505
submitted 14 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

Archive.

During the Super Bowl, Anthropic ran a dystopian AI ad about dystopian AI ads featuring an AI android physical trainer hawking insoles to a user who only asked for an ab workout. Not to be outdone, Amazon ran a commercial for its AI assistant Alexa+ in which Chris Hemsworth fretted over all the different ways AI might kill him, including severing his head and drowning him in his pool. Equally bleak, the telehealth company Hims & Hers ran an ad titled “RICH PEOPLE LIVE LONGER” in which oligarchs access such healthcare luxuries as facelifts, bespoke IVs, and “preventative care” to live longer than the rest of us. It was an anti-billionaire ad by a multibillion-dollar healthcare company.

Turn on the TV today, and you will drown in a sea of ads in which capitalists denounce capitalism. Think of the PNC Bank ads where parents sell their children’s naming rights a la sports stadiums for the money to raise them or the Robinhood ads where a white-haired older man, perhaps meant to evoke Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, curses the “men of means with their silver spoons eating up the financial favors of the one percent” from the deck of a yacht.

After years of ingesting the mainstream discourse around surveillance capitalism, Occupy Wall Street, and democratic socialism, corporations are regurgitating and even surpassing the rhetoric of the modern left. Naturally, it’s all a winking sleight of hand meant to corral us back into engaging with the same capitalism they portray as a hellscape — but with new and improved privatized solutions. In another widely reviled Super Bowl ad, the video doorbell company Ring tells us that every year, 10 million family pets go missing, and by opting into a web of mass surveillance, the company has reunited “more than a dog a day” with their families.

Modern advertisers descend from those ad men of the 1960s who first perfected the art of channeling our angst with society writ large into buying more junk. As historian Thomas Frank wrote in his book “The Conquest of Cool,” midcentury advertisers constructed “a cultural perpetual motion machine in which disgust with the … everyday oppressions of consumer society could be enlisted to drive the ever-accelerating wheels of consumption.”

The machine has hummed on ever since, retrofitting capitalism’s reprimands into its rationales. It churns out commercials reframing the precariat’s pain not as the product of plutocracy but as the product of buying the wrong products. Advertisements pitch that the good life is to be secured by procuring high quality goods, by curating the right combination of AI assistants, locally crafted beer, paraben-free dryer sheets, Jimmy Dean breakfast biscuits, Capital One Venture X points, BetMGM spreads, Coinbase crypto wallets, on and on.

It’s lunacy. Buying Levi’s won’t give you deep pockets. Brand promises, like all promises, are made to be broken. As AI anxiety fueled fears of mass layoffs, Coca-Cola soothed American workers’ worries about “AI coming for everything” with a glossy 2025 Super Bowl ad, featuring Lauren London, where the gleaming actress flexed her dimples and told us everything would be all right. Ten months later, Coke automated its advertising with generative videos, replacing the actors they’d paid to soothe our worries about being replaced by AI with AI itself.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

Marketers are seeing a trend in people disliking billionaires and they are capitalizing on it.

There are three prime evils in the world: creditors, banks, and insurance companies.

Above them all is marketing.

[-] Lightsong@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

They've been trying to sell us propaganda.

[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 37 points 9 hours ago

I think the biggest mistake that the current administration is making (at least in terms of domestic commerce) is the complete failure to understand that consumer protections are NOT altruistic services given away to people. They are devices intended to increase consumer confidence and therefore consumer spending. A properly regulated market means that customers are confident that they will be given fair terms and will get what they have paid for. If you erode those protections the result is that consumers spend less.

The governments role in a capitalist nation is to serve as a guarantor of the integrity of transactions within its jurisdiction. If it abdicates that responsibility people will curtail their spending commensurate with their perception of increased risk. In short, people stop buying shit when they view those purchases as risky.

Since Trump and his cohort have never actually engaged in LEGITIGIMATE business they view these regulations exclusively as impediments when the reality is that they greatly benefit corporations in a consumer driven economy.

[-] pigup@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

They're rapists. They don't think about systems and optimization. Everything's just a big fuckhole to them.

[-] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Don’t stick ur dick in the economy!!!

[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 10 points 8 hours ago

Fascism's MO, destroying the very systems that allowed it to get into power, which hurts them in the long run as well as everyone else.

[-] snowboardbumvt@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Systems aren't gonna save us!

[-] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 hours ago

Yeah its gone on too long. We peaked in 2012 guys, should have changed to pure socialism after.

[-] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 14 points 9 hours ago
[-] tover153@lemmy.world 102 points 13 hours ago

What feels different this time isn’t hypocrisy. Capitalism has always been happy to sell us our own anger back at retail. What feels different is that the ads no longer presume a shared reality at all.

Advertising once depended on ambient trust. Not belief, exactly, but a background assumption that words meant roughly what they said, that fear was proportional to risk, that reassurance implied some intention to follow through. That layer is gone. Now the ad doesn’t ask to be believed. It just asks to be noticed.

When companies openly dramatize the harms of the systems they profit from, they aren’t confessing. They’re signaling that truth has become optional. The message isn’t “we see the problem.” The message is “nothing means anything long enough to matter.” Anxiety becomes just another raw material, interchangeable with humor or nostalgia or menace.

This is where the information economy starts to eat itself. If every message arrives pre-saturated with irony, critique, and self-awareness, then no signal can rise above the din. Warnings, reassurances, satire, and sales pitches collapse into the same register. The audience isn’t persuaded or misled so much as numbed.

AI accelerates this collapse because it removes the last residue of intent. When the thing soothing your fear of replacement is itself replaceable by a cheaper, faster version, trust doesn’t break. It evaporates. There’s no betrayal because there’s no relationship left to betray.

And that erosion reaches even here. A reply like this would once have felt like an intervention, or at least a refusal. Now it lands as another object in the stream. Legible, maybe even accurate, but easily skimmed, quickly metabolized, and just as quickly forgotten. The critique doesn’t fail because it’s wrong. It fails because the conditions that once gave critique traction are gone.

At that point advertising stops functioning as communication and starts functioning as weather. It happens around us. We endure it. We don’t argue with it because there’s nothing there to argue with.

That feels new. And it feels brittle. Societies can survive a lot of lies. They don’t do well when meaning itself becomes non-durable.

(I write fiction and essays about witnessing systems as they fail quietly rather than spectacularly. If this kind of erosion, of trust, meaning, and shared signal, is something you’re thinking about too, my work lives here: https://tover153.substack.com/)

[-] sanity_is_maddening@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

Thank you for this. This is a phenomenal framing of the death of meaning.

This also has scratched an itch that has been bothering me...

Because I would say my biggest frustration with what you specifically described is how it bled through the common landscape of ideas. Through the whole social fabric.

It's almost an infection in all forms of communication now.

It's not just in ads, but journalism and even fiction or how art only seems to be presented as only viable as submissive to commerce and act merely as entertaiment or be condemned to oblivion where close to none can find it.

I'll add a more precise example to what I'm trying to communicate...

There has been a strangely growing number of "eating the rich" pieces in all forms of media and art this decade.

Fiction especially seems to have escalated the rate in both literary and cinematic explorations. But it is clear that the current cultural landscape wants mere faint acknowledgement to act as consequence. Awareness is the only permitted punishment. Because then it has to forcefully act as the only form of absolution available.

So the invitation to mockery and the cartoonish portrails of the wealthy triggering the intended and controlled schadenfreude response is what is "sanctioned" for publishment or distribution. Because it addresses the existence of a problem but with enough distance from reality that it remains divorced of real world consequences. So bring on projects where the elite are just clowns or murdered in silly ways in silly thrillers and horror flicks but leave out of focus or frame, the consequences of their actions, or at least the more concrete and real forms of how real lives are affected by them. But especially and essentially leave out the possible and tangible ways in which the problems of the system that benefit them and negatively impact others can be spotted or dealt with.

There are projects who do not fit this description, but they don't get much publicity, wide promotions or wide distributions in the end. Even when they get acclaimed runs in festivals or good critical reception. The "Machine" doesn't get behind them.

Which is obvious in the end, after all, the publishers and heads of studios do belong much more to that faction in the class war. But if they play it well, they make it seem brave to finance these carefully selected projects to "the other side", but just as long as these act as "casual roasts" of their peers, and not indictments that call for actual consequences. As it would be a call on themselves to actually change, or for them to also face consequences. In reality. And not just in just a performative plane.

So... "We may acknowledge the problem, just as long adressing that said problem is not permitted or at least inaccessible to most" becomes the approved and sanctioned approach.

Also to add another tangent to the death of meaning in the post-truth world... it is not a coincidence that in the current social paradigm of alternative facts and the subsequent alternative realities that people inhabit, the only form of universal concensus seems to be that the world as we know it is coming to an end.

And the death of meaning is an inevitable contributor to that conclusion, regardless of whom or from where one observes the world now. As it is an unsustainable reality from all angles.

The great tragedy is that onto itself the end of the world as we know it is not necessarily a terrible ordeal if people were allowed to perceive other ways of existing.

But as it stands, bleakness seems the only outcome as the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy running on a feedback loop of self-preservation.

Anyway... I hope I made enough sense in my rant in comparison to your sharply written and succinct comment. Again, I thank you for your words, even in your other comments in this thread.

I'm going to try and follow up on your writing.

We all need more people with your level of insight. And not in just "times like these". But always.

So I wish you the best and hope to find more of your writing shared around along the way.

Cheers.

[-] fiat_lux@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

I haven't got a substack account, or I would have subscribed, but I hope you keep writing. You've given me a lot to think about. While I don't quite know what to do with these questions yet, or if there is even something I can do about them, they're salient and framed extremely well.

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

Thank you. That really means a lot, and I’m glad it gave you something to sit with, even if there’s no clear next step yet. I think that uncertainty is honest.

I also understand the pushback against Substack, whatever your reasons are. I’ve spent a lot of time lately thinking about how I relate to corporations in general, including continuing to write there. For now my line is simple. I don’t ask for subscriptions, I don’t gate content, and everything I write is free. That may change someday, but it’s where I’m comfortable at the moment.

I’ve made other small adjustments too. Leaving Reddit after years, dropping a couple streaming services, shopping more carefully. None of it feels heroic. It just feels like paying attention and trying not to lie to myself about tradeoffs.

I don’t think any of us knows exactly what to do yet. But if we keep thinking about it, and keep being honest with each other instead of performing certainty, my optimistic side still hopes we can find our way through.

[-] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 6 hours ago

This is where the information economy starts to eat itself. If every message arrives pre-saturated with irony, critique, and self-awareness, then no signal can rise above the din. Warnings, reassurances, satire, and sales pitches collapse into the same register. The audience isn’t persuaded or misled so much as numbed.

It sounds like you are describing an unfolding future where all communication us ultra-processed.

I have posted about this a couple times, but ever since I saw Jon Stewart a while back describe modern propaganda as ultra-processed speech. It's engineered for reaction and engagement. It's like you said, everything collapses into the same register when there's a BOMBSHELL headline every day.

But the ultra-processed thing has been reaching much further into our media and culture than political speech for a while now. Like I dunno, everything that has half the people's faces buried in their phone in public.

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah, “ultra-processed” is a really good way to put it.

What Stewart was pointing at fits this exactly. The speech isn’t meant to persuade or inform so much as trigger uptake. Reaction density over substance. When everything is engineered for engagement, it all collapses into the same flavor.

And you’re right, this escaped political speech a long time ago. It’s in entertainment, advertising, workplace language, even how people narrate their own lives online. Everything gets intensified, smoothed, and pre-digested so it can move fast.

The phone part matters a lot. When attention is constantly fragmented, communication adapts. Messages stop assuming patience or continuity. They become short, sharp, emotionally saturated enough to punch through distraction. That isn’t a plot. It’s selection pressure.

What that means, though, is that anything deliberately slower starts to feel wrong by default. Not boring, wrong. Out of sync. But that slowness can be doing work of its own, creating space where meaning has time to accumulate instead of spike.

That’s the part that worries me. Once we train ourselves to expect everything pre-processed, we lose our tolerance for forms of communication that unfold rather than hit. And those slower forms are often where thinking actually happens.

[-] snowboardbumvt@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

What's our way forward? I don't know and I'm struggling to figure it out, but the more I get into it, the more I come back to ideas like curiosity, authenticity, and connecting with people outside our comfortable social groups.

I really feel like the world we're living in now is the result of engineered propaganda and the only cure is related to authentic connections among everyday people.

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, that’s very close to where this thread kept pushing me too. Because of the back and forth here, I tried to consolidate some of it into a longer Substack essay. The link to my Substack is already above, and the new essay was just posted. No answers there either, just a slower pass at the same questions.

[-] snowboardbumvt@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I appreciate your efforts, one thing I'm sure of is that, "I alone can fix it" is the antithesis of what we need right now. It's going to take a lot of open, compassionate people to make things better.

[-] Ashtear@piefed.social 2 points 7 hours ago

The wild thing is how this is a complete 180 for the marketing industry. They went through a paradigm shift into authenticity, or at least the appearance thereof, not all that long ago as millennials aged into their prime spending demographic.

That demand didn't go away, but now as wide swaths of people continue settle more into a post-truth world, I have to imagine the most effective mass market communication is the kind that can successfully serve both sides of the divide at once, almost like quantum superposition. I think of the success of The Boys, which did well because it simultaneously carried a scathing critique of fascism and capitalism while presenting fascist "heroes" that some could see as validation of their beliefs.

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

That’s a fair example, though I should say I bailed on The Boys midway through season one. Not because it was bad, but because the mechanism felt a little too exposed for me. Once you see how it’s balancing critique and indulgence at the same time, it stops being interesting and starts feeling instructional.

That doesn’t undercut your point, though. If anything it supports it. The show works precisely because it can be read in incompatible ways at once, and different viewers walk away convinced it’s speaking for them.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 6 points 10 hours ago

It reminds me of the documentary Hypernormalisation, well worth a watch if you haven't seen it.

"The word hypernormalisation was coined by Alexei Yurchak, a professor of anthropology who was born in Leningrad and later went to teach at the University of California, Berkeley. He introduced the word in his book Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation (2006), which describes paradoxes of Soviet life during the 1970s and 1980s. He says everyone in the Soviet Union knew the system was failing, but no one could imagine any alternative to the status quo, and politicians and citizens alike were resigned to maintaining the pretense of a functioning society. Over time, the mass delusion became a self-fulfilling prophecy, with everyone accepting it as the new norm rather than pretend, an effect Yurchak termed hypernormalisation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

Yes, that’s a really good pull.

Hypernormalisation gets at the same feeling from a different angle. Everyone knows the system is strained, maybe failing, but the performance continues because nothing else feels imaginable. So the pretense hardens into reality.

At that point, the lie isn’t even that things are fine. The lie is that there’s no alternative to continuing exactly like this.

That’s the part that feels brittle.

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 17 points 12 hours ago

Thanks for the link. I was gonna ask if you were a writer, heh.

I agree. The tone of the ads this year felt almost like lampshading. Like if we acknowledge the problem, we're wise to what the audience is feeling, but we're not going to do a damn thing to address it. It's just something that needs to be done to make the ad feel remotely relevant.

AI is scary, but don't be afraid of our surveillance device because we acknowledged that AI is scary

AI will sell you ads. Anyway, you're watching an ad for AI

Work sucks amirite? Why not let us unemploy you?

There's a wealth gap. Spend money on our stuff.

And I'm not going to even link the He Gets Us ads.

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

Exactly. Lampshading is the right word for it.

Once acknowledging the problem becomes the whole move, relevance replaces responsibility. The ad doesn’t promise to fix anything. It just proves it knows the vibe. That awareness is treated as absolution.

“AI is scary, but trust our AI” “Work sucks, so automate yourself out of it” “There’s a wealth gap, here’s a checkout button”

None of it is persuasion anymore. It’s alignment theater. The point isn’t to convince you. It’s to make sure you don’t recoil.

And yeah, the He Gets Us ads are a whole separate category of grim. When even moral language is reduced to brand-safe tone, you’re not being spoken to. You’re being processed.

I’ve got a few essays in the drafting stage on moral coercion, how systems use shared values to narrow choices without looking like force. This ad cycle feels like a case study.

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.today 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

this is one of the greatest things I have read in a while, thank you

i bet you are a fan of The Machine Stops?

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

Thank you, I really appreciate that.

Yes, I’ve read The Machine Stops, and it’s hard not to feel it hovering over moments like this. Forster saw the danger early. What he couldn’t have known is how normalized the machine would become, or how willingly we’d narrate its failures and keep feeding it anyway.

My instincts tend to run a bit later. More Pat Cadigan, a little J.G. Ballard. Less catastrophic collapse, more systems that keep functioning long after they stop making human sense. I’m interested in the quiet failure modes, the ones that don’t trip alarms but slowly change how people trust, notice, and relate.

If this landed for you, that’s probably the overlap.

[-] Kellenved@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

Great comment and 100% agree this is bad news for society, tho personally I have not engaged with ads or even noticed ads for over a decade. It’s been untrustworthy noise for a long time for me

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

That makes sense, and honestly it’s probably a healthy adaptation.

The thing that worries me isn’t whether any individual ad works. It’s that even as background noise, the tone still leaks. You can opt out of watching ads, but you can’t fully opt out of the language they normalize, the way everything gets framed as a “solution,” or a vibe, or a managed anxiety.

So yeah, ignoring them is rational. I just don’t think the effects stay neatly contained to the people still paying attention.

[-] Cherry@piefed.social 2 points 12 hours ago

I could hear this. Like a rousing speech.

[-] tover153@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Ha, fair. That’s probably a failure mode on my part.

I’m not trying to rally anyone. I’m mostly trying to describe a feeling I don’t hear named very often, that low-grade sense that something about how we talk to each other has gone thin. If it sounds like a speech, it’s probably because we’re all a little starved for language that isn’t trying to sell, soothe, or steer us.

I’m more interested in noticing than convincing.

[-] Cherry@piefed.social 2 points 7 hours ago

It’s not a failure. It’s a strong piece. It’s sensible to know a good influential individual rarely writes their own content. You are the Bernie to an Elton.

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I’m mostly trying to describe a feeling I don’t hear named very often

That Funny Feeling?

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

This had become my favorite end of the world song and I hate that I have a favorite end of the world song that is so on the nose.

20,00~~0~~4 years of this.

~~7~~ 3 More to go.

[-] SqueakySpider@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 hours ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNy9s5qR4i0

The central tenet of advertising is consumerism = happy

[-] Cherry@piefed.social 3 points 6 hours ago

Only thing I wanna see for sale is guillotines.

[-] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 hours ago

Advertising is one of the most prolific environmental pollutants of economic activity, and needs to become as socially acceptable as smoking.

[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago

So more acceptable in Europe?

[-] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 16 points 14 hours ago

Maybe Ted Kaczynski was right in a way.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago

Good ideas, bad actions. Dude could have been an accomplished writer or maybe even a niche politician. And he chose to blow up innocent people, and rot away in a concrete box instead

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago

Well... maybe not.

I do think we're running into a problem of net in exceeding net out with modern tech and finance companies. They've surpassed the point at which they can generate meaningful amounts of profit because they've cartelized all the major profit centers.

But the idea that there's nothing left to improve, nothing left to repair, and no one left to consumerize... no, obviously not. The market system isn't failing. It is being failed by business leaders that no longer want to do the hard work of management, innovation, and improvement.

Look outside the US and you can find everything from massive overhauls in modern infrastructure to breakthroughs in manufacturing and miniaturization to exciting modernization in entertainment and sports. Within the US, though, its just slop.

[-] frisbird@lemmy.ml 9 points 13 hours ago

Please don't confuse actual technological progress with markets. These two things have always been separate. The intellectual property market is a huge problem for innovation, and it exists because the market system is inherently a resource control system, and resource control systems that are driven by market dynamics are huge problems for innovation.

Modern infrastructure is not built by markets. University materials research is not driven by markets.

Exciting modernization in entertainment and sports

Whut?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] glibg@lemmy.ca 8 points 12 hours ago

The solution to capitalism is not more capitalism.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 8 points 12 hours ago

That was a grim, difficult read. The last paragraph is quite good, bringing the ideas together.

I really hate modern media. The advertising in it is the worst part, and being ingrained in every aspect of the media itself just makes it worse. I don't watch TV, and I've been blocking ads since I had to curate my own host files in order to do so, well before the introduction of extensions that would do it for you. I find using today's unfiltered internet just about as odious as watching TV.

It was hard just to read about that shit. Every word was a true, ugly reflection of the culture I live in.

[-] tempest@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 hours ago

You've brought 2010 ad blocking techniques to 2026.

The ads now a days are less in your face and way more pervasive.

They are in the articles you read with a tiny "sponsored content" under the by line(if there even is one)

They are recommendation from a friend who themselves got the information from some small time influencer or podcast they follow.

They are the AI comments here and elsewhere that might not stick a product in your face but make sure it's always in the conversation.

The list goes on and on and sucks.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 2 points 10 hours ago

You are close. The original Adblock extension was mid-2000's. Before that, we traded host files online in forums and shit. So I've been filtering the internet since Windows XP.

[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 1 points 9 hours ago

https://www.superbowl-ads.com/1997-tabasco-mosquito/

Best ad ever IMHO (sorry for funky link, YouTube if you prefer).

No dialog, no rampant consumerism (hot sauce is a necessary food), no sex/sexism, no emotional manipulation.

[-] dukemirage@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Is it a good ad? I‘ve no clue about the hot sauce market in 1998, but Tabasco‘s USP isn’t its hotness, it’s its vinegary flavour.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
505 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

81117 readers
3954 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS