Advertising is not a technology and there is no evidence that advertising occured 30,000 years ago. That time period predates capitalism, products and competition among manufacturers, and written language.
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
-15 points (27.3% liked)
Asklemmy
47898 readers
475 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 25 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Given how wide a range your response are in the post, what you call "advertising" is better described as "communication". No?
Advertising is a method of persuasion.
It's as old as civilization.
We advertise for various reasons, selling products is just one of them.
And yes, over time, we have developed new advertising techniques.
A body of techniques is what's referred to as a "technology".
Advertising is a communication technique to bring attention to something.
You are mostly talking about commercial advertising, which is still not technology.
Where did you find that definition of technology?
What are you even on about? Persuasion is not advertising. And in the absence of a material culture for advertising, there is literally no basis for the 30,000 year claim. This is pure nonsense and the worst kind of bullshit.
If I address every silly claim I'll be here all day.
Start with your silly claim that "advertising", as you define it, occurred 30,000 years ago. Any non-suppositional evidence please.
By your logic, a political or religious speech would be advertising.
One intended to persuade, yes.
We sometimes call that variety of advertising, "propaganda".
It really feels like you're trying to make any sort of persuasion = advertising, which is just stupid.
Also, calling "a body of techniques" a technology would imply that martial arts and dances are technologies.
Shameless pedantry aside, what about my actual point?
The "shameless pedantry" is meant to ensure that the point you're trying to make is clear and not an infinite exercise of "moving the goalposts". If the premise is bad, the whole argument fails.
As for the point, the other poster that said "it's the current reality" made the best reply, in my opinion
If you put half the effort into your answer that you put into picking nits, a fine conversation might happen.
Why should I put any more effort in this when you didn't put any on the initial argument or any other reply in this thread?
Technology can therefore be defined both as an ensemble of deliberately created processes and objects that together accomplish some function as well as the associated knowledge and skills used in the conception, design, implementation, and operation of such technological artifacts.
O. L. de Weck, Technology Roadmapping and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88346-1_1
Do you have any understanding of your own? This secondhand, copy pasted stuff rings hollow.
I'm a scholar. It means not pulling stuff from your ass and citing your sources.
[deleted]
Given this technology of persuasion (advertising). A technology that is insanely powerful (so powerful that convincing literally everybody of literally anything is a power that is comfortably within our grasp). What would it look like if everybody was persuaded to believe some total bullshit?
I mean what would it look like, to us, if we found ourselves in the midst of such a predicament?
Exactly what mainstream human life is now.
That would imply that I am wrong about something and so are all my friends.
My cherished belief, in which I am heavily invested, upon which all of my important ideas are based, is actually total bullshit.
Given the choice between that hard truth and a tasty lie, I might choose the lie.