zlacker

>>ksec+(OP)
I’ve wondered recently if we’re going to see in the next 10 or 20 years a split generation of people who are susceptible to ads. I heard anecdotally someone talking about his kids who weren’t exposed to ads much because they (as a family) buy the ad free experiences - when they did see an ad, it was extremely effective and they were explaining to their father how much they needed this thing.

Alternatively, are the poorer kids going to be the ones inoculated against advertising because they are exposed to it constantly?

>>sircas+0j
Do you really think it works that way? People might develop banner blindness, but subconsciously they are being bombarded with messages anyway. They are being trained to consume, to associate the sites they like to visit with certain brands, pushed products by influencers...

If ads didn't work, companies wouldn't be paying billions of dollars per year. The only way to fight it is by being vigilant and block them at the source and become truly allergic to them.

>>rglull+Tk
I do think it kind of works that way. Take a look at who is affected by blatantly fake news. It’s the people that grew up in an era where there were just a few “legitimate” news sources. People who grew up with misinformation just laugh it off.

Not saying fake news has no effect on young people but it’s definitely a huge difference.

>>yunwal+Bm
> People who grew up with misinformation just laugh it off.

It does not make them immune to other types of disinformation or manipulation tactics. To think that you are so smart to be beyond that is just hubris.

>>rglull+Rq
> Not saying it has no effect on young people

Please read the comment before replying

>>yunwal+RF2
Please don't write comments with bold assertions (younger people are less susceptible to ads because they are more familiar with the internet) and then use sneaky caveats to try to back off of those assertions.