The idea feels like sci-fi because you’re so used to it, imagining ads gone feels like asking to outlaw gravity. But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities would now improve on that.
The traditional argument pro-advertising—that it provides consumers with necessary information—hasn’t been valid for decades.
The salt that makes it propaganda and not just a convincing argument is the ulterior use of symbolism to unconsciously condition the victim
But I understand why children like you miss that nuance
Nuance that is not definitionally a part of what constitutes ‘propaganda’ whether you infantilize someone else for seeing things differently or not.
Go on, provide some examples and sources if you want to make such a grand claim.
Something being propaganda does not necessitate that it contains subliminal messaging, propaganda can be entirely overt and without unconscious conditioning techniques.
A convincing argument is propaganda, you just wrongly believe yourself to be above propaganda, the same way you seem to consider yourself above others generally…
So either you are an LLM, have poor reading comprehension, or are just actively being stupid.
Never in my statement was nuance a part of the definition. I specifically stated that the difference between propaganda and a convincing argument is the ulterior use of symbolism to manipulate the victim’s outcomes.
The nuance portion was purely stating that such mental children cannot grasp the difference between propaganda and a convincing argument.
I look forward to seeing how you actively misunderstand this post too, what a fun game!
Nowhere did I misunderstand your post, you stated it back to me?
I’m saying that the difference you are describing doesn’t exist, thus the nuance you ascribe ‘mental children’ to lack to perceive is imaginary.
I understand words convey a meaning beyond definitionally, but definitionally there is no mention of such a requirement. Thus I asked you for any sources backing up such a claim.
I have not deviated from what I said previously. Nor misinterpreted you intentionally whatsoever. Rather, I disagree with you.
Also I am not an llm, and I intend to discuss with you calmly and fairly and not misinterpret what you are saying. If you are willing to engage
Dont even bother. Dude just trolls and makes angry comments to everyone
Yep, LLM. So sad. You can tell by the inability to follow context.
Some post-processing can fix that, but I guess this bot wrangler wasn’t informed