[endisneigh]

you're moving the goalposts. I didn't say anything about magnitudes, just that communication is inherently manipulative.

[regentbowerbird]

> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general.

"no more" in your sentence implies the impact is roughly the same (not that I agree with your premise that all communication is manipulation, unless your definition of "manipulation" is so vast as to be useless).

[endisneigh]

No more does not imply equality, just that it's not greater than, which is simply the truth. Advertisements are not inherently more manipulative than words in general.

If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure.

[tristor]

> If the subject was propaganda, instead of advertising, then sure.

What do you think advertising is? It's propaganda for a product.

[endisneigh]

No, it is not. Advertising could be propaganda, but it is not inherently so.

[generic92034]

Nope. You did say:

> Ads are no more psychological manipulation at scale than words in general.

This is a statement about magnitudes and in my estimation the statement is mostly wrong.

[endisneigh]

it's not right or wrong.

is paid poster in a college dorm hall - an advertisement - more or less manipulative than Trump's January 6th tweets?

If you have evidence to suggest that advertisements are inherently more manipulative than other types of communication feel free to share.

[generic92034]

You have weighed "words in general" against ads. For me that is comparing an average with those ads. The average of generally used words/speech is very, very far from Trump's tweets and similar communication, IMHO.

[johnnyworker]

That's so wide it says nothing. It's not even a soccer field, much less a goal post.