I am certainly no fan of current advertising - it is fundamentally backwards from what is useful - the customer wants information on what would fufill their needs and desires and should shape the provider. Beyond sinple "this exists" advertising tries to shape their desire to the product. Unfortunately there isn't exactly even a good theory for a better information propagation mechanism for resource allocation let alone one in practice.

I wouldn't go so far to go zero sum with ad tech vs society. To be a smartass bathing the worls in nuclear fire would be bad for adtech and bad for society. Not to mention society is horrifyingly vague and exploitable. You can call the downfall of the Kim Jonh dynasty, the military, and the rise of a free and democratic North Korea/unified Korea the a destruction of a society.

Personally I suspect that critical analysis by default isn't used period and the issues of influencers far predate ad tech. One bit of accidental good they can engage in is building skepticism - a cure all claim is greeted with more incredulity today than in the old west.

Sure, there isn't a good theory for information propagation. Everything we have is flawed.

But advertising is, at it's core, based on lies and highly optimized manipulation.

It's not hard to offer something better. The internet, with all the fake news, and the SEO's is still somewhat better, in my opinion.

And if we aim higher, compare that to something like the WireCutter reviews - which tries(afaik) to offer an in-depth, unbiased reviews, and is backed by the reputation of the NY times.

If it were driving new novel great “free” services that’d be one thing, as it did with maps gmail and search, but now that it’s reached maturity and there aren’t as many low hanging fruit its all gone to consolidation and anti customer incentives.

If only I had a pair of glasses which let me see the real world of subliminal, consumer-driving messaging a la "They Live".

Who defines what people need? Buying a can of soda is not something people need when water is so cheap. Buying that soda (as a collective effort) keeps thousands of people employed, and keeps their families growing. Society relies on advertising. The Orwellian state has been growing for decades. Adtech is no unique villain in this story.

Adtech has been used to sell copies of 1984 and A Brave New World. Something people arguably don't need to survive, and enjoy reading anyway.

Bill Hicks had a great bit on advertisers. I think the argument for adtech's potential for evil can be better articulated. After all, ublock origin, adblocking tech has millions of users. How effective could the brainwashing be if people are choosing to leave it?

Why do I need to work to further someone else’s goals just to earn currency to “pay my way”?

How does encouraging people to buy Coke help the nation more than just giving that money directly to the public utilities?

Because there needs to be something for 330mil people to do and providing each other with more options for having a quality life is a valuable pursuit. We need doctors, engineers and a life outside work. Soda has its place as an entertainment and socializing drink.

Arguing against adtech and work are two separate things. Distribution of resources will always be controlled. Currency used to buy things is a method of directing resources to people who behave in a way that continues the system. What system do you think works better? I don't know what your goals are, maybe they are achievable without working for the man.

> Because there needs to be something for 330mil people to do

I am sure people could find something to do that was productive and fulfilling if they weren’t required to be debt slaves simply to put food on the table.

Manufacturing dietary diseases doesn’t seem to be productive or fulfilling to me. The idea that manufacturing soda is meaningful and productive use of peoples’ time is the broken window fallacy. That, or the very worst of fetishising GDP-as-a-measure-of-quality-of-life.

The diseases from an FDA approved soda come from lifetimes of over-consumption of an entertainment product. Exercise leads to injuries from overwork, eating too much asparagus has it's downsides, too much alcohol or sugar are problems. Nothing is pure and infinite.

You don't need to push meaning to it's extreme to prove it's existence. It exists as it is. Soda is a good party drink and sweet drink for restaurants. People drink a few empty and sweet calories to refresh themselves and socialize. That's all it is, it's not a demon, it's not a saint. It's just fizzy water. It keeps many people at soda companies employed, it keeps many restaurants in profit.

Advertising soda is a fine way to have people put food on their table. If you want to productive and fulfilling work, go do it. You can't erase the fact that food is a limited resource that requires a system of distribution and we use money for allocating who and who can not obtain food. In a world where food were truly free and magically appeared out of thin air then there would be no starving people and you could do eat whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted.

You would still "wage slave" for a house, or running water, or whatever else. If you want to live a zero-cost life, build a log cabin in the woods and grow your own food, install your own solar panels. You will be doing the same work you're paying others to do right now but far less efficiently and with greater restrictions. You wouldn't have soda, or anything you couldn't manufacture yourself. But you would have control over the distribution of resources, there you go.

>How effective could the brainwashing be if people are choosing to leave it?

I think you're overestimating the average user's technical knowledge. The vast majority of people probably don't even know browsers have plugins.

I'm aware of that. I'm pushing the argument to the edge to show that ads are likely not as effective in reducing intellect as parent describes. Technical knowledge is not a panacea against the psychological effects of being advertised to, it only allows a user to turn them off. People fully soaked in advertising choose to leave the ad world.

Cola doesn't needs ads to be sold. It's tasty, people like it.

But ads and branding are powerful tools in creating huge companies.

What happens without that ? maybe the sugary drinks industry starts looking like the craft beer industry.

Is that a bad thing ?

Soda on the other hand can be easily overconsumed and delivers empty calories that aren't balanced at the next meal. Soda is in the group of foods, usually ultra-processed, that are responsible for the obesity epidemic. And it's being advertised to children mostly, who don't have much self control, with obesity and diabetes rates in children climbing year after year.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think soda is toxic or evil or that it should be taxed or banned. But in the context of a worldwide obesity trend, I would ban the commercials for it, or at least the ones targeting children.

I understand that buying soda keeps people employed. But it's also the perfect example of what's wrong in the current society.

Maybe we can find more worthwhile pursuits than selling sugared water.