|
Law in the Internet Society
|
|
The Devil and Its Greatest Trick: Advertising and Its Invisibility-- By LinaHackenberg - 04 Dec 2024Introduction"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" (The Usual Suspects, 1995). Today, advertising has achieved something similar. It convinces us that we are in control of our choices, even as it quietly shapes them. Through invisibility and the illusion of choice, advertising exerts profound influence over personal decisions and societal structures. This essay examines how ads manipulate and explores how free software can help reclaim autonomy.InvisibilityAdvertising has become invisible, and this invisibility matters because influencing without awareness turns persuasion into manipulation. Ads no longer rely on banners and catchy slogans but integrate seamlessly into familiar formats. This makes their promotional nature almost undetectable. Platforms like BuzzFeed? use the same design, headline format, and imagery people for introducing ads, so they "blend in".This practice, known as native advertising, takes advantage of the trust users place in familiar platforms by disguising promotional content as editorial pieces. It is "designed to deceive us". Its subtlety is modern advertising's greatest strength. BuzzFeed? itself notes the goal, to "raise the bar for native advertising such that people can`t distinguish between ads and organic content". Labels like "Sponsored" or "Promoted by" are positioned to go unnoticed, allowing users to consume content without realizing it is promotional. The principle at play is simple: "We cannot see what is before us". By making ads an invisible part of the digital experience, platforms leave users susceptible to persuasion they cannot consciously recognize.Illusion of ChoiceSimultaneously advertising creates the illusion of choice by using the language of freedom. Phrases like "tailored for you" or "discover what you love" suggest users are in control. Algorithmic personalization furthers this impression by framing decisions as self-directed. Yet, this sense of autonomy is carefully crafted within boundaries set by advertisers. Consumers are reduced to passive recipients, mere "eyeballs" absorbing messages. The choices they perceive as their own are shaped to serve advertisers goals. Personalization, rather than empowering users, masks a curated and controlled reality. The illusion of choice is further reinforced by a dynamic resembling Stockholm Syndrome. Users come to choose advertising as a "necessary evil" rationalizing its pervasive presence as the price of free access to indispensable platforms. Over time, ads are viewed as neutral or even beneficial, their manipulative nature minimized or ignored. This mindset is deeply problematic. It encourages acceptance of an exploitative system and discourages users from questioning the trade-offs they make.Being UnfreeStepping back from the normalization of advertising’s existence reveals the truth of what legal scholar Eben Moglen predicted in 1997: we rushed to embrace new technology to “to smother the quiet uniqueness of our inner lives beneath the roar of advertising bilge“. Advertising does not merely sell products; it shapes perceptions, steering societal norms and framing aspirations within predefined boundaries. Through personalization, it deepens inequalities by offering wealthier individuals expansive opportunities while confining lower-income groups to limited, lower-quality options. Over time, this dynamic does not just reflect existing disparities — it perpetuates them, further entrenching social divides. Algorithmic targeting exploits vulnerabilities, such as health anxieties, to push behaviors like adopting fitness trackers or choosing specific healthcare providers. It also reinforces harmful stereotypes: men are shown financial opportunities while women are targeted with diet-related ads, amplifying systemic unfairness. This selective promotion of opportunities and advantages creates an unequal allocation of access and resources, shaping societal expectations and reinforcing digital inequalities. By manipulating vulnerabilities and cementing stereotypes, advertising actively restricts the autonomy and potential of entire groups, perpetuating cycles of marginalization. In this system, the unique inner lives Moglen described are drowned out by curated messages, reducing individuals to passive participants in a reality shaped by advertising’s control over what we see and value. We came from a time when our technology was freer than we understood, and we surrendered much of that freedom before we knew it was gone.Breaking FreeMedia literacy is a crucial first step toward reclaiming autonomy. Users must learn to recognize disguised ads, critically evaluate algorithmic personalization, and question the content they consume. Understanding that ads blur the line between organic content and promotion fosters skepticism and helps individuals identify the deliberate exploitation of cognitive biases. By questioning why certain products or messages are shown and whose interests they serve, users begin to regain control. Yet, media literacy alone is insufficient. The direction to freedom lies in rejecting the Stockholm Syndrome of advertising — the belief that its omnipresence is necessary or a fair trade-off for free access to digital platforms. Rejecting this requires acknowledging that invisible advertising is a deliberate choice by platforms to maximize profit, not an unavoidable feature of digital spaces. Advertising can be filtered out entirely. No one has to see ads. Any discussion of advertising’s effects must acknowledge this fact. Taking action is surprisingly simple: install a browser like Brave, which blocks ads by default and reduces the influence of intrusive advertising. To counter advertising—at least substantially — it suffices to start by using a free software browser not distributed by an advertising company. So why, if we do not have to see ads, do we still tolerate them? The answer lies in convenience and inertia. Many people remain unaware of ad-free alternatives or believe switching would be too complicated. Others rationalize ads as the cost of free content. However, this mindset is a choice — one that can be reversed. By choosing tools that prioritize freedom and autonomy, we not only resist manipulation but reclaim control over our digital lives. The real question, then, is not just why we see ads but why we continue to accept a system that devalues our agency. The first step toward change is realizing that we do not have to. We can expose advertising’s greatest trick — its invisibility — through media literacy. Or, better yet, we can render the trick irrelevant by fighting the devil itself: ads and the software that enables them. Freedom is not just possible — it is within reach.Feedback for first draft (second draft has been uploaded): Fine so far as it goes, but you don't point out or deal with the consequences of the fact that in a digital information stream, ads are filterable. You don't have to see ads, no one else has to see ads, and the discussion of the effects of advertising should at least take account of that reality. Without adding any technical complexity, you could just begin by installing the Brave browser. The experiment of pointing it at BuzzFeed and seeing what happens to the "native" advertising would no doubt be instructive. A few days of the Web without the ads might test for you some of your other intuitions. Perhaps your reader would want to know that "to fight this" (substantially at least) it suffices to begin by changing to a free software browser not distributed by an advertising company, don't you think? You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
