Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomperson_24 | Hacker News Reader

In my opinion, manipulative ads based on challenging your emotions and the fomo they create are worse than the current plastering of graphics.

If someone is interested they will click on it, if not then why manipulate their minds and play with emotions. (Coca-Cola is a primary example)

View on HN

Also, how will disclosure work? If I use an image in my Youtube video, do I need to declare that it was taken from Unsplash which was sponsored in a way by Square?

> how will disclosure work?

Honestly, I hope it never matters. If we're manipulating consumers, let's do it as obviously as possible. If we're confused about how to tell people we're manipulating them, we've chosen the wrong path.

Youtube has a really good option for this. Like if the creator checks a box, then when the video starts in top left, a small popup comes that its a paid endorsement. Just the user knowing before they watch or read the entire thing is probably enough and what that matters.

Also, lots of TV shows do not need to disclose that but on internet everyone has to which IMO is better.

idk though, I'm going to take the anarchist approach here and say we shouldn't need regulation to make this ethical. The fact that some of us benefit off of manipulation and nondisclosure feels like a result of an unjust power structure, specifically corporations over the individual (the anarchist interpretation), and more largely the economy over humanity (the communist interpretation). I think the only way to not have ethical problems with advertisement is to make advertisements unnecessary, and to start valuing the effects of people over the effects of products. Regulation here is good, but its necessity is a symptom of a problem solved only at the individual level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com