I suspect people dislike ads because ads have usually a very low information to noise ratio. This may be untrue for this particular ad, but always there are slippery-slope concerns.
“I suspect people dislike blog posts because blog posts have usually a very low information to noise ratio. This may be untrue for this particular blog post, but there are slippery-slope concerns.”
All I’m suggesting is that we treat ads like any other post—vote up the ones we recommend and vote down the ones we disrecommend. I don’t see any “slippery slope concerns”.
You don’t expect market norms on a billboard? I think a product listing page on Amazon isn’t an ad because its purpose is not advertising, it just informs you what can you find on a site you have already chosen to visit. Advertising is usually not requested—if you enter a restaurant and ask for the menu, receiving it is not advertising. If you find the menu in your mailbox, it is.
OK, but it’s still fundamentally about market vs social norms. A sign that says “hi there good looking!” or Rob wants to give you a hi five wouldn’t be an ad, even if you didn’t request it. A sign that advertised a transaction you could take part in that involved money and goods or services would be an ad.
My question is, is this aversion to marketplace transactions necessarily rational, assuming we can correctly vote ads up and down based only on their information to noise ratio?
All I’m suggesting is that we treat ads like any other post—vote up the ones we recommend and vote down the ones we disrecommend. I don’t see any “slippery slope concerns”.
I understand the recommendation. What I am saying is that it is plausible that a general norm against ads is a net win although it supresses even the few ads from which the community would profit. In other words, I consider it possible that we aren’t going to be able to consistently let the beneficial ads in while keeping the typical ads away.
OK, but it’s still fundamentally about market vs social norms. A sign that says “hi there good looking!” or Rob wants to give you a hi five wouldn’t be an ad, even if you didn’t request it. A sign that advertised a transaction you could take part in that involved money and goods or services would be an ad.
Of course absence of request isn’t sufficient for a sign to be an ad. On the other hand I think it is a more necessary condition than its being about money and goods: a political poster saying “Every responsible citizen votes for the Blue party!” is more of an ad than a price list hanging in a butchery, at least concerning the aversion it generates. Ads are made to persuade, not inform; hence the prevalence of rhetorical noise over information.
The aversion to ads is rational in this respect. Somebody else is trying to push you into increasing their utility. Not only it is in the advertiser’s interest to skew one fact a little bit and omit another, the very existence of advertising primes you to consider the advertised alternative instead of others which introduces bias in your choice. Given the number of ads we encounter it is perfectly reasonable to have some countermeasures which decrease the effectivity of advertising.
I am pretty sure that I have no aversion to marketplace transactions which I initiate.
Edit: of course there is the possibility that “market norms” in your parlance include the norm that advertising is appropriate. Then I would agree that aversion to advertising implies aversion to market norms, although somewhat tautologically so.
“I suspect people dislike blog posts because blog posts have usually a very low information to noise ratio. This may be untrue for this particular blog post, but there are slippery-slope concerns.”
All I’m suggesting is that we treat ads like any other post—vote up the ones we recommend and vote down the ones we disrecommend. I don’t see any “slippery slope concerns”.
OK, but it’s still fundamentally about market vs social norms. A sign that says “hi there good looking!” or Rob wants to give you a hi five wouldn’t be an ad, even if you didn’t request it. A sign that advertised a transaction you could take part in that involved money and goods or services would be an ad.
My question is, is this aversion to marketplace transactions necessarily rational, assuming we can correctly vote ads up and down based only on their information to noise ratio?
I understand the recommendation. What I am saying is that it is plausible that a general norm against ads is a net win although it supresses even the few ads from which the community would profit. In other words, I consider it possible that we aren’t going to be able to consistently let the beneficial ads in while keeping the typical ads away.
Of course absence of request isn’t sufficient for a sign to be an ad. On the other hand I think it is a more necessary condition than its being about money and goods: a political poster saying “Every responsible citizen votes for the Blue party!” is more of an ad than a price list hanging in a butchery, at least concerning the aversion it generates. Ads are made to persuade, not inform; hence the prevalence of rhetorical noise over information.
The aversion to ads is rational in this respect. Somebody else is trying to push you into increasing their utility. Not only it is in the advertiser’s interest to skew one fact a little bit and omit another, the very existence of advertising primes you to consider the advertised alternative instead of others which introduces bias in your choice. Given the number of ads we encounter it is perfectly reasonable to have some countermeasures which decrease the effectivity of advertising.
I am pretty sure that I have no aversion to marketplace transactions which I initiate.
Edit: of course there is the possibility that “market norms” in your parlance include the norm that advertising is appropriate. Then I would agree that aversion to advertising implies aversion to market norms, although somewhat tautologically so.