Labels can be ads. A sign on a store is an ad. [File:Allegiant_blueman_md80_(cropped](Here is a picture on an aircraft, also an ad) and of course with 0 lies, they literally just show they exist and what their name is.
Context matters. Sharing it to name and shame is very different from sharing to promote.
Lol no. That’s not how our brains work. Mindshare is everything
If you feel the need to advertise like this you are a bad person and your product is shit. Like this actively breeds contempt towards your product, how can this be an intelligent move?
Because someone took a photo in anger and uploaded it and it’s being advertised for free on every social media platform that this gets posted - and reposted - to. That’s the game. It’s all about getting eyeballs on your ad.
but i now hate the product.
Doesn’t matter, attention is attention
Except it isn’t.
Bad ad campaign have destroyed brands in the past, hope it happens here.
Only if the public remembers, and in this 4-second attention economy…
in a space as saturated as crypto, attention is the minimum to get in the door. And after that, if you keep gaining attention until the whole world knows your name, then it doesn’t matter if 80% hate you, the other 20% will be giving you enough money to monopolize the market. Then you can enshittify and the hate doesn’t matter (see Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc).
You’re skipping a lot of what made those companies happen.
Google was actually good once. They had a clean, usable website in an era of pop-ups and overused animated GIFS. Also, their search actually worked. They also had a bunch of cool programs and tools that they’ve since killed.
Facebook was also sort of good. But not really. Most of that was a sort of first mover advantage. Myspace existed, but didn’t catch on, and then Facebook comes along, and it has a bunch of free games (that steal all your data). Since Facebook was most people’s first social media, and their family’s first social media, they get locked in.
Bill Gates’ Mom was on the board of directors at IBM and forced the company to use her son’s OS.
first mover advantage
That’s basically what I’m referring to here. Facebook wasn’t the first social media platform but they were the first to capture enough users to monopolize the space. Yes all these companies had technical innovations too, but if you dig into Polymarket you can probably find some too. All of that doesn’t matter if you can’t get enough attention to reach critical mass though.
They got my attention. I hate them and will never remotely consider using their product.
Were you even considering using it in the first place?
No? Then you’re just a vector for the advertisement to spread, now as am I, and everyone who commented and upvoted this post.
Meanwhile the restaurant probably eats the bullet and probably got review bombed. Rightfully so but yeah everyone got played here. Corporate tech continues to be a blight that moves fast and destroys things.
Yup!
I saw a post recently about how a business owner was mad about getting bad reviews because customers didn’t like that they were getting facebook DMs from clicking on an ad
and, like, no shit? who the fuck wants a DM because they allegedly clicked on an ad while scrolling? fuck anybody who advertises like that
It’s an infuriating dark pattern that Facebook themselves have created.
I don’t think most business owners realize what’s even happening when they post their ads. I’ve had it happen a few times now where I saw a slightly interesting image in an ad and wanted to zoom in (e.g. to read the specs of a laptop being advertised), but when I tapped it BAM redirect to a Messenger conversation.
Classic enshittification: there’s a spreadsheet somewhere in Meta HQ that some dickhead middle-manager made proving that it increased conversion numbers, but doesn’t measure how pissed off it makes their users, or how long-term toxic it is to the brands using that feature.
It’s a gambling company their customers don’t have critical thinking skills.
We’re talking about it right now, which means people are thinking about it. That means they successfully got to us.
I’ve tried not thinking about Polymarket and the situation as it currently exists occurred. I don’t think ignoring it works.
It also works, suckers people in when they see it everywhere and then they’re hooked on gambling.
It may be shit but everyone is addicted to it. People who see this negatively and have the power to resist it are not the target audience.
Again:
Do not share advertisements. They are toxic to society, always based in a lie, and never of benefit. Making fun of them is not better than genuinely shilling for the company. Block ads. Destroy them where possible. Seek to have them banned wherever possible. They are not welcome on Lemmy, and if you are going to share them, neither are you.
I mustve missed the part where everyone decided you have unilateral decision making over who gets to participate here.
the meeting was last tuesday at 15:00 - didn’t you read the memo?
Crud, what else was discussed?
Poll consensus majority still feels lemmy user MargotRobbie was real.
we’re getting matching thongs
I wish taggers would target ads instead of public buildings and infrastructure or even normal businesses.
Thinking back, it does seem like tagging shows up more on infrastructure than adspace but I think that might just be because there is a lot more money invested by advertisers in replacing ads than there ever is on cleaning/repainting public structures. The signs at sporting events and billboards change hands or are updated fairly regularly by the nature of the advertising company moving to a new client whenever a contract ends, but walls and public signage are often only replaced or repainted once every few years at best.
Agreed that promoting advertisement is just more advertisement, but they aren’t all based in a lie.
Yes they are. All advertising is based around the lie of creating false associations. Buying a truck won’t make you a ‘MAN.’ Drinking a particular brand of soda won’t bring about world peace, make you ‘cool,’ or really even cure your thirst, generally. Even the most generic, ‘buy our thing. It’s good thing,’ is based in the lie of ‘buying our thing will make you happy.’ It’s shoved into everyone’s face without consideration of truth value. It’s the same as some guy walking up to everyone in a place and saying ‘If you have normal sex with me, you will have the best orgasm of your life.’ It might be true for a VERY limited number of people, but it’s not true for everyone he’s harassing to say it, it’s not even guaranteed to be true for anyone, and he is 1000% guaranteed not to be saying it for the benefit of the people to whom he’s saying it. Even when it’s true, it’s true by accident, a lie that failed to turn out to be false. It’s pure manipulative bullshit.
Perhaps many ads or even the majority is lying, but everything is just nonsense. Like some clothes washing service just announcing it exists. Or a repair cafe. Stop thinking in absurd extremes.
I have had this discussion many times. A sign on your business’s frontage is not advertising. It is a label. It is the name of a thing on that thing. It is contained entirely within your space, not invasive, and does not involve manipulating anyone or creating perverse systems to manipulate people. Stating your existence is fine. It enables those who might want to find you, to find you when they choose to seek you out. Advertising goes beyond mere labelling and is innately deceptive. You not noticing the harm is not the same as not being harmed. You liking being deceived is not the same as not being deceived.
You had this discussion before? But I have to take that one step further to make you see that extreme as false?
So we put this label not on the business but on a bus that drives around that area. Now it is not the name on the thing. Not contained in their space. Is arguably invasive (but not really more than on their place, different discussion). Manipulation can also be argued about in either case, but not relevant for the lying part right now. It states the existence of that business someplace else than the business. It is an ad that does not lie. Like every other ad it helps people find something, like… obviously.
You now shifting the definition of ads to make it such that everything else is not an ad anymore so your argument stays up is just circular logic.
I’m using a perfectly normal definition of ad. I’m not changing the definition. You are, by trying to include basic labelling as advertisement. It is a trick of language used by people in marketing to inflate their importance and minimise their personal responsibility. Advertising is the process of one party, as in person, group or organisation, paying a second party to send/project/play/display/etc. media to a third party with the purposes of manipulating their decisions, usually, though occasionally not, without the request and/or consent of the recipient. Only particularly obtuse people who want to justify this malign behaviour, which is harmful to individuals and society, try to conflate communication (a general concept encompassing everything from a nod to a multi-volume multimedia experience, including advertisement) and advertisement itself. (A particular form of communication) The problem is with the particular form and you cannot defend it by ignoring the distinction and defending the general, any more than you would accept defending a rapist by claiming their prosecution was an extremist attack on all men.
My use of ‘lie’ is also pretty routine, collectively referring to various forms of deceptive use of communication. There are a few people who would claim lies are only verbal and auditory, or don’t count as lies if the speaker/writer/originator intends no harm, or intends happiness, to the recipient, or that a statement’s truth value is dependent on it’s usefullness as a meme which perpetuates its host’s survival, etc. but those definitions are both less common and less useful, so I tend to ignore them.
Ergo, using deception, whether in outright falsehoods, (blatant lies) intentionally misleading truths, (lies of omission) or simple BS, (claims without regard for truth value; still deceptive, even when technically true when reviewed later) is inherent to advertising because even it’s most benign forms are BS. The truth of the matter is not changed by your denial of it, nor by blaming me for holding a more common definition of advertisement than the more vague and thus less useful one you are trying to foist upon me.
Now, it’s true I have taken the slightly risky position of stating an absolute as truth, but you should welcome that because it should have let you debunk my claim in a simple sentence or two. ABC. A. Definitions of lie and advertising seen above.
B. Advertising is a subset of lies. C. Lies are not a subset of advertising.
Where is there an advertisement that is not a lie?
Yup. If something is good quality and solves a problem I have, I’ll find it myself.
Red bull gives you wings
I know right
hey it’s ryannathans
Hey it’s a Dan! Fancy seeing you here
deleted by creator
Advertisements are not bad. We have to regulate them though. If you do not want advertisements then every single service you use would be paid.
If the cost of not having the toxic lies of advertising trying to trick people, the toxic effects of the ad-based business model corrupting all of our media, and the toxic effects of advertising-based political campaigns, is to have to pay a few pennies to someone providing a service I actually want, I don’t see a downside.
Why would Linux charge me if there would be no advertisements?
My library fees are so low literally anyone should be able to pay them.
Jesus, they’re not even trying to hide how greedy they are
If this happened to me, I’m sorry to my local shops who sold it to me. Yall just lost a customer.
I expect to live long enough to see “smart” toilet paper that wants you to rate your wipe.
It’s the one product that gets the same review high or low. “Would smear with shit again.”
Let alone, “smart” toilet paper that starts charging you more and more while you’re sitting on the can and needing to wipe…
2040: Supreme Court upholds industry assertion that users don’t “own” their TP. Nation’s capital braces for planned Million Butt March.
Really very shitty, 5 stars
I hate when they change the UI with every release
Everytime I hear about these gambling companies I’m wondering if there will be a monstrous, public backlash.
Everyone should put money up on the bet that the polymarket CEO lives a long healthy life.
Yes we paid for a fortune cookie ad in bed!
Wait… what?! What the hell man?
Next is going to be toilet paper ads.
Kleenex ads. Electric car engine noises play ads. An ad on your shawarma wrap or heat pressed onto the pita. Ads on your furnace filters. Your tide pods.
Anything you might look at really.
toilet paper ads
So polymarket and other betting… things, will finally be useful.
No, it’ll be glossy instead of absorbent.
Exactly like how this ad cookie uses different paper than a fortune cookie.
You just know that paper made the cookie taste weird too
Thankfully, the genius of Polymarket will allow you to bet on whether or not their fortune cookie ad campaign will result in casualties
I hope the casualties are the people who came up with and approved this idea.
Yeah isn’t normal fortune cookie paper that kind of paper because it absorbs water very quickly…so you could chew and swallow it easily without really noticing (and without having any significant potential harm to bowels or airway)?
What are the odds someone choked on one of these?
Also the ink is food-grade soy-based. But now if it’s doing color and logos, it raises the question – what dirty warehouse inkjet printer is it printing from now.
Eyelid ads
I got a good laugh out of this one from a few years ago.
Good comedian
“We paid to have ads inserted into the I Ching. Now every fourth hexagram is ‘Drink Slurm!’”
Ban advertising entirely.
