Yeah, I don't think our opinions diverge too much on that. My ideal world wouldn't feature much of either of them—I think well-marked, in some standard and easy-to-spot way, ads in publications aren't so terrible, for instance, provided it's made clear up-front, say with some kind of cigarette-box style notice or warning, that there are ads in it. Though, again, if paid advertising just went away, in all forms, entirely, tomorrow I wouldn't be sad about it. But, as far as online ads go, it's the surveillance part that bothers me more than there being any ads at all, and that worries me way beyond its use in advertising.
I know we're comparing relative evils here, but that's interesting. I think my main concerns with surveillance are the chilling effects it has on those who would break the law for ethical reasons. But ultimately I think the tangible negative effects that surveillance has on most people are indirect. That's not to say they aren't important. But as important as advertising?
Advertising causes a great deal of surveillance, but it causes a lot of other issues, many of which affect almost everyone, very directly, and in some tangible ways. At a basic level, we're being lied to constantly in ways that hurt our self esteem, break our concentration, introduce us to new fears and angers: the exact intention of which is to create problems for us so that it can persuade us that giving them money will solve our problems. Advertising tells us our partners aren't hot enough, we aren't cool enough, our houses aren't big enough, our cars aren't fast enough, that we aren't doing enough for X cause. It tells us that our financial future is insecure, that we're missing out, that we're at risk for disease, floods, and car accidents. If a parent or partner told us these things, we'd call it emotional abuse, but from advertisers it's both accepted and commonplace. And it affects us deeply: we're overmedicated, overfed, overworked, and over-indebted.
And that's just the direct effects. When you consider the kinds of content that advertising funds, it's almost universally harmful. News that prioritizes clicks over information by inciting anger and fear. Informational resources that avoid speaking truth to power because power advertises. Social media that courts flame wars, conspiracy theories, and echo chambers because they all provoke engagement. Everything advertising funds is fast, shallow and emotional, because slow, deep and rational doesn't promote clicks.
Why even look for a compromise here? Easy to spot ads aren't better: they're still people shoving a lie in our face. There's nothing of value here. Ads are a tumor: even if we can find some part of it that's benign, there's no part that shouldn't be excised.
