The premise of advertising is that it's manipulation to trick you into spending money you wouldn't otherwise spend. We know this because companies pay for ads with the intention you spend more money.
Every ad you see materially makes you a little bit poorer and cuts off a small amount of your life. Think of it this way - every ad is a few seconds lost, maybe a few minutes, and a few cents down the drain.
But this isn't understood because it's so abstracted. The link between your personal shopping habits and advertising is not understood, and, in fact, cannot be understood, because it's fundamentally brain hacking.
If you believe you are immune to ads, you are not. Or, at least, you can never prove it.
Cumulatively, this adds up. If you never saw ads, how much longer would you live? A year, maybe two? If you never saw ads, how much richer would you be? 200%, 500%? Who knows.
Why does it have to be "manipulation"? If you don't know about something that you might want to buy, learning about it isn't being manipulated.
Also, the lifespan thing is crazy - what if you learned about something that improved your health, like an exercise machine or something? You can't just ignore the upsides. What if you bought something that saved you money in the long run, like a quality tool?
It's manipulation even if the outcome is considered good. Did it change your behavior, or intend to change your behavior? Yes? Then it's manipulation.
The truth is that you did not come up with the idea to buy it. Their goal isn't even to convince you to buy it. Its to convince you that you yourself want to buy it, and if you do, you decided it all on your own.
Think of it this way. Could you have gotten a better power tool somewhere else? Surely. So why that one? And, since money was spent, wouldn't it be in your favor to just believe you made the best choice?
This is a joke, right? Users already got to use chatgpt, so the only change to users is that they'll be subjected to ads, which many of them don't like.
Yes, everyone