Hacker News Reader

Comment by tines | Hacker News Reader

I think the difference is in what the two are trying to manipulate you to do.

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.

View on HN

What if an advertiser truly believes in their product and thinks it will better mankind? What if they've done a bunch of research into the product and theirs is actually the best on the market? I think the two are closer than you'd like to admit.

That's not really how things work in a modern context. Today we have to distinguish between the people making the stuff, who really may "believe" in their product, and the people advertising those same products, who don't care, and who aren't the ones creating anything of value.

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.

Most companies brainwash themselves into thinking they are making the world a better place.

Selling snake oil becomes no more socially good when the salesman deludes themself into believing the pitch.

Most people brainwash themselves into thinking their opinions are right and others' are wrong.

Yeah. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

What is your definition of "a better place"?

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.

Silicon Valley had a great bit about this kind of thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8C5sjjhsso

Reply on news.ycombinator.com