Advertising and marketing are mind poison and everyone hates them and we should retaliate against them politically and economically. Destroying the advertising market is something global society should do.
Ad blockers/VPNs should be the norm.
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
419 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
55703 readers
4397 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You say everyone hates then but honestly it's really not true. Plenty of people are annoyed by ads, others tolerate them, sometimes people even enjoy them (see Superbowl shit or people sharing meme ads and commercials) and honestly that's part of the problem. Ads have been a part of so many people lives for so long they can't even imagine a world where they aren't constantly bombarded by ads and having them privacy exploited for corporate gains.
Personally I'm vehemently opposed to ads and go out of my way to block them in every way I can, but fundamentally many people don't see them as an issue or are too attached to the corporate teat to try voting with their wallet to suppress the problem.
Just because you like to be attached to a pole doesn't mean we should let companies attach us all to a pole.
If someone "likes" commercials, well I guess we could have a web-place for them where they can go and we can avoid.
Ads themselves are just annoying but tolerable. But we're talking about targeted marketing. Ad companies keep data on you, the user, so they can squeeze out a bit more money from avertisers. That requires the users' consent in many parts of the world and ad companies still try to weasel around that. When you don't want them to have your data, a word from you should be enough. No hidden options, no clicking through a dozen pages, no ifs and whens.
Capitalism turns anyone into a fucking soulless ghoul.
Not necessarilly. What it does is encourage the people with sociopathic tendencies to be sociopathic, and discourages kindness and comradery.
Nothing can turn someone who doesn't have sociopathic tendencies into an outright sociopath.
Respectfully but strongly disagree. If people's survival requires constantly competing in scenarios that favor sociopathic actions and outright sociopaths while also repeatedly discarding kindness and devaluing communal activity in general the outcome is the same.
While you are right that the people at their cores might not be sociopathic and may be very uncomfortable and unhappy with the way they've become required to live their lives, the resulting society becomes as if it were entirely inhabited by sociopaths.
You can definitely condition people into acting entirely in their own self interest in the public sphere. And, unfettered capitalism is undeniably very effective at doing this. In fact, it's arguable that governments worldwide have been trying to regulate against this with almost no effect. I think the global climate emergency is an excellent example, though far from the only one. It's more the sum total of all humanities failures at this very thing.
Well said.
Ben the nice bus driver will kill in a war, kill fathers, sons, anyone, because he got indoctrinated (maybe brainwashed, or just convinced) to do it. We got enough of records of that to know it's true.
Sure, society as a whole is much more individualistic and sociopathic compared to human nature (as shown by anthropologists, where people just shared things in the past) as a direct result of capitalism. I just don't think on the individual level that capitalism can change the nature of an individual to become sociopathic if they weren't already.
With human nature, "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" rings true.
Also mass industrialization and urbanization caused people to not know their communities nearly as well, if at all, leading to an even more individualistic culture.
Mental health is derived from biology, psychology, and sociology. Capitalism influences all three but especially the sociological aspect.
In other words, capitalism encourages anti-social behavior by rewarding it.
Or are you arguing that sociopaths are born that way? Because epigenetics has basically killed the nature vs. nurture debate (it was always a combination of both.)
I was indeed arguing that some people are born that way. Can you link me to some research saying otherwise?
I'm thinking of those types of people who hurt animals as a child and grew up to be serial killers.
Or to put my longer post another way, there's never a point in your hypothetical born a sociopath argument where capitalism wasn't exercising an influence on that organism's mental health and how it's expressed.
Capitalism changes us before we even hit the crib. Check out Gabor Mate M.D.'s book the Myth of Normal. It's all about this stuff.
Mate's work is like a poultice on our souls capitalist infection.
Listening to him speaking some of his work on YouTube has literally brought me to tears.
Like the phrase, "feeling good is good enough", just being told it's ok to simply exist, that existing for existence sake is good enough. Something so simple, but capitalism whittles that away from you before you even hit your 20s.
Sounds like a fascinating book!
Our culture teaches children that animals are there to serve us, even to the point of hurting them (food, medical research, hunting, etc). I believe compassion is something that can be taught to children, but I think our culture and many families within it tend to teach cruelty instead. And most of us aren't capabable of the self reflection needed to change our disposition in regards to empathy until the prefrontal cortex develops.
Environmental factors, many of which capitalism produces as negative externalities, affect how the prefrontal cortex develops in addition to how it socializes us towards antisocial behavior. To name some of the less obvious factors: trauma, substance use, and financial stress/insecurity.
Additionally, the gene expression for anti-social behavior surely is adapted to turn on when most beneficial to the survival of the organism.
I don't have a study handy as most of this is stuff I learned taking human services classes. I can look for a paper on nature vs nurture and antisocial behavior specifically if you'd like. Or epigenetics and antisocial behavior. If my comment wasn't enough.
My evidence is extremely anecdotal, but generally speaking, the people I meet whi care more about other people make less money, and the people who care less about people make more money.
Children (at least in the US) are generally taught that "sharing is caring," and yet you still see children who don't share, along with children who do share. Regardless of this, though, I think that sharing is in our nature as humans, since what set humans apart from neanderthals is our comradery and need for socialization. There's a reason that sociopathy is considered a disorder in our society (even though I think the term disorder is overused).
Genetic expressions can certainly change due to environmental factors, but only so much. There are probably a decent amount of people who were affected by capitalistic nurture into having more sociopathic tendencies (like, they were on some kind of line where it could've gone either way), but I also think that there are many people who regardless of nurture, still care about other people.
In a theoretical society that rewards caring about people, I think there would be a number of people who have purely selfish intentions who would do good things for other people purely to get ahead in life, just like those same people in capitalism would step on top of other people to get ahead in life. In this specific case, I think intentions speak more than actions.
Of course, intentions aren't exactly something that can be measured, especially if people are dishonest about them.
I tried finding a study but everything I found was paywalled. I did find an article with numerous citations. The tldr is that genes only contribute 50%. Epigenetics, social conditioning, and environmental factors (brain damage for instance) take up the other 50%. In other words, without outside factors the antisocial personality genes don't manifest as antisocial personality disorder. They don't alone have enough influence.
https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/psychopath-genes-born-not-made/
Use sci-hub for paywalled research articles.
Fascinating that smoking while pregnant and heavy metal poisoning can lead to psychopathy. I wonder if that 50% number is true for all humans.
I think some of us have less of those genes.
Going back to your original argument. If you don't have a genetic tendency towards antisocial personality disorder, it's less likely capitalism will make you callous.
However, if you do have those genes, they're more likely to express as antisocial in a culture like ours.
So it's both the individual biology and the environmental factors.
I used to use sci-hub. I forgot about it today. A lot of stuff has become more available. I think studies done by or funded by the government are all open access now. I might be wrong though.
I was trying to find a study they did on Netherlands criminals vs U.S. criminals. They found the former more rogueish and the later more callous. Could be genetic or environmental causes to this. Maybe Danish people are genetically less callous. Or maybe it's the culture. Probably a combination of both.
How do we know that people with those genes who behave in a less/not-sociopathic way are not masking their intentions? Just because they don't behave in a sociopathic way doesn't mean they don't potentially want to.
Here's one study if you want to take a look at it.
https://sci-hub.st/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00279.x
Bruno Verschuere is the researcher who did the comparison between U.S. and Netherlands prisoners. I can only find a reference to that study in an article though, and haven't been able to find it published online. He seems to do a lot of research in this area (he's one of the researchers in the linked article).
Anyway the link should give you an idea on controls they're using. The linked study is actually about lie detector tests and if they're less accurate on antisocial people as they have less autonomic reaponse when lieing.
They are hard to spot though. I did some time in prison for growing psilocybin. I wanted to believe my celley was a good person because he was easy to get along with and seemed kind. Looked him up when I got out, fucker had a taste for little girls and I had pictures of my young son up in our cell the whole time...
But you can sorta learn to spot it. If you watch the documentary on the Nexium cult or other cult leaders you might see what I mean. They don't seem to have the same fear response about hurting others and it's visible in the eye movements.
That's my hot take at least. And I've been enjoying this conversation btw.
"I tried finding a study but everything I found was paywalled."
Fucking priceless. The entire conversation in a single throw away line. Well done. 👏
To be fair the article I linked is probably more accessible than the studies it cites.
But yeah, I pecked around trying to get a few promising papers to open. And forgot about sci hub so shared the article instead.
This must have been the best description of this that I‘ve read so far. Thank you very much.
Sociopathy isn’t defined by what people will do in extreme contexts, but what they’ll do in “normal” ones. Yes, humans have survived so successfully in part because we have a strong survival instinct and will do whatever it takes to live. But there’s a meaningful difference between that and sociopathy. Context matters.
Not a technical sociopath, no, but it does a damn good job of of getting people to mimic those tendencies. It just means those with the barest amount of empathy aren't successful capitalists, they just end up exploited and happy about it.
... and if you refuse to become a soulless ghoul then you become the merchandise.