I got a good laugh out of this one from a few years ago.
Yes we paid for a fortune cookie ad in bed!
Wait… what?! What the hell man?
Next is going to be toilet paper ads.
Kleenex ads. Electric car engine noises play ads. An ad on your shawarma wrap or heat pressed onto the pita. Ads on your furnace filters. Your tide pods.
Anything you might look at really.
toilet paper ads
So polymarket and other betting… things, will finally be useful.
No, it’ll be glossy instead of absorbent.
Exactly like how this ad cookie uses different paper than a fortune cookie.
You just know that paper made the cookie taste weird too
Thankfully, the genius of Polymarket will allow you to bet on whether or not their fortune cookie ad campaign will result in casualties
I hope the casualties are the people who came up with and approved this idea.
Yeah isn’t normal fortune cookie paper that kind of paper because it absorbs water very quickly…so you could chew and swallow it easily without really noticing (and without having any significant potential harm to bowels or airway)?
What are the odds someone choked on one of these?
Also the ink is food-grade soy-based. But now if it’s doing color and logos, it raises the question – what dirty warehouse inkjet printer is it printing from now.
Eyelid ads
Ban advertising entirely.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Everyone’s looking to cash in, fortune cookie makers included.
Again:
Do not share advertisements. They are toxic to society, always based in a lie, and never of benefit. Making fun of them is not better than genuinely shilling for the company. Block ads. Destroy them where possible. Seek to have them banned wherever possible. They are not welcome on Lemmy, and if you are going to share them, neither are you.
I wish taggers would target ads instead of public buildings and infrastructure or even normal businesses.
Thinking back, it does seem like tagging shows up more on infrastructure than adspace but I think that might just be because there is a lot more money invested by advertisers in replacing ads than there ever is on cleaning/repainting public structures. The signs at sporting events and billboards change hands or are updated fairly regularly by the nature of the advertising company moving to a new client whenever a contract ends, but walls and public signage are often only replaced or repainted once every few years at best.
I mustve missed the part where everyone decided you have unilateral decision making over who gets to participate here.
the meeting was last tuesday at 15:00 - didn’t you read the memo?
Crud, what else was discussed?
Poll consensus majority still feels lemmy user MargotRobbie was real.
we’re getting matching thongs
Advertisements are not bad. We have to regulate them though. If you do not want advertisements then every single service you use would be paid.
Why would Linux charge me if there would be no advertisements?
My library fees are so low literally anyone should be able to pay them.
If the cost of not having the toxic lies of advertising trying to trick people, the toxic effects of the ad-based business model corrupting all of our media, and the toxic effects of advertising-based political campaigns, is to have to pay a few pennies to someone providing a service I actually want, I don’t see a downside.
Agreed that promoting advertisement is just more advertisement, but they aren’t all based in a lie.
Yes they are. All advertising is based around the lie of creating false associations. Buying a truck won’t make you a ‘MAN.’ Drinking a particular brand of soda won’t bring about world peace, make you ‘cool,’ or really even cure your thirst, generally. Even the most generic, ‘buy our thing. It’s good thing,’ is based in the lie of ‘buying our thing will make you happy.’ It’s shoved into everyone’s face without consideration of truth value. It’s the same as some guy walking up to everyone in a place and saying ‘If you have normal sex with me, you will have the best orgasm of your life.’ It might be true for a VERY limited number of people, but it’s not true for everyone he’s harassing to say it, it’s not even guaranteed to be true for anyone, and he is 1000% guaranteed not to be saying it for the benefit of the people to whom he’s saying it. Even when it’s true, it’s true by accident, a lie that failed to turn out to be false. It’s pure manipulative bullshit.
Yup. If something is good quality and solves a problem I have, I’ll find it myself.
Perhaps many ads or even the majority is lying, but everything is just nonsense. Like some clothes washing service just announcing it exists. Or a repair cafe. Stop thinking in absurd extremes.
I have had this discussion many times. A sign on your business’s frontage is not advertising. It is a label. It is the name of a thing on that thing. It is contained entirely within your space, not invasive, and does not involve manipulating anyone or creating perverse systems to manipulate people. Stating your existence is fine. It enables those who might want to find you, to find you when they choose to seek you out. Advertising goes beyond mere labelling and is innately deceptive. You not noticing the harm is not the same as not being harmed. You liking being deceived is not the same as not being deceived.
You had this discussion before? But I have to take that one step further to make you see that extreme as false?
So we put this label not on the business but on a bus that drives around that area. Now it is not the name on the thing. Not contained in their space. Is arguably invasive (but not really more than on their place, different discussion). Manipulation can also be argued about in either case, but not relevant for the lying part right now. It states the existence of that business someplace else than the business. It is an ad that does not lie. Like every other ad it helps people find something, like… obviously.
You now shifting the definition of ads to make it such that everything else is not an ad anymore so your argument stays up is just circular logic.
Red bull gives you wings
hey it’s ryannathans
If this happened to me, I’m sorry to my local shops who sold it to me. Yall just lost a customer.
“We paid to have ads inserted into the I Ching. Now every fourth hexagram is ‘Drink Slurm!’”
Everytime I hear about these gambling companies I’m wondering if there will be a monstrous, public backlash.
Everyone should put money up on the bet that the polymarket CEO lives a long healthy life.
You are participating in the problem by posting this.
Yeah, I feel like if we blurred the advertiser, we could get away with this point.
Does it not work to shame the advertiser?
Is polymarket capable of shame? Is any company for that matter?
By default, it does not; the predatory nature of this particular company notwithstanding.
For an extreme example, all I have to do to give a smoker a craving for a cigarette is too mention how bad it smells. It doesn’t matter that I did it in a negative context, just that I mentioned it.
For this company, a gambling company, which is known as addicting enough to ruin people, just sharing the company name is enough to cause similar affects.
For regular companies the affect is also there, just in varying degrees of strong. As a lesser example, I could give you cravings by just mentioning a specific soft drink, so long as I guess the right brand.
To remove ads, please drink the verification can to continu–
Yeah before these I got cookies with blockchain ads. No bueno 🥠
We paid a fortune for this fortune ad.
If you feel the need to advertise like this you are a bad person and your product is shit. Like this actively breeds contempt towards your product, how can this be an intelligent move?
It also works, suckers people in when they see it everywhere and then they’re hooked on gambling.
It’s a gambling company their customers don’t have critical thinking skills.
Because someone took a photo in anger and uploaded it and it’s being advertised for free on every social media platform that this gets posted - and reposted - to. That’s the game. It’s all about getting eyeballs on your ad.
Meanwhile the restaurant probably eats the bullet and probably got review bombed. Rightfully so but yeah everyone got played here. Corporate tech continues to be a blight that moves fast and destroys things.
but i now hate the product.
Were you even considering using it in the first place?
No? Then you’re just a vector for the advertisement to spread, now as am I, and everyone who commented and upvoted this post.
Doesn’t matter, attention is attention
Except it isn’t.
Bad ad campaign have destroyed brands in the past, hope it happens here.
in a space as saturated as crypto, attention is the minimum to get in the door. And after that, if you keep gaining attention until the whole world knows your name, then it doesn’t matter if 80% hate you, the other 20% will be giving you enough money to monopolize the market. Then you can enshittify and the hate doesn’t matter (see Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc).
You’re skipping a lot of what made those companies happen.
Google was actually good once. They had a clean, usable website in an era of pop-ups and overused animated GIFS. Also, their search actually worked. They also had a bunch of cool programs and tools that they’ve since killed.
Facebook was also sort of good. But not really. Most of that was a sort of first mover advantage. Myspace existed, but didn’t catch on, and then Facebook comes along, and it has a bunch of free games (that steal all your data). Since Facebook was most people’s first social media, and their family’s first social media, they get locked in.
Bill Gates’ Mom was on the board of directors at IBM and forced the company to use her son’s OS.
first mover advantage
That’s basically what I’m referring to here. Facebook wasn’t the first social media platform but they were the first to capture enough users to monopolize the space. Yes all these companies had technical innovations too, but if you dig into Polymarket you can probably find some too. All of that doesn’t matter if you can’t get enough attention to reach critical mass though.
Only if the public remembers, and in this 4-second attention economy…
They got my attention. I hate them and will never remotely consider using their product.
Yup!
We’re talking about it right now, which means people are thinking about it. That means they successfully got to us.
I’ve tried not thinking about Polymarket and the situation as it currently exists occurred. I don’t think ignoring it works.
I saw a post recently about how a business owner was mad about getting bad reviews because customers didn’t like that they were getting facebook DMs from clicking on an ad
and, like, no shit? who the fuck wants a DM because they allegedly clicked on an ad while scrolling? fuck anybody who advertises like that
It’s an infuriating dark pattern that Facebook themselves have created.
I don’t think most business owners realize what’s even happening when they post their ads. I’ve had it happen a few times now where I saw a slightly interesting image in an ad and wanted to zoom in (e.g. to read the specs of a laptop being advertised), but when I tapped it BAM redirect to a Messenger conversation.
Classic enshittification: there’s a spreadsheet somewhere in Meta HQ that some dickhead middle-manager made proving that it increased conversion numbers, but doesn’t measure how pissed off it makes their users, or how long-term toxic it is to the brands using that feature.
