zlacker

[return to "What if we made advertising illegal?"]
1. gcp123+Cj[view] [source] 2025-04-05 20:15:16
>>smnrg+(OP)
I can’t stop thinking about this article. I spent a long time in ad tech before switching to broader systems engineering. The author captures something I've struggled to articulate to friends and family about why I left the industry.

The part that really struck me was framing advertising and propaganda as essentially the same mechanism - just with different masters. Having built targeting systems myself, this rings painfully true. The mechanical difference between getting someone to buy sneakers versus vote for a candidate is surprisingly small.

What's frustrating is how the tech community keeps treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. We debate content moderation policies and algorithmic transparency, but rarely question the underlying attention marketplace that makes manipulation profitable in the first place.

The uncomfortable truth: most of us in tech understand that today's advertising systems are fundamentally parasitic. We've built something that converts human attention into money with increasingly terrifying efficiency, but we're all trapped in a prisoner's dilemma where nobody can unilaterally disarm.

Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce would still happen. Information would still flow. We'd just be freed from the increasingly sophisticated machinery designed to override our decision-making.

Is this proposal radical? Absolutely. But sometimes the Overton window needs a sledgehammer.

P.S. If you are curious about the relationship between Sigmund Freud, propaganda, and the origins of the ad industry, check out the documentary “Century of the Self”.

◧◩
2. LunaSe+pk[view] [source] 2025-04-05 20:23:14
>>gcp123+Cj
> Try this thought experiment from the article - imagine a world without advertising. Products would still exist. Commerce would still happen.

But newspapers, TV and Youtube would die out.

◧◩◪
3. chrono+On[view] [source] 2025-04-05 20:54:48
>>LunaSe+pk
News would still exist and would not be competing with engagement driven news because there's no engagement=ad views. I wager it would be very helpful to news.

TV would absolutely still exist, given that people pay for it and there is a big industry around ad-free streaming services already.

◧◩◪◨
4. makeit+Qw[view] [source] 2025-04-05 22:23:14
>>chrono+On
For news, I feel it's another can of worm altogether.

Right now we've already having oligarchs owning news groups and very few independent publications. But getting rid of other revenue sources won't help that situation, we'd get more Washington Post or New York Times than Buffalo's Fire.

It's a lot easier IMHO to have an independent newsroom if the business side can advertise for toilet paper and dating sites than if it needs to convince Jeff Bezos of its value to him.

And investigation journalism costs a lot while not getting valued by many, there's no way we get a set of paid-only-by-viewers papers from all relevant spectrums covering most of the news happening every day.

[go to top]