It's really as simple as that. The author tries hard to frame it as a learning experience of some sort, but what stuck for me was he could not argumentatively distance himself from the most obvious ulterior motives, making money, the gain from it.
This self-reflection is too shallow and comes across as an excuse imo. But still I appreciate a lot that he actually talks about it to create a discussion.
> but what stuck for me was he could not argumentatively distance himself from the most obvious ulterior motives, making money, the gain from it.
Sure, that could be influencing my reasoning, but it goes the other way too. It's easy to criticize ads as a business model when you don't have skin in the game (ducks). That's why I decided not to bring up either of those points: I'd rather write for people who are willing to focus on the argument instead of assuming bad faith.
Of course, same goes for me, for everyone. I just hope I will stand by my principles even when confronted with frivolous amounts of money, but it didn't happen yet, time will tell.
But I have it easier in this case - because I view subliminal manipulation in advertisements as something horrible. Freud's legacy is one of deception for profit, something immoral right at the core. Creating useless needs, producing useless goods, deception has become the norm.
The playing on the weakness of the human mind is something horrible. It makes a mockery of our intellect.
