• Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Does “society” benefit from your self-doubt? The wording is weird and inaccurate…

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        They are making the point that society is actually harmed by self-doubting individuals, as corporations ≠ society.

        • netvor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Even more accurately: society is benefited by constantly exploring (and exercising) multiple different survival strategies (capitalism, collectivism, religion…) at the same time. These various strategies are inevitably in tension, producing tons of overall unhappiness.

          Like an octopus spreading its tentacles, trying to explore every crevice of its environment, but sometimes accidentally bumping two or more tentacles together. Sure, the tentacles won’t destroy each other but that’s not the point: In this metaphor, we are merely the cells on the surface. Our suffering is just part of the whole organism trying to balance exploration with self-preservation.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Society does not benefit from advertising. Vast numbers of people hate it and try to block it as much as they can. Others fall victim to it and get manipulated into buying shit they don’t need.

        But overall, if 2 competitors are advertising against each other then it can turn into a destructive arms race. They each spend more and more on advertising just to keep taking consumers back and forth from each other! That’s a net negative for society!

        • Troy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          If there are only two competitors for a product, then it is either a niche product or there is room for more competition, usually, who can use disruptive marketing.

          The problem is, for very large markets, companies will abuse their position to prevent competition from forming. Coke and Pepsi should not be allowed to simply buy every new drink that comes to market.

          Anyway, I digress. The government doesn’t have the balls to bust monopolies anymore.

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            That was an example that doesn’t really depend on there being exactly 2 competitors. If there are 20 competitors and they’re all spending a lot of money on advertising then they’re all producing a net negative

            I mean there’s probably some small amount of money they could spend on advertising that would be a net positive because it would inform the public of the existence of their product. But beyond that, they’ve moved from informing the public into trying to convince the public to buy their product. There’s simply no limit to the amount of money you can spend trying to convince somebody to buy something and no limit your competitors can spend to convince them not to!

  • XPost3000@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    I don’t live in a society that profits from my self doubt, I live in a society that profits from making everything more expensive every year

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    So dumb. What’s even the point of it? Meaningless text photoshopped onto a completely unrelated picture. Why? Just so they can post to the pics community?