This actually is a very valid argument. Cigarettes actually provide value to the user. Yes, there are negatives, but the user typically knows those and decides the upside is worth the risk.
Do people know the risks of being profiled by ad companies? I am not sure most people can even begin to understand the associated risk. The few attempts to show people what companies know about you were shut down pretty hard.
It's easy to conclude that now that we understand just how bad tobacco is. But if you rewind a bit, I think people would have said the upsides of smoking were:
- It helps you relax and makes you feel good
- Promotes socialization with the other smokers you know
- Helps you look sophisticated / cool
- I don't have the citation handy, but I recall seeing old advertising campaigns that touted all kinds of benefits
Now we know that none of those perceived benefits matter since the more likely outcomes are severe health issues and death. Doesn't matter if it fosters community if that community will die because of it.
The other part of the comparison that gets a bit messy is that the existence of social media isn't necessarily the primary issue - it's the application of engagement algorithms that prioritize specific types of content. That is what I'd argue has no inherent value (aside from monetary), or dubious value at best.
I'm not saying this is the choice that must be made, but it is conceivable that the harm caused by the current state of the product is enough to mitigate the positive factors.
I'm not sure seatbelts/smoking are the best examples, because the negative consequences are quite clear and understood by most of society. I've never met a smoker that continued to smoke under the assumption it was good for them.
The consequences of privacy violations are much more nuanced; most people don't understand how data they enter onto a website will be used. And it's clear a lot of those companies want to continue to keep people in the dark about it, because it would likely freak them out.
Your points are all very valid of course. While utility theory has largely been superseded by prospect theory, like Newtonian physics, it can still be useful for back-of-the-envelop thought.
Furthermore I'll be a devil's advocate however and just make the point that one could rationally defend tobacco use as utility deriving. Just because a (in my view) sane person would see all the horrible effects of tobacco as trumping any positive attributes, someone else may disagree. Depending on one's own discount rate, tobacco use at any point in time in fact be net positive in enriching their life. Even if you argue that some of the positives are created by advertising cigarettes as cool (Joe Camel, etc.), so what? Someone spending $50,000 on a fancy watch is also making the same sort of determination. If the user derives the benefit, regardless of whether it's endogenous or exogenous to the product itself, that isn't obviously inherently bad.
Now, of course, smoking has it's own set of problems because it negatively affects others... but again, it's not so clear that one can't attribute rational decision making to even a smoker.
Tobacco gives an interesting case study on advertising.
In many developed nations all tobacco advertising and marketing is banned. I would argue that this is actually good for the tobacco companies: they save billions of dollars a year and no new competitor to them can emerge, as it would have no way of telling smokers it exists.
This example makes me think that advertising of mass market consumer goods is like nuclear weapons: if your competitors are doing it, you'd be too scared of losing market share not to do it too. But in aggregate, all that really happens is that consumer prices are higher, and the ad industry gets rich.
But actually, if none of the companies advertise, consumers still find what they need through retailers, word of mouth, or simply continuing to buy what they already buy.
Do we have a total effect of ads and fake news on society? Something that's actually reliable and not propaganda itself? It seems extremely difficult to be able to differentiate between an ad letting people know that a product exists and it directly influencing your decision. Or you could consider letting people know about the product existing as influencing the person, but then it's hard to argue that ads are actually bad.
With tobacco it's far easier to show a correlation, because people can just not smoke. People can't just avoid the effects of advertising, because it's all around us. Even word of mouth can be an ad campaign.
Also, tobacco probably is too regulated. It should be regulated to stop other people from experiencing the negative effects of somebody smoking. Limiting what flavors cigarettes can have and enormously taxing them seems like it has gone too far. People should be allowed to make their own choices in a free society.
Smoking causes self-harm through use. But do cigarette companies build a giant FBI file on you in order to sell it for profit to others? others who believe
Information is power and want to manipulate you for political and economic success?
As you can tell, I'm on the cynical side of things. It hurts my social life no doubt. Perhaps this is similar to being a non-smoker in the 40s. Hell, I bet that I'm a victim of second hand social media.
That's not right though. In the analogy, ads are payment for the cig, and anything that results in impressions is the nicotine. The fact that the misaligned incentives result in a bunch of tar, filler, and who knows what else pushed into cig/impression is just industry immaturity.
But here's the thing: like pure nicotine, it turns out that getting rid of all the other crap, while it might be an improvement, still doesn't make nicotine good for you. The addictive substance, in and of itself, even if was given away for free, is terrible for your body and your mind.
Cigarette companies today are literally more profitable than ever. They've killed and continue to kill their customers and are making a killing doing it. Har har. The fines they paid (and continue to pay) amount to a completely negligible fraction of their profit (not even their revenue!). Companies can and do engage in malicious behavior for profit when the yields are great enough.
Your opinions of the public aside, you don't get to force people to use things because you think they should, except for the tiny handful of exceptions where not using something would cause an immediate public danger - such as vaccines. In some cases inferior products do win out, or good products die out. That's fine. If you cannot create a compelling case for your product in the public eye, then your product dies.
I suppose I might object that "making a sale" is a tangible benefit but that is a different conversation about the value of commerce in general. Let's not go there today!
I heartily agree with your thesis though - making the case that 'nothing' is a good thing is incredibly difficult. It took decades to prove cigarettes dangerous then get rid of cigarette advertising and that was linked to an observable medical problem.
I don't hold hope that we'll manage with advertising.
the issue is that the tobacco companies knew that their product is both addictive and deadly, but they did not warn their customers of either of these aspects. The fact that cigarettes are widely known to be harmful is immaterial. If you sell a product that is going to kill the end user, you should warn them.
I'm less opposed to directly increasing cigarette taxes than I am to secretly raising insurance prices for people whose credit card statements include fast food. At least the cigarette price is visible up front, and the health risks of smoking are well understood. On the other hand, television constantly bombards its viewers with irresistible portrayals of people enjoying their products, with no up front indication that regular consumption of these products will (as hypothesized by the original article) put a black mark on your reputation that only corporations can see.
Cigarette companies are reviled for having information that smoking kills, and not only supresssing it but going as far as to claim smoking has health benefits.
That goes way beyond personal responsibility. It was a wide spread fraud.
YouTube isn’t really doing that. They simply recommend things that you may like and succeed or fail at it. When people are uncomfortable with the recommendations it’s a failure, not a conspiracy against the public.
I definitely agree that not every web/social app is valuable, and I believe in treating the Earth like a campsite - leave it in better condition that you found it.
I also want to point out that having fun and celebrating the discovery of electricity, electronics and computing is okay. Our ancestors worked hard to get us to the point where we no longer have to constantly hunt, to the point where we can live longer. Mine is mainly an argument for moderation...
Yet the mention of Skinner boxes, cigarettes and dopamine makes for interesting discussion: If we believe, as I do, that we should be allowed and free to say, smoke a few cigarettes now and then, is it sensible/logical/smart/worthwhile/ethical to start a cigarette company with relentless marketing?
Our descendants will consider advertising like we consider tobacco: dangerous to your health.
Adv manipulates your agency, your ability to make independent decisions. Tracker-based targeted advertising exploits all human vulnerabilities that are used in "the long con."
Firms that make their money on more sophisticated advertising techniques understand this. It reminds me of the classic picture of 7 Big-Tobacco executives swearing to Congress that "tobacco is not addictive" despite evidence that they internally held reams of documentation from 1960s indicating the opposite [1].
Why should you intentionally disadvantage yourself when someone else will just step in to fill your place? This view doesn't seem any different than expecting a corporation to voluntarily forego a profitable segment of the market.
Regulation is required in such cases. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise.
> no better than the tobacco merchants
Prior to a certain time, tobacco producers honestly had no idea how harmful their product was. Once they found out, they actively tried to hide that fact from everyone. I don't much like adtech, but unlike tobacco it doesn't cause direct physical harm to the individual. They're also pretty up front about the fact that they try to track you.
Playing devils advocate for a moment - have you ever had a cigarette? It does plenty of good for the user. In fact, I think we do make this risk calculation that you describe in the exact same way - there are plenty of substances that are so toxic to humanity that we make them illegal to own or consume or produce, and the presence of these in your body can sometimes even risk employment, let alone death.
We know the risks from cigarettes, but it offers tangible benefits to its users, so they continue to use the product. So too cars and emotionally manipulative AI's, I imagine.
(None of this negates your overall point, but I do think the initial tobacco comparison is very apt.)
Do people know the risks of being profiled by ad companies? I am not sure most people can even begin to understand the associated risk. The few attempts to show people what companies know about you were shut down pretty hard.
reply