Mildly Interesting

20060 readers

875 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

marcar@lemmy.world

WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world

Jimbabwe@lemmy.ml

1414

What If We Made Advertising Illegal? (simone.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago by sundrei@lemmy.sdf.org to c/mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

390 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The idea feels like sci-fi because you're so used to it, imagining ads gone feels like asking to outlaw gravity. But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities would now improve on that.

The traditional argument pro-advertising—that it provides consumers with necessary information—hasn't been valid for decades.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So either you are an LLM, have poor reading comprehension, or are just actively being stupid.

Never in my statement was nuance a part of the definition. I specifically stated that the difference between propaganda and a convincing argument is the ulterior use of symbolism to manipulate the victim's outcomes.

The nuance portion was purely stating that such mental children cannot grasp the difference between propaganda and a convincing argument.

I look forward to seeing how you actively misunderstand this post too, what a fun game!

[–] Koarnine@pawb.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nowhere did I misunderstand your post, you stated it back to me?

I'm saying that the difference you are describing doesn't exist, thus the nuance you ascribe 'mental children' to lack to perceive is imaginary.

I understand words convey a meaning beyond definitionally, but definitionally there is no mention of such a requirement. Thus I asked you for any sources backing up such a claim.

I have not deviated from what I said previously. Nor misinterpreted you intentionally whatsoever. Rather, I disagree with you.

Also I am not an llm, and I intend to discuss with you calmly and fairly and not misinterpret what you are saying. If you are willing to engage

[–] MellowYellow13@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Dont even bother. Dude just trolls and makes angry comments to everyone

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yep, LLM. So sad. You can tell by the inability to follow context.

Some post-processing can fix that, but I guess this bot wrangler wasn't informed