Say a person has a long, rocky history with [gambling]. Showing them more ads for [casinos] than the average population is manipulative, no matter how catchy the contents of the ads are.
Replace [gambling] with binge eating, depression, infertility, impulse shopping, violent extremism, or whatever else you'd like. A lot of things will fit.
But even here, there’s still the possibility for a better world with targeting, given good intentions of the targeting system (I know I know). Surely the best world isn’t one where casino ads are sent out blindly?
Related to this whole discussion, if you turn off ad targeting, you often get some garbage ads.
To address the core of your point - IMO, the best world is one in which neither casinos, nor anything else, are advertised. The harm done by manipulative advertising _vastly_ outweighs any benefits of finding out about something good that you would otherwise not have heard about. If someone has to pay to make me aware of something, and I wouldn't hear about it organically via recommendation or research, it's probably actually not that great. And even if it is - even if my absolutist stance means that I miss out on some truly great things that I would otherwise have found via advertising - I'd rather that outcome than being manipulated by corporations.
One of the principal assumptions of capitalism is a "rational informed consumer". Without advertising consumers will be even less informed. New companies entering a market will be unable to compete with established competitors. How will anything show up in your recommendations if no one knows about it?
I mean, advertising probably isn't there best way for consumers to become informed, but it serves as a start. We need more regulations restricting ads from being so deceitful or manipulative, but we have to acknowledge that ads serve a purpose in our society.
I wish!
> One of the principal assumptions of capitalism is a "rational informed consumer".
It's been a long time since I've formally studied economics, so I don't know if this is true, but I'll take your word for it (FWIW, I seem to remember this as being an assumption of a Free Market rather than of Capitalism itself, and the two are often confused - but, no matter, let's proceed as if that's true)
> How will anything show up in your recommendations if no one knows about it?
Well that's sort-of my point - I don't _want_ to be recommended anything. I want to _invite_ information, not to have it thrust upon me. If I want to choose (say) a new hacksaw, or a better laptop, or a place to eat, I want the model to be "I submit a request for information and receive it", not "the Algorithm decides that it's time for me to want those things, and attempts to instill desire in me".
So, maybe that's semantically shifting the goalposts - you might call the response to that request my "recommendations", and that's fair. So, then - what's my problem? Well, now, I want to have confidence that those recommendations are generated based on actual personal opinion that I can trust, not based on what a corporation wants me to do/buy/experience/think. And I think (I'm still working this out) that the only way to do that is to remove financial incentive from the system. I don't know then what incentive _would_ exist for people to provide their opinions or reviews - that's an interesting problem.
I'll just add one memorable example of where ads actually worked for me. I was frustrated by how thick wallets were and so I happened to Google "thin wallets," and got an ad for the "Allet", which was exactly what I was looking for, and I did end up buying it, and I still use Allets to this day. That said, I tried the same search just now and Allet didn't come up in the first page of results, so I'm not sure what to make of that, ha.
Yeah, that's a very fair criticism. I'm struggling to find internally-consistent definitions that simultaneously:
* Allow small creators to talk about their work, while condemning large corporations that try to instill demand or desire where none would previously have existed * Allow fans of a product to (spontaneously, without incentive) talk about the product
If you simply condemn any creator _ever_ talking about their work (and only permit fans/consumers, without incentive, to offer reviews), then that makes it nigh-impossible for anyone to discover new products. If you condemn only paid advertising (which would allow small creators to blog, to provide demos, etc.), then that unfairly advantages megacorporations who can advertize "for free" by utilizing their other properties.
You could show people who have problems with gambling ads about help workshops on how to quit gambling.
You could reserve the gambling ads for people who haven't had fun in a while and are looking for new things to try
The core problem is that what's most profitable is not really aligned with what is good for people.
Capitalism only works in a world where people are perfectly informed. In that world, despite ads and manipulation, people will know to choose what is most likely in their best interest at the time. In the absence of that world, they might want to use an intelligent digital agent that will "fight off" (block) manipulative advertising (and content) and seek to help them steer their life in a direction of improvement according to their current needs
Ads are just a tool. If you don't like a certain industry being promoted, then crack down on that industry and its ads, not everyone.
Not sure about that. If I would be a gambler, I would find ads for that therapy rather annoying. A therapy with the only goal to take away from me something I like.
Here's one story: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/01/metro/charges-filed-a...