Hacker News Reader

Comment by matheusmoreira | Hacker News Reader

Another philosophical tangent: we should protect humans from advertising on principle.

Our minds are sacred, our cognitive functions are inalienable. Not a single corporation on this planet is entitled to this. Our attention belongs to us. It's not currency to pay for services with. It's not a commodity for them to sell to the highest bidder. They don't get to insert their brands into our brains without our consent. That should be considered mind rape and any measures taken to stop it should be considered legitimate self-defense.

View on HN

I’ve spent some time thinking about this. A lot of things in life can be avoided if you have more money. Waiting in long lines, having uncomfortable seats, doing regular chores, etc.

But it seems advertising can’t be completely avoided (as much as I’d like it to). I’ll go out of my way to spend money wherever it removes ads (eg YouTube, podcasts, etc), but no amount of money will remove the billboards I have to drive by on the way to work. I’ll never be able to go to a sports event without advertisers bidding for my attention.

You would think at least some of those issues could be avoided by living somewhere “more expensive”, but it seems like affluent areas actually have more ads.

What measures can we possibly take?

Nb: I recently took a trip to the USA and was appalled that they play full volume video advertisements while you’re filling up with gas. At least that’s not a practice that’s caught on elsewhere.

> At least that’s not a practice that’s caught on elsewhere.

Including elsewhere in the USA.

> What measures can we possibly take?

We build technology.

The number one example is of course uBlock Origin. It shows people a better world with no strings attached. So good it should be built into browsers. It can't block ads in videos... Yet. How long until someone makes an AI video filterer that deletes ads from video streams though? Have the AI watch ads so we don't have to. Given this technology, how long until augmented reality glasses with adblocking builtin start showing up?

If I go to a gas station and there’s video at the pump, I do not go to that gas station again.

> no amount of money will remove the billboards

São Paulo got rid of billboards in 2006: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa>

Yeah. I love it. I want to see similar laws in my own city.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

> Nb: I recently took a trip to the USA and was appalled that they play full volume video advertisements while you’re filling up with gas. At least that’s not a practice that’s caught on elsewhere.

On most of these pumps you can push the second to top button on the right side of the screen to mute the ad.

According to the guy that owns the gas station down the street from me, this gets tracked and if the owner/advertisers see that enough people are muting the ads and they're not profitable, they'll stop paying to have them play at the pumps.

> no amount of money will remove the billboards I have to drive by on the way to work. I’ll never be able to go to a sports event without advertisers bidding for my attention

I don't want to be too pedantic, but it's worth noting that having a substantial amount of money can indeed resolve this issue.

For instance, being chauffeured means you don't have to pay any attention to the road unless you choose to do so.

Moreover, ad-free services like NFL Red Zone are available, or to your point about attending a sporting event with sufficient wealth having a private box can insulate you from 99% of sports event advertising.

> You would think at least some of those issues could be avoided by living somewhere “more expensive”, but it seems like affluent areas actually have more ads.

For whatever reason there are no (or very few) billboards in Northern Virginia, so that's one option. I wish there were more places like that, it's so refreshing driving through and not being bombarded with ads fighting for my attention (which is supposed to be on the road...).

But in general I think you're right it's extremely hard to get away from. I think the main reason it's hard to "buy out" of advertising it that the very fact that you can afford to "buy out" makes you that much more valuable to advertisers.

In case you visit again or it comes up for others, you should be able to push the second button from the top on the left to mute the video.

> it seems like affluent areas actually have more ads

Are you talking about cities? Most affluent people in the US live in quiet suburbs

> I recently took a trip to the USA and was appalled that they play full volume video advertisements while you’re filling up with gas

I've lived in the US for most of my life and I've never seen anything like that. You gotta specify what part of the US you're talking about because that's a very weird thing for you to assume is common

"They don't get to insert their brands into our brains without our consent."

You consent by going to free youtube.

Big ads in cities are more difficult to avoid, but then again, someone wearing a sports shirt of his favourite soccer club is doing advertisement. Someone wearing a cross for his religion, etc.

I don't think drawing a arbitary line and saying "this is mindrape" and "this is legit" is really working.

That being said, I do want to paintball big ads and alike.

> Big ads in cities are more difficult to avoid, but then again, someone wearing a sports shirt of his favourite soccer club is doing advertisement. Someone wearing a cross for his religion, etc.

Yeah, but those give more room for consent than something like a youtube ad.

You passively see those advertisements while doing something else. When you see a television or youtube ad, your full attention is much more likely on the computer and on that ad.

"Yeah, but those give more room for consent than something like a youtube ad."

Who forces you to watch youtube?

> You consent by going to free youtube.

You consented to being touched by wearing that clothing.

Yes, but other persons do not consent to view that ad.

But my point was, that it is not so simple.

> It's not currency to pay for services with.

Tell that to the people who need to watch a YouTube video and don't want to punch in their credit-card info. Unless someone is picking up the hosting and delivery costs, advertising will always make the most sense.

Now, don't get me wrong; ad-free YouTube at no cost would be great! It's not a business though, and without advertising arguably none of those services would exist. I don't know what you are proposing if not completely tearing-down our relatively accessible status-quo.

> people who need to watch a YouTube

"Need" is too strong a word. Nobody "needs" to watch a YouTube video. Maybe they want to watch one.

> without advertising arguably none of those services would exist

Then let their existence cease. They're corporations. They don't have human rights. They aren't entitled to life.

> I don't know what you are proposing if not completely tearing-down our relatively accessible status-quo.

It's exactly what I am proposing. A status quo where mind rape is normalized for the sake of convenience should not be allowed to exist.

> "Need" is too strong a word. Nobody "needs" to watch a YouTube video.

Circumstantially, maybe not. In high school and college, I had plenty of homework assignments that involved a YouTube video. After classes, YouTube continued to be the biggest asset to my professional development. Having access to conference talks and long-form tutorials changed my life.

For the sake of argument, let's just say I'm fixing my sink and the first result on 5 search engines is a YouTube video. What do you expect the average person to do next?

> It's exactly what I am proposing.

Well, good luck with that. I'm very curious to see who shows up to pick up the bill in your new world. It sorta sounds like your mental model feigns the existence of capitalism and free will, though.

> I'm very curious to see who shows up to pick up the bill in your new world.

I will pick up the bill for my own consumption. I have less than zero tolerance for advertising but I still buy a lot of stuff. The difference is I do it on my own terms. I won't have them actively advertising to me. When I want something, I'll ask them. When I actively seek out their products it's not advertising but information.

>Nobody "needs" to watch a YouTube video. Maybe they want to watch one.

Youtube's giant selection of people demonstrating every DIY repair topic (car repair, appliance repair, iPhone battery replace, etc) you can think of -- that's available nowhere else -- has literally saved me thousands of dollars (no exaggeration).

I guess one could twist that into "you didn't really _need_ to save thousands of dollar$, you just _wanted_ to."

Youtube is much more than frivolous music videos and you're too dismissive of how it helps people.

EDIT REPLY TO: "Doesn't justify their advertising."

I wasn't responding to the advertising business model. My issue was the "nobody _needs_ to watch a Youtube video" is way too dismissive.

>There's always other sources of information. There's always better sources of information.

Not always. Last week, I needed to replace an oxygen sensor on my truck and wanted some guidance on how to do it. Yes, a pdf of a vehicle service manual has diagrams etc but that book doesn't show a video of someone actually doing it. I need to see somebody actually put a wrench on the the bolts and unplug the sensor cable. I watched 5 different mechanics do it and I'm glad I did because there are some tricky issues that my inexperience would not have solved on my own. Vimeo and other video services didn't have this car repair content. Only Youtube.

YouTube videos have helped me a lot as well. Doesn't justify their advertising. There's always other sources of information. There's always better sources of information. I make it a point to read books now. Libraries should be valued.

> Doesn't justify their advertising

Doesn't justify their invasive advertising.

> There's always other sources of information

There are, sometimes, different sources of information (you would be giving up a massive amount of resources).

> There's always better sources of information

Not necessarily. Sometimes information is scarce and hard to find.

> I make it a point to read books now. Libraries should be valued

That is not an exclusive alternative.

I would completely tear down the ad-driven status quo in favour of people paying for things. People shouldn't have to punch in their credit card info to access a youtube video and they shouldn't need to sign up for a subscription to youtube or any other site in order to access individual pieces of information. Payment should be only for content consumed and should be frictionless and consistent across all providers.

It's a pipe dream now, with the exploitative business models and consumer addictions well established, but there's an alternative history of the internet where this could have happened.

> I would completely tear down the ad-driven status quo in favour of people paying for things.

As someone that grew up poor but now works in tech, I'm very hesitant to say that people paying for things is better than the ad-driven status quo.

A good portion of people just wouldn't be able to pay and likely have a worse life by their standards (not yours or mine).

I'd view extreme poverty as a problem for the state rather than advertisers, universal basic income (UBI) being one obvious approach, and access to information for those too poor to pay for it as a challenge that has been long addressed by public libraries. Solving these problems is neither an explicit goal of adverts nor something they achieve well as a side effect.

Customers have this expectation because VCs paid for growth. Then for another decade or so Google continued to give it away. Is it any wonder many people have a clear misunderstanding of the costs of software?

That is a very eloquent explanation, for an opinion I share and wasn't able to put so plainly!

I always get weird looks when, watching TV, I change channels during ads.

Thank you. It's an opinion I've refined over time via conversation with like-minded people here.

I don't change channels when watching TV, I mute it and pick up my phone until it ends.

Side note : I consider adverstising to be like a friend's recommendation if the options are curated, researched and non-scammy. If you have nothing against influencer economy, you should have nothing against advertising. I just want ads to be done ethically.

My (actual) friends have never spent a single dime in recommending a product to me, and they never talk about products where they have a personal stake. So I can't relate to your perception.

Advertisers spend money with the aim of convincing strangers. There is always a conflict of interest.

Ads have suggested lot of life improvement products for me i.e. better bedsheets, duvets, aromatherapy products, etc. I love those. I would have never checked those out. After trying them, I have suggested them to my friends. Lot of minor improvements. Here's the thesis, if we consider youtube recommendations and instagram recommendations to be so good that they are addictive, the same can be said about ad recommendations. Buy-conversions track whether the product has been effective and could be recommended to similar demographics. People have no problem choosing life-partners based on how algos recommends profiles on dating apps but they have issue with ads. They want this particular aspect to be "organic" what a irony.

> I would have never checked those out.

Why not? Can't you go to a store and ask to see products? Open an app and see what they have to offer you?

When you seek the products out, it's not advertising, it's information.

I didn't seek them out. For me, it could be said they never existed. Ads recommendeded them. I am not dumb to blindly purchase any recommendation.

Well, I search for products I want constantly. I'll describe what I want to Google or an actual salesperson and see what comes up. Then I'll refine the results if necessary. I don't consider that advertising. I'm looking for information and others are supplying me with it.

Well then you are dependent on the particulars of the search engine algorithms and what it surfaces to you. This is similar to Walmart preselecting 3 products from a category and asking you to make a choice among them. I would love to have some diversity in it.

Diversity is provided by friends and family. Trusted human beings. Not the highest bidder in the auctions for our attention.

Also, without advertising, search engines and the web would be a lot more trustworthy than they are today. When searching I used to get many real websites created by humans, now I see ad-funded AI-generated utterly worthless SEO spam. Advertising is literally the root cause of the enshittification of the web.

Limited number of family and friends and their limited exposure to the products they have personally experienced is too limited for me. I would like to atleast check out what is out there. Then do research and then buy. Don't project your personal way of doing things onto others.

So you ended up spending money that you were not planning to spend in the first place, because the advertisers succeeded in provoking in you a sense of necessity where none existed before.

I would rather keep advertisements specifically restricted only to those who already have a need, and are interested in choosing a commercial solution for that need.

I earn money to make my life better, not to just increase a number in my bank account. I hope you understand the concept of surplus income. Otherwise we can go back to stone-age "just existing", "being in the moment and intimate with raw sensations" as nature intended to be.

To take your point further, why not abolish, ban luxury market segment. A $10 shirt does the same job of $500 one. Well Apple created a necessity in making you to buy a $1000 dollar phone, it does the same job as $400 one.

I would allow market place to decide what new ideas should take hold in society. Taking an uber or online dating was frowned upon, not anymore. People can change, society can adapt, better processes can be put in place to avoid hurt sentiments of all parties involved.

I do not advocate to abolish or ban any market segment, but rather to limit their ability to advertise only to individuals who are already on the market for the kind of product or service being advertised.

Also, congratulations on your surplus income. Many people do not enjoy that luxury.

Well the point of internet is provide abundance to everyone at every price point and product category. Initially it was only about information and now it is about good products and services. Ads help in that. Not every small niche product has physical store in every city or has an app, listing on Amazon doesn't properly convey the worth of their products to new buyers. Physically seeing products is not necessary because you can always return it if not satisfied.

Consider another area where recommendation results in ecommerce like activity. Food delivery apps. One could say why not visit the restaurant and eat there. Through delivery apps, I come to know about new items / cuisines, restaurants, their reviews and buy them. In fact the situation is far more worse in delivery apps because you can't return a food item once tasted. Not so with other category of products like clothings, etc.

I feel like Benedicts Evans should make a primer on why ads exists and how better ads could serve society.

Ads help in that by selling my attention to corporations. I think that's a violation of my boundaries and will resist it by any means possible.

> Through delivery apps, I come to know about new items / cuisines, restaurants, their reviews and buy them.

I use these store and delivery apps extremely often. I have issues with their tracking of my behavior but I don't consider them to be advertising at all.

I opened the app because I wanted to see the products and offers. That's not advertising, that's information which I specifically requested. Advertising is when the app gets in my face with nonsense I couldn't care less about while I'm trying to do something else.

Well, I go to Instagram to spend surplus time which I was gonna waste anyway. If instagram shows me an ad which it thinks fit my demographics and helps me improve my lifestyle, it is a win-win for all 3 parties [aggregator, sellers, buyers] involved. I don't care how I reached there. I am knowledgeable enough to distinguish what is relevant to me. Amazon results are litered with ads. It is similar how to Walmart would preselect products for you and you have little to no-choice among them. Do you get a personal choice in what should be put on shelf. Walmart does the selection based on internal data it gathered. It can build a profile on you.

I consider advertising to be fundamentally different from word of mouth networks and friend recommendations. Friends do not have conflicts of interest. They recommend things to you because they like it and think you would too, not because they stand to make billions in profit.

Advertisements are inherently untrustworthy: you must assume ads are showing you the positives and hiding the negatives.

People are generally exposed to reviews by third parties. They do their research and only then buy. Most products can be replaced / returned if you are not satisfied. Limited friend circle and their limited exposure to existing and new products should not be a determining factor in deciding what should I like or not. It should be my personal decision.

Politicians / media are inherently untrustworthy. Yet society chugs along.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com