zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. TeMPOr+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-09-24 21:00:57
> 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.

replies(1): >>nickff+g5
2. nickff+g5[view] [source] 2020-09-24 21:30:15
>>TeMPOr+(OP)
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.

[go to top]