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.

    • huppakee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      The article is about paid advertising. Paying someone to spread your opinion is in my eyes very different than telling someone about your opinion and trying to persuade that person to agree with you.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      The salt that makes it propaganda and not just a convincing argument is the ulterior use of symbolism to unconsciously condition the victim

      But I understand why children like you miss that nuance

      • Koarnine@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Nuance that is not definitionally a part of what constitutes ‘propaganda’ whether you infantilize someone else for seeing things differently or not.

        Go on, provide some examples and sources if you want to make such a grand claim.

        Something being propaganda does not necessitate that it contains subliminal messaging, propaganda can be entirely overt and without unconscious conditioning techniques.

        A convincing argument is propaganda, you just wrongly believe yourself to be above propaganda, the same way you seem to consider yourself above others generally…

        • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            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