Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoGravitas | Hacker News Reader

"No ads" isn't editorializing, though. Unlike "best" or "#1", it's a statement of fact, and a fact that is probably useful to shoppers.

View on HN

Could this be in response to apps indicating that they don't have ads even though they do?

In that case these apps should be banned, not the use of "no ads" in titles.

Or apps which don't have ads when first installed, but ads later get added in an update. The user will likely never see the updated app name.

That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.

The presence or omission of a fact is often the result of a conscious editorial choice. It is frequently the intent, not the nature of the words themselves, that underscores the editorial nature of the statement.

Buy Uncle Miller’s Corn Flakes — 100% arsenic free!

Exactly. Another textbook example is the language describing meat as coming from pork with “no hormones added” even though it’s unlawful to add hormones to pork grown for human consumption. Sure, it’s a fact; but the choice to include it is made to provide a marketing boost over competing brands that might not have the language on the packaging.

Wow, that's incredibly dishonest to consumers! My turkey states "no hormones added," I assume that's also unlawful like pork?

It should be illegal to advertise you're not doing something that is illegal in the first place if the intent is to imply others are in fact doing it.

The ability to use your regulatory obligations in your marketing materials and spin them as a positive is the carrot for companies to enthusiastically comply.

Correct, both pork and poultry.

Avoid toxic chemicals - drink Coca Cola!

Aspartame just hits different ya know?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com