Hacker News Reader

Comment by bigstrat2003 | Hacker News Reader

bigstrat2003·

> More accurate is “streaming without discrete ad breaks.”

Yes, or as people call it: "ad-free". We all know what is meant by that phrase, being pedantic about "well actually there are ads regardless" doesn't make communication clearer.

View on HN

The point is to bring the knowledge to people that the advertising is incorporated into the product. Lots of people don’t know the extra long car chase scene isn’t due to the director’s artistic preference, but rather economic preference, at the viewer’s expense.

There is a clear conflict of interest that can only be addressed by buyers being knowledgeable.

This is an important point. Readers should remember that what's obvious to them is not necessarily something "everyone knows" until it's pointed out. Personally I will say that when I first starting consuming movies at around age 20 I was not conscious of this dynamic, until I read about product placement in movies and then suddenly I started noticing it. Especially when a car chase scene goes into slow motion at just the moment that the camera gets a closeup of the tires and you can read the brand name...

I don't really care for these type of ads as I see them everyday. They're already plastered on products I use. I would be grateful if ads on website were that static.

What would you call actually ad-free broadcasts then?

Propaganda?

How did you arrive at this proposal? Is the Mona Lisa propaganda because she isn't holding a branded flask with snake oil?

GP responded to a comment about broadcasts, not paintings. I think the GP wasn't so far off. If you are not selling products you are still presenting viewpoints, experiences, and ideas.

I remember seeing images of paintings on television so I don't agree that it would somehow be impossible.

What definition of propaganda are you using here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com