this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
312 points (97.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

41635 readers
144 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The internet runs on ads.

Ad companies pay for all the “free” popular social media we use. Ad companies dictate to social media what their clients want their ads to be associated with, not associated with, and drive media of all kinds to push inflammatory and click-bait content that drives engagement and views. It’s why you indirectly can’t swear, talk about suicide, drugs, death, or violence. Sure, you technically can unless ToS prohibits it, but if companies tell their ad hosts they don’t want to be associated with someone talking about guns, the content discussing guns gets fewer ads, fewer ads = less revenue, low-revenue gets pushed to the bottom.

So lowbrow political rage bait, science denialism, and fake conspiracies drives people to interact and then gets pushed to the top because it gets ad revenue. Content that delves into critical thought and requires introspection or contemplation languishes.

Ads are destroying society because stupid and rage sells views.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ptz@dubvee.org 46 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

Agree. Which is why I get so irrationally annoyed when sharing a good piece of journalism that's not catering to ad-clicks and the peanut gallery here grabs their torches and pitchforks while shouting "PaYwALL!" despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons). It's one of several reasons why I don't even bother anymore.

Like, good journalism costs money. That money's gotta come from somewhere if you want good journalists to be able to eat and keep doing what they do.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How can I tell they’re good journalists without reading their stuff first?

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

By reading the gist that OP provided and deciding if you want to read more.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What if I want to read more but not enough to go find my wallet and hand over personal information?

[–] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

Then you don't get any fucking cookies.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (5 children)

The difference being that good journalism doesn’t die because I’m too lazy to get a cookie.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

I fixed that for you:

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies, after showing your ID card for its number to be written up?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons)

when you (and others) do that, it is the best thing on the news/science/sharing articles communities. lets me know whether the article is something i'm interested in reading and something i can comment intelligently on or just something i can shitpost about. i really appreciate it, just thought i'd let you know

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] choui4@lemmy.zip 33 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I think the answer always comes down to capitalism

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Capitalism does play a part, but it’s more the lack of hard rules to curb it rather than the economic method itself. You want to make an even broader claim, just say “greed.”

[–] jmankman@lemmy.myserv.one 13 points 1 month ago (6 children)

This was an understandable perspective when we had those regulations in the USA, but since FDR's New Deal, the Republicans have walked back practically every law and regulation we had to curb the greed of Capitalism. This is the natural tendency of Capitalism

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There's no curbing capitalism. The very thesis of it requires that the most successful 1, find 2, exploit 3, lobby to lock up enough, so to "pull up the ladder behind themselves", any and all loopholes of the legal system that allows them to get ahead.

You can try regulating it but capitalism will always find a way around your rules.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] choui4@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

This is where we disagree. What are the fundemental tenants of capitalism vs say, communism?

(Just doing a thought experiment with you, in good faith)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] wpb@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Couple of things that are either a definition, obvious, or directly observable in literally every capitalist nation in history:

  • the defining characteristic of capitalism is the private ownership of businesses
  • the ability to own a business can buy you influence on the electorate legally, through owning ad agencies, newspapers, think tanks, online influencers
  • owning a business can buy you influence on politicians legally, by hiring lobbyists, by threatening to take your business elsewhere, by promising politicians cushy jobs after their tenure, by contributing to their campaign through fundraisers, PACs, etc
  • this influence gives you the power to change laws and regulations to your benefit
  • in particular, it allows you to shape laws to benefit you financially, making the actions in point 2 and 3 easier to do
  • in particular, it allows you to get rid of laws restricting you to do the things in points 2 and 3
  • it is in the best interest of politicians to deregulate the latter parts of point 3
  • as such, a capitalist system where only parts or even none of point 2 and 3 are allowed, has a natural tendency towards a system where they are fully allowed

Leaving all other economic systems aside for a moment*, the idea that this is not a direct and natural consequence of capitalism doesn't seem to hold water, both on a theoretical and an empirical level.

(*)And we do this because, analogously, arguing your right hand isn't bleeding by saying your left hand is makes no sense. Capitalism can be studied in its own right. What's more is that the number of alternative systems is infinite, and I'm sure lemmy has a character limit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] turboSnail@piefed.europe.pub 15 points 1 month ago (4 children)

That’s an interesting thought, and I would like to add a few things to it.

The whole idea of having ad funded things is fundamentally flawed. It has also become too dominant, and difficult to compete with. Ads are the tool used in this business model, but are they really the root cause of the problems you mentioned? I would say no.

Theoretically, you could still have ads without ruining everything. When other business models aren’t competitive enough, the whole system naturally gravitates to the mess we’re currently in.

I think cheap mobile games have showed that you can charge a small amount of money, and people will be willing to pay up. That way, everything doesn’t have to be ad funded. It’s just that this business model doesn’t appear to be appealing enough in other arenas, and that’s a real problem.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Theoretically, you could still have ads without ruining everything. When other business models aren’t competitive enough, the whole system naturally gravitates to the mess we’re currently in.

There's no such thing as "competitive enough." Corporate greed is literally insatiable, inherently and by design. There's an entire series of Supreme Court decisions -- not just Citizens United -- that would need to be overturned to fix that.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

having ad funded things

Do you remember those free "newspapers" that used to choke your mailbox once a week, or your favorite club? With like 75% ad content and a few poorly written articles? That's how I learned about the power of advertisment. The internet just put that in hyperdrive. How much of it is driven by ads these days?

[–] turboSnail@piefed.europe.pub 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The advertisement-based business model has turned out to be highly successful, just like the newspapers have proven. However, magazines were a hybrid solution. You would pay for the magazine, but there would still be a few ads. Reminds me of modern Netflix actually.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah a lot of what many think of typical internet stuff is just a new turbocharged edition of what has existed for much longer IRL.

[–] thethrilloftime69@feddit.online 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think ad funded stuff is the only way to get things done in a capitalist economy. There may be other types of economies that could get by without ads, but we'll never know because this is the world we've created.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bill Watterson tried to warn us

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You're right overall, but the mechanism you listed about advertising only appearing near safe content is not that big of a deal compared to other mechanisms at play:

  1. psychological manipulation vs competition - the way that a capitalist economy is supposed to work is that a bunch of firms compete to sell you a good or service, you pick the best one for your situation and buy it, then the firm that produces the best good or service gets more resources (money) to grow, rewarding the best product maker.

Advertising breaks this. It lets you spend money on psychological manipulation to get people to buy your product, instead of just trying to produce a better product. True conservative capitalists should fucking hate advertising for distorting the economy, and letting big companies pay advertising money to drown innovative competition, but there are very few of those left these days.

  1. engagement driven algorithms - because advertising operates on the basis of psychological manipulation rather than actually informing you, it means that its effectiveness always scales with volume.

i.e. I can read everything there is to learn about two different laptops, watch YouTube videos, read all the specs and reviews, and after about two hours of research I'll know everything there is to know. A company can try and provide me with more information about their product to sway me, but at that point it's probably ineffective because I know everything about them already. However if they bombard me with slick fun ads that evoke certain emotions in me over and over and over and over and over again, it will create an emotional bias towards one over the other.

This distinction is super important because it is what leads to most of advertising's ills: most specifically engagement driven algorithms, which social media uses to keep you scrolling and are what are truly destroying society. The amount of human time and effort wasted to them is incalculable, the amount of languished relationships, neglected kids, over tired and angry people etc. is truly jaw droppingly damaging, and it is fundamentally because advertising is a cheap way to manipulate you into buying something, and unlike true education, it's effectiveness keeps scaling with volume.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

a bunch of firms compete to sell you a good or service, you pick the best one for your situation and buy it, then the firm that produces the best good or service gets more resources (money) to grow, rewarding the best product maker.

Advertising breaks this.

TBF, the original meaning of advertising was just that: spread the word about your product. Sure, praise it, add nice pictures, but that's about it. People need to know that your product is out there, and what it's like.

The systematic psychological manipulation only started in the 20th century, particularly when a relative of Sigmund Freud came to the USA (there's an interesting documentary about it called The Century of the Self).

I largely agree with you though; algorithmic engagement is the worst incarnation so far. To put it simple: "Angry People Click More", see more ads, and are therefore to be targeted.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Advertising is one of the most prolific environmental pollutants of economic activity, and needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago

Kind of funny this has to be discussed in shower thoughts when its a central theme of our entire world at the moment.

[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I was thinking about this earlier today.

It’s amazing to me that in my lifetime, ads went from a thing that companies got to do as an extra once they had succes all the way to a thing that runs everything everywhere.

Nowadays if you don’t have ads in some form abusing the algorithm (which is in itself designed to be abused) then you get nowhere.

(Also holy shit this has a lot of comments, seems like people have this on their liver somewhat)

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

people have this on their liver somewhat

Interesting, I've never heard that phrase. Are you a native English speaker, or was that brought through another language? I'm reminded of how in Farsi, the liver is used in phrases that most other languages don't use it for. Like, instead of calling someone you love your 'heart", you call them your "liver," but it carries the same intent.

[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 2 points 1 month ago

Oh yes, I hadn’t thought about that! Having something on your liver is an expression that’s native to the Dutch language (afaik).

Meaning something that’s annoying, bothering you, gnawing at your conscience, pissing you off,…

[–] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 6 points 1 month ago

Oh shit, I thought you said "AI" companies and was about to say "nahh, it's the advertisers" lol.

Yes. Ads are a stain on our species and should be outlawed.

They are a waste of resources, clutter and manipulate our minds, and give a ridiculous advantage to those who already have the money to buy them.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Follow the money. Advertisement exists because businesses demand it.

Your post is literally shooting the messenger.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The messenger is delivering poison. The messenger is the problem.

[–] crozilla@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Who’s paying for and giving them the poison? Corporations.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah, corpos pushing products are using ads, but they’re not the ones determining the engagement algorithm that puts the ragebait in front of you.

[–] crozilla@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

And who’s telling/paying them to do that? Corporations.

Both suck, I hear you, but let’s place the blame at the source.

Corporations LOVE that you hate their agencies instead of them. Much like how bands love that people hate Ticketmaster instead of them.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I agree. People were doing an en masse boycott, using tiktok as a way to gather, and who to hit, then, bam suddenly the elites have to buy tiktok. I know they did that for other reasons too, controlling the narrative and what people see and know has been the M.O. of the evil elite, since days of old, but it just seemed like interesting timing. If we all just gather and boycott, together, as a movement, do targeted hits, I wonder if we could break their choke hold on us. I know there's a lot of movements for boycotting, people are moving away from the more evil things. I just feel like it doesn't get as widely spread as it should? Maybe? And I really appreciated the approach behind the other movement, they targeted one brand for one quarter, in a very calculated and planned strategy, so as not to affect anyone's jobs.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

People interested in storytelling have been obsessed with the "Hero's Journey" for decades, which a fantastically sexist man hacked together as a concept from a poor interpretation of James Joyce and of cherry picked anthropological evidence.

What pisses me off is that the idea has taken such complete hold of artist's imagination that it makes people only want to talk about "Narrative" with respect to storytelling, and it misses the most essential aspect of storytelling in that good stories are always inherently plural in their nature. A good story is a cacophony of potentially true narratives all vying for your soul on stage with no easy answer, not a simple list of plot points delivered to convince you of a particular belief and singular structure through which to see a set of events.

This leads to a massive learned blindspot about advertisement in that artists lose sight of the fact that Advertisement is the annihilation of Storytelling where the natural human invitation for the audience to interpret and construct their own unique Narrative is buried in an avalanche by an overwhelming reifying force that simplifies a complex reality down to a single corporate produced Narrative. People who do sports wear Nike.

Advertisement is the attempt to annihilate art, it can be seen no other way no matter how many artists the advertisement industry employs in the process.

Many people will be shocked, however, to learn that academic folklorists and scholars of ancient literature almost universally reject Campbell’s theories as nonsense—and for good reason. Campbell’s outline of the “hero’s journey” is so hopelessly vague that it is essentially useless for analyzing stories across cultures. It also displays ethnocentric, sexist, heteronormative, and cisnormative biases and it encourages people to ignore the ways in which stories are fundamentally shaped by the cultures and time periods in which they are produced.

...

Campbell starts out with the assumption that every great story must be focused on a single hero, whom he generally assumes to be a heterosexual man. According to Campbell, the “hero’s journey” begins with the hero living in a state of normality, which is disrupted by some kind of “call to adventure,” which takes the hero into the realm of the “unknown,” which “is always a place of strangely fluid and polymorphous beings, unimaginable torments, super human deeds, and impossible delight.

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/12/31/the-heros-journey-is-nonsense/

For those who disagree, can you not see how directly this imposed definition of what a Story is slots perfectly into rationalizing Advertising and focusing on it as the true purpose of an Artist?

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I disagree. James Campbell was not a perfect man, but he did coalesce what humans like to see in a story most of the time. It's not a perfect scenario like he claimed, but more of a guide to most cultures. If you look at boring structures of story, it's usually because it doesn't follow western structure (the hero's journey). Joseph Campbell hated Noh from Japanese culture because he couldn't follow it as a hero's journey. Even if he didn't speak the language, he could usually tell when they followed it. I'm assuming that's what you're talking about when cherry picking. He's right in that to a westerner, it will be hard to understand and may be boring. To the Japanese though, it's been around a long time.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's an interesting take. Have an article or blog post or paper anywhere that gives into it more? Not sure I agree or disagree but it's an interesting thought

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They definitely try, but why do we let them?

[–] deepflows@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because they have everyone addicted using devilishly addictive algorithms, socio-psychological hacks and platforms designed to amplify it all. Meanwhile, we’re still stuck prescribing individual solutions to these deeply systemic structural issues.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ecvanalog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is why Josie and the Pussycats is the best movie ever.

(Join the army)

load more comments
view more: next ›