The entire point of your comment is manipulating human beings.
Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product. If that is manipulation, so is pretty much any content that seeks to change what people know.
His comment is trying to manipulate the reader into believing something that he believes is better for mankind. He doesn't materially benefit, and the reader doesn't lose anything.
Ads and advertisers are not trying to manipulate the viewers into buying a product. They are manipulating viewers into becoming the type of person that buys products impulsively and with little research. The product of the advertiser is not an ad; the product of the advertiser is you. This is not to your benefit.
So, trying to reduce gp's comment and ads in general to equivalence is misguided imo.
As a shoemaker, you might think your shoe is the best shoe on the market. Google doesn't care which is the best shoe. Google simply sells a product, namely, a credulous audience, to the shoemakers, who want buyers. And their ecosystem is bent toward improving that product. The shoemakers' noble ends don't justify the evil means of the advertisers.
This is kinda what I take the old adage to mean, "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product." You might think that Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc. are free services because they don't cost you money. But that's like saying that a stay at the butcher's is free for the cow. They're not free at all; advertisers have to pay good money for access to their product, which is you.
Or so my view goes :) I could be wrong though.
Selling snake oil becomes no more socially good when the salesman deludes themself into believing the pitch.
The vast majority of products people buy help them solve problems of all kinds. An economic transaction is a win-win for both buyers and sellers. Look at products like the computer, the car, the telephone, etc. I think the world is becoming a better place as a result.
It wants to get me to buy. Any stated aim less than this is a waste of their money.
The difference is in the intention for said manipulation. His comment isn’t trying to get us to part with our hard-earned income for ultimately frivolous goods.
Sure, if the good or service is actually frivolous, but what about the case where the human is actively searching for some good or service that offer some actual value?
Or is the default mode of operation always the consumer losing and the business winning?
As an example, a couple of months ago I was searching for some new summer outfits. Went through Google, Reddit, various clothing blogs, catalogs, etc. but didn't find a lot that I liked. After a week more of targeted ads on Instagram, I was finally able to discover brands that fit my tastes.
Unless I'm buying something well-defined like a TV or Airpods, passive exposure via targeted ads has been one of the best ways for me to find something worth purchasing.
You may want a THING, but you don't know about a particular brand or style of said THING. Just by making you aware of them can be a win win.
Say you've been researching "THINGS" for a couple weeks and narrowed it down to 2 brands. An Ad pops for a brand you'd never heard of. Naturally you check it out, only to find out its better than either of the options you were previously considering.
I'm not arguing we don't need to buy anything ever. I'm arguing most ads are either pushing stuff you don't really need 99% of the time or selling outright junk. And let's not get into how close some ads are to plainly false advertising (I'm looking at you, wellness / nutrition)
Question. If your ads were perfectly targeted in that 100% of advertised products were something that you're interested in, is that not ideal? Isn't that what companies like Google and Facebook are trying to do? Wouldn't you be happier if you didn't get the Wellness / Nutrition / Viagra ads?
That's what advertising used to do before tracking was a thing. When this was introduced the industry realized that targeting and manipulation is far more profitable and this made ad campaigns that don't do this unviable. Because nobody ever wants to go back to a lower profit margin.
They're so addicted to tracking, and 'retargeting' (meaning repeat ads) that they're just not paying for untracked anymore. Not nearly enough to make an ad-supported website work anyway.
Due to GDPR and the cookie ban, things are turning in Europe though. Because now they no longer have the choice.
And this is why shiny new product is often placed along a half naked beatiful women or alike? Sex sells?
Some marketing indeed exists, that just tries to make a consumer aware of a product. But most marketing campaigns try to associate a certain product with certain attractive person/livestyle/object.
The Malboro Man, the Taste of freedom. Etc.
It is highly manipulative to its core. And with targeted ads, you can play with the target persons fears and desires in a automated way. So far this likely not happening (very well), but the potential is very real and dark.
If anything, this was more common in the pre-internet advertising age. Can't remember the last time I saw an ad like this.