Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ted Wade's avatar

At first I thought, oh no another slippery slope argument (I distrust 'em) and it's about the lowest bandwidth cognitive manipulation you can imagine. But then I realized (like the other commenters) that it's the marketing monster putting out another feeler, another way to hack our brains. And I feel Barrett was naive to assume (as she said she did) that anything educational could come of it. I'm no scholar of it, but my impression is that, since the invention of modern marketing, no influencing opportunity, no matter how morally dubious, has been passed over unless and until a law forbids it. Barrett says that current protections are enough. But what would happen if a test case was based on some wildly entertaining ad campaign and the industry lawyered up? If I was Barrett I would quietly back away from this and let it be forgotten. She has plenty of media coverage from her other work. Anyway, good coverage of the story from you.

Expand full comment
MrEscher's avatar

Every waking and dreaming moment of your life, interrupted. Just because smart people figure out how to do it. We need to recognize personal (private) boundaries, and respect them once again.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts