389
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

The internet runs on ads.

Ad companies pay for all the “free” popular social media we use. Ad companies dictate to social media what their clients want their ads to be associated with, not associated with, and drive media of all kinds to push inflammatory and click-bait content that drives engagement and views. It’s why you indirectly can’t swear, talk about suicide, drugs, death, or violence. Sure, you technically can unless ToS prohibits it, but if companies tell their ad hosts they don’t want to be associated with someone talking about guns, the content discussing guns gets fewer ads, fewer ads = less revenue, low-revenue gets pushed to the bottom.

So lowbrow political rage bait, science denialism, and fake conspiracies drives people to interact and then gets pushed to the top because it gets ad revenue. Content that delves into critical thought and requires introspection or contemplation languishes.

Ads are destroying society because stupid and rage sells views.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 7 points 2 days ago

Oh shit, I thought you said "AI" companies and was about to say "nahh, it's the advertisers" lol.

Yes. Ads are a stain on our species and should be outlawed.

They are a waste of resources, clutter and manipulate our minds, and give a ridiculous advantage to those who already have the money to buy them.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 66 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Agree. Which is why I get so irrationally annoyed when sharing a good piece of journalism that's not catering to ad-clicks and the peanut gallery here grabs their torches and pitchforks while shouting "PaYwALL!" despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons). It's one of several reasons why I don't even bother anymore.

Like, good journalism costs money. That money's gotta come from somewhere if you want good journalists to be able to eat and keep doing what they do.

[-] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 3 points 2 days ago

good journalism costs money

How much money?

The problem with this "x costs money" rhetoric is that x is usually trying to maximize profit, not give a fair deal.

[-] ieGod@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

That's all well and fine but if you're presenting the topic for discussion on a public forum you're limiting the audience. The gist isn't enough for complete discussion. So the cries about it being paywalled are completely justified.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago

How can I tell they’re good journalists without reading their stuff first?

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 11 points 4 days ago

By reading the gist that OP provided and deciding if you want to read more.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

What if I want to read more but not enough to go find my wallet and hand over personal information?

[-] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago

What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

Then you don't get any fucking cookies.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons)

when you (and others) do that, it is the best thing on the news/science/sharing articles communities. lets me know whether the article is something i'm interested in reading and something i can comment intelligently on or just something i can shitpost about. i really appreciate it, just thought i'd let you know

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] choui4@lemmy.zip 46 points 4 days ago

I think the answer always comes down to capitalism

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Capitalism does play a part, but it’s more the lack of hard rules to curb it rather than the economic method itself. You want to make an even broader claim, just say “greed.”

[-] wpb@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Couple of things that are either a definition, obvious, or directly observable in literally every capitalist nation in history:

  • the defining characteristic of capitalism is the private ownership of businesses
  • the ability to own a business can buy you influence on the electorate legally, through owning ad agencies, newspapers, think tanks, online influencers
  • owning a business can buy you influence on politicians legally, by hiring lobbyists, by threatening to take your business elsewhere, by promising politicians cushy jobs after their tenure, by contributing to their campaign through fundraisers, PACs, etc
  • this influence gives you the power to change laws and regulations to your benefit
  • in particular, it allows you to shape laws to benefit you financially, making the actions in point 2 and 3 easier to do
  • in particular, it allows you to get rid of laws restricting you to do the things in points 2 and 3
  • it is in the best interest of politicians to deregulate the latter parts of point 3
  • as such, a capitalist system where only parts or even none of point 2 and 3 are allowed, has a natural tendency towards a system where they are fully allowed

Leaving all other economic systems aside for a moment*, the idea that this is not a direct and natural consequence of capitalism doesn't seem to hold water, both on a theoretical and an empirical level.

(*)And we do this because, analogously, arguing your right hand isn't bleeding by saying your left hand is makes no sense. Capitalism can be studied in its own right. What's more is that the number of alternative systems is infinite, and I'm sure lemmy has a character limit.

[-] bearboiblake@pawb.social 1 points 2 days ago

Yes, exactly, and if you continue in this same vein, fascism becomes inevitable, too. Capitalism really must be abolished.

[-] jmankman@lemmy.myserv.one 14 points 4 days ago

This was an understandable perspective when we had those regulations in the USA, but since FDR's New Deal, the Republicans have walked back practically every law and regulation we had to curb the greed of Capitalism. This is the natural tendency of Capitalism

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] fonix232@fedia.io 7 points 4 days ago

There's no curbing capitalism. The very thesis of it requires that the most successful 1, find 2, exploit 3, lobby to lock up enough, so to "pull up the ladder behind themselves", any and all loopholes of the legal system that allows them to get ahead.

You can try regulating it but capitalism will always find a way around your rules.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] choui4@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

This is where we disagree. What are the fundemental tenants of capitalism vs say, communism?

(Just doing a thought experiment with you, in good faith)

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago
[-] choui4@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Consumerism is a symptom of capitalism. Capitalism is the illness

[-] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

They definitely try, but why do we let them?

[-] deepflows@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago

Because they have everyone addicted using devilishly addictive algorithms, socio-psychological hacks and platforms designed to amplify it all. Meanwhile, we’re still stuck prescribing individual solutions to these deeply systemic structural issues.

[-] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You laid it out so well I needed time to process it, my thanks :)

Exactly. There is no systemic response to the issue

[-] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

Because we're farm animals.

[-] ecvanalog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

This is why Josie and the Pussycats is the best movie ever.

(Join the army)

[-] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago

Advertising is one of the most prolific environmental pollutants of economic activity, and needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking.

[-] turboSnail@piefed.europe.pub 17 points 4 days ago

That’s an interesting thought, and I would like to add a few things to it.

The whole idea of having ad funded things is fundamentally flawed. It has also become too dominant, and difficult to compete with. Ads are the tool used in this business model, but are they really the root cause of the problems you mentioned? I would say no.

Theoretically, you could still have ads without ruining everything. When other business models aren’t competitive enough, the whole system naturally gravitates to the mess we’re currently in.

I think cheap mobile games have showed that you can charge a small amount of money, and people will be willing to pay up. That way, everything doesn’t have to be ad funded. It’s just that this business model doesn’t appear to be appealing enough in other arenas, and that’s a real problem.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

Theoretically, you could still have ads without ruining everything. When other business models aren’t competitive enough, the whole system naturally gravitates to the mess we’re currently in.

There's no such thing as "competitive enough." Corporate greed is literally insatiable, inherently and by design. There's an entire series of Supreme Court decisions -- not just Citizens United -- that would need to be overturned to fix that.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Bill Watterson tried to warn us

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Who knew that adverts were the secret power cabal running everything all the time.

[-] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I was thinking about this earlier today.

It’s amazing to me that in my lifetime, ads went from a thing that companies got to do as an extra once they had succes all the way to a thing that runs everything everywhere.

Nowadays if you don’t have ads in some form abusing the algorithm (which is in itself designed to be abused) then you get nowhere.

(Also holy shit this has a lot of comments, seems like people have this on their liver somewhat)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago

read Subprime Attention Crisis. our surviellance state was implemented to sell products. however, the products didn't sell because online ad models being more efficient than traditional ad models has always been a lie

[-] masterspace@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You're right overall, but the mechanism you listed about advertising only appearing near safe content is not that big of a deal compared to other mechanisms at play:

  1. psychological manipulation vs competition - the way that a capitalist economy is supposed to work is that a bunch of firms compete to sell you a good or service, you pick the best one for your situation and buy it, then the firm that produces the best good or service gets more resources (money) to grow, rewarding the best product maker.

Advertising breaks this. It lets you spend money on psychological manipulation to get people to buy your product, instead of just trying to produce a better product. True conservative capitalists should fucking hate advertising for distorting the economy, and letting big companies pay advertising money to drown innovative competition, but there are very few of those left these days.

  1. engagement driven algorithms - because advertising operates on the basis of psychological manipulation rather than actually informing you, it means that its effectiveness always scales with volume.

i.e. I can read everything there is to learn about two different laptops, watch YouTube videos, read all the specs and reviews, and after about two hours of research I'll know everything there is to know. A company can try and provide me with more information about their product to sway me, but at that point it's probably ineffective because I know everything about them already. However if they bombard me with slick fun ads that evoke certain emotions in me over and over and over and over and over again, it will create an emotional bias towards one over the other.

This distinction is super important because it is what leads to most of advertising's ills: most specifically engagement driven algorithms, which social media uses to keep you scrolling and are what are truly destroying society. The amount of human time and effort wasted to them is incalculable, the amount of languished relationships, neglected kids, over tired and angry people etc. is truly jaw droppingly damaging, and it is fundamentally because advertising is a cheap way to manipulate you into buying something, and unlike true education, it's effectiveness keeps scaling with volume.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

Follow the money. Advertisement exists because businesses demand it.

Your post is literally shooting the messenger.

[-] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

🤡s like you are why we have ads.

It's not that "businesses demand it," it's that people (like you) don't have higher standards.

[-] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

You might as well tell me it's my fault that you can't fly because I pointed out that gravity exists.

I hate them as much as you do, but I at least know where to place the blame.

[-] alonsohmtz@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

but I at least know where to place the blame.

Except you don't. If people demanded more, they would get more.

Since most people are like you and accept ads as an inevitability, that's what we get.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

The messenger is delivering poison. The messenger is the problem.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
389 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

40721 readers
702 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS