Apple, BMW, Chanel, etc, all do it.
Correctly functioning (neither judged as good or bad) humans don't get angry and jealous at seeing imaginary people's imaginary success, or real people's real success for that matter.
They kind of are. I mean, for most other jobs, you're right--your emotions are your own responsibility. But advertising (inasmuch as it's more than simply "getting the word out") is all about harnessing peoples' irrationalities in profitable ways. And that means avoiding triggering irrationalities and biases people have that might scare them away from buying what you're selling.
For example, the last thing you want to show in a computer ad is a picture of the machine with an IDE open. Because IDEs are intimidating to a lot of people, reminding them of skills they lack ("I'm not good with computers.") And "intimidated" is not a buying mood.
(Also, as an aside, I'm not sure in which sense you meant "you," but to be sure, I wasn't the poster you first replied to.)
Framing this as a "responsibility" is the wrong way to look at it. If an advertisement makes a significant number of people feel negative emotions, it won't be effective, and what good is ineffective advertising? Who cares who's right, wrong, good, or bad? Much less who is responsible?
I'm a flawed person. I openly accept that. I don't think my emotions in this situation are unique though, and I don't think they're basis to refer to someone as incorrectly functioning. It's what we do with those emotions that make us "correctly functioning" or not.
Have you really never laid eyes on a typewriter?
But then, I'm in my 30s, so admittedly I'm pretty antediluvian.
Advertising hasn't worked that way in almost a hundred years. It's simply vastly less effective than selling an identity.
The real secret is, it works even if you hate hipsters. In fact, they know you hate hipsters, and that's why they're in the ad.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/advertisings_collater...
It makes me think that they missed the mark.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f...
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drin...
Otherwise there's this documentary, with a more historical (and less rum-soaked) take on the subject:
I've been meaning to watch The Century of the Self for months, will definitely check out.
However, I've long wanted to describe what you just said but haven't sat down to pull the right language from the recesses of my brain to describe how annoying these formulaic montages have become.
So, thanks for doing it on my behalf.
Since it is Facebook and they are of course evil, it is obviously terrible.
Edit: Changed "Silicon Valley" to tech...since this common feel is more about the latest trends, than geographical boundaries. Though the joke no longer makes sense.
I think it's more that they are just starting to advertise the same way that all other companies do. More and more they're evoking emotional responses from the ads' viewers, rather than listing technical features and productivity measures.
Apple was probably one of the first, really. Look at the early Macintosh ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCL1c8JCepg
I, for one, thought the video was pretty well done. If I had a Facebook account that I frequented, I would certainly be interested. Hell, it makes me a little envious of people who have genuinely interesting things pop up on their Walls (do such people exist?).
Queue up someone commenting that their feed doesn't look anything like the polish of a feed in a Facebook ad. :)
If they have smart integration with news sources / blogs (they showed BBC and the Atlantic I think) that could show me news that matches my interest but isn't spammy, this could be a reversal for them; I might not go to Facebook for friends, and Twitter for news/ more intellectual stuff.
plus i already use pulse. one a year , and the HTC sense thing