Hacker News Reader

Comment by stackghost | Hacker News Reader

>No thank you, I can protect myself.

In many ways you actually cannot, in any reasonable way:

- You cannot escape surveillance unless you completely (and I do mean completely) withdraw from modern society

- You cannot protect yourself from subconscious manipulation by advertising and marketing firms that pay billions of dollars to find and exploit subconscious weaknesses that we all possess

- You cannot protect yourself from sweeping changes made (e.g. to legislation) made in response to the interests of lobbyists or bad actors, and in consequence from changes in the behaviour of others, in response

View on HN

> You cannot protect yourself from subconscious manipulation by advertising and marketing firms that pay billions of dollars to find and exploit subconscious weaknesses that we all possess

By learning the techniques they employ, a subconscious manipulation by them, becomes a conscious observation by us. Education defeats these methods. An argument could be made that more money will be spent to continually find deeper subconscious manipulations. I would wager, the ROI would diminish quickly.

I would rather be manipulated by private industry than controlled by government. I cannot out vote a majority, but I can out wit a billboard.

>Education defeats these methods.

It does not. For example young women and girls, even when knowing that an image of a fashion model is photoshopped, still exhibit drops in their self body image.

>I would rather be manipulated by private industry than controlled by government.

In many cases these two things are the same, due to the prevalence and efficacy of lobbying

>I can out wit a billboard.

Lots of people believe this, but it is false.

I wanted to observe how great it is to see "ghastmaster" arguing with "stackghost."

I liked that in the article, somebody with the name "Poet" grew up to be an economist.

> It does not. For example young women and girls, even when knowing that an image of a fashion model is photoshopped, still exhibit drops in their self body image.

In the natural world traits that are wasted on futile efforts are eventually not selected. In the human world, traits that are ripe for manipulation in a free market would result in lower purchasing power. Thus, less ability to afford children and pass on the traits. Subsidizing via regulations or direct support prolongs the subterfuge we are discussing here. Perhaps, in perpetuity.

> In many cases these two things are the same, due to the prevalence and efficacy of lobbying

The reason there are lobbyist is because we have granted those being lobbied control. Take away the control and the lobbying is pointless. More rules and regulations = more lobbying.

> In the human world, traits that a ripe for manipulation in a free market would result in lower purchasing power. Thus, less ability to afford children and pass on the traits

This is mostly nonsense

Air is mostly nitrogen.

How is it mostly nonsense?

There are a lot of mistakes here, but for one, lower economic means correlates with more children.

>Subsidizing via regulations or direct support prolongs the subterfuge we are discussing here. Perhaps, in perpetuity.

>Take away the control and the lobbying is pointless.

This social anarcho-darwinism nonsense doesn't refute my point that you are susceptible to influence and coercion.

You cannot "protect" yourself as the previous poster baselessly asserted.

Has less purchasing power ever resulted in less children? Would you happen to have a source?

> I would rather be manipulated by private industry than controlled by government. I cannot out vote a majority, but I can out wit a billboard.

Another way of saying this is that you would rather be controlled through methods which are subtle, novel, and difficult to put a finger on than through methods which are overt and fit traditional narratives of control.

Cops. On the whole, yes.

This is why doctors and other healthcare professionals never become addicted to drugs. Right? They know better?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com