"Social Media" is societal cancer
Discussion
Advertising for me is the cancer of the media world, I utterly detest most of it.
The way these companies try and portray life, utterly ridiculous situations, the "all about you" bull that is pedaled at you daily. If it's all about me, make it free, then I will use it.
There are odd occasions when it works, a new product or something informative.
But things like car ads with perfect families, no traffic, beautiful people everywhere, or betting adverts, or the inumerable other phones that are just about emojis or cameras, I find insulting, aggressive and actually sometimes rather offensive.
I will literally use advertising in its opposite effect, deliberately use another company, if their advertising annoys me or is aggressively targeted
The way these companies try and portray life, utterly ridiculous situations, the "all about you" bull that is pedaled at you daily. If it's all about me, make it free, then I will use it.
There are odd occasions when it works, a new product or something informative.
But things like car ads with perfect families, no traffic, beautiful people everywhere, or betting adverts, or the inumerable other phones that are just about emojis or cameras, I find insulting, aggressive and actually sometimes rather offensive.
I will literally use advertising in its opposite effect, deliberately use another company, if their advertising annoys me or is aggressively targeted
Derek Smith said:
I worked in advertising for some years when I was in my 20s. There was a fair bit of research around then which indicated that the person who is most susceptible to advertising is the one who considers themselves immune. Various reasons were put forward for this but without evidence.
Skip forward a few decades and I'm writing on advertising. There is much more research now, lots of it is easily available online. I've noticed a bit of a change in the conclusions. Everybody is affected by advertising and there's little anyone can do about it. So those who consider themselves immune may or may not be more vulnerable. However, they are not less vulnerable.
I still read research on advertising and despite this, I'm as vulnerable as anyone else. A slight difference might be that I recognise in a few cases why I might feel a particular way about a product, and why I buy it but the thing, the irritating thing, is I still want it, I still buy it.
Advertising is a bit like evolution; it works whether you believe in it or not. From pricing to location, from subtle to overt. we are being hit by adverts all day and every day. Now the same, well proven, systems are being used to influence us politically. I've been influenced and so has everyone reading this.
Influence is a technology. It's an -ism. It is extremely well researched. We are all startled rabbits in the headlights of advertising.
it depends how you define immunity, I'd say understanding the emotions you're experiencing and what people are doing to influence them. If you're happy having your opinion challenged or your logic scrutinised, and you don't fear being "wrong" I'd say you have the tools to be fairly immune from advertising and propaganda but that seems rare today.Skip forward a few decades and I'm writing on advertising. There is much more research now, lots of it is easily available online. I've noticed a bit of a change in the conclusions. Everybody is affected by advertising and there's little anyone can do about it. So those who consider themselves immune may or may not be more vulnerable. However, they are not less vulnerable.
I still read research on advertising and despite this, I'm as vulnerable as anyone else. A slight difference might be that I recognise in a few cases why I might feel a particular way about a product, and why I buy it but the thing, the irritating thing, is I still want it, I still buy it.
Advertising is a bit like evolution; it works whether you believe in it or not. From pricing to location, from subtle to overt. we are being hit by adverts all day and every day. Now the same, well proven, systems are being used to influence us politically. I've been influenced and so has everyone reading this.
Influence is a technology. It's an -ism. It is extremely well researched. We are all startled rabbits in the headlights of advertising.
fblm said:
Digga said:
...people I've never met, friends of friends who added me.
Really? Nope that's weird. I've been on it right from the very beginning where it was literally just Uni mates, that's kind of how I still think about it.
. 
I have been re-watching - for about the millionth time - Adam Curtis' "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace". He mentions Carmen Hermosilla, an early adopter of online forums and chatrooms at the beginning of the internet. But by 1994 was disillusioned with it, and published "Pandora's Vox: On Community in Cyberspace". The excerpt Curtis mentions is:
"It is fashionable to suggest that cyberspace is some kind of island of the blessed where people are free to indulge and express their Individuality. in reality, this is not true.
i have seen many people spill their guts on-line, and i did so myself until, at last, i began to see that i had commodified myself. commodification means that you turn something into a product which has a money-value. in the nineteenth century, commodities were made in factories, which karl marx called “the means of production.” capitalists were people who owned the means of production, and the commodities were made by workers who were mostly exploited. i created my interior thoughts as a means of production for the corporation that owned the board i was posting to, and that commodity was being sold to other commodity/consumer entities as entertainment. that means that i sold my soul like a tennis shoe and i derived no profit from the sale of my soul. people who post frequently on boards appear to know that they are factory equipment and tennis shoes, and sometimes trade sends and email about how their contributions are not appreciated by management.
as if this were not enough, all of my words were made immortal by means of tape backups.
i suspect that cyberspace exists because it is the purest manifestation of the mass (masse) as Jean Beaudrilliard described it. it is a black hole; it absorbs energy and personality and then re-presents it as spectacle. proponents of so-called cyber-communities rarely emphasize the economic, business-mind nature of the community: many cyber-communities are businesses that rely upon the commodification of human interaction. what i am getting at here is that electronic community is a commercial enterprise that dovetails nicely with the increasing trend towards dehumanization in our society: it wants to commodify human interaction, enjoy the spectacle regardless of the human cost. if and when the spectacle proves incovenient or alarming, it engages in creative history like, like any good banana republic."
"It is fashionable to suggest that cyberspace is some kind of island of the blessed where people are free to indulge and express their Individuality. in reality, this is not true.
i have seen many people spill their guts on-line, and i did so myself until, at last, i began to see that i had commodified myself. commodification means that you turn something into a product which has a money-value. in the nineteenth century, commodities were made in factories, which karl marx called “the means of production.” capitalists were people who owned the means of production, and the commodities were made by workers who were mostly exploited. i created my interior thoughts as a means of production for the corporation that owned the board i was posting to, and that commodity was being sold to other commodity/consumer entities as entertainment. that means that i sold my soul like a tennis shoe and i derived no profit from the sale of my soul. people who post frequently on boards appear to know that they are factory equipment and tennis shoes, and sometimes trade sends and email about how their contributions are not appreciated by management.
as if this were not enough, all of my words were made immortal by means of tape backups.
i suspect that cyberspace exists because it is the purest manifestation of the mass (masse) as Jean Beaudrilliard described it. it is a black hole; it absorbs energy and personality and then re-presents it as spectacle. proponents of so-called cyber-communities rarely emphasize the economic, business-mind nature of the community: many cyber-communities are businesses that rely upon the commodification of human interaction. what i am getting at here is that electronic community is a commercial enterprise that dovetails nicely with the increasing trend towards dehumanization in our society: it wants to commodify human interaction, enjoy the spectacle regardless of the human cost. if and when the spectacle proves incovenient or alarming, it engages in creative history like, like any good banana republic."
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
Influence is a technology. It's an -ism. It is extremely well researched. We are all startled rabbits in the headlights of advertising.
All? Certain people might like to feel immune, but their definition of 'advertising' is too narrow. If you've ever bought any product you've been influenced in some way. The product itself is essentially an advert ffs.
The poster above who buys (say) a Ford because he didn't like the Vauxhall advert has almost certainly seen a Ford one previously which hasn't offended him, thus giving him the comparison, even if subconsciously. So actually he's been influenced twice, positively and negatively. This type of conditioning happens over many years and is about much more than just advertising.
The 'trouble' is it's so utterly pervasive it's quite literally impossible to avoid. And the 'bad' news is it's only going to get worse. Which is fine for me, because a) it's not something I worry about and b) people spending money on advertising puts money in my pocket.
My definition of advertising doesn't include the product or service itself, but I can see that others would differ there, just about.
While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
technodup said:
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
Influence is a technology. It's an -ism. It is extremely well researched. We are all startled rabbits in the headlights of advertising.
All? Certain people might like to feel immune, but their definition of 'advertising' is too narrow. If you've ever bought any product you've been influenced in some way. The product itself is essentially an advert ffs.
The poster above who buys (say) a Ford because he didn't like the Vauxhall advert has almost certainly seen a Ford one previously which hasn't offended him, thus giving him the comparison, even if subconsciously. So actually he's been influenced twice, positively and negatively. This type of conditioning happens over many years and is about much more than just advertising.
The 'trouble' is it's so utterly pervasive it's quite literally impossible to avoid. And the 'bad' news is it's only going to get worse. Which is fine for me, because a) it's not something I worry about and b) people spending money on advertising puts money in my pocket.
If you want a good example of the utter insanity that is Twitter: girl buys a Chinese prom dress, gets descended upon for "cultural appropriation", currently at 129,000 likes
https://twitter.com/jere_bare/status/9899810230762...
Yet another supposed anti-racist who is completely oblivious to the fact they are just as bigoted as those the claim to despise
https://twitter.com/jere_bare/status/9899810230762...
Yet another supposed anti-racist who is completely oblivious to the fact they are just as bigoted as those the claim to despise
turbobloke said:
My definition of advertising doesn't include the product or service itself, but I can see that others would differ there, just about.
While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
I see it that advertising cannot exist in a vacuum. There has to be a product, a price etc.- the wider marketing element behind it, which really cannot be avoided. On that basis singling out 'advertising' is neither here nor there.While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
I'd love to meet this guy who isn't influenced by adverts though.
Russian Troll Bot said:
If you want a good example of the utter insanity that is Twitter: girl buys a Chinese prom dress, gets descended upon for "cultural appropriation", currently at 129,000 likes
https://twitter.com/jere_bare/status/9899810230762...
Yet another supposed anti-racist who is completely oblivious to the fact they are just as bigoted as those the claim to despise
Reading through a brief selection of his other Tweets it seems clear that this bloke is nothing more than shouty racist himself. He's also a bit of a nob. https://twitter.com/jere_bare/status/9899810230762...
Yet another supposed anti-racist who is completely oblivious to the fact they are just as bigoted as those the claim to despise
technodup said:
turbobloke said:
My definition of advertising doesn't include the product or service itself, but I can see that others would differ there, just about.
While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
I see it that advertising cannot exist in a vacuum. There has to be a product, a price etc.- the wider marketing element behind it, which really cannot be avoided. On that basis singling out 'advertising' is neither here nor there.While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
I'd love to meet this guy who isn't influenced by adverts though.
I would say I'm pretty turned off by most adverts, they appear puerile, facile and obvious and being an averagely intelligent guy I can see through the bulls
t - on the surface. But I've no doubt that it does have an effect subliminally - same car has an Audi badge, a Skoda badge and a VW badge - which one do you go for? Probably a few neuron pathways already predetermine what you may think you want already, even if you don't immediately or consciously buy into the plinky-piano soft focus metropolitan image. Other adverts perhaps work by just banging the name into your head - if asked about a random thing like washing powder or selling a car - what are the first things to come into your head...?
Of course, once you make up your mind and associate yourself with something, it maybe hard to dislodge you as you will have an incremental brand loyalty, we see it here all the time with unresolved passionate argument about which is the better this or that. We're all guilty of that sometimes and you have to make a real effort to step away and look objectively sometimes.
On social media I've found that things crop up which don't get the multi-million ad account treatment, smaller start ups, kickstarter, odd niche products [oh matron] and yes, from time to time you click on them as they are 'new, revolutionary, better mousetraps' and so for page impression purposes, they've succeeded and I'm sure if you spread a message far enough you'll pick up a lot more sales.
People that are less discerning may immediately go to a product like Pavlov's dog directly due to an ad., but the more discerning are still influenced I'd say, me included if I'm honest.
Aside from ads., SM is such a big multi-faceted subject and informs/repeats to so many people nowadays that I think it's almost like a sub-culture embedded within our surface culture, but one that strengthens existing views [echo chamber] thus polarising opinion and at that moment it starts to lose nuance, balance and reason - I can't remember who said it but if you believe 'tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance', then I think there's an argument that SM is in some way a potential tyrant, or perhaps more practically speaking, can be used by tyrannical people to their end. Even if you don't use it, others do in growing numbers, so you'd be unwise to say you exist in isolation without being affected by it.
Perception is reality.
andy_s said:
technodup said:
turbobloke said:
My definition of advertising doesn't include the product or service itself, but I can see that others would differ there, just about.
While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
I see it that advertising cannot exist in a vacuum. There has to be a product, a price etc.- the wider marketing element behind it, which really cannot be avoided. On that basis singling out 'advertising' is neither here nor there.While accepting that scope exists for disagreement on meaning, I still use the common definition of advertising as producing advertisements for commercial products or services, in other words something created to try to influence purchasing decisions beyond the product or service itself, and therefore still consider 'all' to be an inapplicable generalisation.
I'd love to meet this guy who isn't influenced by adverts though.
I would say I'm pretty turned off by most adverts, they appear puerile, facile and obvious and being an averagely intelligent guy I can see through the bulls
t - on the surface. But I've no doubt that it does have an effect subliminally - same car has an Audi badge, a Skoda badge and a VW badge - which one do you go for? Probably a few neuron pathways already predetermine what you may think you want already, even if you don't immediately or consciously buy into the plinky-piano soft focus metropolitan image. Other adverts perhaps work by just banging the name into your head - if asked about a random thing like washing powder or selling a car - what are the first things to come into your head...?
Of course, once you make up your mind and associate yourself with something, it maybe hard to dislodge you as you will have an incremental brand loyalty, we see it here all the time with unresolved passionate argument about which is the better this or that. We're all guilty of that sometimes and you have to make a real effort to step away and look objectively sometimes.
On social media I've found that things crop up which don't get the multi-million ad account treatment, smaller start ups, kickstarter, odd niche products [oh matron] and yes, from time to time you click on them as they are 'new, revolutionary, better mousetraps' and so for page impression purposes, they've succeeded and I'm sure if you spread a message far enough you'll pick up a lot more sales.
People that are less discerning may immediately go to a product like Pavlov's dog directly due to an ad., but the more discerning are still influenced I'd say, me included if I'm honest.
Aside from ads., SM is such a big multi-faceted subject and informs/repeats to so many people nowadays that I think it's almost like a sub-culture embedded within our surface culture, but one that strengthens existing views [echo chamber] thus polarising opinion and at that moment it starts to lose nuance, balance and reason - I can't remember who said it but if you believe 'tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance', then I think there's an argument that SM is in some way a potential tyrant, or perhaps more practically speaking, can be used by tyrannical people to their end. Even if you don't use it, others do in growing numbers, so you'd be unwise to say you exist in isolation without being affected by it.
Perception is reality.
Facebook friends who 'check in' at a restaurant or hotel and post a photo of their meal or room with favourable comments. People asking for advice or recommendations on forums, revealing local businesses who passive viewers won't have heard of. Advertising bleeds through the very fabric of social media.
V8mate said:
And don't forget, on top of all of that, the 'advertising money can't buy' dimension.
Facebook friends who 'check in' at a restaurant or hotel and post a photo of their meal or room with favourable comments. People asking for advice or recommendations on forums, revealing local businesses who passive viewers won't have heard of. Advertising bleeds through the very fabric of social media.
Wise words young padowan Facebook friends who 'check in' at a restaurant or hotel and post a photo of their meal or room with favourable comments. People asking for advice or recommendations on forums, revealing local businesses who passive viewers won't have heard of. Advertising bleeds through the very fabric of social media.
I think we’re getting distracted onto advertising. The problems with social media as currently designed are much more insidious than mere advertising. It’s been designed, by very smart people, to be addictive. It’s not an accident, like cigarettes or dope, it’s deliberately addictive, and to those with addictive personalities, it is as strong as anything physical. All those likes, upvotes, streaks, profiles and the like are 100% designed to hit the pleasure centres of the brain, and produce the same results.
Those of us who are a bit smarter than the average bear can sit smugly and claim it is not affecting us, and that’s probably true. There is a great swathe of the population who are being severely damaged by it as they say and do ever more daft things to get the reaction and the hit. ‘Alfie’s Army’ are a perfect example - a bunch of pretty dim people getting thousands of ‘likes’, which are propelling them to the next level of idiocy. Or the thousands of teenage girls who are starving themselves in order to obtain a figure that is only obtainable by trick photography and photoshop.
Along side that, advertising and data harvesting are almost trivial. I do think kids should have a few lessons in how advertising works - it makes it less effective. Once you instinctively deconstruct ads, the deceit is laid bare. People who participate in online gambling are generally not good looking, attractive to women, or mathmatical geniuses. They’re generally socially inept and don’t have friends, which is why they gamble on their phones.
Those of us who are a bit smarter than the average bear can sit smugly and claim it is not affecting us, and that’s probably true. There is a great swathe of the population who are being severely damaged by it as they say and do ever more daft things to get the reaction and the hit. ‘Alfie’s Army’ are a perfect example - a bunch of pretty dim people getting thousands of ‘likes’, which are propelling them to the next level of idiocy. Or the thousands of teenage girls who are starving themselves in order to obtain a figure that is only obtainable by trick photography and photoshop.
Along side that, advertising and data harvesting are almost trivial. I do think kids should have a few lessons in how advertising works - it makes it less effective. Once you instinctively deconstruct ads, the deceit is laid bare. People who participate in online gambling are generally not good looking, attractive to women, or mathmatical geniuses. They’re generally socially inept and don’t have friends, which is why they gamble on their phones.
I only use Facebook
What do I use it for?
To replace forums that have become fairly redundant over the past few years.
it is also a place where friends and family can organise events or group together.
For anything else it is rather a waste of time.
I find Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat etc as a little bit sycophantic and odd
What do I use it for?
To replace forums that have become fairly redundant over the past few years.
it is also a place where friends and family can organise events or group together.
For anything else it is rather a waste of time.
I find Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat etc as a little bit sycophantic and odd
chunder27 said:
Advertising for me is the cancer of the media world, I utterly detest most of it.
The way these companies try and portray life, utterly ridiculous situations, the "all about you" bull that is pedaled at you daily. If it's all about me, make it free, then I will use it.
There are odd occasions when it works, a new product or something informative.
But things like car ads with perfect families, no traffic, beautiful people everywhere, or betting adverts, or the inumerable other phones that are just about emojis or cameras, I find insulting, aggressive and actually sometimes rather offensive.
I will literally use advertising in its opposite effect, deliberately use another company, if their advertising annoys me or is aggressively targeted
Advertising, at it's average as well as best, is modern art but in an understandable form. The way these companies try and portray life, utterly ridiculous situations, the "all about you" bull that is pedaled at you daily. If it's all about me, make it free, then I will use it.
There are odd occasions when it works, a new product or something informative.
But things like car ads with perfect families, no traffic, beautiful people everywhere, or betting adverts, or the inumerable other phones that are just about emojis or cameras, I find insulting, aggressive and actually sometimes rather offensive.
I will literally use advertising in its opposite effect, deliberately use another company, if their advertising annoys me or is aggressively targeted
I 'did' graphic art at college - although not very well - at a time of revolution in advertising. It was when the Krone VW 'Think Small' adverts appeared. These were absolutely brilliant. I would telephone colleagues to discuss the latest VW ad. They were both entertaining and influential. I wrote an article on them some time ago and used it as a base for:
http://writewheel.uk/articles/oh-lord-wont-you/
Merc have taken up the baton and they produce some scintillating video ads that grace the Superbowl.
You suggest that you will use an alternative company if their advertising annoys you. This shows, although in reverse, that advertising affects you. Poor quality advert and you go elsewhere. It shows that people, that's all of us, are not logical when we buy.
There're rubbish adverts everywhere but there are also brilliant ones. One Krone VW advert didn't have a picture of a VW. That, in those days, was really cool. The only 'perfect family' in one of the ads that I can remember was one for the T2 carrier. The image was of a mother shepherding childing into the vehicle and the headline was: A Face Only a Mother Could Love.
Genius.
The series changed advertising, hopefully for ever.
Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 29th April 20:27
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff