just that the TV commercial looks back at you through the TV and the TV follows you around everywhere, wherever you go, whatever you do, taking note of everything to get to know every single detail about you, every interest, every prejudice, every weakness of yours, to get to know you like no person, no matter how close to you does, like not even yourself do to use that information to influence you most effectively to the TV channel’s and the advertiser’s advantage, to manipulate you, to sell this information about you to other companies like insurances who use the power that this knowledge provides over you to extract every last cent of money from you, to sell you.

  • @madcaesar
    link
    33
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    You know what’s immoral? Advertising medicine. Advertising surgery breakfast foods to kids. Advertising garbage fast food to kids.

    That’s immoral, not adblockers.

    • @SpaceNoodle
      cake
      link
      611 months ago

      I love a big bowl of surgery for breakfast

      • @nachobel
        link
        311 months ago

        Mm delicious triple bypass

    • @Merulox
      link
      011 months ago

      It seems I’m stupid because I don’t understand what you imply when you say advertising medicine is immoral

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        711 months ago

        Because people shouldn’t be convinced to take a medicine based on good marketing. They should get advice from a good source like a doctor.

        • @Merulox
          link
          111 months ago

          Ohh, right, I see, thank you

      • @madcaesar
        link
        511 months ago

        It’s illegal in Europe for example. Because it’s big pharma basically pushing unnecessary drugs on people.

  • @Thagthebarbarian
    link
    1011 months ago

    A reminder that this war isn’t new, even before the mass consolidation of TV stations, they got together to standardize commercial break timing so it didn’t matter if you changed the channel because you were just switching to commercials on another channel

  • @mikeyBoy14
    link
    -6
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I don’t think that’s quite right. The act of changing the channel wouldn’t have impacted the station’s ad revenue because the tech couldn’t tell if the ad was served. On YouTube you actually deprive the site of ad revenue with an ad blocker. And if enough people do it, you could also deprive creators of material earnings.

    • @owenfromcanada
      link
      211 months ago

      Well, historically ad revenue for TV is based on viewership, right? I’m not 100% sure how that was calculated before streaming, but I would think that changing the channel would still affect those numbers, albeit in a more gradual way. It would still have a similar effect, just not as immediate.

      It’s important to differentiate “immoral” from “consequences.” The consequences of adblockers/changing the channel is that it may impact content creators, but that doesn’t make it immoral.

      • JJROKCZ
        link
        211 months ago

        The Nielsen company doing surveys of a percentage of households is how they know. Nowadays they even have a tracker you wear that reports back to Nielsen what you’ve been watching/listening to based on what it can hear, in the old days it was a form folks filled out saying what they watched or listened to

      • @mikeyBoy14
        link
        111 months ago

        So it’s not the best analogy.

  • UnfortunateShort
    link
    -1011 months ago

    It is, because you don’t switch the channel, you decide to skip the commercials that are meant to finance it.

    I think they are immoral beyond any doubt, but many websites are acting immoral as well, which justifies their use. I happily disable them for sites with an ethical approach to advertising and data collection.