[somestag]

Honestly I disagree with this pretty strongly.

First, I (and many people that I know) do get upset when an ad misrepresents a product and we get burned. It happens all the time, and people complain about it constantly. You might argue this is wasted breath, but it still happens.

I would also say that while everyone accepts that ads are at a high risk for dishonesty, the vast majority of people live their lives assuming that ads convey some useful information, even if it's just the vague intent and target audience of the product. It's easy to pick out specific genres of ads that don't seem to do this, and ad rhetoric can often be complicated and interesting, but generally speaking they do try to convey some sort of genuine information about the product.

Saying that ads are fundamentally misinformation people because they are "obviously trying to convince someone to purchase something which might actually not be good for them to buy" seems like a reasonable criticism at first glance, but actually I think that's kind of a ridiculous standard. No one except my closest friends and family have any idea what might be "good for me to buy", and I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming" the public simply because they're trying to sell to strangers.

This is not to say that the ad industry isn't infested with slimy people with perverse incentives. Of course it is. But advertising itself is a basic extension of human communication, and I think it's awfully cynical to say that any attempt to show someone why they might want to buy your product is spreading misinformation. I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not, then nearly all human discourse is an exercise in misinformation.

(Inb4 "actually, nearly all human discourse is misinformation")

[ang_cire]

There is a massive gap between a vendor hawking their wares on the street, and modern ad campaigns and techniques.

To conflate those 2 as being remotely similar in levels of influence (even at an individual level) is insane.

Also, I'm not sure why you jumped to assuming that I apparently believe advertising shouldn't be allowed, just because I can acknowledge that it is based entirely on selfish intent by the ad creators?

All I said was that ads are a form of misinformation. You're the one drawing conclusions about what responses that must entail.

If you prefer to pretend it's not misinformation just because you apparently cannot reconcile that stance, and allowing ads to continue to exist, that's a "you" problem.

[somestag]

You've jumped to quite a few conclusions here.

You said that ads are misinformation because they try to convince you to buy something that may or may not be in your best interest to buy. My response to this is that's a ridiculous definition of "misinformation," and I disagree with it strongly.

You said nothing about levels of influence, or about modern ad campaigns versus word-of-mouth advertising, or anything of the like. I couldn't have responded to these things even if I wanted to, because you didn't say them. All you said was that selfish motivation == misinformation, and that's wrong, and I disagree with it.

Of course I suspected that you wrote your comment because of angst against the manipulations of "modern ad campaigns," and not because you believe that's actually a useful definition of misinformation, and you just proved it for me. You're trying to redefine words so you can use those words to give your point more oomph.

I also said nothing about you believing advertising shouldn't be allowed. Why do you think I said this? I didn't even imply it. I only said I thought you were being cynical.

It's true that there's a massive gap between a vendor hawking their wares on the street and "modern ad campaigns and techniques." There is also an entire gradient between these two things, and you see examples all along this gradient if you actually pay attention to advertising. The existence of this gradient is why I take issue with your original comment.

[ang_cire]

> All you said was that selfish motivation == misinformation

No I didn't, even according to you:

> You said that ads are misinformation because they try to convince you to buy something that may or may not be in your best interest to buy

Correct. Which is true if the thing they say you should buy, you should not in fact buy.

> that's a ridiculous definition of "misinformation," and I disagree with it strongly

You don't like that definition because you don't think that pressuring someone to buy something, when you have a vested interest in that thing selling, is inherently wrong. Not everyone has to have the same opinions about business rights and ethics as you.

> You said nothing about levels of influence, or about modern ad campaigns versus word-of-mouth advertising, or anything of the like.

No, you brought that into the conversation:

> I am not so against the idea of basic commerce that I think it's useful to say that someone hawking their wares is "misinforming"

Before that, we were clearly talking about modern ads, not "someone hawking their wares" as part of "basic commerce", which is obviously far more expansive a discussion, and includes said individual sellers.

> not because you believe that's actually a useful definition of misinformation

I am not limiting "misinformation" to only that, I am including that within the umbrella of misinformation, because it is.

Misinformation is simply, "Untrue or incorrect information." You are the one trying to redefine it to exclude common forms of misinformation we're used to navigating.

> I also said nothing about you believing advertising shouldn't be allowed.

Not explicitly. What you said was

> "I do believe that it's okay to advocate for something, and then let people decide for themselves if they agree. If it's not..."

Which is an inherent implication that I do not think it's okay to do so. I do think it's okay, I just can acknowledge that it's usually misinformation. As I said, the issue here is you being unable to reconcile something being misinformation, and that thing still being allowed.