this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
1486 points (99.7% liked)
196
5754 readers
1411 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand what your argument is. As far as advertisers are concerned, money is indeed the end goal and ultimate metric of success. So if advertising leads to more money, that is success as far as they are concerned. The philosophical outlook of the consumer does not pertain to this argument. But I think I'm misunderstanding your point so perhaps you could clarify?
Near as I can tell, they are not so much advancing an argument as using this opportunity to complain about a tangentially related phenomenon. The point seems muddled since the efficacy of advertising wasn't ever in question, but, basically, they're just saying it grinds their gears when someone points out that advertising works as a justification for its existence. They believe that there are metrics to consider which aren't "did the ad generate a sale".
Could be I got that wrong, but I think that's the gist of what they were saying. I, too, am a little confused, since no one seemed to be doubting ads work, despite consumer hostility, but, in their defense, they did declare up-front that they wanted to piggyback on this topic to address a pet peeve of theirs, so it's not like we weren't informed of their intent.