Do not share advertisements. They are toxic to society, always based in a lie, and never of benefit. Making fun of them is not better than genuinely shilling for the company. Block ads. Destroy them where possible. Seek to have them banned wherever possible. They are not welcome on Lemmy, and if you are going to share them, neither are you.
Thinking back, it does seem like tagging shows up more on infrastructure than adspace but I think that might just be because there is a lot more money invested by advertisers in replacing ads than there ever is on cleaning/repainting public structures. The signs at sporting events and billboards change hands or are updated fairly regularly by the nature of the advertising company moving to a new client whenever a contract ends, but walls and public signage are often only replaced or repainted once every few years at best.
Yes they are. All advertising is based around the lie of creating false associations. Buying a truck won’t make you a ‘MAN.’ Drinking a particular brand of soda won’t bring about world peace, make you ‘cool,’ or really even cure your thirst, generally. Even the most generic, ‘buy our thing. It’s good thing,’ is based in the lie of ‘buying our thing will make you happy.’ It’s shoved into everyone’s face without consideration of truth value. It’s the same as some guy walking up to everyone in a place and saying ‘If you have normal sex with me, you will have the best orgasm of your life.’ It might be true for a VERY limited number of people, but it’s not true for everyone he’s harassing to say it, it’s not even guaranteed to be true for anyone, and he is 1000% guaranteed not to be saying it for the benefit of the people to whom he’s saying it. Even when it’s true, it’s true by accident, a lie that failed to turn out to be false. It’s pure manipulative bullshit.
Perhaps many ads or even the majority is lying, but everything is just nonsense. Like some clothes washing service just announcing it exists. Or a repair cafe. Stop thinking in absurd extremes.
I have had this discussion many times. A sign on your business’s frontage is not advertising. It is a label. It is the name of a thing on that thing. It is contained entirely within your space, not invasive, and does not involve manipulating anyone or creating perverse systems to manipulate people. Stating your existence is fine. It enables those who might want to find you, to find you when they choose to seek you out. Advertising goes beyond mere labelling and is innately deceptive. You not noticing the harm is not the same as not being harmed. You liking being deceived is not the same as not being deceived.
You had this discussion before? But I have to take that one step further to make you see that extreme as false?
So we put this label not on the business but on a bus that drives around that area. Now it is not the name on the thing. Not contained in their space. Is arguably invasive (but not really more than on their place, different discussion). Manipulation can also be argued about in either case, but not relevant for the lying part right now. It states the existence of that business someplace else than the business. It is an ad that does not lie. Like every other ad it helps people find something, like… obviously.
You now shifting the definition of ads to make it such that everything else is not an ad anymore so your argument stays up is just circular logic.
I’m using a perfectly normal definition of ad. I’m not changing the definition. You are, by trying to include basic labelling as advertisement. It is a trick of language used by people in marketing to inflate their importance and minimise their personal responsibility. Advertising is the process of one party, as in person, group or organisation, paying a second party to send/project/play/display/etc. media to a third party with the purposes of manipulating their decisions, usually, though occasionally not, without the request and/or consent of the recipient. Only particularly obtuse people who want to justify this malign behaviour, which is harmful to individuals and society, try to conflate communication (a general concept encompassing everything from a nod to a multi-volume multimedia experience, including advertisement) and advertisement itself. (A particular form of communication) The problem is with the particular form and you cannot defend it by ignoring the distinction and defending the general, any more than you would accept defending a rapist by claiming their prosecution was an extremist attack on all men.
My use of ‘lie’ is also pretty routine, collectively referring to various forms of deceptive use of communication. There are a few people who would claim lies are only verbal and auditory, or don’t count as lies if the speaker/writer/originator intends no harm, or intends happiness, to the recipient, or that a statement’s truth value is dependent on it’s usefullness as a meme which perpetuates its host’s survival, etc. but those definitions are both less common and less useful, so I tend to ignore them.
Ergo, using deception, whether in outright falsehoods, (blatant lies) intentionally misleading truths, (lies of omission) or simple BS, (claims without regard for truth value; still deceptive, even when technically true when reviewed later) is inherent to advertising because even it’s most benign forms are BS. The truth of the matter is not changed by your denial of it, nor by blaming me for holding a more common definition of advertisement than the more vague and thus less useful one you are trying to foist upon me.
Now, it’s true I have taken the slightly risky position of stating an absolute as truth, but you should welcome that because it should have let you debunk my claim in a simple sentence or two. ABC.
A. Definitions of lie and advertising seen above.
B. Advertising is a subset of lies.
C. Lies are not a subset of advertising.
Where is there an advertisement that is not a lie?
If the cost of not having the toxic lies of advertising trying to trick people, the toxic effects of the ad-based business model corrupting all of our media, and the toxic effects of advertising-based political campaigns, is to have to pay a few pennies to someone providing a service I actually want, I don’t see a downside.
Again:
Do not share advertisements. They are toxic to society, always based in a lie, and never of benefit. Making fun of them is not better than genuinely shilling for the company. Block ads. Destroy them where possible. Seek to have them banned wherever possible. They are not welcome on Lemmy, and if you are going to share them, neither are you.
I mustve missed the part where everyone decided you have unilateral decision making over who gets to participate here.
the meeting was last tuesday at 15:00 - didn’t you read the memo?
Crud, what else was discussed?
Poll consensus majority still feels lemmy user MargotRobbie was real.
we’re getting matching thongs
I wish taggers would target ads instead of public buildings and infrastructure or even normal businesses.
Thinking back, it does seem like tagging shows up more on infrastructure than adspace but I think that might just be because there is a lot more money invested by advertisers in replacing ads than there ever is on cleaning/repainting public structures. The signs at sporting events and billboards change hands or are updated fairly regularly by the nature of the advertising company moving to a new client whenever a contract ends, but walls and public signage are often only replaced or repainted once every few years at best.
Agreed that promoting advertisement is just more advertisement, but they aren’t all based in a lie.
Yes they are. All advertising is based around the lie of creating false associations. Buying a truck won’t make you a ‘MAN.’ Drinking a particular brand of soda won’t bring about world peace, make you ‘cool,’ or really even cure your thirst, generally. Even the most generic, ‘buy our thing. It’s good thing,’ is based in the lie of ‘buying our thing will make you happy.’ It’s shoved into everyone’s face without consideration of truth value. It’s the same as some guy walking up to everyone in a place and saying ‘If you have normal sex with me, you will have the best orgasm of your life.’ It might be true for a VERY limited number of people, but it’s not true for everyone he’s harassing to say it, it’s not even guaranteed to be true for anyone, and he is 1000% guaranteed not to be saying it for the benefit of the people to whom he’s saying it. Even when it’s true, it’s true by accident, a lie that failed to turn out to be false. It’s pure manipulative bullshit.
Perhaps many ads or even the majority is lying, but everything is just nonsense. Like some clothes washing service just announcing it exists. Or a repair cafe. Stop thinking in absurd extremes.
I have had this discussion many times. A sign on your business’s frontage is not advertising. It is a label. It is the name of a thing on that thing. It is contained entirely within your space, not invasive, and does not involve manipulating anyone or creating perverse systems to manipulate people. Stating your existence is fine. It enables those who might want to find you, to find you when they choose to seek you out. Advertising goes beyond mere labelling and is innately deceptive. You not noticing the harm is not the same as not being harmed. You liking being deceived is not the same as not being deceived.
You had this discussion before? But I have to take that one step further to make you see that extreme as false?
So we put this label not on the business but on a bus that drives around that area. Now it is not the name on the thing. Not contained in their space. Is arguably invasive (but not really more than on their place, different discussion). Manipulation can also be argued about in either case, but not relevant for the lying part right now. It states the existence of that business someplace else than the business. It is an ad that does not lie. Like every other ad it helps people find something, like… obviously.
You now shifting the definition of ads to make it such that everything else is not an ad anymore so your argument stays up is just circular logic.
I’m using a perfectly normal definition of ad. I’m not changing the definition. You are, by trying to include basic labelling as advertisement. It is a trick of language used by people in marketing to inflate their importance and minimise their personal responsibility. Advertising is the process of one party, as in person, group or organisation, paying a second party to send/project/play/display/etc. media to a third party with the purposes of manipulating their decisions, usually, though occasionally not, without the request and/or consent of the recipient. Only particularly obtuse people who want to justify this malign behaviour, which is harmful to individuals and society, try to conflate communication (a general concept encompassing everything from a nod to a multi-volume multimedia experience, including advertisement) and advertisement itself. (A particular form of communication) The problem is with the particular form and you cannot defend it by ignoring the distinction and defending the general, any more than you would accept defending a rapist by claiming their prosecution was an extremist attack on all men.
My use of ‘lie’ is also pretty routine, collectively referring to various forms of deceptive use of communication. There are a few people who would claim lies are only verbal and auditory, or don’t count as lies if the speaker/writer/originator intends no harm, or intends happiness, to the recipient, or that a statement’s truth value is dependent on it’s usefullness as a meme which perpetuates its host’s survival, etc. but those definitions are both less common and less useful, so I tend to ignore them.
Ergo, using deception, whether in outright falsehoods, (blatant lies) intentionally misleading truths, (lies of omission) or simple BS, (claims without regard for truth value; still deceptive, even when technically true when reviewed later) is inherent to advertising because even it’s most benign forms are BS. The truth of the matter is not changed by your denial of it, nor by blaming me for holding a more common definition of advertisement than the more vague and thus less useful one you are trying to foist upon me.
Now, it’s true I have taken the slightly risky position of stating an absolute as truth, but you should welcome that because it should have let you debunk my claim in a simple sentence or two. ABC. A. Definitions of lie and advertising seen above.
B. Advertising is a subset of lies. C. Lies are not a subset of advertising.
Where is there an advertisement that is not a lie?
Yup. If something is good quality and solves a problem I have, I’ll find it myself.
Red bull gives you wings
@ryannathans
I feel like that slogan is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
@sunsofold
https://lawfold.com/red-bull-gives-you-wings-lawsuit/
Happened
@ryannathans
“The lawsuit was not about literal wings.”
Well, that’s boring. 😛
I know right
hey it’s ryannathans
Hey it’s a Dan! Fancy seeing you here
deleted by creator
Advertisements are not bad. We have to regulate them though. If you do not want advertisements then every single service you use would be paid.
If the cost of not having the toxic lies of advertising trying to trick people, the toxic effects of the ad-based business model corrupting all of our media, and the toxic effects of advertising-based political campaigns, is to have to pay a few pennies to someone providing a service I actually want, I don’t see a downside.
Why would Linux charge me if there would be no advertisements?
My library fees are so low literally anyone should be able to pay them.