Yes. There most certainly are. The vast majority of humans are not benefiting from it and are therefore motivated against it.

Also, they do care. They just might not be consciously aware of the damage it causes.

> The vast majority of humans are not benefiting from it and are therefore motivated against it.

The vast majority of humans do not benefit from you, personally, owning a car, but that doesn't mean we're all motivated to call a towing company to your house.

>The vast majority of humans are not benefiting from it and are therefore motivated against it.

The vast majority of humans don't benefit from most things, but they are not therefore motivated against most things. That's not how motivation works.

>Also, they do care they just might not be consciously aware of the damage it causes.

So the one thing the entire human race agrees on is that advertising is evil, just unconsciously? They don't realize it but somehow you do?

No, sorry. I have assume you're trolling. Good show, you managed to annoy me.

You must own shares in Google. The vast majority of humans are motivated against inequality. Advertising creates a larger wealth gap. The fact that you're annoyed by me says a lot more about the type of person you are than anything else. And no I'm not "trolling". Grow up and reconsider your insane position.

The vast majority of humans don't consider advertisement to be as fundamental a form of inequality as you seem to.

The fact that you can't comprehend my disagreement in good faith demonstrates that there's no point in continuing this conversation. No, I don't own shares in Google, nor am I insane. I think you're the one who needs to broaden their horizons a bit. Good day.

I think, if given the conscious choice, people would choose to not have ads as they are now. The point is, that choice is not given, and most people don't know how to eliminate them from their lives, or that they even have a choice

A lot happens in the world because people are passive, or prioritize their attention on other things, not that they are "okay" with it. If it was made easy for them, they'd choose it.

Lobbying ensures such choices are taken away from people, outside of the envelop of actionability by most people.

I floated an idea past my partner- facebook without ads. They responded without hesitation "but I like the ads!"

My wife also likes ads. It drives me crazy. Half of the time she’s on instagram, she’s paging through ads. At least we have agreed to minimize our children’s exposure to ads. For example if there’s an educational show only on YouTube I will download it and they watch it offline. We will never buy a kitchen appliance with ads on it.

Back in the day, I chose to buy the Kindle with ads to save a few dollars. (I think it was $10 cheaper; looks like it's $20 now[0].) I 100% found this a worthwhile trade-off, and so did thousands of other consumers.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/All-new-Amazon-Kindle-Paperwhite-glar...

if you really liked ads you would have paid extra

I like that ads saved me money on a Kindle. They had an upside for me, and a downside, and the upside was worth more to me than the downside.

it sounds like the money was the upside, not the ads!

Sure, in much the same was as lack of food spoilage an upside, not the big metal box I put the food in. But since one is a direct result of the other, we typically treat it as an upside of the thing causing the upside.

somebody had to effectively pay you to look at the ads, and you had to pay someone else for your refrigerator. does that distinction make sense?