• entwine413@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    By that logic, having buildings is harmful. You’re never going to achieve zero environmental impact no matter what you do.

    But again, not all advertising uses physical resources. If an independent artist shares their work on their social media page for people who want to see their content, that’s advertising, and it’s not a bad thing.

    But, of course you’re going to nitpick things to hell until you find the exception.

    Edit: Actually, come to think of it, building signage can have a net positive environmental effect. You could easily make a sign with reclaimed lumber or other recycled/upcycled materials.

    • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Buildings provide shelter, advertising provides nothing.

      Artists who post their work on social media aren’t advertising unless they are also paying to have their posts injected into the feeds of people who don’t follow them.

      • entwine413@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 minutes ago

        You’re talking about targeted advertising, buddy. There’s that nitpicking I was talking about, because targeted advertising isn’t the only advertising there is.

        • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 minutes ago

          I’m not just talking about targeted advertising, I’m also talking about paid preferential treatment on black-box algorithmic social networks.

          A business could self-publish its own newsletter and it wouldn’t be advertisement until they start mailing them to people who didn’t sign up for it. If someone follows an artist on social then they have signed up to see those posts.