Got it. So you want attention to be controlled by the whims of academic/government/publishing bureaucrats or black-box ranking algorithms who are the arbitrators of legitimacy. I can't say I agree with that opinion, but different strokes for different folks.

▲

wat10000 a day ago | parent [-]

I’m very confused. Why would “black-box ranking algorithms” be on the no advertising side?

Medicine has a pretty good system for getting knowledge out to doctors as far as I can tell. I fail to see how advertising contributes to this in any way. Banning advertising is the opposite of controlling attention.

I’d like a total ban on all advertising, but I at least see some merits in the discovery argument for consumer goods even if I don’t agree with it. But saying advertisement is necessary so doctors can find out about new treatments? I hope this is just subtle satire, because, what?

▲

yunyu a day ago | parent [-]

> Medicine has a pretty good system for getting knowledge out to doctors as far as I can tell.

Yes, it does - it’s called advertising. In the US, the average promotional spend per physician exceeds $20k/yr. As a result, a lot more patients are able to quickly benefit from new medications like Dupixent or Ozempic as a result of wider awareness.

Suppose we banned Google ads and you are searching for a plumber. You are now entirely at the whims of whoever designs the ranking algorithm on Google/the Yellow Pages, who has nothing at stake here. Meanwhile, advertisers have to bid for your attention - making them at least somewhat aligned with your buying intent.

The same applies for doctors searching for state of the art diabetes treatments. It’s hard to say that relying on a fuzzy notion of “legitimacy” (or entrenched status-quo cliques) is a more fair system.

▲

wat10000 a day ago | parent [-]

Your hypothetical is the world I actually live in, except I have to scroll past the ads first. It’s amazing that you’re so invested in advertising as a concept that you’d think a guy who keeps ranting about banning advertising would ever select a plumber from an ad.

The only purpose Google ads serve to me is to take up space and waste my time locating where the ads end and the real results begin.

Otherwise, they’re at best useless. Being able to distinguish the ads from the real results is an important online safety skill these days to avoid getting ripped off or outright scammed. They’re no longer merely parasitic, but are now actually dangerous.

If your argument is that advertising medical treatments to doctors is just like the mundane advertising I see on Google, you’re doing an excellent job of making my case for me.

▲

yunyu a day ago | parent [-]

Your value to advertisers is probably less than 1% of that of a single doctor or corporate VP. It makes sense that your queries are lower intent - this is hardly contradictory. Fortunately, you are an edge case wrt how firms are actually spending their money, so we’ll leave it at that.

▲

wat10000 a day ago | parent [-]

If you want to argue that advertising is different for doctors than it is for me, and it’s useful for them despite being a drain and a danger for me, then go for it. But that’s the opposite of the argument you laid out.

▲

yunyu a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, advertising is more relevant and works better for people with power over large purchasing decisions as the bidders have more at stake. Maybe you aren't in the market for plumbers or running shoes, and are instead looking for "download vlc media player". This doesn't contradict anything I said?

▲

wat10000 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Ok, you must be taking the piss. VLC doesn’t advertise. If you search for VLC downloads and click an advertisement for VLC, you’re going to be downloading malware. Even someone who thinks advertising is a modern miracle must be aware of this.

▲

yunyu 21 hours ago | parent [-]

...that was my point? You are so close to getting it.

▲

wat10000 21 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m completely lost. You keep talking about how advertising to doctors and B2B is totally different from advertising to people like me. At the same time you keep talking about my personal experience with advertising. Why?

▲

yunyu 20 hours ago | parent [-]

If you search for low-value consumer queries or aren't a buyer for high-ticket B2B items, you will get less relevant ads. Your personal experiences don't extrapolate well here: advertising for high-value goods is totally different from advertising for low-value goods.

Example: hypertargeted ads for F-35 engine upgrades in the DC metro - https://x.com/JosephPolitano/status/1683476652276236295

Is that clear enough?

▲

wat10000 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure. I can totally buy that advertising is different for different people. Although I don’t think it’s good regardless. The part that confuses me is that you keep bringing up my experience of advertising despite repeatedly saying it’s not comparable.

▲

yunyu 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I was trying to point out the selection bias in your experiences, since your queries are probably lower-intent than for the typical consumer. Good discussion though.

	▲	wat10000 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I get that. But you're the one who brought up my experiences in the first place! The last few messages have been, essentially, "Doctors need advertising to find new treatments just like you need advertising to find plumbers." "I don't need, and actively avoid using, advertising to find plumbers." "Your experience isn't comparable, it's not relevant to doctors finding medical treatments." Followed by many repetitions of the last part. I get it. The part I don't get is why I'm supposed to believe advertising is good for doctors, given your previous argument made no sense (what with comparing it to my own experience with advertising) and you haven't given a new one.