maybe if it was for plastic surgery. or if Kim K did a sponsored post for diet tea
No, the mere presence of the advertisement is sufficient harm to a person without capacity to understand the difference between what they need, what they want, and what other people want of them.
seeing an ad for 5 gum probably won't harm a developing teen. seeing a celebrity live a lifestyle you will never have and look 'better' than you ever will might.
though using revanced and the IG equivalent certainly is a QoL improvement, but I don't think my doctor will prescribe pihole to improve my mental health
I'm no mental health professional but I suspect this period of advertising will be looked back on in a similar way to leeching and leaded gasoline.
This isn’t a new idea, and there is some evidence to back it up.
https://hbr.org/2020/01/advertising-makes-us-unhappy
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002224298605000...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4189139
https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
Lots of people have also come up with long lists of ways that ads that seem innocuous for children still do damage over time.
https://www.momjunction.com/articles/negative-side-effects-o...
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/Media/Pa...
That seems unlikely. I'm not going to get into if it would be higher or lower, but both of those seem way more likely than equivalency.
I will take the over on that number.
I will also suggest that the number is even larger for a similarly-sized cohort of working adults (especially younger working adults).