News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The case for banning ads in social media by kick on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:05PM (#21540978)
All advertising is bad-looking. It's intentionally created to draw your attention without your consent, and distracts from anything actually of interest.
Re:The case for banning ads in social media by WalterBright on Friday November 15, 2019 @02:49AM (#21543074)
> All advertising is bad-looking.

The Eiffel Tower was built as basically an advertisement for Eiffel's company.

The Rainier R is also became an icon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainier_Brewing_Company#/media...

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by glandium on Friday November 15, 2019 @03:12AM (#21543164)
The Eiffel Tower was built as a monument for the World Fair of Paris in 1889. It was supposed to be dismantled 20 years later, and what saved it is that it had been used for telecommunications. Seeing it as an ad for Eiffel's company is kind of a stretch.
Re:The case for banning ads in social media by WalterBright on Friday November 15, 2019 @03:24PM (#21548392)
> Seeing it as an ad for Eiffel's company is kind of a stretch.

Eiffel paid a huge chunk of the cost of it, and had his name put on it. It's no different from businesses funding a sports stadium in exchange for it being named after the business.

It's awesome advertising.

I've often wondered why Microsoft didn't fund NASA probe missions in exchange for writing "Microsoft" on the side of the rocket or other such considerations. It'd be a win for all concerned.

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by buboard on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:07PM (#21540993)
some advertising is ugly. most of it is intentionally designed to create a positive emotional response, in many cases including art. Think different.
Re:The case for banning ads in social media by normalnorm on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:27PM (#21541124)
All of it is designed hijack your attention against your own interests. What you call "positive emotional response" is only positive from the point of view of the advertiser.

From the point of view of the victims, it as intrusion on their thoughts of attention, and almost always an attempt to implant a desire into their mind.

Ads are art to the same degree that cannibalism is gastronomy.

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by buboard on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:35PM (#21541162)
most apple users here would disagree

plus i m not sure if you re aware how extreme your position is

Most of our beautiful classical art was advertisements for the Church

most graffiti is uglier than ads

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by mirimir on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:46PM (#21541224)
> Most of our beautiful classical art was advertisements for the Church

I guess that's why I hate so much of it.

Also the bloody hymns that are popular this season. Especially the castrati voices.

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by buboard on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:54PM (#21541268)
sorry to shock you, but almost every western cultural artifact you listen or watch is derivative of that art. so i guess u hate music too
Re:The case for banning ads in social media by mirimir on Thursday November 14, 2019 @08:09PM (#21541357)
I hate lots of music, sure.

My taste runs toward punk, black metal, acid house, and trance.

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by normalnorm on Thursday November 14, 2019 @09:35PM (#21541772)
> most apple users here would disagree > plus i m not sure if you re aware how extreme your position is

Wait, aren't you the person who just wrote "think different"? I'm confused.

> Most of our beautiful classical art was advertisements for the Church

Sure, and Jesus was a Marxist, or something... If you try to force XXI century concepts into XIV century realities you can arrive at silly over-simplified conclusions such as the one above.

> most graffiti is uglier than ads

This is your opinion. Graffitis are not trying to manipulate me.

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by ericmay on Friday November 15, 2019 @07:27AM (#21544266)
Eh, I think graffiti is or can be used to send a message or bring to light an issue. So in that way it is trying to manipulate you.

That being said I don’t disagree with the rest of your post.

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by normalnorm on Friday November 15, 2019 @11:37AM (#21546258)
Fair enough. I would just argue that they don't try to manipulate you at scale...
Re:The case for banning ads in social media by mirimir on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:42PM (#21541204)
> Ads are art to the same degree that cannibalism is gastronomy.

Good one.

So maybe a couple years ago, being a klutz, I brushed a finger against a red-hot stovetop grill. There was a hiss, with ~no pain at first. And creepily, a delicious smell.

Took months to heal. And hurt like fuck.

But that smell. Damn.

Re:The case for banning ads in social media by mirimir on Thursday November 14, 2019 @11:15PM (#21542162)
OK, so maybe I was unclear.

The point is that the delicious food smell from burning myself severely was unexpected, distracting ... and worse, rather invasive, and hard to put out of mind.

So that's like being confronted by advertising that triggers some unconscious drive. It puts some new thought in your head, which leads you to do something that you otherwise wouldn't. So that'a invasive just like the smell of ones braising flesh, which bringsd up thoughts of eating.

That is, the riff that art to advertising is like gastronomy to cannibalism. Or at least, autocannibalism.

There's also similarity between advertising and sexual assault. The possibility that a victim -- like a victim of advertising -- will come to enjoy the experience. And end up being betrayed by their body. Which arguably is one of thge worst parts of the experience. Seeing ads is rather like brain rape.