main revenue source of most mentally harmful products like social media. A replacement created for the good of the world paid for by taxes with open data would be much preferred.

- Has masked how the world really functions via out-right lies and deception. Coke makes you happy, Happy Cows come from California, Diamonds must be given to show love

- Allows people with the most money to have the most likely chance of getting elected.

- Uses your personal information so that they are more likely to sell you things.

- Drug should not be advertised. Why the would a doctor want their patient to ask them for a specific drug???

- Convinced people that single use garbage should have a place in our society.

I am sure there are many more negatives, but for now I think this will suffice.

Perhaps with enough regulation many of these things could be changed, but I don't see it happening. Advertising can be used for good, see anti-smoking ads, but in its current state it is all bad. I can't think of an aspiration an ad has given me which gave me a problem to fix instead of a reason to consume.

Since you cherry picked the worst examples, let me cherry pick some of the best:

- Ads for charities - Political ads (which are only good or bad if you agree or disagree with their positions) - Ads for schools - Movie trailers (a form of entertainment in it of themselves)

Also: I suspect (but don't have the means to prove) a positive correlation between advertising spending and national GDP.

Look, if your point is that capitalism is evil, I'm not gonna argue it. But in a free market, advertising creates jobs. It builds companies. It builds economies.

When that advertising-free socialist utopia shows up that somehow isn't an evil dictatorship, let me know! Sounds awesome.

I did not cherry pick the worst examples, just the most common. Only one of your examples could possibly lead to a good aspiration in people, charities. Even that seems like a stretch though as many advertisements for charities are scams or to charities that only use a low percentage of the donation for the charities cause. It could push people to look up a list charities and donate, which is why it could be positive.

We don't need ads for schools or politicians a person should make their own choice based on impartial data and public debates. Movie trailers in and of themselves are not bad, but as advertisements they only drive people to consume. I can't say that they give positive aspirations.

Why do we need to be socialist or a utopia to ban most advertising?

Alright, clearly we don't have a shared understanding of what is good or bad. That's cool. I understand your position, even if I don't agree with it.

> Why do we need to be socialist or a utopia to ban most advertising?

You don't, as long as you don't mind a sudden drop in national GDP.

> You don't, as long as you don't mind a sudden drop in national GDP.

GDP is a terrible measure of how economy feels for the median person. A sudden drop in the GDP due to the lower classes saving money as a result of not being constantly bombarded with ads for net-negative goods seems like a win to me. Banning tobacco ads also caused the GDP to drop.

Ok, so how about "as long as you don't mind another recession"?

There's two things about recessions. First, they end. Second, it does not follow that banning/severely regulating advertising to consumers would trigger another recession.

Well, it seems to me you're trying to have it both ways.

Does advertising cause people to spend more than they would otherwise, or not?

If it does, then eliminating advertising would reduce spending which is what causes a recession.

If it doesn't, then what's all the fuss about?

Recessions in North America (can't speak for any other context unfortunately) have ended due to concerted efforts to get people to spend more: lowering interest rates mostly, forgiving debts, and political leaders outright telling people that their patriotic duty was to go out there and shop.

Looking around the world, it seems to me that many recessions didn't, in fact, end. Instead, their economies imploded entirely.

That's not a risk I'm interested in taking, personally. But you do, you rebel you.

> Does advertising cause people to spend more than they would otherwise, or not?

Yes, it does, though not as much as they wish they could spend. Hence the unhappiness. However, it also distorts the allocation of that spending.

> If it does, then eliminating advertising would reduce spending which is what causes a recession.

People would not stop buying stuff without advertising. They would be more likely to spend the money more on vacations/experiences. Trusted reviews would become a much larger industry. This is different from ads however, as it would be paid for by the consumer. I suppose companies could also pay the reviewer to include their product when doing a round-up of the various options, assuming that all of the competitors paid the same amount, there's no reason for the reviewer to be biased.

> Looking around the world, it seems to me that many recessions didn't, in fact, end. Instead, their economies imploded entirely.

How many of them were caused by banning/regulating direct-to-consumer advertising?

> Yes, it does, though not as much as they wish they could spend.

...is that not the cause of recessions?

> People would not stop buying stuff without advertising.

Outright "stop", no. Reduce, yes. How much of a reduction is anyone's guess, but I suspect it'd be by a whole lot more than anyone is comfortable with.

> How many of them were caused by banning/regulating direct-to-consumer advertising?

DTC is regulated, as all advertising is. Also I thought we were discussing all advertising, not DTC specifically, and I'm not sure what that specific category of marketing would bother you more than any other. Unless of course you're talking about all the online tracking, which I'm fully onboard with banning.

> Also: I suspect (but don't have the means to prove) a positive correlation between advertising spending and national GDP.

Is the implication that you believe that's causal? That you think reducing advertising spending would be economically detrimental?

I suspect that isn't true, since it's basically just an arms race. Companies are forced into competing along the axis of marketing (they also choose to since it's more effective than competing on quality), which is a huge money sink.

Also being anti-advertising isn't anti-capitalist. Simply believing that a market should have rules doesn't mean you are anti-market. Personally, I really doubt that advertising is an effective means of job and growth creation. It might even be negative. I suspect capitalism would be healthier without it.

I highly doubt it increases overall consumption, it rather just orients buyers in particular directions, often directions that are detrimental to themselves and to society as a whole.

> Is the implication that you believe that's causal?

Less implication and more exactly what I was trying to say.

> I suspect that isn't true, since it's basically just an arms race.

You may be right, you may be wrong. But I don't understand how anyone can say advertising causes people to spend money on things they don't need and also that advertising does not positively impact the economy. Those seem contradictory, and yet that appears to be the argument being made.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Reply on news.ycombinator.com