Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by harry8 1317 days ago
The really nasty side of advertising is the collateral damage of mental health issues, eg death by the torture of annorexia is just one. I find it's usually pretty easy to get some kind of agreement on that even if we agree we are not suceptible at the moment and how making the audience of the ads feel inadequate (so we spend money on something to feel better) is the point. Perfume advertised by perfet movie stars and models who are better and happier than you. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, as a society we've thrown every ad strategy against the wall and selected for the ones that work and this one works so we use it, don't know or care it harms a vulnerable 12 year old. Ad exec doing lines off the boardroom table may not even be smart enough to abuse your children deliberately but _can_ copy this other thing that worked. "No fat women in coke ads." Needn't be a malicious agency or "obesity vendor" policy for it to actually be put into effect and be happening. (It could be policy too, who would trust them not to be vile?)

So that's the obvious end and you can see pretty easily how it exists all the way up the spectrum from the extremely serious effects through to the utterly "well thats 30 seconds I'm never getting back" level of trivial.

The advertising industry has no regard for you or your family's or your community's mental health. None. This is clear to me and you can form your own view. Given I believe that, we have to run defence. And you do, I do, everyone does. "Kids, that is fake, that isn't real." If you never had a discussion like that with younger humans, be they your kids, extended family, friends or randoms then, I kind of wonder why not? How much defence should we be playing against it all? As much as we can is my answer. It's wrong not to make some kind of effort.

Where are you drawing the line for the health and welfare of your family?