zlacker

No, I'm saying what I had said in the first paragraph of my comment. I'm saying, the reward might not be the fuel, but it could be fire retardant, and you might not want to cut it off.

People getting paid to do things do worse than otherwise[1]. They do better when not paid. The quality of work often gets worse when they get more. It's well established. As counterintuitive as sometimes it seem to be.

What I'm essentially saying is, if you think people are right now getting paid to do something bad to the society(e.g. ads), you might want to keep them hooked and tied to the money and not to something else, like advertising for its own sake.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect

>>numpad+(OP)
Oh! OK, so:

Fear the work of unpaid ad execs! They won't stop making adverts, it's what they live for, money or no money! The adverts will continue to be made, but now they will be made for love, and they will be extremely high quality! And if you think ordinary adverts are bad, wait until you see what adverts are like when they come from the heart!

>>card_z+g1
Yeah, literally. It'll promote something much worse with more passion. You see where this is going?

>>numpad+U9
I wonder if I should point out that your link says that it's when people stop being paid that quality declines. However, if "ads for ads' sake" became a thing, it would presumably look like propaganda, in support of whatever the advert-artist personally cares about.