logoalt Hacker News

hliyan • today at 2:02 PM • 1 reply • view on HN

I feel now there's growing support behind the idea that advertising that (a) bypasses a person's volition and (b) consumes a significant amount of their daily attention quota, should be illegal. I think the boundary is crossed somewhere along this progression:

1) A sign atop a storefront

2) A merchant yelling at a public marketplace

3) A prominent display by the roadside

4) A flyer delivered to your home

5) An advertisement alongside a news article

6) An advertisement that interrupts a radio and television broadcast

7) An advertisement alongside a digital written content (analogous to (5) but somewhat more intense)

8) An advertisement that pops up while you read content (analogous to (6) but more intense)

9) An obvious product placement within written/audio/visual content you consume

10) A non-obvious placement of an an idea, thought or bias toward a product within the content you consume

11) Content that evokes intense emotions that are presented to you alongside an advertisement

12) Content that activates involuntary addictive pathways in your brain, presented to you alongside an advertisement


Replies

estearum • today at 2:05 PM

Seems to totally avoid the most salient dimension which is the degree of personalization, no?

Personalization requires intrusive data collection upfront and then it requires the production of a "fractured reality" at the presentation end.

IMO 99% of the big problems with advertising stem from these two "features."