There is no point in chasing a high GDP when it results in a materially worse world. The point of a society isn't to make the numbers go up. If a monopoly is super efficient at generating some nebulous concept of value by creating and operating the world's largest surveillance system and actively using it to sell influence over people's attention and habits then the only sensible thing to do is to dismantle it.
The choices are not “Google as it currently exists” vs “a world without Google,” but rather “Google as it currently exists” and “Google as subject to stricter regulation.” There’s a fair case to be made that the world is worse than it would have been if the US had kept a tighter rein on Google.
Yeah, so little imagination in these pro-Google comments. They're imagining a world without Google instead of a world where ten Googles are all competing with one another.
What part of being a massive ad company whose raison d'etre is to collect as much personal information about you as possible (with limited or no consent) to enable other people to try to convince you to buy stuff even remotely a net positive for the world?
Because of organic search, not because of the ads. It has had a massive effect on the economic opportunities of newcomers. You can open a restaurant outside of the main walking street of a place and get customers through Google Maps. You can have a small business selling almost anything online and people will find you using Google search. Before that you'd have to rely on traditional advertising for anybody to know you exist, which is neither cheap nor effective. Today you can start a business and pay 0 in advertising, and Google will still help customers find you through organic search.
Don't underestimate how much freedom that gives people to strike it out on their own.
I would prefer to see ads for things that I want rather then see ads for stuff I couldn't care less about.
If I get convinced to buy useful things it's a win/win.
That could an opt in option, but the rest of us don’t want it. Google (or whatever ad company replaces it (Addled?) could give you the chance to opt in to ads and leave the rest of us alone. I’m fine with seeing ads about hunting when I’m on a gun sales website or local restaurants if I’m looking at recipes on Epicurious, just stop following me around, creeper (google)
If you and enough others find such fine-tuned recommendations helpful then they would continue to exist without intrusive advertising. There are entire magazines full of ads that people pay for.
Ever bought something you didn't actually want? Were you persuaded to want something? What was the exact mechanism? Were you lied to? "Made to" somehow?
> net positive for the world
How exactly do you find out what is "net positive for the world"? Who assigns the the values and who does the tallying?
We don't actually know, but we know it exists. Because otherwise people wouldn't bother paying for ads. Your average person can identify hundreds of brands instantly. What's the value of that? Billions? Trillions?
Certainly, when cigarettes and chewing tobacco were advertised most people did it. Granted, the addiction helps because you only need 1 successful conversion for a life-long customer.
Well, now very few people do that in the US. Without a shadow of a doubt in anyone's mind, the abolishment of those ads had something to do with it.
One of the most common fallacies I see is that choice is a binary. You either chose something, or you didn't. Meaning you were forced.
In actuality, choice is incredibly complex. There are thousands of individual events that will influence your choices. What you're doing right now could be influencing choices you make next decade, and you wouldn't know.
You can control people's choices without forcing their hand on anything. You can introduce information and events that sculpt their mind without so much as lifting a finger. It's a form of mind control, but not in the TV sense. Because people make the choices themselves.
Making someone do something is almost worthless. Convincing someone it's in their best interest to do something is where the value actually is. Look back at wars and our use of propaganda and try to break down what the end-goal is. It's not "making" people do something.
We are learning and teaching machines. We can't help influencing and being influenced. Any interaction we have with another human being will influence us. Reading a book, an article or a simple blog or forum post will influence my mind. A lesson or a chat will influence me. Even a smell or a color will generate thoughts and actions in me. We can't help it - they are using the same mechanism we use for learning and without that we can't survive.
But does that mean that they control me? Only if this information comes from only one side and is well integrated in my regular trusted information streams overwhelming my defenses. Like propaganda. Or a Guru. Or an academic institution.
Ads on the other hand are quite easily defeated because they are both clearly delimited and coming from numerous, competing directions. In a world without Ads I would be very vulnerable to them. In our world though they are reduced to a more utilitarian function: to inform me. They tell me what options are out there, what is available and how to get it if I so choose.
I don't think they can "make me" do anything against my own interest or even change my mind. They can merely inform me and I have no problem with that.
> I don't think they can "make me" do anything against my own interest or even change my mind
I think you lack humility and imagination.
Once again, I remind you of the Tobacco industry. After advertisement was abolished, Tabacco use went down significantly. They often targeted young boys with promises of masculinity and prestige.
Keep in mind Tabacco isn't your average product either. It kills you, rather painfully and slowly.
If people can be influenced via ads to do that, which we know they can because they were, odds are you are being influenced right now with products with much less personal risk.
Or perhaps look at the obesity epidemic. We have millions upon millions of people literally eating themselves to death. Their quality of life is severely impacted. That's pretty extreme, certainly nobody would harm themselves like that without influence from the outside. Now, granted, we run into the same problem of confounding factors. Food tastes good and food sense is taught to children. But I personally believe advertisement has something to do with it.
Your note about "competing ads" I don't think works. The reason being that while ads may compete with each other, they all have the same goal - to get you to buy something. Yes, McDonald's and Wendy's compete, but, for you, the effects are pretty much the same. You buy something unhealthy to eat.
I've never seen an ad for not eating. I've never seen an ad for not buying a pair of shoes. I have seen ads for not smoking - PSAs. Which, I think, is really just further proof that advertising must work.
All that to say, I think if ads did work you would have no way of knowing. I think I said this previously but it's pretty much worthless to force someone to do something. The trick is getting them to do it and letting them believe they made the choice. That's the golden goose.
Well, let's say ads work. I am not convinced, but you're persuading me. :)
Can't outlaw them - we still need them to quickly inform & educate the masses. The governments will definitely use them even if just for "good" purposes. Who will define "good" though? In a world without ads people will not build an immunity and any ad will have such an effect that the temptation to use it will become irresistible to anybody in power. And mark my words: they'll use them for worse stuff than smoking and eating.
Also, we'll loose all ad-supported free stuff. And there is a lot there, like pretty much all media. The poor will be the most affected, too, since stuff can be paid with money or attention and they have no money.
> Tobacco industry
I don't know any smoker that is not aware of the dangers. But what they get out of it makes it worth it to them. Believe it or not, most people do not live to maximize their life expectancy, they have other criteria as well - like pleasure or enjoyment of life. Otherwise everybody would start their day with 4 hours in the gym and walk everywhere.
> After advertisement was abolished, Tabacco use went down significantly.
I'm sure there were many other measures taken as well.
> the obesity epidemic [...] believe advertisement has something to do with it
How about the food pyramid pushed by governments that was full on processed carbs? How about the vilification of fat & meat made by the medical establishment I believe? How about people naturally choosing comfort and pleasure over hard work and restraint? How about partners working both with little time left to chop and cook at home?
I doubt you need ads to explain the obesity epidemic.
> I've never seen an ad for not eating. I've never seen an ad for not buying a pair of shoes.
Because we must eat and have shoes - we can't not buy food or shoes. None of those ads made me buy, they just influenced my purchase decision. And I see plenty of ads for health advisors and nutrition experts that tell me to eat more veggies and less sugar. Maybe they are not on main stream media, but alternative media is full of them.
> The trick is getting them to do it and letting them believe they made the choice.
If I wanted to protect my kids from that, I would expose them to more ads, not less. Because they would be even more vulnerable to ads if they saw fewer of them.
I believe that for the best ideas to win, we need to debate more, read more and learn more - not to burn the "bad" books.
At a time of their choosing they can subject themselves to marketing material (yellow pages) or simple word-of-mouth amplified by the Internet. Treating "knowledge of your product/service" as a market commodity is bizarre and has overall negative effects on competition (more money buys more awareness equals more sales).
I used to buy a magazine called "Computer Shopper", which I heard about via word of mouth.
Even now I will go out of my way to watch adverts for things like films I might be interested in.
Need to be careful with word of mouth though, many adverts are spread by word of mouth, especially on the internet where people are paid to say "hey this new $product is great". Those are worse that clearly marked ads.
If ads are the only way people are able to learn about products, then there is clearly a massive failure of imagination, as well as innovation. People know what they need, and have always known. The concept of exploiting human psychology in order to sell more of a product to people who likely don't need it is a relatively recent development in human history. Plus you can just search for stuff you need in a search engine...
> People know what they need, and have always known
No we don't. I need a better mouse trap, but I already have mouse traps that work, so if you make a better one you need me to find out about it otherwise I'll just buy the same old not so good ones out of habit thinking they work as good as any other one. There are also problems that I don't even know I have. There are a lot of houses with terrible insulation that the owners really need some advertisement to get them to upgrade - it will pay off in just a few years.
These ads do not need to interrupt people's lives to make their cases. If that mouse trap is so good then people who are in the market will discover it by active searching, then spread their discovery. If the new insulation will save people money then that's newsworthy information and will be reported on in information outlets that people subscribe to. The idea that businesses paying to push awareness is the only way people might discover previously unknown products and services is absurd.
If you think the mouse traps work you probably do not need other. Anyway, marketing is not good way to find about flaws of current ways. Because that is not it's focus.
