this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
1485 points (99.7% liked)
196
5752 readers
1493 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let me add to your rant with an additional pet peeve of mine: Usually when people rant about the advertising some smug assholes in the comment sections say "You think you are immune but it works on you, otherwise they wouldn't spend millions on it".
When did money become the sole metric with which we judge the merit of ideas? Did the billionaire who died in the titan submersible incident not shut up the crowd making such an argument?
I don't understand what your argument is. As far as advertisers are concerned, money is indeed the end goal and ultimate metric of success. So if advertising leads to more money, that is success as far as they are concerned. The philosophical outlook of the consumer does not pertain to this argument. But I think I'm misunderstanding your point so perhaps you could clarify?
Near as I can tell, they are not so much advancing an argument as using this opportunity to complain about a tangentially related phenomenon. The point seems muddled since the efficacy of advertising wasn't ever in question, but, basically, they're just saying it grinds their gears when someone points out that advertising works as a justification for its existence. They believe that there are metrics to consider which aren't "did the ad generate a sale".
Could be I got that wrong, but I think that's the gist of what they were saying. I, too, am a little confused, since no one seemed to be doubting ads work, despite consumer hostility, but, in their defense, they did declare up-front that they wanted to piggyback on this topic to address a pet peeve of theirs, so it's not like we weren't informed of their intent.
Most billionaires have certain skills but for the rest are unfettered idiots. The titan guy got exactly what he asked for.
The entire concept of a billionaire should be prohibited. Nobody should be able to have more than, say, 10 million dollars. Put a hard cap on that, any income above that goes to taxes. Fuck the rich
Also something being ineffective doesn't mean people stop doing it, like homeopathy.
Well it also doesn't need to work on everybody. Does a net need to catch ever fish in the sea for a fisherman to make a living? Obviously some people can be and are immune to it.
Advertising doesn't work on me because I hate shopping, so I have my wife spend the discretionary income. I am sure it works on her though.