zlacker

Menthol cigarettes were, at one point, 'superior and novel'.

>>nickff+(OP)
Sure, but they were developed and implemented to better hijack human behavior, which was part of the investigation into the tobacco industry.

>>arrose+O3
You presented a dichotomy:

>"I would say anything designed to succeed by hijacking human brain chemistry instead of providing superior or novel quality is probably worth regulating at some level."

My point is that there is no real dichotomy, 'Breaking Bad' and menthol cigarettes are not so different; they each possess both qualities.

>>nickff+(OP)
Were they, or were they marketed as such until the perception stuck?

Manipulative advertising is an act of malice, particularly with addictive products.

>>TeMPOr+Z6
I'm not a smoker, but adding a nice flavor to a (previously unflavored) cigarette seems to be 'superior and novel'.

You originally posted that:

>"Advertising is an act of malice, particularly with addictive products."

But changed it to:

>"Manipulative advertising is an act of malice, particularly with addictive products."

What do you see as the difference between "manipulative advertising" and regular "advertising", and how is either (or both) malicious? Advertising is basically telling people that you are offering them something, and trying to persuade them to buy/use it, and I am not sure how that is "characterized by unscrupulous control of a situation or person."

>>nickff+Q7
You are talking to two different people, and the streams are kind of crossing.

I agree adding a flavor can be superior and novel, but if you read what I originally wrote it was specifically worded to make the addictive quality the overriding concern. Menthol wasn't more addictive because of the flavor, it was addictive because it allowed the user to get more nicotine per hit.

>>nickff+Q7
> You originally posted that: (...) But changed it to: (...)

Yes, because I wanted to narrow down my originally too broad statement before picking on the generalization will derail the subthread (as it sometimes happens on HN).

> What do you see as the difference between "manipulative advertising" and regular "advertising", and how is either (or both) malicious?

I'm glad you asked! I wrote an essay on this very topic the other day: http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html.

>>arrose+B9
TeMPOraL was making the case that menthol was not superior and novel, and I was contesting that specific assertion.

That aside, if you consider the addictive quality to be the overriding, and believe that "Breaking Bad" possesses (some of) it, then why doesn't BB's addictiveness override its superiority and novelty?

>>TeMPOr+Ng
So you've abandoned the claim that menthol cigarettes were not superior and novel?

With respect to your discussion of advertising, as someone who has used various forms of marketing to promote products, I think advertising is much less effective than you seem to believe. Second, you say that informing is okay, but convincing is bad, but the problem is that almost all 'informing' is an attempt to convince. Those points aside, I understand that you find certain advertising patterns unethical or distasteful, but I am not sure exactly how to draw the lines; your post seems to be a polemic rather than an ethical framework, so it expresses your feelings, but doesn't explain your thinking to me.

>>nickff+Bk
Is Breaking Bad addictive? It's a good show, and it's compelling, but my analysis wouldn't conclude that it is addictive.

>>arrose+vv
My read of your original comment was that Breaking Bad was at least pseudo-addictive. If you don't think BB is addictive at all, there was no "super interesting question."