The jungle is full of beautiful things, which are optimized to extract value from me. Some of them just want me to carry their pollen; others want to paralyze and eat me. None of them care much for what I want; the jungle was produced by eons of violent battle for survival, and every single piece of it is ruthlessly optimized for something orthogonal to human values. And yet, the outputs of that violent battle—the trees, the flowers, the birds—are beautiful.
As with a jungle, it’s not an aesthetic which appeals to everyone. But it feels weird to me to call ads “bad”, in much the same way that it feels weird to call a jungle “bad”.
Interesting comparison! I intended to write something like the following as a new comment, but you provided a great metaphor:
One aspect that I want to point to is that the jungle can be ‘out to get you’:
As ads become the norm in public spaces—which comprise a large part of the interaction between an individual and “society at large”—this will affect the trust-level of the people involved. A consequence of this would be that bad and manipulative ads provide a limit on how much individuals can trust that their society is friendly to them and whether behaving cooperatively is viable.
Regarding the badness of ads, I think that a lot of it hinges on how well or badly their goals actually are aligned with the customers. Currently there are also many positive or neutral ads, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the large effort being put into worldview-distortion already has significant negative side-effects.
To come back to the jungle metaphor: Probably the jungle does serve an important purpose, and can even be a place of beauty. But for this it should be a jungle with threats that most of us can manage with a bit of experience. Or at least a place that we can escape from into safety. If it is an unavoidable place full of unknown danger and parasites altering my mind, it is not beautiful any more.
I think of ads like a jungle.
The jungle is full of beautiful things, which are optimized to extract value from me. Some of them just want me to carry their pollen; others want to paralyze and eat me. None of them care much for what I want; the jungle was produced by eons of violent battle for survival, and every single piece of it is ruthlessly optimized for something orthogonal to human values. And yet, the outputs of that violent battle—the trees, the flowers, the birds—are beautiful.
As with a jungle, it’s not an aesthetic which appeals to everyone. But it feels weird to me to call ads “bad”, in much the same way that it feels weird to call a jungle “bad”.
Interesting comparison!
I intended to write something like the following as a new comment, but you provided a great metaphor:
One aspect that I want to point to is that the jungle can be ‘out to get you’:
As ads become the norm in public spaces—which comprise a large part of the interaction between an individual and “society at large”—this will affect the trust-level of the people involved. A consequence of this would be that bad and manipulative ads provide a limit on how much individuals can trust that their society is friendly to them and whether behaving cooperatively is viable.
Regarding the badness of ads, I think that a lot of it hinges on how well or badly their goals actually are aligned with the customers. Currently there are also many positive or neutral ads, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the large effort being put into worldview-distortion already has significant negative side-effects.
To come back to the jungle metaphor: Probably the jungle does serve an important purpose, and can even be a place of beauty. But for this it should be a jungle with threats that most of us can manage with a bit of experience. Or at least a place that we can escape from into safety. If it is an unavoidable place full of unknown danger and parasites altering my mind, it is not beautiful any more.