• FalschgeldFurkan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Let alone, “smart” toilet paper that starts charging you more and more while you’re sitting on the can and needing to wipe…

      • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 minutes ago

        2040: Supreme Court upholds industry assertion that users don’t “own” their TP. Nation’s capital braces for planned Million Butt March.

  • sunsofold@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Again:

    Do not share advertisements. They are toxic to society, always based in a lie, and never of benefit. Making fun of them is not better than genuinely shilling for the company. Block ads. Destroy them where possible. Seek to have them banned wherever possible. They are not welcome on Lemmy, and if you are going to share them, neither are you.

    • Wataba@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I mustve missed the part where everyone decided you have unilateral decision making over who gets to participate here.

    • Sasquatch@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Agreed that promoting advertisement is just more advertisement, but they aren’t all based in a lie.

      • sunsofold@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Yes they are. All advertising is based around the lie of creating false associations. Buying a truck won’t make you a ‘MAN.’ Drinking a particular brand of soda won’t bring about world peace, make you ‘cool,’ or really even cure your thirst, generally. Even the most generic, ‘buy our thing. It’s good thing,’ is based in the lie of ‘buying our thing will make you happy.’ It’s shoved into everyone’s face without consideration of truth value. It’s the same as some guy walking up to everyone in a place and saying ‘If you have normal sex with me, you will have the best orgasm of your life.’ It might be true for a VERY limited number of people, but it’s not true for everyone he’s harassing to say it, it’s not even guaranteed to be true for anyone, and he is 1000% guaranteed not to be saying it for the benefit of the people to whom he’s saying it. Even when it’s true, it’s true by accident, a lie that failed to turn out not to be false. It’s pure manipulative bullshit.

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Perhaps many ads or even the majority is lying, but everything is just nonsense. Like some clothes washing service just announcing it exists. Or a repair cafe. Stop thinking in absurd extremes.

    • ducktumn@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Advertisements are not bad. We have to regulate them though. If you do not want advertisements then every single service you use would be paid.

      • sunsofold@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If the cost of not having the toxic lies of advertising trying to trick people, the toxic effects of the ad-based business model corrupting all of our media, and the toxic effects of advertising-based political campaigns, is to have to pay a few pennies to someone providing a service I actually want, I don’t see a downside.

  • dan69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    12 hours ago

    If this happened to me, I’m sorry to my local shops who sold it to me. Yall just lost a customer.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Everytime I hear about these gambling companies I’m wondering if there will be a monstrous, public backlash.

  • CobblerScholar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    17 hours ago

    If you feel the need to advertise like this you are a bad person and your product is shit. Like this actively breeds contempt towards your product, how can this be an intelligent move?

    • Obituarykidney@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Because someone took a photo in anger and uploaded it and it’s being advertised for free on every social media platform that this gets posted - and reposted - to. That’s the game. It’s all about getting eyeballs on your ad.

      • Airfried@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Meanwhile the restaurant probably eats the bullet and probably got review bombed. Rightfully so but yeah everyone got played here. Corporate tech continues to be a blight that moves fast and destroys things.

          • chaogomu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Except it isn’t.

            Bad ad campaign have destroyed brands in the past, hope it happens here.

            • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              12 hours ago

              in a space as saturated as crypto, attention is the minimum to get in the door. And after that, if you keep gaining attention until the whole world knows your name, then it doesn’t matter if 80% hate you, the other 20% will be giving you enough money to monopolize the market. Then you can enshittify and the hate doesn’t matter (see Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc).

              • chaogomu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 hours ago

                You’re skipping a lot of what made those companies happen.

                Google was actually good once. They had a clean, usable website in an era of pop-ups and overused animated GIFS. Also, their search actually worked. They also had a bunch of cool programs and tools that they’ve since killed.

                Facebook was also sort of good. But not really. Most of that was a sort of first mover advantage. Myspace existed, but didn’t catch on, and then Facebook comes along, and it has a bunch of free games (that steal all your data). Since Facebook was most people’s first social media, and their family’s first social media, they get locked in.

                Bill Gates’ Mom was on the board of directors at IBM and forced the company to use her son’s OS.

                • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  first mover advantage

                  That’s basically what I’m referring to here. Facebook wasn’t the first social media platform but they were the first to capture enough users to monopolize the space. Yes all these companies had technical innovations too, but if you dig into Polymarket you can probably find some too. All of that doesn’t matter if you can’t get enough attention to reach critical mass though.

        • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Were you even considering using it in the first place?

          No? Then you’re just a vector for the advertisement to spread, now as am I, and everyone who commented and upvoted this post.

    • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I saw a post recently about how a business owner was mad about getting bad reviews because customers didn’t like that they were getting facebook DMs from clicking on an ad

      and, like, no shit? who the fuck wants a DM because they allegedly clicked on an ad while scrolling? fuck anybody who advertises like that

      • soupcon@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s an infuriating dark pattern that Facebook themselves have created.

        I don’t think most business owners realize what’s even happening when they post their ads. I’ve had it happen a few times now where I saw a slightly interesting image in an ad and wanted to zoom in (e.g. to read the specs of a laptop being advertised), but when I tapped it BAM redirect to a Messenger conversation.

        Classic enshittification: there’s a spreadsheet somewhere in Meta HQ that some dickhead middle-manager made proving that it increased conversion numbers, but doesn’t measure how pissed off it makes their users, or how long-term toxic it is to the brands using that feature.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I’ve tried not thinking about Polymarket and the situation as it currently exists occurred. I don’t think ignoring it works.

    • Malica@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It also works, suckers people in when they see it everywhere and then they’re hooked on gambling.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Yeah, I feel like if we blurred the advertiser, we could get away with this point.

        • DaGeek247@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          By default, it does not; the predatory nature of this particular company notwithstanding.

          For an extreme example, all I have to do to give a smoker a craving for a cigarette is too mention how bad it smells. It doesn’t matter that I did it in a negative context, just that I mentioned it.

          For this company, a gambling company, which is known as addicting enough to ruin people, just sharing the company name is enough to cause similar affects.

          For regular companies the affect is also there, just in varying degrees of strong. As a lesser example, I could give you cravings by just mentioning a specific soft drink, so long as I guess the right brand.

  • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Yes we paid for a fortune cookie ad in bed!

    Wait… what?! What the hell man?

    Next is going to be toilet paper ads.

    Kleenex ads. Electric car engine noises play ads. An ad on your shawarma wrap or heat pressed onto the pita. Ads on your furnace filters. Your tide pods.

    Anything you might look at really.

      • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        No, it’ll be glossy instead of absorbent.

        Exactly like how this ad cookie uses different paper than a fortune cookie.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Yeah isn’t normal fortune cookie paper that kind of paper because it absorbs water very quickly…so you could chew and swallow it easily without really noticing (and without having any significant potential harm to bowels or airway)?

          What are the odds someone choked on one of these?

          • VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.worksM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Also the ink is food-grade soy-based. But now if it’s doing color and logos, it raises the question – what dirty warehouse inkjet printer is it printing from now.