The propaganda is heavy controlled via a few companies. Google and Meta, primarily.
I’d argue it’s worse, as now it’s intensely personalized, so everyone gets their own little shard of reality instead of one “averaged” version. That, and even with slants, the old networks did follow journalistic standards to some extent, while modern influencers are under no such obligation.
You’re still spending money because you employ the people doing the spreading. They could be doing other things, so even if they were slaves there’s an opportunity cost.
Yes, they’re different enough that the distinction matters.
Advertising is about selling things. The company buying an ad simply wants to sell their product or service. The advertiser simply wants to make money by showing an ad. An advertiser might accept an ad from Palantir one day and one from Amnesty International the next day. Or, in the case of Meta or Google, selling ads for both simultaneously.
Propaganda isn’t about making money. It’s a money-losing venture. The idea is to change people’s minds, typically by deceit. Some people might say that a piece about the dangers of drinking and driving is propaganda, I think most would say it’s an informational message.
There are cases where advertising and propaganda overlap. But, there are also many cases where they don’t. It’s very useful to have two distinct words to describe the two different phenomena.
![Hope Springs Eternal [Feral Mills]](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/1c308a89-7801-4ec8-84c7-0c7e152342f9.png){kind=link}
The propaganda is heavy controlled via a few companies. Google and Meta, primarily.
I’d argue it’s worse, as now it’s intensely personalized, so everyone gets their own little shard of reality instead of one “averaged” version. That, and even with slants, the old networks did follow journalistic standards to some extent, while modern influencers are under no such obligation.
Yeah 2006-rabbit was right at the time, then the tech evolved again.
Google and Meta aren’t controlling propaganda. They’re just trying to make ad dollars.
Propaganda is something you lose money doing, because you’re spending money (or using influence) to change minds.
You don’t need to spend money to spread propaganda if you own the means of spreading.
You’re still spending money because you employ the people doing the spreading. They could be doing other things, so even if they were slaves there’s an opportunity cost.
It’s worth it though. Capitalist propaganda allows them to keep their wealth.
They do when it’s in their business interest, though. They absolutely spend effort to skew opinions.
That’s not propaganda. That’s advertising. Google and Meta are ad companies.
Serious question; how are advertising and propaganda different, and are they different enough that the distinction matters?
Yes, they’re different enough that the distinction matters.
Advertising is about selling things. The company buying an ad simply wants to sell their product or service. The advertiser simply wants to make money by showing an ad. An advertiser might accept an ad from Palantir one day and one from Amnesty International the next day. Or, in the case of Meta or Google, selling ads for both simultaneously.
Propaganda isn’t about making money. It’s a money-losing venture. The idea is to change people’s minds, typically by deceit. Some people might say that a piece about the dangers of drinking and driving is propaganda, I think most would say it’s an informational message.
There are cases where advertising and propaganda overlap. But, there are also many cases where they don’t. It’s very useful to have two distinct words to describe the two different phenomena.
Subtle Political advertising is most definitely propaganda