By default, it does not; the predatory nature of this particular company notwithstanding.
For an extreme example, all I have to do to give a smoker a craving for a cigarette is too mention how bad it smells. It doesn’t matter that I did it in a negative context, just that I mentioned it.
For this company, a gambling company, which is known as addicting enough to ruin people, just sharing the company name is enough to cause similar affects.
For regular companies the affect is also there, just in varying degrees of strong. As a lesser example, I could give you cravings by just mentioning a specific soft drink, so long as I guess the right brand.
Yeah, I feel like if we blurred the advertiser, we could get away with this point.
Does it not work to shame the advertiser?
By default, it does not; the predatory nature of this particular company notwithstanding.
For an extreme example, all I have to do to give a smoker a craving for a cigarette is too mention how bad it smells. It doesn’t matter that I did it in a negative context, just that I mentioned it.
For this company, a gambling company, which is known as addicting enough to ruin people, just sharing the company name is enough to cause similar affects.
For regular companies the affect is also there, just in varying degrees of strong. As a lesser example, I could give you cravings by just mentioning a specific soft drink, so long as I guess the right brand.
Is polymarket capable of shame? Is any company for that matter?